gqxrodrigog的部落格

I would similar to to statement on a published article stance the self head as this dispatch (refer to inventive nonfictional prose for article, URL lendable down).

The report on the new MRT flash is bad communication. The five-station Downtown Line Phase 1, in the beginning known as Downtown Extension, was only announced by LTA more or less two geezerhood ago. It has simply in recent times undergone a label innovation - only just same the Marine Line that was renamed to Circle Line Stage 1.

The nonfiction seems to be conceived to calm those who could be conflicting more railing lines as they do not see the entail of dearly-won railing lines, especially after the North-East Line submit yourself to.

As much as I same to agree near the critic that having more railing lines will augment power of life, I would look-alike to airs one questions in result to the other simplistic clash put away.

Question 1:

Given that "financial likelihood of the new lines power be an issue", would the Government be competent to request operators to operate the new lines?

Both local operators, SMRT and SBS Transit, are public-listed companies. If the receipts of the new lines are incompetent to wrapping in operation costs, it is improbable that the operators are volitional to run the new lines at a loss unless paid correctly. If that is the case, is the Government spread to "subsidise" their operations?

I could assume of a figure of distance that the Government can engulfed this. One is to change somebody's mind the operators' government to adopt inferior profits bound. This may be achieved by difficult to get them to at the general profits bound of all the lines that they are to some extent than superficial at the profit of a single-handed string. However, this could not be viable as the public-listed operators will discovery it effortful to statement to their shareholders. Another realizable push is to let the operators to reimburse any losings by allowing them to have greater non-fare gross. Such could be in the form of more than vulturine commerce initiatives in steam engine stations, or more moneymaking spaces for let.

Question 2:

The expanding rail scheme will curtail the width travelled, especially for the future Circle Line. Since our up-to-the-minute public transport docket is distance-based (the longest you travel, the much you pay), having more guardrail lines will furthermost credible decrease the schedule because of the same step-down in separate traveled. Is it fair-minded to the operators that spell they incur more costs to run the new lines and volunteer better resource in position of shrivelled excursion instance to the public, they are effort less significant income due to distant-based docket structure?

Since the communicator has titled for more guiderail lines because it improves "quality of life", are passengers as well fain to judge a similar disputation for fares: that a portion of the agenda can be pegged to "quality of ride" based on the magnitude of case stash they go through near the new lines? Not to bury that our train sporting is one of the record cheap in the world!

Question 3:

Are we precooked for more bus rationalisation?

The new rail lines will not be sustainable short blanket bus defense to remove duplicating bus routes. However, new civil sentiments have shown that there are a digit who prefer the ease of use of having undeviating door-step bus employment done the stipulation to variety bus/MRT replacement trips. This is especially apodictic for the Woodlands and North-Eastern residents who have practiced the MRT delay to Woodlands and the new North-East Line.

However, extending the banister exchange cards minus rationalising the bus work will consequence in smaller amount than just the thing employment of the giant stash poured into constructing the new MRT lines. I do get the message that the Ministry is annoying to afford much choices to the people, but is it at the expense of structure an expensive complex that may possibly not full reaped its benefits? While the immersion is providing a customer-centric move about experience, let us not bury the big oil amidst the infinite negative views.

Question 4:

Is MRT the lone odds to meet the transference requests of Singaporeans?

How around separate modes of transport, specified as the Bus Rapid Transit arrangement that could meet the transportation requests at more demean cost?

As the nonfictional prose has spikelike out, the expenditure of MRT postponement comes from taxpayers' ready money. As such, it would be precarious to increase the railing system using the "quality of life" clash short having the cost-benefit investigating done fitting. In any case, the strife of "having much guardrail lines is a necessity" seems déjà vu. Remember the extreme MRT refund hindermost in 1970s, on whether within is a call for to built MRT flash at all because of the cosmic business cost?

Given the immeasurable magnitude of taxpayers' hoard (Christopher Tan from Straits Times near that Downtown Line would expenditure $10 a billion), I would impel the applicable authorities to be much pellucid in responsive this query.

You are welcomed to post any notes and part any views that you may have in my blog.