Distance-based throughfare & 2.5% cut in fares from July 3rd

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 01:00

  Originally posted by SMRT 32373238:

  Wow thanks Tamago... I didnt know about that... So I can safely say that transfers for very long distance trips is cheaper than short distance ones which are also cheaper than long distance trips with no transfers at all?

  Where did u get to understand the fare structure anyway? I've been reading up the brohures and they barely tell us anything and so far i seem to be paying more than previously

  
  Singapore be it govt or eduction system got 1 b!00dy problem - lack of use case studies or provide examples.

  Tat's why past few days ppl dun understand DBTF. layman term: take 5km bus, 6km MRT is 11km combi MRT fare. 5km bus A, 7km bus B is 12km combi bus fare.

• ^tamago^

  15 Jul 10, 01:01

  Originally posted by SMRT 32373238:

  Wow thanks Tamago... I didnt know about that... So I can safely say that transfers for very long distance trips is cheaper than short distance ones which are also cheaper than long distance trips with no transfers at all?

  Where did u get to understand the fare structure anyway? I've been reading up the brohures and they barely tell us anything and so far i seem to be paying more than previously

  yes! because there is no such thing as a transfer rebate or penalty now because it is purely distance-based for the whole journey now.

  you can visit their website, but it's either you understand it immediately or you take a bit of experiment to realise how simple the idea is, notwithstanding that you might have to pay more for some of your journey, especially those direct trips :x

• ^tamago^

  15 Jul 10, 01:02

  Originally posted by sbst275:

  
  to add on.

  The fares on 169 or 179, is macham 'top up' to make up to your final fare based on your total travelling distance.

  yup! (:

• service_238

  15 Jul 10, 01:08

  Originally posted by SMRT 32373238:

  Hi guys I have a big query as i think i'm being cheated here...

  SBS Svc 179 (boonlay-NTU) and SMRT Svc 169 (AMK-WDL) are both similar in terms of both being trunk services right?

  If so, why is it that based on the apparent 'distance' fare, it only costs 3cents on 179 to get from pioneer mrt to NTU canteen A after transfer from mrt (which is a heck of a walk of about 6 stops), but it costs 20cents on 169 to get from AMK hub to the busstop opp Mayflower sec after a bus transfer (which is merely 4 stops away and only a 10-15min walk)?

  WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS 600+% EXTRA CHARGE??????

  You need to change your thinking from the fare stage era to the distance fare era

  Cos how much you are charged on the subsequent trips after your first trip depends on how much distance you cover beforehand.

  To get 20c on your S169 ride you may have probably travelled maximum 4.2km on your previous trip. Which means to say u may have come from TechPlace AMK Ave 5, Serangoon Ave 2 or probably Hougang Ave 8, before transferring to 169 to Mayflower Sec. The earlier trip that you travelled up to 4.2km will cost you 81c, then transfer to S169 for a 20c 4 stop ride at 1.7km. This gives a total fare of 101c for a 5.9km journey.

  To get 3c on your S179 ride you are very likely to have taken 166/169 from Mayflower Sec to AMK Int OR 132/165 to AMK MRT, then MRT to Pioneer then 179.

  S132/165/166/169 ride costs you 71c for 1.7km
  MRT ride from AMK to Pioneer cost you 117c for 32.9km
  S179 ride from Pioneer MRT to Canteen A costs you 3c for 3.1km
  Total 37.7km 191c

  If you see the fare chart the total fare is only tabulated based on your FULL journey, and not EACH journey that you take. That is why as long as you transfer, the fare for your transferred journey varies depending on how far you have travelled. That's because the per km fare band the incremental value for shorter distances is higher (at 10c per km jump) than longer distances (at 1c per km jump).

  So dont worry you are not cheated :)

• service_238

  15 Jul 10, 01:10

  Originally posted by ^tamago^:

  as for Sv 169, it's because your prior traveling distance before the transfer to Sv 169 is between 2.6km and 3.2km (which costs 71¢), causing your cumulative distance after the 1.7km ride on Sv 169 to fall into the 91¢ band.

  
  he could have travelled up to the 81c fare band ma.. lol 101c is the last band that has 10c increment

• service_238

  15 Jul 10, 01:16

  Originally posted by SMRT 32373238:

  Wow thanks Tamago... I didnt know about that... So I can safely say that transfers for very long distance trips is cheaper than short distance ones which are also cheaper than long distance trips with no transfers at all?

  Where did u get to understand the fare structure anyway? I've been reading up the brohures and they barely tell us anything and so far i seem to be paying more than previously

  
  To make your money worth, transfer more but keep in mind your transfer count (not more than 5 within a 2 hour period and not more than 45min between each transfer)

  Let's say from Dunearn Rd College Green to Serangoon Rd St Michael's Place, direct bus is 66. If 66 never come how? 170 came, hop it to Little India, wait 1.5min saw 67 and hop on, then Farrer Park there alight wait for 2 traffic lights hop onto a 65. I believe you save time this way than waiting for 66.

  But of course if the 66 comes during the wait then might as well hop onto it. :)

  In a sense there's alot of benefits behind this structure. Problem is that the layman needs a very long while to finally get the idea what the whole system is actually about. That's also the reason why LTA's examples are only that few and they scared if they elaborate more they may confuse the layman instead.

• ^tamago^

  15 Jul 10, 07:52

  Originally posted by service_238:

  
  he could have travelled up to the 81c fare band ma.. lol 101c is the last band that has 10c increment

  lol true. flowery eyes at night haha.

• Rock^Star

  15 Jul 10, 10:48

  Lim Hwee Hua’s fare change justification flawed

  July 15th, 2010 | Author: Contributions

  Let us cross-examined CNA’s quote of fare change justification.

  “Under the new system, about two-thirds of commuters will pay less.
  Those who make single or short trips may lose out. The new calculation method removes the “transfer penalty”, which is the amount commuters pay each time they make transfers during a single journey. The authorities have said the aim is to provide for a fairer way of calculating fares.”

  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1068811/1/.html

  It says only about one-third of the customers pay more since two-thirds are allegedly paying less – was this a train ACCIDENT or was it a planned outcome.

  If it was a planned outcome, why did they as a listed business expended so much effort and how did they planned for a revenue loss for so much efforts expended on discovery how to help the customers save fare. SMRT must be an ardent “charity” organisation to have planned so hard for this outcome which angered commuters – LOSE LOSE OUTCOME FOR CUSTOMERS AND SMRT unless customers are the only ones in the blind.

  But look at this comment – it is PROFUNDITY TO ME at casual read -”Those who make single or short trips may lose out”. The logic is perverse of my comprehension.

  Short trips customers lose out is probably something which SMRT is aware of its intended outcome in this changed fare structure. But “single trips” include BOTH SHORT TRIPS AND LONG TRIPS. That comment is carefully silent on single trips include long trips – it was a void of leaving angry customers to fill in the blank of truth or falsehood of incomplete public declaration.

  So did long trips (single also) lose out as well in tuth known to SMRT? Or they don’t know and yet claims that more 2/3 of the customers pay less??. Given the long trips available on a single track, let say from Sengkang to Harbourfront and Jurong West line – who needs to make a lot of short trips to reach destinations when we can switch at interchange without SMRT knowing?

  The reasonable conclusion available is that LONG TRIPS ALSO PAYS MORE. So how did LHH concludes that two-thirds are paying LESS????? I failed my maths and also failed my kindergarten leaving examination. Please forgive my poverty of intellect and profound stupidity if I am wrong here. Can someone explains the seemingly SELF-CONTRADICTION LOGIC IN CNA’S QUOTE OF

  “Those who make single or short trips may lose out”????

  The logic and the maths don’t add up. My thoughts are that it could be “long trips and short trips all pay more” and the extrapolation is that more than two-thirds of the customers pay a lot more and a few of the remaining pay less.

  The logic of the CNA quote left me to puzzle if the order is muddled up into chaos leaving the truth to be then conveniently “explained otherwise” contrary of factual reality in the momentary confusion of public mind.

  UNLESS OF COURSE, SMRT DECIDED THAT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE FAME “CHEAPER,FASTER AND BETTER” MANTRA. Given the overcrowding and the need to invest in technology upgrade and adding more carriage, SMRT might actually need less money and less fare from its customers to “improve” that service in the cover “long-term” consideration as a public charity???.

  I am still WONDERING in deep silly thoughts.

   

  Jane Doe

  Source: Temasek Review
  

• Rock^Star

  15 Jul 10, 10:53

  I'm also sceptical. 2/3 of commuters save fares? They spent millions to design the system and implement, only to help us save fares......so how do they justify the drop in revenue to the shareholders? Or are other sources of revenue coming up strongly?

  This is so against the past trend of relentless applications to PTC to raise fares.

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 11:58

  Originally posted by Rock^Star:

  I'm also sceptical. 2/3 of commuters save fares? They spent millions to design the system and implement, only to help us save fares......so how do they justify the drop in revenue to the shareholders? Or are other sources of revenue coming up strongly?

  This is so against the past trend of relentless applications to PTC to raise fares.

  
  the whole overhaul in km based fares is because of e long run.

  The old way makes it less incline for me to x-fer as my transfered mode of bus or MRT's fare is retabulated minus 50c rebate/ penalty.

  With more MRT lines (DTL, CCL4/ 5, likely ERL) as well as the growing bus network (due to new town, industrial or new travelling pattern demand), in time to come there's likely going to be more transfer.

  Another attritbute I believe in e pt of operations is better utilisation of especially bus resources. We can't be having direct bus svs to and fro every connection for every town.

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 12:23

  I guess those at S'goon North taking 43, 70, 76 to Paya Lebar should remain taking bus.

  CCL +15c premium + need to jaywalk across to take CCL.

  Waiting for the overhead bridge to be completed in lieu of Nex.

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 12:37

  Owned...

  DBTF calculator dun have 155's return leg inside Macpherson Estate.

  No wonder Transitlink or LTA general staff have no idea abt my feedback.

  here and there chapalang.

  Practically the double calling bus stops are omitted at 2nd call.

• QX179R

  15 Jul 10, 16:56

  the calculator seems to be down for now..

• ^tamago^

  15 Jul 10, 18:21

  Originally posted by QX179R:

  the calculator seems to be down for now..

  it was down last night too for about an hour...

• charlize

  15 Jul 10, 19:46

  Originally posted by QX179R:

  the calculator seems to be down for now..

  People all jamming the calculator because they simply cannot understand the logic behind paying more fares?

   

  So they recalculate and recalculate and recalculate? 

• ^tamago^

  15 Jul 10, 19:53

  Originally posted by charlize:

  People all jamming the calculator because they simply cannot understand the logic behind paying more fares?

   

  So they recalculate and recalculate and recalculate? 

  naise one   

• charlize

  15 Jul 10, 20:08

  Originally posted by ^tamago^:

  naise one   

  I'm not joking.

   

  I am serious.

   

  The calculator has been down a few times already.

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 20:08

  Originally posted by charlize:

  People all jamming the calculator because they simply cannot understand the logic behind paying more fares?

   

  So they recalculate and recalculate and recalculate? 

  
  I think refuse to believe some get fare reduction or where's e x-fer rebate.

  

• Rock^Star

  15 Jul 10, 20:18

  Originally posted by sbst275:

  
  the whole overhaul in km based fares is because of e long run.

  The old way makes it less incline for me to x-fer as my transfered mode of bus or MRT's fare is retabulated minus 50c rebate/ penalty.

  With more MRT lines (DTL, CCL4/ 5, likely ERL) as well as the growing bus network (due to new town, industrial or new travelling pattern demand), in time to come there's likely going to be more transfer.

  Another attritbute I believe in e pt of operations is better utilisation of especially bus resources. We can't be having direct bus svs to and fro every connection for every town.

  Well, let's wait and see if stats indeed prove what u say above correct. Two-thirds will benefit.

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 20:25

  Originally posted by Rock^Star:

  Well, let's wait and see if stats indeed prove what u say above correct. Two-thirds will benefit.

  
  Furthermore senior citizen taking feeder bus to town centre are getting a fare reduction.

  prove? I've alrdy made a stat chart for those going to JB taking 160/ 170, practically many are getting a decent fare reduction. Tat day news complain fare hike, but their overall fares are actually reduced.

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 20:29

  Changi Airport one is screwed.

  24, 34, 36 cannot tabulate beyond T2.

• charlize

  15 Jul 10, 20:30

  Originally posted by sbst275:

  
  I think refuse to believe some get fare reduction or where's e x-fer rebate.

  

  I don't believe in all these calculations.

   

  All I know is that the money value in my ezylink card is dropping faster than normal and I will need to top up more often.

   

  This is the true test of whether I am paying more or less with my regular pattern of usage.

• Rock^Star

  15 Jul 10, 20:30

  i mean if 2/3 is really going to save. yes of course feeder is greatly reduced.

  but i dun understand.....they have shareholders to answer to...what if this new system reduces revenue? And how can they be sure their other sources of revenue will greatly outdo the loss such that they make an overall profit higher than the previous year?

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 20:32

  Originally posted by charlize:

  I don't believe in all these calculations.

   

  All I know is that the money value in my ezylink card is dropping faster than normal and I will need to top up more often.

   

  This is the true test of whether I am paying more or less with my regular pattern of usage.

  
  tat's what you say. got prove?

  Dun believe in e calculations?

  Let me say tis, unless charlize is taking some bus svs I believe you get affected 30 - 40c fare hike (there really is).

• sbst275

  15 Jul 10, 20:34

  Originally posted by Rock^Star:

  i mean if 2/3 is really going to save. yes of course feeder is greatly reduced.

  but i dun understand.....they have shareholders to answer to...what if this new system reduces revenue? And how can they be sure their other sources of revenue will greatly outdo the loss such that they make an overall profit higher than the previous year?

  
  dun forget they're hoping more ppl to take public tpt as well.

  Yes average passenger fare is going to be diluted.

  But seriously w/ higher riders, better reason to push operator to procure more bigger buses.