The frequency of LRT breakdowns is unacceptable. Moreover, it is difficult to determine how beneficial the LRT is to Singapore’s public transport network. (“Transport Ministry’s next priority: Overall health of LRT system”; March 11)
For one, it is not cost-effective. Although SMRT Corporation’s bus services are also running at a loss, the percentage is higher in the case of the LRT.
Rather than endlessly expect operators to cross-finance the latter with advertising revenues, the Government should return to a system of buses, which are cheaper and easier to maintain.
Buses are used widely in the entire transport sector, unlike trains and tracks, which require specialised knowledge. Moreover, the failure of one bus does not cripple the entire system.
It is also easier for passenger interchange. At LRT stations, commuters must often walk a distance through fare gates, escalators, et cetera, which makes transfers slow and annoying, whereas buses are at street level.
In fact, we should convert the LRT tracks into elevated cycling tracks. The absence of road traffic would make it safe and fast for new and experienced cyclists alike.
The stations can be converted into automated bicycle-rental stations, such as those we see in London and Copenhagen.
Intelligent reuse of the tracks means that the investment gone into the LRT system is not entirely wasted, in line with the principle of pragmatism. It could even be a new attraction in those neighbourhoods.
I believe that with regard to frequency, speed and reliability, cycling on the tracks can be competitive with the LRT.
For one, it is not cost-effective. Although SMRT Corporation’s bus services are also running at a loss, the percentage is higher in the case of the LRT.
Rather than endlessly expect operators to cross-finance the latter with advertising revenues, the Government should return to a system of buses, which are cheaper and easier to maintain.
Buses are used widely in the entire transport sector, unlike trains and tracks, which require specialised knowledge. Moreover, the failure of one bus does not cripple the entire system.
It is also easier for passenger interchange. At LRT stations, commuters must often walk a distance through fare gates, escalators, et cetera, which makes transfers slow and annoying, whereas buses are at street level.
In fact, we should convert the LRT tracks into elevated cycling tracks. The absence of road traffic would make it safe and fast for new and experienced cyclists alike.
The stations can be converted into automated bicycle-rental stations, such as those we see in London and Copenhagen.
Intelligent reuse of the tracks means that the investment gone into the LRT system is not entirely wasted, in line with the principle of pragmatism. It could even be a new attraction in those neighbourhoods.
I believe that with regard to frequency, speed and reliability, cycling on the tracks can be competitive with the LRT.
