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

drymilo (27Oct2012) wrote:

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?

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]
===================
At:
HWZ:
27Oct2012: 'Give Way to buses scheme'= senseless, draconian public policy?
A1
27Oct2012: LTA to expand Mandatory Give-Way to Buses Scheme
SGBikes:
27Oct2012: GWTBS=: lipstick on pig; a glaring public policy mistake
REACH:
27Oct2012: Mandatory give way to buses
SBY:
27Oct2012: GWTBS=: lipstick on pig; a glaring public policy mistake
SGforums:
27Oct2012: Effective public/ pte transport in Singapore, a pipe dream o
SGC:
27Oct2012: LTA to expand Mandatory Give-Way to Buses Scheme

27Oct2012: