Terrible Public Transport in Singapore

In a recent report, the PTC says it sees greater improvements in QoS
(Quality of Service) in its latest report for June to November last
year. This is measured by the number of non-compliance to a set of
service standards laid out by the PTC. I think very few people who have to
endure the sardine packed buses and armpit smelling experience will agree
with the findings. Besides, real personal experience, it is hard for
commuters like myself to dispute the PTC - but note that the PTC only looks
for compliance to standards not measurement of comfort i.e crowding on the
buses and MRT. Few or none on the PTC depend on public transport system to
get to work. In June 2008, I switched from taxis to buses/MRT when the last
taxi fare hike resulted in my taxi fares to work (and back) to surge to
roughly $55 per day [my blogpost on the taxi hike here]. Before the switch,
I took taxis to work everyday for 7 years so my 1st experience taking the
bus/MRT after I switch in 2008, I could see the accumulated changes in
service quality over the 7 year period. The first time I got back onto the
bus/MRT, I was simply overwhelmed by how crowded they have become. Many
people taking public transport may not be aware because the squeeze on our
buses and MRT occurred incrementally over months and years....many
Singaporeans also experienced greater stresses at the workplace, and rising
cost of living may have switch their minds off to the other deteriorating
aspects of our quality of life. Goh Meng Seng showed a few months ago that
the service capacity fell far short of the expansion in population[Link].
You can go through is numbers to see the problem.

For those with longer memories, I would like to show you something else.

Remember these? These are bus tickets from the 1980s. In those days, you
don't have to bring your EZLink or exact change when you board the buses.
Besides the driver, there was another person working on the bus - the bus
conductor. After you got on the bus and sat down, the bus conductor would
come to you to collect the bus fare - if you had a $5 note, no problem, you
would get change. He would then punch a hole in the ticket to indicate which
stop you got on and hand it to you. What has these tickets to do with our
public transport system today? If you're old enough, dig hard for some old
memories. See the truth is the bus conductor could never do his job if the
buses were packed like sardines - he had to issue a ticket to everyone
before the next 1 or 2 bus stops otherwise the passenger would get a free
ride. While the buses in those days did not have air-cons like the modern
ones, they were rarely as packed as today's buses during rush hour. It was
only possible to pack buses like sardine cans only after automatic ticketing
was introduced in the 90s and bus conductors were relieved of their jobs.
These bus tickets remind me how much the pace and quality of life has
worsened in Singapore over the past few decades.

Without the recent spike in COE prices, the cost of car ownership and usage
in Singapore was already the highest in the world. Given the sharp reduction
in number of COEs and recent stock market surge (which I discussed here) ,
the recent hike in COE is probably just the beginning of further increases.
The temporary solution for those who need a car is to go to the 2nd hand
market to get one - this market will tighten up and prices here will also
rise as more people hang on to their cars for longer periods instead of
switching to new cars. As the COE rises, it will start pricing out more and
more people who really need cars. The COE creates unhappiness by allocating
car ownship to those who are wealthy enough to pay for it instead of the
people who need it most. The problem is further compounded by Singapore
having the most unequal distribution of wealth among developed countries and
a for-profit 'public' transport system. The primary goal of the public
transport is to generate profits to pay dividends for its shareholders while
meeting 'standards' laid out by the PTC. There is no incentive for public
transport operators to make quantum leaps in service quality because they
have shareholders to please and shareholders want higher profits which
translate to more dividends.

posted by LuckySingaporean

Transport system set up to SCREW Singaporeans

truth View profile
More options Jan 21, 10:54 pm

Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: "truth"
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:54:49 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jan 21 2010 10:54 pm
Subject: Transport system in Singapore set up to SCREW Singaporeans

COE @ $20K...rationing your dreams.

The COE for all categories of cars have breached $20K[Link] - car dealers
accurately predicted this in Sep 2009 when the govt cut the number of COEs
by 16%[Link]. Yes, what to do? More people want cars and Singapore has only
so many roads so we have to ration car ownership and control the use of
cars. The COE is a unique solution and the ERP is fairly unique - some
countries collect toll for the use of highways but the ERP is a finer
grained solution controling the use of stretches of roads that are
congested. If the COE system is necessary - we were told that we will have
crippling traffic jams without the COE, why haven't cities without COE
fallen apart? and why are we the only ones with COE?..I'll answer this
later.

In many countries, having a family car is very common if not a necessity but
in Singapore it is considered a luxury and owning one is dream for many
working class families. Because the number of COEs is fixed every year
depending on the number of cars deregistered and allowing for a small
limited growth, it is build into the system that many, if not most, families
will never own a car. By importing more people who also compete for the
limited number of COEs, even fewer Singaporeans can realise this dream.

The COE is allocated based on a bidding system i.e. it is allocated based on
ability to pay rather than a person's needs. A family with 3 children has no
priority over the teenage son of a tycoon - it is all decided based on who
can spend more money. Now superimpose this COE system on a society with the
highest level of income inequality in the developed world...hmmm what do you
get? Then you supplement this with a 'for profit' public transport system
which has shareholders to answer to. What you get is a transport system that
people are constantly unsatisfied with. Cars are not going to the people who
need it - families with children or individuals with disability but to
people with money ...and a public transport system that has to tradeoff
between service quality and profits for shareholders. Caught is this system
is the working class father who has to carry his baby's stroller up a
sardine packed bus and the mother who has to carry the baby and perhaps
control a toddler who can't get a seat because the bus is packed and the
tired Singaporean on the priority seat has closed his eyes and pretended to
doze off.

Today as I was getting onto the MRT, I noticed that they have hired a woman
wearing gloves at the platform. What are the gloves for? This woman will
instruct the people on crowded trains to 'move to the center'. If they are
too deaf or too stubborn, she will start using her hands to move them- that
is why she needs the gloves. Why can't a supposedly world class govt run a
public transport to maximise comfort for commuters without hiving it off to
profit-seeking shareholders who want passengers to be packed like cattle so
they can maximise their profits?

Now for the great mystery - why do we need the COE system when no other
city's transport system has collapsed without implementing it? Why doesn't
Seoul of pop. density double that of Singapore need to have COE? What about
Tokyo....why hasn't it collapsed from a traffic gridlock without COE? What
about Taipei which has a population density 1.5 times that of Singapore? We
ended up with this unique COE system that brought in more revenue for the
PAP govt from car ownership than any other govt in the world and we also
have the one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable public
transport system per capita (aka SMRT) in the world....actually the public
transport system in most countries lose money. So what is the explanation
for this great mystery?

The demand for cars depends a lot on the quality of service of the public
transport system. If you take 2 hours driving to work, you will switch to
the MRT if it gets you there in 1 hour. This is why most Tokyo residents
leave their cars at home and take the subway - 1 in 2 households in Tokyo
own cars[Link] but less than 10% use it to get to work. Most govt curb the
growth of the car population and usage by investing heavily in public
transport to make the network extensive and rides comfortable to lower the
demand for cars. The Taipei subway for example arrives at less than 1 minute
intervals during peak hours. In Seoul, the public transport network in up
and running before people start moving into new residential areas to
encourage them to use the public transport instead of buying cars.

By implementing its unique COE + ERP system, the PAP has been able to create
a new source of revenue. At the same time, there is less pressure to improve
the public transport rapidly now that the govt is able to control the
absolute number of cars - the shares in public transport company have been
sold to profit seeking shareholders and the public transport company now has
to generate profit to distribute as dividends to these shareholders .No
other city even those with far higher population density has needed to curb
car population using a vehicle quota system....and no other govt in the
world has been able to collect more revenue from car ownership than the PAP.

posted by LuckySingaporean

Bad public transport in Singapore

From: seawater
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Sep 29 2009 7:50 pm
Subject: Re: Bad public transport in Singapore

On Sep 29, 12:34 pm, "truth" wrote:

> http://singaporepublictransport.blogspot.com/
> Wednesday, September 23, 2009
> Long wait for a bus
> I had to take a connecting bus to reach home from my office. I waited 30
> minutes for the connecting bus No. 70 at the terminus. The normal waiting
> time is 8 mins but the bus was delayed. The queue was getting very long.
> Many people ahead in the queue gave up waiting and decided to walk to take
> another bus.

> Later, I found a sign posted at the head of the queue, "Due to traffic jam,
> the bus No. 70 would be delayed". That was all. As this sign was posted in
> front, there was no way that people at the back of the queue knew about the
> delay, and how long the delay would be.

> Most of the commuters would take this type of poor service as part of life
> in Singapore. There is no point in making a complaint. The people in charge,
> in SBS Transit or Land Transport Authority would not care. They might give
> some hollow apology or nice words, but they really don't care.

> If there are sincere about the customer, they would have sent a staff to
> tell the people in the queue, update them about the arrival time and help
> them with alternative arrangements. After all, there are many unemployed
> people who would be delighted to have this type of job, even at low pay.
> Surely it is possible to have some customer service officers at the
> terminal? But, SBS Transit probably decided that employing people would cost
> money and eat into their profit. So, they would save on this money. It is
> cheaper to give hollow apology.

> It took me 1 hour to get home from my office, travelling a distance of 2 km.
> It would have been faster for me to walk.

> Sigh! This is Singapore.

> Tan Kin Lian

sg is now too crowded. There is jam everywhere in shopping mall,
roads, expressway, etc. The bus cant even move. We have too many ft
and our infra structures are not able to cope we do not have enough
land. We getting very close to critical crisis level. Thank you ft.

Give way to buses scheme is so stupid

From: Cherry
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 3:53 am
Subject: Re: Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous

Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous (Ver3.2; 4Sept09):

The most ridiculous explanation: “How the Scheme Works- The Mandatory
Give-Way to Buses Scheme is similar conceptually to a zebra crossing,
except that it is meant for buses.”

1)Have the authorities considered the interests of cyclists, whose
established medium to transportation is evidently healthier and
'greener'? Already making a personal sacrifice in sunny Singapore,
should the hot, sweaty cyclist also be expected to stop and give way
to smoky buses, (the newly crowned 'pedestrians' of the road)?

2)What if it is a taxi/ car/ private bus etc exiting the bus lane:
should motorists before the 'yellow box' give way too? Would all
drivers (including foreign talents and tourists) understand the new
markings?

3)Re inventing the wheel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel):
There already exists in LTA's arsenal of road rulings system (http://
www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/road_safet...
): the normal and full day bus lanes system (continuous and dotted),
yellow lines (single & double, straight & zig-zag) , yellow boxes
(spanning 1 or more lanes), ERP gantries, bus only green lights. These
are all established and easily understood conventions unlike this new
LTA rule which obviously contradicts both the existing “Changing lane
without consideration for other road users” rule found on the SPF
website (http://driving-in-singapore.spf.gov.sg/services/
Driving_in_Singapore/Information/roadsafety/causeandtips.htm ); and
the common rules of overtaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Overtaking) .

4)Given the counter intuitive nature of the new law and the fact that
a bus is in many ways NOT a pedestrian, can bus drivers and other
commuters be logistically expected to abide harmoniously by such ill
conceived laws, not to mention the possibility of some new/ demented
drivers on our roads: local or foreign:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/09/19/drivers-dementia.html?ref=rss
.

5)Such regulatory ambiguities will have the following results:
Tragic accidents/ near misses due to ignorance, mis-communication or
lapses in judgment.
Heavy vehicles eg trailers which cannot logically stop in time may
take the 2nd inner lane thus posing a road hazard and slow down
overall traffic.
Ambulances/ emergency vehicles may be slowed down as their drivers
deploy extra caution against buses when using the left most lane.
Dangerous confusions amongst bus drivers on who it is that actually
has the right of way.
Overall road traffic congestion due to accidents, and the extra care
needed to discern each driver's intentions/ disposition in such
ambiguous situations.
Chain collisions could occur as some excitable car drivers suddenly
screech to a halt to avoid $130 fine/ 'collision' upon seeing the
buses' right signal blinking; only to discover that the bus driver has
again changed his signal to allow a late arriving commuter to board.
Difficulties in enforcement as those caught could always argue that
the bus was not obvious in its intentions/ suddenly pulled out without
due warning.

6)I've always accepted of bus lanes as effective if well planned;
easily policed and helpful to both cyclist and emergency vehicles both
of which should have as special place on roads as buses. These
regulations, in addition to an affordable and well planned public
transport system would surely make land transport in Singapore a
hassle free experience.

BT, May11, 2009: “By the end of this year, LTA will take over the role
of Central Bus Planner (CBP) and will be reviewing the island-wide bus
route plans to optimise network efficiency.”... “There is an average
cost of $7,000 per location ”... (http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/
Story/A1Story20090511-140749.html ). Regrettably, LTA must now swiftly
review its inappropriate regulations and contain the wasted
expenditure.

Whilst, LTA's new role as CBP implies new responsibilities, I hope
this is not the usual high-handed approach towards achieving
departmental goals. A place for proper consultation and consideration
exists in this case as the roads in question serve a myriad of users.
It is obvious from LTA's article (at
http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/tra...)
that in haste to declare the trial a success, LTA's approach has been
rash and myopic; the main parties consulted it seems were only '200
commuters' and 'public transport operators'. I doubt LTA consulted
SPF, cyclist's associations, emergency vehicles, vehicle insurers and
general bus drivers before implementing these laws. (29April09:
http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=2118 )

This narrow minded, elitist mode of administration will ultimately
fail and cannot be the modus operandi of a government that prides
itself for integrity, service and excellence. (http://www.gov.sg/
index.htm )

In conclusion, this ill-considered regulation as unacceptable as it is
dangerous, shows the need to have committed and qualified individuals
managing our civil service and our ministries. Slip-shod, distracted,
half baked scholars in their ivory towers wont do; and Singaporeans
must ensure so by voting wisely, a stable and sustainable government
and policies.

I've made my case, those stupid ornaments MUST go.


From: "AleXX"
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:16:18 +0800
Local: Sat, Aug 22 2009 10:16 pm
Subject: Re: Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous

It comes at a time where Temasek lost tons of money and all government
bodies must contribute and make up these losses. LTA is one of the
contributor by squeezing money from the public and motorists. This explain
everything in this subject.

***********************************