I would look-alike to mention on a published nonfiction pose the selfsame head as this post (refer to untested nonfictional prose for article, URL ready down the stairs).
The written document on the new MRT dash is spoiled information. The five-station Downtown Line Phase 1, in the beginning renowned as Downtown Extension, was at one time declared by LTA something like two time of life ago. It has simply purely undergone a pet name renovation - just like-minded the Marine Line that was renamed to Circle Line Stage 1.
The nonfiction seems to be conceived to assuage those who could be paradoxical more than rail lines as they do not see the demand of dear railing lines, mega after the North-East Line submit yourself to.
Latest illustrationsAs noticeably as I same to concord with the playwright that having more rail lines will add to power of life, I would same to pose several questions in response to the otherwise inane war of words put away.
Question 1:
Given that "financial property of the new lines may perhaps be an issue", would the Government be able to invitation operators to direct the new lines?
Both provincial operators, SMRT and SBS Transit, are public-listed companies. If the revenue of the new lines are incompetent to enclose in operation costs, it is unlikely that the operators are liable to run the new lines at a loss unless compensated duly. If that is the case, is the Government set to "subsidise" their operations?
I could have an idea that of a digit of ways that the Government can flooded this. One is to sway the operators' guidance to accept humiliate income boundary. This may be achieved by wearisome to get them to at the overall profits edge of all the lines that they are to some extent than sounding at the profit of a only stripe. However, this can not be viable as the public-listed operators will brainwave it difficult to deal with to statement to their shareholders. Another latent conclusion is to let the operators to compensate any losses by allowing them to have greater non-fare revenue. Such could be in the kind of more than assertive selling initiatives in drill stations, or more mercantile spaces for offer for rent.
Question 2:
The expanding railing gridiron will curtail the spacing travelled, even more for the approaching Circle Line. Since our afoot steam engine fare is distance-based (the longer you travel, the more you pay), having more banister lines will furthermost imagined eat up the schedule because of the related to exhaustion in period traveled. Is it impartial to the operators that patch they incur much costs to run the new lines and tender well again provision in jargon of shriveled take a trip occurrence to the public, they are exploit minor gross due to distant-based menu structure?
Since the critic has named for much railing lines because it improves "quality of life", are passengers too consenting to accept a kindred storm for fares: that a portion of the schedule can be pegged to "quality of ride" supported on the amount of incident stash they education near the new lines? Not to forget that our public transport antimonopoly is one of the best inexpensive in the world!
Question 3:
Are we equipped for much bus rationalisation?
The new banister lines will not be sustainable without rambling bus rationalization to move duplicating bus routes. However, recent laypeople sentiments have shown that location are a cipher who like the comfort of having undeviating door-step bus work ended the demand to brand bus/MRT transfer trips. This is peculiarly genuine for the Woodlands and North-Eastern residents who have tested the MRT wait to Woodlands and the new North-East Line.
However, extending the guiderail network short rationalising the bus employment will product in less than perfect activity of the massive nest egg poured into constructing the new MRT lines. I do twig that the Ministry is hard to present more than choices to the people, but is it at the cost of grounds an high-ticket set of laws that might not to the full reaped its benefits? While the immersion is providing a customer-centric go back and forth experience, let us not forget the big image amidst the multitudinous negative views.
Question 4:
Is MRT the with the sole purpose substitute to gather round the carriage requirements of Singaporeans?
How something like otherwise modes of transport, such as the Bus Rapid Transit set of connections that could run into the delivery requirements at more degrade cost?
As the nonfiction has fusiform out, the worth of MRT time lag comes from taxpayers' coinage. As such, it would be treacherous to extend the railing web exploitation the "quality of life" argument without having the cost-benefit investigation through tight-laced. In any case, the debate of "having more banister lines is a necessity" seems déjà vu. Remember the bad MRT refund stern in 1970s, on whether there is a call for to reinforced MRT stripe at all because of the massive commercial enterprise cost?
Given the considerable magnitude of taxpayers' supply (Christopher Tan from Straits Times fairly accurate that Downtown Line would expenditure $10 cardinal), I would motive the in question authorities to be more limpid in responsive this inquiry.
You are welcome to send off any clarification and quota any views that you may have in my journal.