Talk:Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents

Welcome! This talkpage is to discuss about the article Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Past discussions can be found within this archive and this one. Enjoy! =)

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

To-do list for Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore):	edit · history · watch · refresh
Improve these subpages History of the Mass Rapid Transit Fares and ticketing on the Mass Rapid Transit Facilities on the Mass Rapid Transit Maintain subpages Security on the Mass Rapid Transit Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit Rolling stock articles Add detail to individual stations and lines When enough information is added, summarise them in the main article under "network" Miscelleneous Add more references and info on passenger's perspectives of ride as one comes across them Maintain integration

[edit] warning tags

The edits of [1], [2], [3] have removed 'disputed' tags (or items similar). There is clearly a dispute on this page. Why not leave the tags until the dispute is resolved?

One of the edit summaries suggest that the 'disputed' tags are not good faith edits. I see no evidence that the editor does not sincerely believe that the adding the 'disputed' tag is accurate and appropriate.

Another edit summary suggests that the 'disputed' tag is unnecessary because the article will be improved. However, the purpose of a 'disputed' tag is to mark the current version. Clearly, any article is likely to be improved in the future. How long need dispute resolution take in order for a 'disputed' tag to be appropriate? --BostonMA 14:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is spill over from tissues. Far too much of this dispute has been personalized, and harping on the personality conflicts has become an excuse for avoidihat editor's unsucessful dispute on the FAC page. He is unhappy that the other editors disagreed with the changes he wished to make and has been waging a campaign about the issue on several fronts. He disputes a referenced fact in the article but refuses to provide any other reference which might support his viewpoint. The "weasel word" (and I'm fairly certain this doesn't qualify) is the word ensure in the first sentence of the Safety paragraph -- he prefers the word promotes instead. Honestly, I don't think either tag applies in this case and he's been welcomed any number of times to continue the discussion if he is still unhappy with the wording, or provide references for his other claim. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is disputed whether the measures taken amount to an effort to ensure safety. Are there verifiable sources supporting the fact that these measure do in fact amount to an effort to ensure safety? Are we taking the word of the Transit authority on this matter? Would that not be non-NPOV if there are others who dispute that these measure do in fact amount to efforts to ensure safety? --BostonMA 14:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Read extensive comments already posted in the relevant FA nomination.--Huaiwei 15:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs or relevant sections please --BostonMA 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Other references for the word ensure [4], [5]. So it doesn't appear that its just the Transit authority making the claim. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The references you provide include a letter and a newspaper article that is clearly an interest piece. I believe these qualilfy as Dubious sources and require attribution within the article. --BostonMA 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's within the text itself already. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that a citation or footnote is not the same thing as an attribution. By an attribution, I would understand a statement such as "According to Jane Smith, Communists are evil". Merely footnoting a statement such as "Communists are evil" would hardly be adequate, because it does not warn the reader that the statement is only one of several possible POV's.

However, we seem to be straying a bit from the question of whether there exists a good-faith factual dispute. Even if you provide references, that does not mean that the other side cannot in good faith dispute the facts. This is especially true if the references are Dubious sources. It appears to me that the dispute is sincere. --BostonMA 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm planning to rewrite that section of prose to something that we can agree upon, and I ask for your patience and understanding in the meantime. We are all tired out by an ongoing conduct dispute that's inhibiting us from getting things properly done. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll just note, for the record, that I posted fairly detailed comments about verifiability and and NPOV problems here, for example, [6] and that Wikipedia policy issues I cite remain unresolved; and that a second editor, user:enochlau, posted even more extensive comments about the same policy ng substance. Monicasdude 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The security camera doubt raised during FAC is ressolved, with another letter from the operator in the print media to clear the air. [7] - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The next natural step

Is to nominate this FA to the main page in Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Maybe we can take some time to further polish it up abit more and take into account some suggestions made in the FA nomination prior to doing so as well? ;)--Huaiwei 14:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure do! :D - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is great! --Terence Ong ^Talk 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] upcoming tasks

Well we've done it, we've achieved FA, but we still have a few tasks to do that are preferably done before it reaches the main page: I've updated the todo list. We should work on our subpages now. It's preferable to establish a bit more integration as we've remembered to link the sections (it's a basically if you see the oppurtunity, do it kind of thing), perhaps in a cause and effect kind of way. (Ie. Reduce road use means using rolling stock, which requires rail facilities. which requires ticketing, security and safety.) That way, citing facts like train speed et al. doesn't seem so random as part of a carefully constructed presentation. -- Natalinasmpf 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am moving the safety and security sections towards the bottom as requested by someone (cant rem who) in the FA nomination, which made sense for subjective sections seems better off towards the bottom then right on top?--Huaiwei 04:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It was Enoch who suggested it. Should we merge it to Safety and Security on the Mass Rapid Transit? --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Natal on this above, and there was no agreement yet. She feels they should be merged, while I would think they may be better seperated. Hope the rest of you may chip in with your opinions.--Huaiwei 14:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] System Map

I want to add a section about the evolution of the MRT system map but do not know where to place it without pissing people off. I figured that under The Mass Rapid Transit network a link to a main article could be made, detailing the change in graphical layout of the system map, the reasons behind it, its good and bad points etc.Ignoramus 10:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The history section is a good place to put it. --Terence Ong ^Talk 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the history sub-article is better. Then I can add an image of the old map as well. :D - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been added. However, I need someone to confirm that the colours are correct, and to add the pictures of the maps, wiki it, and maybe edit it a little to look better (nothing major, really). Spent a long time typing it, very tired. But at least the MRT articles and sub articles are starting to fatten up. Very detailed. Ignoramus 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont see a single map in History of the Mass Rapid Transit?--Huaiwei 17:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, added an old map which was lying in my system for ages =) Mailer diablo, is your map before or after Woodlands Extension? If its before, I can add the extension to this map, or post the "horizontal version"(the one you see on SMRT trains, on the advertisement panels), so we'll have a more comprehensive collection. :P Advanced 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is much better now. Glad to see the old map for readers. Gives an impression of how the system was like when it opened. --Terence Ong ^Talk 05:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a small error with the map. In that version (before the Woodlands Extension), "Marina Bay" was simply marked as "South". It was after the Woodlands Extension that it was changed to "Marina Bay". Similarly, if I remember correctly, "North" was relabelled "Woodlands" after the extension.A.K.R. 12:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it? I didn't know about that. Quite surprising to me though. North and South as in where, the station or the line? --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok Errors Corrected. North and South/Woodlands and Marina Bay refers to the area in Singapore, labelled on the old map. 202.156.6.54 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station Infobox

**Jurong East MRT Station**

Current Code	NS1/EW24
Previous Code	W9
Malay	Jurong East
Chinese	裕廊东
Tamil	ஜூரோங் கிழக்கு
Location	Jurong East
Operational	10 March 1990
Operator	SMRT Corporation
Lines	North South, East West
Platforms	4 (elevated)
Levels	3
Escalators
Elevators
Exits

Around four to five months ago, Huaiwei proposed this station infobox. I'm thinking of it and there will be a slight modification from this. Any suggestions? You may like to look at Quarry Bay (MTR) and Tai Koo (MTR), also look at Oxford Circus tube station if you have any improvements to Huaiwei's template. --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks much cleaner. We should allow a space for a photo, if need be. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Much cleaner than which one? I would prefer a photo than a station map. --Terence Ong ^Talk 05:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Much cleaner than the current way we list information for stations. We could add room for a second photo at the end of the infobox, mainly for stubs we have photos, but not information with. The problem is that we need statistics. Where can we find them? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is very hard to find all these stuff. The operators do not reveal the station stats which I don't think is good. I've also modify the infobox above a bit. --Terence Ong ^Talk 05:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Translation of MRT

I don't understand why someone translates the Mass Rapid Transit into 大众快速列车. The Chinese translation is not a direct one for all cases. --Russianroulette2004 ^Talk 05:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The translation was sourced from the net, or someone put it in, so unless you can show its inaccurate, there is no reason to remove it. I arent too sure what you mean by "The Chinese translation is not a direct one for all cases" anyway.--Huaiwei 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

“大众快速列车 is definitely wrong. It should be “大众捷运” in full and “捷运” in short. (大众 = mass, 捷 = rapid, 运 = transit/transport) It is the same as Taiwan, as they use the term "Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)" too. Moreover, SBS Transit's Mandarin corporate name is “新捷运”, as heard on national radios and TV. --Kenneth88 20:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

While 捷运 is also acceptable, I am quite sure that when I was in Taipei, they called their MRT 地铁 too.--Huaiwei 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've checked with my Taiwanese friend and he said that they refer to their MRT as “大众捷运” and “捷运” only. However, they also know what “地铁” is, but do not use the term. It is just like Singaporeans knowing what "Metro" and "Subway" are, but do not use them. Okay, back to the main point: I think we should just use “大众捷运”, “捷运” and “地铁”. I did not mention about “大众捷运” and “捷运” just only because Taiwan MRT uses them. The other reason is that I have recently heard national radio and TV using the terms “新捷运” when refering to rail operator SBS Transit. “大众快速交通” also sounds like it is in simple and informal Mandarin. “地下铁路” must be removed as it only refers to completely-underground systems.--Kenneth88 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, "I did ... Taiwan MRT uses them." My original point of contention was "大众快速交通". You all have spent so much time on this article and I don't want the first few lines to discredit the rest of the article. We shouldn't really include non-localised versions of references to MRT like “捷运”; they are indeed very rare in the papers despite being the same length as “地铁”. But again, that's a less major point to me.—Goh wz 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was right of Goh wz to remove the term "大众快速交通". We should just have the name "地铁" only, until we can find solid evidence that "大众快速交通" is used officially.--Kenneth88 15:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the name "大众快速交通" from the currently discussed article on 15 January, thinking that it was probably done by someone whose Chinese just can't make it. Unexpectedly, my change was reverted within one hour, and from then, I embarked on some research on the Chinese name of ~~Wikipedia~~ MRT.

Reading the current talk page after five days, I'm quite annoyed at how the benefit of the doubt is blindly given to the editor who added the name "大众快速交通". When Huaiwei reverted my changes, I thought that she specifically knew that "大众快速交通" was a correct name. Referring to ~~her~~ his comment on 19 January, this was not the case: it was a case of benefit of the doubt given to any random page on the net or the editor who added it in. However, we'll just adopt ~~her~~ his approach since we're all in the business of making Wikipedia articles better.

Kenneth88 noted that the Chinese name of Singapore's MRT system should follow that of Taiwan just because the English name is the same. This assumes a one-to-one mapping within everything in Chinese and everything in English. Truth is, we might just name our systems differently in Chinese and in English.

For clarity, I would also like to bring up one point: one Chinese term being a direct translation from English does not automatically render the Chinese term a valid name for the termed object. In our case, that "大众快速交通" is a direct translation from English does not warrant that it is a correct, valid name for MRT. I cite the Octopus card. We cannot translate that into "章鱼卡" and declare it a correct Chinese name for the Octopus card just because it is a direct translation from English.

[edit] Research

My mini-research comprises of four parts:

Asking my friends: I've asked Seng Teck, Calvin, Hwee Leong, Michael, David, Juanhe, Li Qian and a few others and none of them said that they've heard of the term before. Michael and David spoke in defence of the term: "大众快速交通" is to "地铁" as Republic of Singapore is to Singapore. Republic of Singapore is a perfectly valid official name for Singapore, but we would always refer to Singapore as Singapore. However, many people still know Republic of Singapore to be a valid term, contrasting "大众快速交通" which no one I asked has heard before.
Asking my Chinese teachers: Only two teachers replied my questions. Ms Chew Siew Keng said that "大众快速交通" is unsuitable since it can refer to any mode of transport. "语文的使用应是“约定俗成”，如果一个词汇没被广泛人民接纳并熟悉，它很快就会消失。它的使用也就是“不规范”的。" Ms Lim Si Hui raised the Octopus card example which I borrowed at the start of this comment. She raised some principles of translation as well. She's never heard the term before as well, but distinctly recalled as a student that there's an article back in 1987 on the full name of MRT.
Consulting the 1987 papers: I went to the Tampines Library twice to view their microfilm archives of the 1987 Lianhe Zaobao on Ms Lim's advice. I at least skimmed each of the articles related to MRT from 1 November to 8 November. (The MRT service started in 7 November.) I didn't find the article on the full name of MRT. I found that each of their 39 articles (I'm assuming that my counting is accurate) referred to MRT only as "地铁". The terminology in the articles is demonstrated in the following paragraph which I quote from Lianhe Zaobao, 3 November 1987, p.3 《地铁储值车票　可以自由转让》: "地铁局助理交通经理（策划与行政）傅永成说，地铁通车后，地铁公司将派遣职员在出、入口闸门查票以检举买不足车资或滥用特待车票的搭客。" With this, I'm trying to show that the papers already used "地铁" as early as in 1987. Of course, the Republic of Singapore analogy applies: the papers will use Singapore to refer to Singapore even when Republic of Singapore is a correct term. However, at least when Singapore was formed, a mention will be made that Singapore's full name is Republic of Singapore. However, the papers made no mention of any full name of MRT even when the MRT service started.
Asking SMRT: SMRT will probably comment later. They're getting to know the situation from me now.

[edit] Conclusion

At the end of the day, very little people—even my Chinese teachers—have heard of the term "大众快速交通" before. The 1987 papers made no mention of this supposed full name of the MRT when the service started. With such rarity, I wonder what else would convince the Wikipedia community of the non-existance of a term.—Goh wz 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whooaa!!! While we await for SMRT's response, I would just like to comment, that there is a similar difficulty in looking for a full, formal Malay name, since Malay newspaper articles regularly refer to it simply as MRT too. Attempting to find the full name in the earliest articles is actually not always productive, as newspapers are not obliged to do so, instead prefering to stick to common shorthand names. While few may have heard of this term (I myself hadent heard of it too either), it may not neccesarily signify its non existance. What we need to do now, is to actually find any evidence showing the non existance of a full name for the MRT in Chinese....not an easy task indeed.--Huaiwei 11:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We've made it!

As you see, the article has appeared on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Let's take this as an honour for all of the SGpedians'. Well done, to Mailer Diablo and Huaiwei who have contributed significantly to the article. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait is the article disputed? I distinctly remember it being reported in the Newpaper that someone had altered the Map of the system. If so they article will be void and the ariticle of the day award will be taken away.

haha ... nice try, but no, you can't take this away. :P , there's no dispute at all, read the news article again. --Vsion (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is jealousy, let's ignore this comment. --Ter e nc e Ong 01:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Why is there a picture overlapping the text of the lead - and why is this immediately followed by an hard-to-read (undersized) image surrounded by white space? Rmhermen 16:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

These errors are probably because the Public Transport System logo got shifted to the right instead of the left when the article got edited, thus messing up the arrangement of images and text, and overlapping text for some browsers/resolutions. I have replaced it (the logo) back at its original position on the left. That should fix the problem. Thanks Advanced 18:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The logo appeared on the right side (probably got lost in transit in vandalism reverting), so I moved it back to the left side. It's not an ideal place, but it's better than overlapping text and images. Quite frankly, I think we have too many images in this article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've moved it to the right but at the bottom of the lead. There's no overlapping like that, so hopefully it should be fine. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page hacked

Some jackass has quite obviously hacked this page. Does anyone know how to fix this? Mr President 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is the featured article today. It is being fixed every 60 seconds or so.

-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

- Seriously I think the vandalism is more like pornography, putting porn pictures in it. Goodness. Maybe we should semi-protect pages when they are the FA for the day. --Terence Ong 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Actually, no: a lot of pages get fixed while they're on the main page by anons. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    - ... including the anniversary / date of the year articles, and the "Did you Know" entries. Not just FA. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      - I see. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infobox and line specific

Okay, what do you think of an infobox like New York City Subway? It would be a good place for the logo. And that reminds me what is the MRT rail gauge anyway? Does anyone know?

Oh, our work is far from over :D. The work is now to provide information on each station, ie. its locality, size and passenger traffic, so we can eventually add more information on the lines itself. Then at least we have some decent material to summarise for the "network" section of this article. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the infobox above, expansion of the station articles is needed. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I meant an infobox for the main article in general. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles such as London Underground and MTR do not have infoboxes. I don't see a need of an infobox on the main article itself. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Information about MRT Rolling Stock

I have noted the contributions made by user Guangyang on how to differentiate or spot the three rolling stocks found on the North South Line and East West Line. I would like to express my point that there needs to be some rewriting of this section before being posted onto Wikipedia. Indeed the information is of valuable importance it is essential that it is phrased nicely so that it is presentable, coherent, and easily understood for all. Russianroulette2004 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to be a bit harsh here, and I apologise for that. I think it fits into one criteria of WP:NOT, or else that will be useful. However, some of the information are useful and we can integrate them into differences section. We need to improve rolling stock articles and other MRT-related articles. I will find some time to do that when I'm free. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have created a Trains on the Singapore MRT template and placed it into the 4 rolling stock articles, to help improve the articles a bit, and for easier navigation purposes. Any improvements made to the template et al,are welcome. Advanced 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice template, better for navigation like you said. Isn't anyone interested in the station infobox idea? --Ter e nc e Ong 15:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Station Pages - Train Services Information Added

Individual Station Pages - Train Services Information Added
Train services information for the following individual station pages have been added and completed. Do not DELETE, but you may edit the format A BIT!
- Woodlands
- Yew Tee
- Khatib
- Yishun

Train services information for all other individual station pages have not been added or not completed. Please help to ADD THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION, BUT using the format that has been used in the above 4 station pages for a sense of continuity. Thanks.

Shops & facilities for most stations are not complete. I can only probably finish off those for Khatib and Yishun and Yew Tee stations. Need help with other stations. Follow the rough format given in the above 4 pages. Thanks! Ignoramus

I believe that train arrival/ departure times are unencyclopedic. You may like to take a look at Central (MTR) and Baker Street tube station for examples. London Underground and MTR are featured articles, is best not to put all this, as it kind of violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ignoramus, hope you can cooperate, not encyclopaedic at all frankly speaking. This information is quite hard to get actually. I understand that you have put in a lot of effort finding all this information, sorry. I do like the shops and facilities part though, I will add sections on exits and station vicinities. :) --Ter e nc e Ong 12:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I may have upset you or annoyed you in any way :). I was under the wrong impression apparently on the type of info that could be put here. I had the info in my hands so I thought I would like to share it online. Ignoramus 12:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Its alright. Umm, you may like to start a blog or a website for all this info. This is very useful for this type of stuff. ;) --Ter e nc e Ong 12:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Expansion

The artiste's impression has some fine notes at the bottom left but not everyone uses a 20" monitor so could someone increase the font size.

[edit] Academic text?

I cannot find any other source for this book:

Sock, Y.P. and Walder, Jay H. (1999), Singapore’s Public Transport.

Maybe it does not exist? Does anyone know? --Ghormax 13:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very sure about this, but I believe this book exists somewhere but cannot be found in the cyberspace. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's strange that it cannot even be found in the NUS library, right? --Ghormax 16:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have looked through the genesis of this article and I think that perhaps this academic text is an unpublished paper. If so, it should be reverted to the earlier "Academic articles" --Ghormax 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of "operational information", 22/6

Hi. I've added the bit on operational info, please delete if inappropriate. Two stats i omitted and need someone to fill in though: peak hour frequencies for yishun-yew tee and jurong east-yew tee. thanks. ----nigelfong, 22/6

[edit] Integration with Buses and Taxis

The rail lines have been constructed by the Land Transport Authority, a department of the government of Singapore, which allocates operating concessions to the profit-based corporations SMRT Corporation and SBS Transit. These operators also run bus and taxi services, thus ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services.

I'm wondering if the line at the end of the introduction should be deleted. Is there truly a causal link between running bus and taxi services on top of the MRT lines and having a fully integrated public transport service? Or is it simply due to location and design - colocating MRT stations with bus interchanges, and having taxi stands outside MRT stations.

Bottom line, I think that sentence seems more like feel-good propaganda nonsense than a real, objective assessment. --Rifleman 82 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Location" is of course an important aspect of integration. Other considerations include the design of rail and bus routes, fares, operating hours, facilities, and ticketing system. The statement is accurate and informative. --Vsion 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No arguments about it being integrated; it definitely is. But is the cause is by the same companies operating the MRT lines and bus, taxi services, of it occurred because of other factors? The integration had already occurred while MRT and SBS/TIBS were separate, independant entities. From the Farecard era on, there was already a great deal of integration between bus and rail. Which part is really due to the companies than to the framework put there not by the companies? Are SBS buses less integrated with TIBS/SMRT MRT lines? Or do you mean integration in the sense of the less competition between bus and rail lines in terms of routes, which probably benefit the companies more than the consumer? --Rifleman 82 06:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We are still talking about the "full integration of public transport services", right? One can't deny that having the same operators does faciliate the integration. This is common in other cities, such as Los Angeles, where the Metro also operate buses. You stated that you "think that sentence seems more like feel-good propaganda nonsense " ; I hope you can better support or explain your statement. --Vsion 06:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the NEL is running at a deficit, last time I checked. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A guy is in the woods, beating a tree with a stick. "Why are you beating the tree?" "Because it keeps the bears away." "But there are no bears here" "See! It works!" - Just because A and B occur at the same time need not imply A causes B or the reverse. I'm saying that the transport system IS integrated. To a point, at least. It certainly would be nice if it were integrated because the bus and train and taxi services were run by the same company. But is it necessarily the case? I don't think so. I think they are integrated simply because of how the infrastructure is built and designed than due to the efforts of the public transport companies. I say again, just because A and B occur, does not mean that A causes B. It's a simple point and I don't know why I keep needing to rephrase and reexplain it. --Rifleman 82 08:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but are you able to demonstrate that A didnt lead to B in this case then?--Huaiwei 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I may not be able to demonstrate definitively that A didn't lead to B. But I don't suppose it is an easy task to demonstrate that A actually did lead to B. In the context of an encyclopedia, it may be prudent to reword the statement without implying causality, or to remove the statement altogether rather than indulging in speculation and POV.

This is what I propose: 'The rail lines have been constructed by the Land Transport Authority, a department of the government of Singapore, which allocates operating concessions to the profit-based corporations SMRT Corporation and SBS Transit. These operators also run bus and taxi services. The rail network is well integrated with the public transport system. Many MRT stations have taxi stands. Many bus interchanges are co-located as well, connected by covered walkways, underpasses, or pedestrian bridges.'

Rifleman 82 16:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

An item is not considered "POV" (or flattering language, for a more accurate description of your discomfort with the said paragraph) unless proven false. I am still interested in seeing sources showing the lack of relationship between A and B, failing which your opinion that A dosent lead to B is itself a POV as well. Off my head I could think of several examples where A did lead to B, but I wont go into details at this time.--Huaiwei 17:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pick any MRT station. For my example, I will use AMK MRT station. 10 or so years ago, while MRTC still ran the MRT, SBS and TIBS still ran their respective bus companies, the public transport system was already integrated:

the bus interchange was directly connected to the MRT station via an underpass
commuters changing between bus and MRT were given rebates
there was a taxi stand outside AMK MRT station

Causality dictates that if A causes B, A must occur before B. It is clear that event A (the mergers and consolidation of the public transport industry) did not cause event B (the integrated nature of the public transport system). --Rifleman 82 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I cant comment much on Ang Mo Kio since I didnt track changes in this town since the 1980s, but at least I am aware of the following:

SBS resisted Transitlink's efforts to "remove dublication" (one of Transitlinks' primary objectives in its quest for transport integration) when the MRT first opened in the late 1980s, since it represented a direct negative impact on its pockets. In comparison, SBS Transit was happy to axe plenty of routes in the Northeast when the NEL opened, while SMRT was relunctant in reintroducing its popular express servies from Woodlands, all of whom were removed when the Woodlands extension opened for fear of "dublication".
Both SBS Transit and SMRT announced changes to bus schedules to align them with that of the MRT system, in particular with that of the last train's arrival time. Companies were also more likely to amend bus routings to enhance bus-train connectivity. This has happened particularly when the company operates both the station and the interchange in the same location.
Fare integration was introduced by the efforts of transitlink before multi-modal transport companies were conceived, but that does not stop SBS Transit from introducing a cap fare of S$1.90 for all bus-only journeys, which is in line with the maximum single-trip fare for the MRT.

You may wish to consider what entails an intergrated transport system here, which goes beyond mere physical and fare connectivity. Instead of looking only at Ang Mo Kio, where two companies operate the bus and rail systems, you may consider comparing it with that in another town where a single company runs everything, say Sengkang, which has its MRT, LRT and buses all running together as one.--Huaiwei 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information on Individual Stations

I notice that individual articles of MRT stations on the North-South Line have information on train schedules and now, bus services nearby. Maybe can we discuss on what specific information to be placed in all such articles in order to standardise all information that we present on the Singapore MRT. --Russianroulette2004 07:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Talk%7EMass_Rapid_Transit_%28Singapore%29_edc9.html"

	Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) is part of SGpedians' Resources An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rapid transit on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.