After two and a half years (or so) running this site, SG Transport Critic has reached yet another (technical) milestone — a hundred posts published! It took a fair bit longer than I had initially expected to get here, but nonetheless here we are.
Random side note: the Floof featured from some earlier posts in 2020 and 2021 hath returned, to celebrate with us 🙂
Besides looking back at what STC has done so far, we feel another rather important thing that we should have done (but did not) for a while would be to to answer a rather central question concerning the very work that we do. More on that later, but it’s basically countering much of the liberal/nationalist noise in the transit discourse, particularly in developed cities with advanced public transport systems like Singapore.
In the past two and a half years STC has been publishing relentlessly about transport-related issues that are close to heart for many of our readers, issues about the local public transport scape that have brought about significant impacts on the way we travel, especially across the time period in which the blog was built up upon. As they say, STC was established at the height of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, the period following which saw some of the worst recessions that undid the past decade’s progress rather significantly. On a more optimistic note, instead of the pure flaming, hatred and critic-slamming kind of prose as would have been expected of the site’s name (the “C” in STC arguably being its most controversial point), we have also been actively putting forth our own proposals and suggestions, in the open letter form of course, since we believe an integral part of making things better is for the ideas to be passed around the table to be refined by the collective brainpower of all who aspire for reforms. Whether or not those in power truly hed such suggestions is of course another matter, but as the spirit of STC always goes, never let what’s happening (or not happening) up there prevent the people’s desire for progress!
To document the road to 100 posts thus far, here’s a few STC classics over the years, showing the evolution of our (mostly mine, but still. ~AMC) writing since July 2020. Of course, looking back with the hindsight does feel a bit armchair-y, something that I don’t exactly want to do. Here goes:
The First STC Post – 10 Jul 2020
Published just 2 days after STC itself was made public, this post can be considered the “testing the waters” post, since back then I was just starting out writing a blog, with zero experience or guidance from other established bloggers, save the occasional inspiration I might take from other blogs I might have looked up to back in 2020 (some of which I don’t anymore now). Written in the very typical “bullet pointing form”, I suppose most beginner posts would be done in a similar style as well. Oh, and that “QnA” section at the end, while it acted as the “counterbalance” (I mean, we’ve been taught since secondary school to write a counterpoint in our essays so you don’t appear like some paid shill 🙃), just makes me cringe so hard reading it now :p. Nonetheless, despite this post and many of others in the next 2 years either covertly or overtly implying the greater suitability of bendy buses for Singapore as compared to double-decker buses, our bendy fleet remains at a meagre 40 islandwide to this day…
A trend I have noticed in many blogs is that of its craziness going in a reverse-U shape — initial tests of the water would obviously be written more calmly, then the passion builds up, crazed shit comes out, and then as maturity kicks in the moderate tone takes precedence, but with the added strength and conviction from earlier phases. Guess STC has went through all of those, though I cannot say the same about some other blogs out there.
L in LRT is for Low-Hanging Fruit (and big L system) – 18 Jul 2020
Yet another post that I heavily link to, because APMs are and will continue to be a perennial bug of public transport here in its current form, I tackle the entire issue of the misnaming of feeder APM systems as “LRT”. A note from future self (relative to time of publishing): “LRT”, together with “tram” are the two most abused terms in transit lexicon, which I mentioned in the review of TSD commentary of APM systems last year. Admittedly, this post was partially written and inspired by a similar post on another blog on local public transport issues, but I suppose it’s always good to have more takes, especially if it concerns something that continues to remain controversial for 25 years and counting.
Later that year I also released the proposal to resolve the issues of the Sengkang and Punggol APMs (combined solution due to technical similarities of both systems), a simple proposal of modifying the central stations’ track layout to permit a complete de-branching of the current dual-loop shared track systems.
Now this is the post that isn’t based too heavily upon anyone else’s work! (despite there being another post from years earlier with the same “fixing the LRT” phrase in the title)
I’m aware the fix for the Bukit Panjang APM system is still not up yet. Probably shouldn’t have sat on that one (and the content concerning the Jurong Region Line which the BP fix is linked to) for so long, now that I’ve entered the next stage in my life which means less time available to commit to STC (one might have noticed the longer posting gaps recently…). Spoiler: would you like to see teal-coloured trains running in Bukit Panjang?
Standing up for Singapore – 20 Jul 2020
For quite a while I thought this post, which spawned out of a discussion comparing the Citaro to the (now-retiring) Scania K230UBs would be one of the more 冷门 ones (ie low readership and attention), since what’s bus seat arrangement as a topic when there’s more pressing things on hand such as the controversial bus service cuts (which happened barely a few weeks after) to form hot talking points about. Until it turned out that my assumption was wildly incorrect — both instances so far in which STC had been featured on other public media with significant audiences had been about content related to seats on public transport. Turns out people cared a lot more about their own asses (sorry for the distasteful pun, but yes, feel free to interpret this either way) that I had expected, with an entire collaboration with RICE on bus seating done in late-2022! Also the first STC post to start talking microtheory — theory learned and understood through first-hand experience and activity, as opposed to macrotheory learned from the book. Hope readers enjoyed the thought experiments that STC has been doing on subsequent posts since then 🙂
Random pic: apparently a very commonly-used image in STC posts from July to September of 2020, though for what reason I am unclear. Perhaps testing out WordPress’ image storage functions or something, can’t be too sure.
Learning the Basics – since 19 Jul 2020
As a diehard reader of Jarrett Walker’s Human Transit series (have been reading his work since as far back as 2017 if I recall correctly), the entire “basics” series which Walker ran for a short while in the early-2010s inspired me greatly to start STC’s own “basics” series which is still running, with more posts for the not-so-transit nerdy readers out there to understand the transit discourse better. For if we want to have great discussions about mobility in our cities, there first has to be knowledge about how these complex systems work and their “pitfalls”.
For branching particularly, it’s a perennial problem which we still like to do despite the pretty obvious drawbacks… Random side note: it affects buses too, case in point: 972/M after the 2020 service cuts.
From one man to a team – 22 Jul 2020
Two weeks after STC’s launch, an interested reader came to contribute his own insights (especially in bus operations, which I wasn’t very familiar with back in those days) on the page. Sadly, he left sometime in 2021, reverting STC to a one-man project until rather recently.
Next station, Jurong East – 23 Jul 2020
The first in the long series of “fix it!” posts that will eventually become a staple in STC’s posting content, we explore a disruptive, yet transformative upgrade to the future 3-line hub of Jurong East, as well as examine other possible plans related to the lines serving Western Singapore’s busiest transit hub. This post, along with the early “Basics” series ones, mark a period of STC where articles were notoriously long (and image-heavy). Later posts have more moderated lengths, but admittedly some did evolve into pretty lengthy rants off a tangent…
Some ideas from this 2020 post got a refresh in September 2022 with the release of CRL2 plans. While the 2022 update to the Jurong East blueprints were designed such that they could also possibly be fitted into the existing station arrangements, the strategic ambiguity regarding platform allocation in the 2022 update also means I would greatly prefer the cross-platform rework to come to fruition in tandem with the new networks being drawn for Jurong Lake District though. Obviously.
Bus = rail – 6 Aug 2020
We probably saw it coming, and the pandemic was probably the best excuse to start tearing up portions of the bus network, aided by the further excuse of “redundancy with MRT lines”. But excuses will remain excuses, a fact of life the bureaucratic paper-pushers complicit in the act insulated from the angry cries of commuters will continue to not understand until the day such damage is undone. (hopefully not, but possibly never) This point onwards probably also marked the start of the more fiery content STC posted in the earlier years, with some of the more controversial content having to be removed across the site later on. It also marks the tapering off of the superfrequent posting schedule of STC as pandemic restrictions get lifted and everyone returns to work and school. Previously I had been using the lockdown period to produce a large number of posts and drafts, most of which have since been posted.
Going overseas virtually – 6 Nov 2020
4 months in, STC steps overseas for the first time to explain the legendary wonder of the Moscow Metro, which has maintained stellar service since its Soviet days, running (bigger) trains at intervals far better than anything Singapore was (and is) doing, adequately serving its 12 million-strong population. All that, without the shiny technology that we continually boast about having and their powers, but hardly put to its promised maximum utility. Added praise for the Metro’s conceptor (none other than IV Stalin) at the end, something I don’t do as much now because of just how truly far-right transit discourse locally can get, as well as the overall political incorrectness about anything red… 😔
Pick your words carefully, and yet… – 6 Dec 2020
Looking back at this particular post, I can’t help but note the irony in the subsequent events that unfolded. As a post advising caution in crafting PR messages such that the right signal gets sent across, something demonstrated by my post with explicit wording (in this case, that public transport should NOT be viewed as a slacker industry), there were certainly some individuals who did not pick up the intended signals nonetheless, who proceeded to down STC for 3 months in early 2021 supposedly for “libel” against a minister. *shrugs*
19/3/23 update: Said person has apologised for the incident in 2020/2021. We hope all parties can move on from it, having learnt our respective lessons…
Perhaps there’s another layer to this post which I didn’t think of initially when writing it — doing things for substance rather than for show, a common perception of LTA in charge of running transportation affairs locally. Doesn’t help, of course, with all that obnoxious publicity about their commitment to certain initiatives when not as much has been achieved on the ground. Case-in-point: electrification and greening of public buses in Singapore, still in its infancy even 25 years after its original launch in 1998 with the CNG fleet.
The Bad News – 29 Mar 2021
<Post is still down because of incident mentioned above as of 2023>
Written in response to the announcement of Tower Transit taking over bus services in northern Singapore, we doubt the one framework that has underlies the entire bus industry since 2016: the Bus Contracting Model. Originally written to severely doubt the legitimacy of the process that led to the tender outcomes of the Sembawang-Yishun Bus Package, the rewritten version will include more aspects of the BCM’s failings in achieving the intended outcomes, outlined by further examples that have been made apparent in the years since then. In any case, it still was not a good decision, be it from the public’s perception or objectively speaking, given events happening later in 2021.
Town-by-Town – 17 April 2021
A post series spun off from what might have turned into an extremely long article by a former STC author evaluating the state of public transportation in every single town in Singapore, the TbT series covers every town’s services in greater detail than could possibly have been done had everything stayed together in one single post.
Crash and boom – 24 June 2021
Probably the pinnacle of “angry reporting” from STC following a spate of disasters involving buses in Singapore back in 2021, an evaluation (by a then-pissed and incredulous yours truly) of the nonsense that happened back then, and calling for better practices among bus operators.
Sure, this one can be (and has been) construed as a hate post against TTS (because their accident was the centerpiece of the article), and I am aware that this particular post has been circulated with intent to discredit and smear both me and STC publicly by certain hostile parties. Still, all that name-calling and shit-throwing remains unable to refute the points raised regarding the need for more stringent processes in operations and capital acquisition, including the need to re-examine what was supposedly believed to be “world-class” and “reliable”.
Posts published after this one have been more moderate, I suppose.
“T” in “STC” is deliberately ambiguous – 2 Nov 2021
For the first time, STC goes beyond the usual “bus and rail” spectrum of transport reporting from the past and goes into the field of mobility on a more human scale — in this case, dealing with PMDs. Perhaps it was a good decision, when naming the blog at the very beginning, to stick with “transport” for the “T”, even if it was unintentional. There is a considerable amount of content relating to walkability and biking in future STC posts, so do keep a lookout for those! 🙂
History repeats itself – 21 Nov 2021
Tower makes the headlines again within half a year, and this time the bus enthusiast community rears its ugly head against one of its members who don’t step in line. Disappointment is probably a word too light for this post. Maybe I should have just put “smh” in the title. As a blog which has been dragged through the mud by its many haters for a considerably long period of time preceding this particular incident, the entire power-trip mentality by certain individuals is no stranger to us. One particular statement from this particular post I intend to amend: The MacCarthyist tendencies, unlike previously stated, aren’t far away from the train community (as opposed to the bus community). Rather as certain subsequent events and reception of information has shown, they are equally, if not more afflicted with such cancel culture than the bus community is. As my friends put it, the bus community is indeed one shitty place to be, partially the reason why a number of them resigned from STC earlier in the year.
The Cautionary Note – 28 Nov 2021
In a more restrained manner compared to the previous post a year before this one, reasons for NOT cutting up bus networks just to further overstuff rail lines are given and explained. And very likely this will be the final STC post talking specifically about the topic of MRT-linked bus rationalisation, since I’m finding it a bit boring to be writing about the same exact things, and I have storage limits to consider as well. Whether or not LTA will continually make the same mistake…
The team re-forms – 13 Mar 2022
One year after the second STC author leaves, more who take interest in the site’s work join the site. With currently 5 active authors as of March 2023, one hope of STC is to gradually transform it to align itself better with its vision of spearheading reforms to local transit through the round-table discussions, consulting more brains.
This also marks the first time that a post from STC has taken a more informative writing approach, instead of critiquing on the usual LTA problems. In this article, @landtransportanalyst takes a dive into historical facts about the JRL, explaining how it evolved from an LRT system in concept before being upgraded to a medium-capacity MRT line.
In the future, STC hopes to also create more articles with a more factual premise and neutral tone such as the JRL article mentioned above.
We get technical assistance – 28 Jul 2022
Yet another co-author joins the ranks of STC, contributing his insights to the more technical end of public transport management — especially when it comes to administration and bureaucrat nonsense. Little would I have expected that the featuring of both STC and some Redditor’s post on the white elephant of tip-up seats on the MRT would have resulted in said Redditor eventually joining STC himself as a co-author. There’s the nasty surprises, and there’s the pleasant surprises I guess. @lemonnarc you go!
On Priorities – 6 Sept 2022
After 2 long years I finally wrote about the Rochor issue, as well as coming up with a possible compromise which all parties would have been decently satisfied with. The significance of the placement of this specific entry in the 100th post is an exercise left to the reader.
Coming back to Jurong – 18 Nov 2022
I’m still amazed at my sitting-on-stuff skills for managing to keep readers waiting for this long for just Part 2 of my JRL series. My bad, and the rest of the Jurong series should be coming out soon. Also STC’s first time attempting 3d modelling as proof-of-concept, as opposed to the old method of drawing multiple 2D diagrams to indicate 3D structures.
One Hundred Posts – March 2023
<Literally, this post you are reading right now>
And so we are, here at our 100th post. How will the STC story continue to evolve over the next few years, towards 2030 and beyond as we witness some of the most drastic changes to the transit system, and by extension our society and the world around us? That is for us, with the intense support and help from our readers to craft as we head along into the fog of uncertainty shrouding the road ahead.
Why STC?
As STC approaches its 100th post, it is timely we address one critical point regarding the blog’s work: why are we still asking more, or demanding further improvement from the system, when it has been “working so well” for us for the past so and so years? Why even are we “nitpicking” the shortcomings when the supposed benefits far outweigh these issues? “Just live with it, it’s part of the package”, goes the common line of thought.
Arguably the single greatest opposing voice to STC’s work isn’t from any “official” side, for all the axe-grinding we’ve had with the way certain authorities have been doing things. Rather a good amount of objection to it comes, unfortunately, from our very own countrymen, who frequently attack (or at the very least, rebuke) the site for being “extra”, when Singapore supposedly has a world-class public transport system. Why then, do we still make the extra effort to comment on its failings and try to come up with fixes to bridge the remaining gaps?
Or, in uglier prose, their comments can in most cases be paraphrased to:
“bro you’re ungrateful af, our public transport is much much better than (insert some country*), appreciate it!!”
“everything is good enough you complaining for what bro”
*Usual subjects for comparison include our neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, or some developing** nation out there with relatively low GDP/capita. **Yet some of these comparisons backfire on themselves, especially if it involves China.
Of course, with the end goal of making STC look and sound like a bunch of entitled assholes who make unreasonable demands out of public transport locally, thus once again vindicating the status quo as “the way forward”.
Recently, I posted on Reddit about the downgrading of service frequencies on the Downtown Line even during the peak periods. Predictably, nearly half of the comments bashed me over the things I mentioned above. Besides the original intent of highlighting service degradation, the post also became a sort of social experiment observing reactions of fellow Singaporeans (forming the bulk of the comments). As @lemonnarc pointed out in response to some of the rather distasteful comments, there is indeed a knee-jerk reaction present when cognitive dissonance arises (where evidence is presented that counters what one is used to) to rationalise existing held beliefs through some form of copium, in this case that “we are better than xxx!!!!!”
To show how absurd such a mentality this, consider it in the context of academic performance, which most if not all of us would have experienced (painfully for some, less so for others) during our schooling years. If we apply the “we are better than xxx, therefore we are BEST!!!” logic to our class tests of old, it would be like to claim that we should be content with getting a score of 80 in our tests, “grateful that the marker gave an A grade“, “oh look I’m better than half of the class which scored below 70!!“.
Sure, that score lands you in the highest grade (for both the MSG and GPA systems), but there obviously is a lot to improve further upon if you truly want to call yourself the leader of the class (or the cohort, if we are aiming for that standard). Remember, while half the class is behind you, there is another half that is on par or ahead of you, thus you can’t exactly rest on your laurels and start drumming up that individual PR…. yet. (Plus the fact that it’s still a good 20 marks from 80 to 100)
Thus to start throwing a tantrum because someone pointed out that you aren’t truly the “leaderboard topper” as you yourself claim… would come across as rather absurd, which certainly is the case for much of the arguments defending the status quo.
The MRT debate, revisited
Consider the position of Singapore’s public transport system when the MRT debates were underway in the 1970s. With a population of just 2.26 million in 1975 and one of the most robust public bus systems (of course, service levels could not match today, but catchment was greater) in the Asia-Pacific region. A point that is less appreciated about our bus services locally is the far greater overall density of the bus network (and service intensity too) across the entire service area served by the bus system here than compared to elsewhere. For instance, if you tried to visit a suburb 20km from downtown in much of Europe and North America, you’d be able to count the number of routes serving a given neighbourhood on a single hand, almost all of which provide less than ideal service outside the peak. Repeat this for Singapore, and you’d realise that network density, service intensity does not get compromised as much at such a distance from the city center. (That’s why I call the bus system here the grid to counteract the hub-and-spoke nonsense brought about by the design of the MRT network).
In how many cities are you able to picture eight buses within your limited FOV of your camera at midday, in a suburb 20km from the city center? (See above) Not many, but it’s a reality here, discounting the fact that Yishun “cheats” a bit with its extreme manifestation of hub-and-spoke which leads to feeder spam…
With such a strong bus system, it was certainly able to meet, albeit with some challenges, the transportation needs of our 2.26 million people in 1975. Why would a rail-based MRT be needed at all? Certainly, there was stiff resistance to the idea that we needed to build rail rapid transit, most vigorously from successive finance ministers and former GIC director/president Tony Tan who felt that the status quo, having worked well for Singapore since the implementation of buses since 1962, producing the most extensive bus system in the region, did not require a change.
Herein lies the power and strength of the “ungrateful” — these are the revolutionaries in society who muster the forces of the people to surpass the limits of the current order, to challenge it (or even better, break it) so as to reinvent the system to better itself. How does society advance? By those questioning the system, from both outside and inside, thus giving the impetus for self-reform.
In came the man who would later be bestowed the honourable title of “people’s president”, the then-Communications Minister Ong Teng Cheong stood his ground firm despite the wave of status quo-advocates and apologists who refused to acknowledge the need for reform of the public transport system, even if it was performing well. While his seniors in politics were huffing and puffing their reasons to stay put, Ong saw how leading cities all around East Asia were (or had been) putting up extensive rail rapid transit networks to serve the need for high-capacity fast travel in the next stage of urban densification. In East Asia alone, there were the Tokyo (1946) and Toei (1960) subway systems, Beijing Subway (1969), Seoul Subway (1974), Hong Kong MTR (1979) and Tianjin Subway (1984) springing up in response to the same urban growth that Singapore was facing during its economic boom era.
Perhaps his days studying urban planning and architecture in Adelaide and exchanges with classmates from all around the world had opened his eyes to the vastly different approaches other cities were taking towards their urban transport systems, often in a far better manner than Singapore was. Thus, he saw the great potential that rail rapid transit for our city-state could unlock, a sentiment reflected in many of his statements during the MRT debates.
The Ong Teng Cheong spirit, when it comes to public transport here, is not about ditching buses in favour of rail as some would put it. Instead it is the spirit of discontentment with the status quo to push for reforms that benefit the people.
Similarly, STC pushes for further improvement to our transport system not because it sucks. It certainly doesn’t. But it’s because we have seen better practices elsewhere. To steal and misappropriate a famous quote from Napoleon:
“I can no longer be content; I have tasted excellence, and I cannot return to mediocrity”
(For those curious, the original quote was “I can no longer obey; I have tasted command, and I cannot give it up.”)
Indeed, we have seen far too much for us to be able to accept that we are the “best” as is so often claimed. I have seen metro systems running intervals below 90 seconds despite with older stock, often claimed to be impossible here due to “technological limitations”, or because it was “not necessary”. I have seen cities who attribute as much respect to their buses, striving to bring the benefits of improved service to as many routes and riders as possible. And I have seen the far greater connectivity brought about by more grid-like networks in transit systems of cities from across the horizon that offer far better travel time competitiveness with personal transportation. I have seen cities who plan their transit networks to serve the people, enabling their urban and suburban populations to complete their journeys as best as possible, so much so such that “I wish I had a car instead” wasn’t the prevailing thought in the minds of public transport riders. Rather, in some cases, transit as a mode choice performs better than driving, travel-time wise. Astonishing for someone who has lived in Singapore all their life, right?
The list goes on. Fundamentally, Singapore’s public transport system, while winning accolades for appearing clean, sleek and efficient, remains largely unchanged and stuck in 1980s-era transit planning principles, with just the facade of a modern, 21st-century “first-class” assets and infrastructure. This is greatly akin to the situation that our all-bus transit system faced in the 1970s: fundamentally designed around post-war transit principles (largely influenced by British colonial urban planning) cloaked in the impression of a 1970s-era system, in great need of being shaken up to be more relevant for the times and meeting its riders’ needs.
Consider this: How significantly has a bus ride here changed between 2013 and 2023?
Differences in ancillary features aside, hardly much has changed, perhaps with the exception of the conversion of the majority-bendy fleet to a mix of single- and double-deckers.
However, unlike the 1970s revamp which was heavily centered around a single major project (the MRT spearheaded by Ong Teng Cheong), this new transformation of Singapore’s public transportation in the 2020s and beyond will involve many smaller projects which all come together to thoroughly overhaul the system from inside out. As I pointed out in my 10th anniversary analysis of the December 15/17 rail catastrophe, reform should be active, not passive. Though that point initially referred to just preventive maintenance/upgrading of hard assets, its a mentality that should also be applied to overall transit policymaking. It strikes me how stunningly little we have changed from 2011, besides the heaps of additional rail lines, newer vehicles and new players on the turf we have acquired since then. Lots of projects, lots of tearing out the old, lots of testing and bringing forth the new to orient us for the 2040s and beyond. STC would greatly appreciate being able to be part of, and play a role in such a transformation as it comes about.
Crush the paper tigers
A key reason for our conservatism in transit planning and operations strategy is due to those in power being surrounded by many paper tigers, artificially locking their options to not very far beyond the status quo, further reinforcing the notion that there is not much to be done beyond what’s already being done, thus solidifying the inertia acting against much-needed reform.
(Going slightly off-topic: this problem is also prevalent in other ministries and political departments in Singapore where the culture of complacency has set in, but especially so for transport.)
If this sounds absurd, that’s because it is. What is the nature of a paper tiger? The creator of the term explains it in a succinctly powerful manner:
Chief among these paper tigers that stifle the reformist spirit is that of bureaucratism, and its many unnecessary boundaries created for no other purpose than to oversimplify administration such that it could be easily processed by the official who can finish the job without ever having to conduct practical observation and interaction with the people who experience first-hand the effects of the policy he sets.
Having shared these “open letter” suggestions and proposals from STC around with fellow individuals equally invested in public transport development, the bureaucratist mentality becomes painfully obvious. While intended in good faith, quickly the “but so and so limitation” concern devolves into an endless litany of mulling over increasingly trivial bumps that hinder progress. And it’s not even physical limitations in most cases we are talking about here. Too often when plans for improving, say, a bus service are discussed, I hear:
“but so and so BCs are not trained for a particular route!”
“but so and so are not trained for a particular model or their license expired!”
“but so and so model cannot do so and so service because it never went on said service before!”
“but so and so (asset, thing etc) is not under so and so (operator, depot etc)
“but it will be too complicated to do that!”
“[insert a multitude of other bureaucratic excuses]”
Not that these do not matter at all. Rather, such issues are far too easy to overcome relatively, that they become less “reason” to not conduct reforms, but more of “excuses”, conveniently found to justify upholding the status quo that is not without many faults.
Over time, it becomes easy to waddle in self-complacency steeped in political and bureaucratic inertia to surpass oneself and actively engage in self-renewal. From the inside, taking the perspective of someone within, seeing the face of imposing boundaries, to stay put is certainly justifiable. Yet as any observer watching from outside will be able to tell with just the slightest glance, those boundaries, the kind that just sit there, waiting for you to step over without even lifting a leg in the slightest, barely serve as any deterrent, if any, towards breaking free of them and reimagining possibilities. To them, being frightened by something that lacks even the basic offensive ability to scratch comes off as greatly absurd. (Thus the saying, 当局者迷, 旁观者清, or the bystanders have a clearer view of matters than the participants) However, the true extent of its ability to affect policymaking and operational procedures at the end of the day is only as far as how rigid we view such boundaries as.
With the introduction of the Bus Contracting Model in 2016, the pitfalls of shackling ourselves with bureaucratic boundaries has only become more obvious as we begin splitting the turf up into increasingly disjoint and shrinking continuous portions. The relevant authorities and their most ardent supporters (which also inevitably include the chest-thumping, huff-puffing status quo defenders) love to make noise about operational efficiency and how “new practices” introduced in recent years have contributed greatly to it. Which begs the question, has further bureaucratic segmentation and increased operational silo culture in our public transport since then taken us closer, or further away from such a goal?
Going forward, all of society has to consciously be aware of the many such limitations that constrain our growth potential, but more importantly, we have to recognise them for what they are — mere paper tigers that are fully within our control to manipulate to the benefit of providing better services in increased quantity, and doing so in the most efficient manner too as we deem fit.
What has held us back from achieving this simple logical outcome? A bureaucrat mentality stemming from the burial of many top heads in mounds upon mounds of paper (or in the increasingly digitised today, eyes glued to the avalanche of bytes on the screen), thus slowly forming a mental frame within the minds of the very people who directly operate the levers of power, that the world as it exists on paper must also be how it is in the real world. Unfortunately, that is not only a foolhardy assumption, but also a highly dangerous and fatal one at that. The worst part of it all is, often times the fact that such assumptions made for oversimplicity’s sake are assumptions fails to register in their minds, thus translating what is merely a self-imposed virtual boundary into a tangible barrier which then narrows the fields in which we could possibly expand to. Or the options that we can consider. Or even the way in which we (on an official level, this means LTA, MOT, etc.) receive novel and wacky ideas and respond to their presence. Yet fundamentally it doesn’t need the bending of physics or waiting for the next big invention to break through such obstacles. All it takes is a merely a change in the frame of mind to realise how much more creative space in the industry there could possibly be.
One particular bug (whitewashed into a feature) of the system is the detachment from on-the-ground reality of those who require such bottom-up information to operate well. For this reason alone, the bureaucrat mentality must be stamped out among the upper echelons of leadership in governing bodies. Among the populace too, there must be an awareness of such shackles governing the mind and colouring the lens, and hence an active effort to rid ourselves of such. We need to remember that as the taxpayers ourselves, it is in our interest to see that what we pay are used in the most effective manner to deliver stable returns that improve our lives and the country. The bureaucrat’s way of hairsplitting boundaries and unnecessarily rigid structures stands in the way of that, and as individuals who stand to lose from such practices, it is only natural that we the people should oppose bureaucraticism too.
As the individuals making decisions based on the knowledge they receive, they have two responsibilities to the public. One, their responsibility to be a “journalist”, to find out the needs of the population utilising public transport services locally, and experience the system that they manage from the POV of those who use it (for after all, the end-user’s ability to go places well is the entire significance of the service provided). No amount of sitting behind computer screens staring at reams of data brought in by the millions of machines placed around the public transport system can replace this obligation, nor will reading off the statistics and trying to do quantum-level maths with machine-fed data suffice to meet this responsibility. As noted earlier, sometimes the public acting as observers might be able to have a better picture of the situation due to the more “big-picture” lens that they take. Two, the responsibility of being the “statesman”, to make informed choices beneficial for the target population after going through everything they know, as well as executing plans to achieve a certain greater objective.
Singapore is doing somewhat decently well in the second one — even if that’s debatable, our transport leadership still have some results to show that they do hold some water when it comes to the “statesmanship” duty they have. But they have done little in the field of meeting their journalistic duties — it remains difficult to converse to a higher-up in the field without encountering an avalanche of daunting jargon, or being fed a ton of regulatory “reasoning” to justify inabilities to think out of the box, because they are, quite literally, throwing you the box! A deep-rooted culture it is, but nonetheless with a lot of work from both the population and internal reformers alike there are no boulders which cannot be turned.
The public’s role in the equation is indispensible too — as the sole driving force behind all progress, the people act as the whip to ensure that leaders (in any field, in fact, not just transport, but just so transport is what STC covers more of) fulfil both of their responsibilities, and not get away with half-assing either job to the detriment. Disinterest and apathy from the public, while understandably driven by years of frustration (leading to resignation), is however the very thing that stokes the flames and gives authorities the leeway to play play which inevitably would bite back harder.
Of course, we do recognise that not everyone has got the time to do such in-depth research and observatory work in order to formulate the full picture and gain new inspiration. (Most of the time, we STC authors are also time-short too) Another important part of our work thus is to produce reports of the situation from the ground, as well as putting forth our own ideas and proposals for reforming urban mobility here based on what we observe and of course, as side observers, our minds aren’t as tied-up by all the regulatory ropes, so that’s fresher ideas for LTA and MOT to consider too 🙃. Of course, one does not have to take our word for everything, and neither do we strive to control the discourse of ideas and opinions, so feel free to go out and experience the system for yourself and come to your own conclusions, and that’s how lively discussions start. Whatever it is, it is high time the paper tigers that restrain us with rope-coloured paper strips be recognised for what they are. For once we recognise that we merely face paper tigers blocking our imagination, that makes the job of ripping them up to shreds a hell lot easier. When that happens, we suddenly find ourselves a wide open arena of limitless possibilities we never imagined before. With the 2020s and beyond throwing us a completely different set of challenges, newfound access to more tools in the box is certainly one thing the people of our country will be very grateful for.
Framing, part 2
“Talk so much about overseas for what, Singapore is different, you know”
There is nothing wrong with a localist mindset when it comes to policy execution. After all, adapting policy to suit local conditions is a critical factor that determines the success of importing “best practice” policies from abroad. In fact, the ability to adapt to the local conditions is what helps the world, while maintaining unity (despite it being mostly a farce now) retain its diversity of backgrounds. And in either case, non-individual factors like societal values, geography, historical background, governance structures all differ vastly from region to region, which inevitably will mean “one size fits all”, however lofty and noble, will fail. That’s fine.
What is not fine however, is an insular approach towards novel ideas when it comes to public transport planning that puts an excessive emphasis upon Singapore, and Singapore as the center of everything.
Linked in part to the “contentedness” of Singaporeans, being used to the way things are and have been for their entire lifetimes, it becomes very easy to fall victim to yet another kind of complacency — besides the mentality that we must be the best, the notion that the way public transport is organised and operated around here is the only way to go about doing things. When shown a different way of doing things, the mismatch between what’s presented and known concepts results in misconception, misinterpretation and miscommunication of ideas.
Consider the concept of rapid-stopping or limited stopping for bus services. Despite my explanations, clear to the last detail, and further tl’dr-ing, simplifying the language of the concept in said chat groups to clarify the entire idea of rapid-stop bus service to fellow well-meaning and equally-committed individuals towards improving public transport, the same tired trope gets repeated over and over again:
“why the heck are you replacing 43 with 43e?? what about everyone in between?” (The context here was that I suggested upgrading 43 to a rapid-stop route while retaining 43M as a local-stop route to solve the perennial bunching between 43/M arising from the helplessly scuffed scheduling of the routes)
Despite the very obvious (to STC regulars, I hope) differences between express and rapid stop services:
Thinking back about these exchanges much later, I realised the inability of much of them to comprehend the entire notion of “rapid-stop bus” was in very large part due to the fact that many of them had never experiened rapid-stop buses before. In fact, for most of them, the term “rapid bus” sounded completely alien to them, having never heard it before. (unless, with a capital R and capital B, to mean the public transport operator in Malaysia) Thus, when presented with a proposal using alien-sounding terminology and unfamiliar ideas, the human instinct is to attempt to frame it using concepts that they already understand, in order to make sense out of it. Being mostly insular, having only known well only the Singapore way of bus operations (which excludes rapid-stopping bus services from the mix except for the rather obscure example of 97/e), the next best thing they could link the term “rapid” to was “express”, a form of bus service commonly seen in Singapore and that they are well acquainted with. It doesn’t help that Service 43, the route in question in the discussion, already has an existing express route variant, originally introduced to take pressure off the North-East and Circle lines during peak periods:
Thus leading to the erroneous conclusion that my attempt to upgrade bus 43 to rapid-stop was an act of fully replacing the current Service 43 with the current Service 43e, thereby reducing the route’s catchment and making it less useful to a whole lot of passengers along the route. When in fact, I was merely spacing out the stops along 43’s route such that passengers could enjoy faster rides. In fact, given the increased combined fleet of 43 and 43e on the new 43 Rapid, the reduced runtime as a result of faster journeys (stops more sparsely spaced!!), the vastly improved service delivered by a 43 Rapid could mean faster end-to-end journeys than even the current 43e with a long non-stop sector could deliver!
Hence why STC launched the “International” series in November 2020 — to introduce best (or even just good, to be honest. External exposure is inherently a good thing, for you learn from both the good and bad others do) practices in the public transport industry from overseas, and share ideas around, perhaps so that one day we might see some of the good ideas finding great use here in Singapore too! Yes, we acknowledge that STC’s reader base is now highly international — we have views from 102 countries and territories combined as of writing — but nonetheless we at STC will continue to recommend what elsewhere has been doing great for everyone to consider. For international readers, you could also look at some of these international suggestions, and perhaps one day implement those in your own cities too! Our Basics series also serve a similar role — they introduce STC readers to some important basic concepts in the field of public transportation, which includes the international perspective in terms of naming and organisation. After all, transit agencies/authorities do conduct regular exchanges and study programmes with each other (Singapore having done a few of those with Hong Kong and Taipei during the period where the three cities were building up their own rapid transit systems), and it is of great importance we know as much about the topic as they do. You know, not everything in the world is done the Singapore™ way. Or let’s say, the Singapore™ way is considered oddball when it comes to most things, in most parts of the world. It would be good to find out what everyone else is doing, wouldn’t it?
Knowing good practices of other cities would also be a great humbler of many nationalist keyboard warriors whose prose make them risk looking like paid shills for the establishment — rather than living in the narrow confines of one’s tunnel vision centered upon Singapore and mistakenly overbelieve in our greatness, it is tempered with the understanding that we still have much to work upon when witnessing the feats other cities achieve. With that understanding in mind, it will be one heck lot easier to engage in those discussions on our blindspots and work upon improving them. It’s not really about comparing ourselves to others, for that eventually becomes a meaningless pissing content. Instead, as I always say, it’s a constant journey of self-improvement, for which there is no end in sight in the near future. All the possibilities that can be opened up once such an agreement exists — excitement awaits us! (And of course, STC’s job in spearheading reform in urban mobility in Singapore becomes a lot easier when we are no longer shouting into a silent abyss with nothing in return 🙃)
Plus we do not merely cater to just the public transport enthusiasts who are intensively invested to public transport as a hobby — we speak to the general population of Singapore too, to give them better insights of our public transport system, it’s less-seen (yet pressing) faults, as well as suggest alternative visions, our own proposals to improve the way we live and move too. All in all, STC firmly believes in urban transport built, designed, managed and operated with the people at its heart, and will work with the public towards such a vision. More public, less profit.
We have come thus far and achieved 100 posts, through the highs and lows of the years, hacked through the difficult bushes that have been thrown at us. To say we’ve seen much would be quite the understatement, considering much of the drama that involved either the site as a whole or any of the individual authors contributing greatly to the STC project. It has been an honour being the lead editor of STC for the past 32 months, actively bringing forward ideas, takes, and our own voice to the transit discourse locally. What may the next big step of STC be? The world is infinitely large, so long as we choose to actively embrace it in its many quirks, and through it may we find what suits us all. ~@ameowcat
Additional comments from Team STC:
Remember guys, when we lament for a better transit system, don’t be quick to jump to the “STC is managed by spoilt brats” conclusion, we should always be aiming to do better. I mean, things like New Year’s Resolutions and Class Reflections in Schools would repeatedly tell you so. I joined the team with the intention of revolutionising Singapore into THE country nobody would deeply desire a private automobile, and I am damn sure I will stick with this blog until that happens.
Anyways, I look forward to bringing more educational content on any possible improvements to our public transport. And recently, I have been into trying to use cycling as a serious transport option, for those wondering what is a taste of what’s to come from me. P.S, the “lemon” in “lemonnarc” refers to the lemon laws of consumer protection locally! ~@lemonnarc
Personally, STC has enabled more train and bus enthusiasts to have a platform to voice out their concerns about public transportation in Singapore. I hope that this blog helps you, dear reader, to gain perspectives into how LTA can resolve certain issues related to road and rail, and the improvements that can be made in the long run.
Once again, with great transport comes great reliability. ~@landtransportanalyst
Congratulations, and here’s to better years ahead for public transport users here. ~@6298gwrites
Seeing STC begin from a humble blog page to the current elaborate and informative platform is truly amazing. Despite ups and downs (well let’s not get into that), STC has currently been doing really well and I look forward to my teammates (and possibly myself) publishing more public transport related content for our readers.
That being said, It was chaotic to see the crazy developments our transport system have seen in the recent years. “Rise in faults but increase in reliability”? The fun never ends. Nonetheless I do hope things start to change for the better, sooner or later. ~@ksfc151c
This is SG Transport Critic, signing off.
Support STC by giving us a like, and stay tuned for regular updates by subscribing in the box below!
Also, do remember to drop by our other pages! Here they are: Telegram. Twitter. Instagram. Maybe we might open another platform to communicate with our fellow readers better too… stay tuned!
SG Transport Critic 
Personally I really admire the team for fearlessly bringing out ideas coming from a large spectrum of radicality. Despite relative apathy in terms of real action from local authorities, there was never a time where we felt that nothing could be done, and you guys persistently churned out ideas that yall felt could help our community. Isn’t this the true meaning of the “PA” in PAP (our current ruling party)? It literally stands for the people bringing out various suggestions, coming from many different perspectives, that can or should be put into action.
That said, I’m incredibly proud of everyone here who has played a part in achieving this milestone. As we move forward into our 101st post and beyond, may we always remember our main principle: to never stop pushing for improvement and striving for the best, no matter what! Onward Team STC!
LikeLiked by 2 people
this was truly one of the posts of all time
LikeLike
I LOVE THIS BLOG!!!!
LikeLike
Looking forward to an updated version of the interchanges basics series with TEL3 interchanges. And also maybe an analysis on JRL and CRL rolling stock types which are probably the first true LRT and commuter rail rolling stock in SG.
LikeLike
Update on TEL3 interchanges done 🙂 tldr it’s a mixed bag
LikeLike
good article
LikeLike