New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines



Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 105
  1. Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    43,037
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by minicarph View Post
    sa tingen nyo bakit ayaw itaas ang pasahe ng MRT kahit man lang p5


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    somebody honestly believes even a 5 peso fare increase will be detrimental to some of the riders...?
    or... it's politically dis-advantageous..?

  2. Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17,008
    #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Vodka View Post
    take note this isn't a separate line. the premium trains run on the same tracks as ordinary. it's gonna work because the premium trains run at the same speed as the ordinary trains.

    well the resources for the premium train wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for this "evil" plan. without it all we'd have are the same miserable trains we have now

    the point is that it'll enable us to have MORE trains running because that's exactly what we need now, but we can't afford more trains because people aren't willing to pay more. the way i see it it's a deadlock

    but i'm aware that it'll evoke scenes from class struggles in dystopian future movies. but hey it's just a mind fart, something to talk about today
    Like I said, if you want trains that will pay for themselves without any subsidies, you will be charging much, much more. Think hundreds of pesos per trip. Do you think many people will subscribe to that? Those that could afford it would most probably have their own cars or prefer to travel via cab/TNC.

    And imagine the difficulty in the logistics of that. Think Ayala station at 7pm. How do you segregate the riders of your premium train from all the regular riders that have completely filled the platform? Imagine all those people waiting, then a train comes and instead of getting to move several hundred people at that moment, only a few dozen who opted to pay the premium price would get in.

    Compare that with more trains running, arriving every 3 minutes during rush hour, with 4 cars instead of 3 per train. You increase carrying capacity, you increase frequency of trains, you reduce clogging in the platforms/stations, and you move more people more efficiently.

    The problem is not the level of subsidies, the government can always reallocate funds to cover the opex/capex of the MRT. We actually have funds budgeted for the production, delivery, and testing of new trains. The excessive bureaucracy and corruption has made it very difficult to proceed with the procurement of the trains, but we're getting there. Along with more trains, a comprehensive modernization plan for the signaling systems and the station infrastructure has to be laid out - you can only do this if you have a competent and trustworthy long-term contractor, which again for the longest time the MRT hasn't had.

    We don't need to reinvent the wheel - we just need to change the goddamn flat tire.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    50,099
    #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Vodka View Post
    i have another idea. add "premium" MRT trains running on the same tracks. so people have a choice. if you don't wanna pay a lot, wait for the jam packed "ordinary" train. if you wanna pay more, ride the premium train.

    then add as many premium trains as the market allows. the higher fares should make it profitable even as a business
    I've experienced this abroad but only for long distance trains, haven't seen city trains with a first class carriage though.

    I like the idea of a premium MRT train, I'm just not sure how many are willing to pay for a higher fare.

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    10,812
    #34
    premium train idea can work if it is in the same line as business class and first class on a plane. instead of a whole train it can just be 1 cab with more seats, maybe facing forward and capacity should be limited to the number of seats only.

    but yes, there is no need if they just increase the fare. pakonti-konti para di ramdam masyado, like 10% per year for 5 years. but, the powers-that-be are more concerned with winning the next election that is why they do not allow this. millions of votes are at stake here (MM population 13M?, voting population?) that is why the 3 years/term and 3 term limit is bad. dapat siguro 4 years/term and 2 terms lang with no reelection for the same position after para at least sa last term nya gagawa na siya ng tama.
    Last edited by yebo; August 2nd, 2016 at 11:07 AM.

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8,481
    #35
    in switzerland I rode double decker train from Zurich to Lucerene


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  6. Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    50,099
    #36
    Yes it's the same line. The premium carriage is separate lang. I prefer it too because it's not crowded.

    This is how empty the first class carriage was. But this is in a long distance train. I doubt if this will be feasible for a short distance (less than 50 kms)



    Anyway I think the fare increase is long overdue for the MRT

    Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by _Cathy_; August 2nd, 2016 at 02:26 PM.

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,054
    #37
    Quote Originally Posted by jut703 View Post
    Like I said, if you want trains that will pay for themselves without any subsidies, you will be charging much, much more. Think hundreds of pesos per trip. Do you think many people will subscribe to that? Those that could afford it would most probably have their own cars or prefer to travel via cab/TNC.
    Is this really true? Some years ago I remember an MRT rep saying the subsidy was less than 100%. So the actual fare is perhaps around <80 pesos max one way. I for one would take the MRT instead of taking my car in crawling EDSA traffic.

    And imagine the difficulty in the logistics of that. Think Ayala station at 7pm. How do you segregate the riders of your premium train from all the regular riders that have completely filled the platform? Imagine all those people waiting, then a train comes and instead of getting to move several hundred people at that moment, only a few dozen who opted to pay the premium price would get in.

    Compare that with more trains running, arriving every 3 minutes during rush hour, with 4 cars instead of 3 per train. You increase carrying capacity, you increase frequency of trains, you reduce clogging in the platforms/stations, and you move more people more efficiently.
    You can simply put up barriers at the platforms to segregate the premium passengers. You can also put up turnstiles for this purpose. The premium train in this case isn't really a separate train but a couple of cars also connected in front of the regular trains. You could also put a lot more regular cars in one train to accommodate more regular passengers. Most of the traffic in EDSA is caused by private cars. Think of how many would be taken out if a similarly comfortable option were available.

    The problem is not the level of subsidies, the government can always reallocate funds to cover the opex/capex of the MRT. We actually have funds budgeted for the production, delivery, and testing of new trains. The excessive bureaucracy and corruption has made it very difficult to proceed with the procurement of the trains, but we're getting there. Along with more trains, a comprehensive modernization plan for the signaling systems and the station infrastructure has to be laid out - you can only do this if you have a competent and trustworthy long-term contractor, which again for the longest time the MRT hasn't had.
    I think in part it is. With all the money this admin is planning on spending while shaving off revenue, we need every peso we can get. They are quick to issue press releases about spending more money but not much is said about how to increase revenue.

  8. Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17,008
    #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Wh1stl3r2 View Post
    Is this really true? Some years ago I remember an MRT rep saying the subsidy was less than 100%. So the actual fare is perhaps around <80 pesos max one way. I for one would take the MRT instead of taking my car in crawling EDSA traffic.



    You can simply put up barriers at the platforms to segregate the premium passengers. You can also put up turnstiles for this purpose. The premium train in this case isn't really a separate train but a couple of cars also connected in front of the regular trains. You could also put a lot more regular cars in one train to accommodate more regular passengers. Most of the traffic in EDSA is caused by private cars. Think of how many would be taken out if a similarly comfortable option were available.



    I think in part it is. With all the money this admin is planning on spending while shaving off revenue, we need every peso we can get. They are quick to issue press releases about spending more money but not much is said about how to increase revenue.
    I rode the MRT for a decade and saw it deteriorate from its serviceable state in the early/mid 2000s until its hellish condition today. The main reason why it's so inconvenient is because there are far less trains now and far more people riding the MRT.

    Again my question is - instead of adding, say, 20 premium trains, why not add 20 regular trains so more people can ride? The maximum car capacity per station is 4 cars per train. So you have a constraint already in terms of carrying capacity.

    While it's theoretically possible to find an equilibrium point in terms of pricing that will maximize revenues while keeping ridership of one car at a convenient level, it goes against the mandate of a government run service which is to address the needs of the underserved segments of society. The MRT was not made for the convenience of the upper middle class - its purpose is to transport the working class as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible.

    Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    15,525
    #39
    hmmmm.

    the structure is there. why not build from it. removing the tracks and replacing it with an alternative mean would be more costly.

    sa akin, get faster, better trains...(if i say fast, get trains that run at least 60 kph - not 30 kph). the one that leaves and arrives every 5 minutes. improve the MRT/LRT structure (better elevators, better escalators), then expand. and maintain it properly. get a reputable maintenance provider with excellent track record. if it is running smoothly, remove unnecessary vehicles (buses, UVs) from the road and encourage everyone to ride the trains.

    private sector should have that incentive if you are leaving the car at home and taking the train. or instead of giving an incentive, make car ownership more expensive. this is how it works in singapore and in HK. better public transportation, highest cost of vehicle ownership, high cost of fuel.

    kung comfortable and efficient na ang public transpo, there is no sense taking your car with you kung mahal ang costs.

    di naman masama mangarap diba?

  10. Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17,008
    #40
    Quote Originally Posted by 1D4LV View Post

    sa akin, get faster, better trains...(if i say fast, get trains that run at least 60 kph - not 30 kph). the one that leaves and arrives every 5 minutes.
    When I used to ride the MRT back in high school, this was the case - the trains ran at 60-65 kph, and intervals were within 5 minutes.

    Unfortunately the trains were not maintained properly by Sumitomo/MRTC and little by little the rolling stock diminished and the signaling systems broke down, resulting in the overloaded, ill-maintained trains we have now.

    That said, the fact that it was done before means that it's possible to get it working at that level again, perhaps even better.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Suggestion, an idea to solve the MRT train problem and congest EDSA