GWTBS=: lipstick on pig; a glaring public policy mistake

GWTBS=: lipstick on pig; a glaring public policy mistake

Kiwi8 (24Oct2012) said:

Re Thread: 'Give Way to buses scheme'= senseless, draconian, public policy mistake?
Creating more bus lanes is actually even worse, since it blocks the entire lane from usage by non-bus commuters (other than segments where one needs to turn left, etc).
At least with this "give way" scheme, some roads need not have bus lanes, or with shortened times for the bus lanes.

Click to expand...

Hi Mod,
My contention remains that if public (/ pte bicycle) transport were indeed efficient, then there would be no such great demand for private car transport- an indeed, cars are the biggest cause of traffic congestion if not air pollution on a per capita user basis.

Regarding the 'give way to buses scheme' (GWTBS), I doubt that this is a viable long term scheme not only due to the confusion it will cause in a cosmopolitan state (tourist drive and not all will give way resulting in collisions and more traffic jams) but also due to the odd give way scheme where buses have entitlement at all time of the day- even when this is unnecessary (e.g. even the full day bus lane schemes at Orchard rd end at 8pm). Road width permitting, bus lanes schemes are easier to implement and easier to enforce without the possibility of lengthy disputes arising and safer to operate as then there is no conflict with the major-minor road right of way rules; there is in any case the old yellow box rule that allows buses to exit bays where main road traffic is stationary as well as road surface pedestrian crossings which regulate traffic flow and with increased pedestrian traffic, offer traffic free intervals where buses can safely exit bays unopposed- still, the best opportunity for one bus to exit a bay is when another seeks to enter it, ostensibly blocking all oncoming traffic, buses are free to enter and exit bays at all times of the day.

My stand remains that the GWTBS is just lip service and a cart before the horse kind of solution. Without first establishing affordable and efficient private (bicycle/ light mode) and public transport (bus/train), can citizens be blamed for driving their own cars?

What is needed is either more public bus services or reserved bus lanes, or both, to improve bus trip timings and attract more to travel by public transport or self owned bicycle.

GWTBS is as pretty as lipstick makes a pig look nice .

The people of Singapore have better taste; lipstick on a pig does not make one look good.

Cart before horse:
[pict source]

Rgds
C6.

Lipstick on pig:
[pict source]

It's a chicken n egg problem. If you don't let buses have the right of way, then how do you expect them to leave and arrive at the places on time every time, so that you can improve their efficiency and also the whole bus service? Why is it trains can have predictable timings but not buses? Because trains have dedicated tracks and rails that are not shared with other road users. The people up there have to come up with more innovative ideas like the mainland Chinese where I saw a kind of straddle bus. It has the passenger cabin onthe top like a very wide double decker bus and it travels above all other vehicles using 2 track rails that straddle the car lanes! That I would call genius, but somehow our civil servants can never create such ideas but rely on buggering and shoving aside other vehicles.

It is not efficiency, but rather frequency that is falling short of standards. It was reported that LTA has stepped up enforcement efforts to highlight the overcrowded conditions on buses, but public transport companies want their cake and eat it too. They have difficulties hiring new drivers for these buses because cheaper better faster bus drivers bring in more profits and "penalties" for noncompliance are so low it is a bad joke.

Just what we need.

Rails on roads? Isn't that like building subways along an arterial road?

Effective public transport in Singapore- a pipe dream of recurrent mistakes.

Effective public transport in Singapore- a pipe dream of recurrent mistakes.

drymilo (27Oct2012) said:

Re thread: Give Way to buses scheme'= senseless, draconian public policy? '
If GWTBS is senseless, then how would creation of more bus lanes help? What's the link between encouraging bicycle/cycling and GWTBS?

Click to expand...

Hi drymilo,
Okay, I apologize for the misunderstood use of the word 'senseless' as it is only 'senseless' in the context of better improvements to public transport such as bus lanes, improve frequencies and better bicycling experiences as means to lessen the national dependence on private car and taxi modes of transport since these are understood to not only be more dangerous and pollutive, but also more road space occupying- thus reducing the efficiency to which road space and energy resources are each being used.

And as anddrool had correctly mentioned (25-10-2012, 02:38 PM) "Its a chicken and egg problem. A cycle that is hard to crack."

Isn't the current delay in bus trip durations due to congestion by cars on roads an obvious consequence of an unsatisfactory public transport system and by how much does giving buses some slight preference in exiting bus bays against moving main road traffic (against the more established major-minor road right of way rules) make adequate improvements to the public transport experience?

Aren't bus lanes, increased bus frequencies, better planned bus routes, bus lanes where necessary and the use of bicycles for short journeys the optimal use of road thoroughfares in overpopulated Singapore? Why should rude and angry car drivers continue to frighten off cyclists from roads in Singapore?

In short, the 'give way to buses scheme' is only cosmetic improvement to the current public transport service standard in Singapore- perhaps part of the Singapore government's excessive pandering to private car owners who like to show off their gleaming new vehicles to the world to see- but at a consequence of an increasing high local environmental footprint and a stressed up and toxic and unhealthy society.

The government of the day does not have the gumption to improve public transportation and chooses only (inherently dangerous) cosmetic, lip service improvements to the current public road transport scheme.

Singaporeans are getting stressed by the day, either by inefficient and sidelined public transport improvements and the lost freedom to cycle short distances to save money and improve their health.

The Prime Minister of Singapore has already admitted to his incompetence at regulating banks in Singapore, saying "financial markets have variegated into all kinds of sophisticated activities, products, derivatives, investment activities, trading - and the (commercial banks) are also in these... It's very hard to draw a line"; and continues to say: "... if all the banks threaten to die at the same time, governments cannot help but go and rescue them" (as they did in 2008 and 2009)" [source: 'Regulating tightly 'not always feasible''; ST,08Oct2012, (alt link)].

Evidently, the Prime Minister of Singapore is indeed, quite incompetent about the regulation of banks in Singapore and if one reads the said report correctly, places the reserves of Singapore at the feet of bankers (in the form of bailouts as America did in 2008 and 2009), with the simple excuse that "that mishaps were in the nature of the capitalist system". [PS: The US govt borrowed/ printed USD4.76Trillion (high water mark at USD13.87Trillion) to bail out banks and companies affected by the Lehman crisis of 2008-9 ]

Singapore, like the USA, is an ultra capitalistic country and in my mind, the Prime Minister too cannot prioritize the importance of cycling and public transportation over the growth of the private car population; and ostensibly, neither is the safety of cyclist on Singapore roads much of his concern.

Singapore might have achieved first world status in terms of GDP, but in terms of having first class cycling and public road transport system befitting a first world society, Singapore is nothing but a pipe dream of recurrent mistakes.

Reference(s):
- 'I gave way to bus -- and got rammed from behind'- "STOMPer Givewayornot was driving on the left lane when a bus suddenly swerved into his lane. In order to avoid a $130 fine for not giving way to buses, the STOMPer had to jam his brakes, causing the car behind to crash into him." [STOMP, 29Aug2009][alt link]

kingrant said:

It's a chicken n egg problem. If you don't let buses have the right of way, then how do you expect them to leave and arrive at the places on time every time, so that you can improve their efficiency and also the whole bus service? Why is it trains can have predictable timings but not buses? Because trains have dedicated tracks and rails that are not shared with other road users. The people up there have to come up with more innovative ideas like the mainland Chinese where I saw a kind of straddle bus. It has the passenger cabin onthe top like a very wide double decker bus and it travels above all other vehicles using 2 track rails that straddle the car lanes! That I would call genius, but somehow our civil servants can never create such ideas but rely on buggering and shoving aside other vehicles.

Click to expand...

Hi kingrant, tks for the photo, appended them here (URL link) for easier viewing.

The straddle bus proposal , looks like a very expensive solution requiring very high infrastructure costs and is not immune to breakdowns/ accidents causing massive delays and inconveniences (rail is open, not enclosed).

My suggestion however is to make public transport (and private bicycle transport) so appealing both in time saving and cost consciousness (besides being environmentally friendly) that car drivers would have no excuse not to turn to using public transportation.

Perhaps the wealth divide in Singpaore has grown too wide for govt to do that, but no harm trying I guess.

Straddle bus picts:
[pict source]

Tks bic cherry for the better pics!

I suppose if we want to make it into a success, there has to be a structured way of thinking through it and innovating further, and doing failure mode and criticality analyses and reliability and maintainability studies. But first is anybody even looking into it here instead of raising ERPs, more gantries, more bus lanes, more buses, more giveways etc.? The straddle bus system at least assures us that there isnt a need for more buslanes, or give ways, or gantries. As for construction costs, over land rail costs are cheaper than tunneling, and all the COEs and ERPs collected can be channeled into building this instead of more expressways.

'Give Way to Buses Scheme': a litany of leadership missteps

'Give Way to Buses Scheme': a litany of leadership missteps

ponpokku (27Oct2012) said:

Re thread:'Give Way to buses scheme'= senseless, draconian public policy? the simple logic behind giving way was that in the past, we dont always have multi-lanes everywhere, so somehow u gotta give way when the situation arise. it is still so in smaller lanes/avenues in a good number of HDB estates. as u can see from the pic u posted in the 1st post.
- so taking the whole issue out of context is not gonna prove ur point. some places, esp built up places, couldnt have more road widening. u are not gonna tear down whole blocks of flats or shops are u?
- and all these got nothing to do with bikes. bikes are even less efficient than buses. and like i said in the past, dun use angmohs for examples. americans 8 cars/10 persons, all of EU and japan, 6 cars/10 persons. singapore, 1 car/10 persons. then they come and tell u about greenie theories and environmental problems. lol, farking hypocrite i say, and pretty dumb for ppl to buy that. go tell the angmohs to cut down on car ownership and not us.

Click to expand...

Hi ponpokku, nope, I've no objection to giving way, in fact I often do, by sometimes traveling at or under the speed limit of the road along the left most lane and slowing down to let buses exit should they wish to (its safer to drive slower, and you can conduct conversations (w passengers) whilst you do)(80kmh@ expressway is most fuel saving).

The context of this argument is that transport, road use and citizen's lives would be improved if the government were to favor cycling and public transport use over the use of private cars.

In the beginning, when traffic was negligible/ light, bus bays never had to exist, since buses would just stop anywhere by the side of the road and then move on; any other vehicles following would either stop altogether, or else overtake by filtering into the opposite lane (provided no oncoming traffic was seen).

But times have moved on, bus frequencies have increased, as have their loads and so has the population of private cars- exploded.

Road widening would keep up with the traffic flow but as you have mentioned, this is drastic suggestion would not be ideal in the light of high rise buildings recently built.

You are however very wrong where the use of bikes concerned. Absent the danger of riding bicycles on Singapore roads, cycling certainly provides an overall better commuter experience. According to the study 'Relationship between physical activity and general mental health' [Preventive Medicine, 07Sept2012]: "The optimal threshold volume for mental health benefits was of 2.5 to 7.5 hours of weekly physical activity. .... Individuals who engaged in the optimal amount of physical activity were more likely to have reported better mental health".
According to 'Public transport in Singapore: Ride bicycle is faster' [HWZ,18Jan2012][alt site]: "bus speeds have gone down from 19.1kmh in 2007 to 17.8kmh (latest)... ... a 'more experienced' cyclist can maintain an average speed of 25kph over a 'short-medium distance of 20-30miles' (32 - 48km)".
Given that on average, cycling is ~40% faster than taking a bus in Singapore [25kmh(cycle) vs 17.8kmh(bus)] (for the 'more experienced cyclist'), and the fact that by virtue of it contributing excellently towards the attainment of "2.5 to 7.5 h of weekly physical activity"- an so reducing the rates of mental illness prevalent in Singapore, besides being 'environmentally friendly' I find it hard to understand how you may logically suggest that "bikes are even less efficient than buses".

According to 'List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density' [Wikipedia], Singapore's population density is 7,363/sqkm, USA: 34/sqkm, Japan: 338/sqkm. Using your figures of "americans 8 cars/10 persons, all of EU and japan, 6 cars/10 persons. singapore, 1 car/10 persons", the density of cars per sqkm in SG, USA, Japan would be in the ratios of 736.3: 27.2: 202.8, of which one can easily see that the density of cars in Singapore is at least 3 times its nearest rival- in a land where space is a scarcity, the use of private bicycles and public transportation MUST be given significant priority.

The best way for one bus to exit a bus bay during peak hours is the obstruction to on coming traffic caused by the presence of another seeking to enter the same bay; the best way to reduce motorcar traffic on roads is to make cycling and bus rides an effective and efficient way to get around.

In the light of better planned bus routes, more frequent bus services, the freedom to cycle, travel free, keep fit and improve the overal state of health of the community, mental or otherwise; the effectiveness and ease of enforcing restricted hour bus lane rules, the 'give way to buses scheme' (GWTBS) is a mere slip shod, lip-service creation of a government which has lost its moral compass to govern; and in time, will soon lose its popular mandate too.

Reference(s):
- 'I gave way to bus -- and got rammed from behind'- "STOMPer Givewayornot was driving on the left lane when a bus suddenly swerved into his lane. In order to avoid a $130 fine for not giving way to buses, the STOMPer had to jam his brakes, causing the car behind to crash into him." [STOMP, 29Aug2009][alt link]