The best interchange stations were at City Hall and Raffles Place. It was possible to change from one line to another on the same level. This was possible as the two lines were developed at the same time.
The worst interchange stations were at Outram Park and Dhoby Ghaut. The commuter has to walk a long distance to change from one line to another. Similarly, the walking distance between the two lines at Bishan is quite far. When a new line is built at a later time, after an existing line is operational, it is necessary to build the station at a distance from the existing station, due to safety and engineering reasons.
But there is another approach that allows the interchange stations to be build close together to reduce the walking time. In developing the new station, it is possible to build a new platform for the existing line, and to divert the existing line to use the new platform at a later date. I hope that the engineers consider this possiblity, so that the walking distance is reduced.
Tan Kin Lian
Hi Mr Tan, this is one area where I disagree with you. I am not an engineer, but as I understand it, there are many constraints where placement of the platforms are concerned. In a lot of cases, these are probably determined by subterranean structures like building foundations. Also, the angle at which the lines approaches the station has to be considered.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that our transportation system has some way to go before it can be considered world-class, I think the walking distances at interchange stations is acceptable, since they are fully protected from the elements.
Hi pinto
ReplyDeleteI teach people to be positive and to see where the options that are possible, rather than impossible.
I am sure that in some cases, it is not possible for my approach to be implemented (as you have pointed out). But I do believe that there must be other occasions where my approach is possible.
I am not asking for my approach to be used in all cases - but only in those areas where it can be done.
Be positive. See what can be done, rather than what cannot be done.
Rex comments as follows,
ReplyDeleteIn politics, i think it is true that in the current environment there is too much negative energy and every policy the govt does cannot even be challenged (the media will kill it from the start before the minsiter even does that). Monkey see monkey do, we are not encouraged to be liberal in crticising constructively anything formulated by the govt.
In field of Engineering, however, i think the engineers already tried their best in Outram Park and Dhoby Ghaut. These are historically very old places, very tight spaces. There are lots of sewers, com cables, water pipes everywhere, as well as building foundations. I have to trust the engineers that they tried all sorts of ways already within the constraints of a reasonable budget too.
But i don't trust the politicians in Singapore. A lot more things can be done, if only frogs have ears.
rex
Dear Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteI am also teaching my children (including myself) to be positive.
Let it NOT be all or nothing.
Work on the things that can be done first and eventually all these little little things that can be done will accumulate.
Thank you.
Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteNice to hear your view on being positive.
I try to learn it.
However, most people will tell you it is impossible to plan for good MRT stations layout, being negative in that sense.
Have a nice day.
-OTB-
Hi Rex
ReplyDeleteMy proposal is to build two platforms at the new interchange station and to divert the first line to use the new platform when the second line is operational.
I think that the engineering and soil condition is not the constraint. Perhaps it is the cost or the existing shops that need to be relocated.
But I am not sure if this idea had been considered at all. So, I just bring it up for discussion.
Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteIt is a good consideration on your part. I agree to some extent that planning could be taking into account future expansion plans. However, this is subject to cost-benefit analysis - there are times when development plans and reality may not be in sync due to soil conditions or usage considerations.
In Singapore, the distance at Dhoby Ghaut and Outram Park is considered to be very little compared to key interchanges in London (i.e. Bank Tube Station) where one can walk at least twice that distance and not have the benefit of having escalators. Another example is the New York Metro (i.e. Grand Central Station) where it's another interchange which involves a lot of walking. Having said that, it's a good point since we are a young city with a young mrt line, we can pre-plan for this.
Kin Lian,
ReplyDeleteIf it to far to walk then be positive because this give you the opportunity to exercise.
I do have plenty of other opportunities to walk, e.g to the bus stop, from the bus stop to the MRT station and similarly at the destination.
ReplyDeleteDesigning a long walkway between platforms at an MRT interchange is a bad idea. It adds to the travelling time. It is best for this ineffiency to be eliminated, if possible.
If not, we can certainly live with it. I am just sugggesting that there is an alternative approach in the design of future interchange stations.
I am sure such considerations have been made. In the upcoming downtown line, there is a possibility the interchange at Promenade and Bayfront would be similar to that at City Hall and Raffles Place. Just a speculation though...
ReplyDeleteI am glad my workplace is near Raffles Place MRT station. They should install more travelators (espcially in town area) for the ease and convenience for all passengers. I avoid Dhoby Ghaut and Outram Park at all cost. I hope the Circle Line can do a better job.
ReplyDeleteThe NEL and CCL transfer at Serangoon station is also very long, I believe is 75 meters. There's a travellator in the transfer walkway.
ReplyDeleteThe poor guys who take the NEL train to transfer to the last CCL train often have to run like crazy.
Yes, the walk at Outram station for transferring lines is quite long. But luckily it is air-con and so not a big issue.
ReplyDeleteWhy not build the new platform even deeper into the ground? Underground stations are better in terms of utilising space in a small island.
To be fair, City Hall and Raffles Place interchanges were planned and built in a single project by a single MRT line operator.
ReplyDeleteAt Dhoby Ghaut, conversion from station to interchange came much later and involved 2 operators. To have a have merged interchange as in City Hall or Raffles Place, I'd estimate that Dhoby Ghaut would have to be closed for at least a year. That's unacceptable to SMRT as well as to public, since it's bottleneck and throat to the NS Line. The entire line divided into 2 for more than a year?
Same for Bishan interchange. It was just a station before the Circle Line station added to it. It didn't close a single day for the contruction to merge it into an interchange. To have to merged as a single platform interchange, it'd also have to be closed down at least a year. The cost of reconstruction and retracking would also have been great and passed on as fare hikes.
Actually distance-wise for Outram Park and Dhoby Ghaut is not that far. I guess it's the messy flow of commuters walking all over the corridor that adds up to the fustration of most people. There should be a physical barrier to segregate to and fro human traffic to ensure a smoother walk in both interchanges.
ReplyDeleteHi Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteI think you might have overlooked something in your suggestion. What about the original MRT entrances?
Shifting the tunnel such that the two platforms are at the same location, still results in a long pedestrian walk-time to get to their desired exit.
Granted, your method will certainly improve passenger transfer timings, but at a really high cost and greater delay, something which LTA wouldn't ever think of doing. :(
Re[ly to 7:41 am
ReplyDeleteThe pedestrians will use the new exits at the new train station. The old exits will be closed. People will have to adjust to the change. Event he shops will have to relocate to the new station.