- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]S’pore MRT network has fundamental design problem[/h]
September 4th, 2013 |
Author: Contributions
After enduring yet another day of super-crammed condition on the NS and EW
MRT lines, it dawns on me that maybe our MRT system has fundamentally been
wrongly designed.
I compare Singapore’s planned MRT network in 2030 with what London and New
York now already have. Notice the big difference : There’s a lot of REDUNDANCY
planned for both London and New York. In Singapore, we are essentially not
planning for any.
Take the London tube for example. Notice that many of the stations are served
by duplicate lines? For example, the green and yellow lines run parallel for
much of the trail. If a particular line has a breakdown, you can think of many
relatively convenient ways to get from one place to another, via other lines;
without resorting to flooding the streets with pedestrians anxiously looking for
a bus or a taxi. For example, between Kings Cross and Gloucester, the most
direct line is the blue line. If it breaks down, you can take the pink or orange
line from Kings Cross to Edgareware, then change to the green or yellow line to
Gloucester. See : pink OR orange line, green OR yellow line. Redundancy.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdf
Similarly, the NY subway is built with high redundancies. Red lines 1, 2 and
3 run parallel for much of Manhattan. Between Grand Central and Wall Street, you
can take the purple or grey line and change at Times Square, then change to
either the red 2 or 3 lines to Wall Street. Or take the green lines 4, 5 or 6
down south and change to other lines to Wall Street. Notice : There’s numerous
options.
http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/subwaymap.pdf
Now, look at our MRT network. If there’s a breakdown on the EW line, how is a
person to go from Tampines to Raffles Place in 2030? How many options are there?
Just one, essentially. What about between Clementi and Raffles Place? What if
there’s a breakdown in the EW line on the west side? Well, the only way it seems
will be to change at Buona Vista, then take a humongous detour up north via the
Circle line almost to Woodlands, then take the NS line down south. Not exactly a
viable option.
So the irony is this : By doubling the MRT network (and of course, increasing
the population to 6.9 million), more and more people will be reliant on the
train system. Which means that more and more people will be stranded with no
real alternative rail-route, in the event of a breakdown. Which means more and
more people will be flooding the streets desperately flagging down taxis or
squeeze into over-packed buses.
To me, this is the basic design flaw in our transportation planning. We do
not build in redundancies. In fact, the Govt went out of its way to REMOVE
redundancies. When the NE line was launched, SBS and SMRT deliberately removed
numerous bus routes that track the NE line. So passengers are forced to take
bus, change to train, take bus. No wonder many complain that their commute times
can be as long as 1 hour or 1 hour+ each way, each day.
In announcing the doubling of the MRT network, our Govt even boast that by
2030, 8 in 10 households will be within 10 minutes walk of a MRT station. That’s
the good news.
The bad news is that this means more people will be packed onto trains. And
God bless you if there’s any breakdown. Because there’s no redundancy in the
network.
In other words, we have been measuring the wrong metric all along. How many %
of households is within 10 minutes walk of a station is just 1 piece of the
puzzle. Its arguably more important that the frequency of trains be very short
and there’s redundancy in the system. We have none.
But that’s the basic problem isn’t it? The transport system is designed by
those who least use it, or least rely on it. Even New York’s mayor Bloomberg
uses the MTA to commute to office daily. They pick a metric that only sounds
good on paper. And by the time the track is built, 10-20 years down the road,
they’ve been rotated or promoted to other positions. And its some other
Minister’s problem. And he then promises to fix it 10-20 years down the
road.
Cassandra
After enduring yet another day of super-crammed condition on the NS and EW
MRT lines, it dawns on me that maybe our MRT system has fundamentally been
wrongly designed.
I compare Singapore’s planned MRT network in 2030 with what London and New
York now already have. Notice the big difference : There’s a lot of REDUNDANCY
planned for both London and New York. In Singapore, we are essentially not
planning for any.
Take the London tube for example. Notice that many of the stations are served
by duplicate lines? For example, the green and yellow lines run parallel for
much of the trail. If a particular line has a breakdown, you can think of many
relatively convenient ways to get from one place to another, via other lines;
without resorting to flooding the streets with pedestrians anxiously looking for
a bus or a taxi. For example, between Kings Cross and Gloucester, the most
direct line is the blue line. If it breaks down, you can take the pink or orange
line from Kings Cross to Edgareware, then change to the green or yellow line to
Gloucester. See : pink OR orange line, green OR yellow line. Redundancy.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdf
Similarly, the NY subway is built with high redundancies. Red lines 1, 2 and
3 run parallel for much of Manhattan. Between Grand Central and Wall Street, you
can take the purple or grey line and change at Times Square, then change to
either the red 2 or 3 lines to Wall Street. Or take the green lines 4, 5 or 6
down south and change to other lines to Wall Street. Notice : There’s numerous
options.
http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/subwaymap.pdf
Now, look at our MRT network. If there’s a breakdown on the EW line, how is a
person to go from Tampines to Raffles Place in 2030? How many options are there?
Just one, essentially. What about between Clementi and Raffles Place? What if
there’s a breakdown in the EW line on the west side? Well, the only way it seems
will be to change at Buona Vista, then take a humongous detour up north via the
Circle line almost to Woodlands, then take the NS line down south. Not exactly a
viable option.
So the irony is this : By doubling the MRT network (and of course, increasing
the population to 6.9 million), more and more people will be reliant on the
train system. Which means that more and more people will be stranded with no
real alternative rail-route, in the event of a breakdown. Which means more and
more people will be flooding the streets desperately flagging down taxis or
squeeze into over-packed buses.
To me, this is the basic design flaw in our transportation planning. We do
not build in redundancies. In fact, the Govt went out of its way to REMOVE
redundancies. When the NE line was launched, SBS and SMRT deliberately removed
numerous bus routes that track the NE line. So passengers are forced to take
bus, change to train, take bus. No wonder many complain that their commute times
can be as long as 1 hour or 1 hour+ each way, each day.
In announcing the doubling of the MRT network, our Govt even boast that by
2030, 8 in 10 households will be within 10 minutes walk of a MRT station. That’s
the good news.
The bad news is that this means more people will be packed onto trains. And
God bless you if there’s any breakdown. Because there’s no redundancy in the
network.
In other words, we have been measuring the wrong metric all along. How many %
of households is within 10 minutes walk of a station is just 1 piece of the
puzzle. Its arguably more important that the frequency of trains be very short
and there’s redundancy in the system. We have none.
But that’s the basic problem isn’t it? The transport system is designed by
those who least use it, or least rely on it. Even New York’s mayor Bloomberg
uses the MTA to commute to office daily. They pick a metric that only sounds
good on paper. And by the time the track is built, 10-20 years down the road,
they’ve been rotated or promoted to other positions. And its some other
Minister’s problem. And he then promises to fix it 10-20 years down the
road.
Cassandra
