200 SMRT bus drivers refuse to go to work over pay issue

[limlim]

octoberbaby:

change to double decker buses or longer buses or buses with no seats for more passengers to board. Frequent timing and shorter route.

I suggest adding additional cabins to the trains to increase capacity, one at each end of the train. These cabin will have no doors and passenger enter/exit via the cabin next to it.

The train frequency is probably maxed out already w/o compromising safety distance between trains. They need to look into increasing train capacity.

High capacity trains is also more fuel efficient.

Of coz some changes to the system such as the signalling, engine etc.. may need to be modified. But, in the long run, should be worth it.

[Dora1]

concern2:

concern2:

[quote=\"octoberbaby\"]change to double decker buses or longer buses or buses with no seats for more passengers to board. Frequent timing and shorter route.

Hey, that's a good start! Come on, let's get the ideas rolling! :rahrah:

(Buses with no seats but must have seat belts just kidding!)

Ok, I have another one:

Kick out SMRT, invite REAL PRIVATE COMPANIES to pitch to run the operation. If there are interested parties who can do it, (of course must scrutinize the small prints and how they can do it etc etc), then select the best one.

If no ones want to pitch for it, then perhaps it means it REALLY cannot be done

Or If there are indeed companies who can do it, and yet \"authorities\" too \"authoritative\", want to \"sub\" everything their own arms, then at least can pick the best ideas like what some companies do, inviting pitches and stealing ideas .. :stupid:

(don't flame me har, just trying to brainstorm..)[/quote]Joining in the brainstorming.....

1) Remove COEs for buses, as they are the people movers. Implementing COEs is just increasing business overheads which will be passed to consumers anyway.
2) Invite all private companies to offer any bus routes that they want, with minimal license fees and whatever other fees. It's ok if a few want the same route, they just have to provide more value for money services to compete for customers. Those who cannot offer value for money services will die a natural death anyway. So don't need to get the LTA guys to study and ensure non duplication of route and allow only 1 company to take 1 route, creating the monopoly we have now.
For those ulu routes, can dangle incentives for companies to ply those routes, e.g. tax rebates etc. This is what free market is about anyway.

[octoberbaby]

the height of the tunnel is fixed liao, otherwise change to double decker train. Lets build Thomas and Friend latest version.

[concern2]

limlim:

octoberbaby:

change to double decker buses or longer buses or buses with no seats for more passengers to board. Frequent timing and shorter route.

I suggest adding additional cabins to the trains to increase capacity, one at each end of the train. These cabin will have no doors and passenger enter/exit via the cabin next to it.

The train frequency is probably maxed out already w/o compromising safety distance between trains. They need to look into increasing train capacity.

High capacity trains is also more fuel efficient.

Of coz some changes to the system such as the signalling, engine etc.. may need to be modified. But, in the long run, should be worth it.

How about this? Highly efficient, no need doors, maximum capacity... :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

http://i47.tinypic.com/14x1d1k.jpg\">

(sorry, you just reminded me of this pix, you guys are good, keep it up!)

[concern2]

Dora1:

Joining in the brainstorming.....

1) Remove COEs for buses, as they are the people movers. Implementing COEs is just increasing business overheads which will be passed to consumers anyway.

For a moment, I thot you meant remove the CEO But come to think of it, why do we need a CEO who is a civil servant? (this isn't meant to be discriminatory, solely \"discussionary\" ) And worse, retired ones...? How is this different from running the transport by REAL CIVIL SERVANTS? Or why not tap on those \"educated, economically inactive women\" :evil:

[Dora1]

Concern2


This pic is better! :rotflmao:
http://i50.tinypic.com/1pt37k.jpg\">

[limlim]

concern2:

How about this? Highly efficient, no need doors, maximum capacity... :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

http://i47.tinypic.com/14x1d1k.jpg\">

If you suggestion can work, there wouldn't be any complains from the public for the comment.. \"People can board the train, it's whether they want to...........\"

Squeezing already not acceptable liao you still wanna suggest something like that................... :spank:

[concern2]

Dora1:

Concern2


This pic is better! :rotflmao:
http://i50.tinypic.com/1pt37k.jpg\">

Alamak! I am so dated! Where did you get this from!? From 2020? :rotflmao:

[concern2]

limlim:

concern2:

How about this? Highly efficient, no need doors, maximum capacity... :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

http://i47.tinypic.com/14x1d1k.jpg\">

If you suggestion can work, there wouldn't be any complains from the public for the comment.. \"People can board the train, it's whether they want to...........\"

Squeezing already not acceptable liao you still wanna suggest something like that...................

Of course not lah, safety cannot be compromised, yes?

[raysusan]

concern2:

concern2:

\"PAP MP says public has \"misunderstood\" Transport Minister on fare hike\"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQxRsyQ2Psg&feature=share

What do you think?

No one responded to this?

In some businesses, to keep customers happy, one of the ways is to keep selling price as a constant, and work backwards to look at other variables. Formulas can be changed to create a different costing model that works and still achieve win-win. This isn't an uncommon practice. I hope the authorities can come up with better solutions.

looking at one of the photo in there
the turn out looks pathetic