Talk:Light Rail Transit (Singapore)

Improvements to page

We really need a real major cleanup and improve this page. There should be locators like at MRT stations and photos for every station. A map is also needed and a lot of information is needed here. We need lots of work here. :P

We have to do something about this article and it needs urgent cleanup. The least we can do is do some summary to the page first. This article is of poor standards. This is not good at all. We need to do a major cleanup, for it to gain better status. Photos are very urgent here. Please take a look and comment whether this article should be the COTW.

The Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article is a long page, whereas this one is of low standards and needs a cleanup. This article is a mess. if I can put it. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 08:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to sub-pages

I notice some sub-pages, like those of the Depots, are rather short. I suggest that we either improve on these sub-pages, or incorporate them into this page. Also, Punggol LRT Line seems rather outdated. --fauzi 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We need lots of research to this article. We should improve the sub-pages and summarise the information. Try to take ideas from our MRT article. Also when updating, you may also like to edit it here. --Terence Ong ^Talk 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done!

Our inaugural COTF has been very successful and there'a very big difference from what it was before to what it is now. See difference [1]. However, there are still many tasks to improve this article. --Terence Ong 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AMK, Orchard, Marina South, Tampines, Toa Payoh Lines.????

User:Ragnaroknike insisted that the text I reverted is verifiable. He took it from a book, Resource Atlas for Social Studies which he purposely scan it and create an uploaded on Wikipedia. The image can be found here. It is unacceptable to scan pictures from a book which is definitely a copyvio.

This text has been reverted several times by three users: NSLE, Kenneth88 and myself.

LTA had once proposed building LRT lines at Orchard Road and Marina South. Orbital LRT lines at Bedok and Tampines linking Serangoon - Bishan - Buona Vista and Houngang - Ang Mo Kio - Toa Payoh are under study.

I never recalled the Land Transport Authority saying this. This was a specteculation by the book and the future orbital LRT Lines are unverifiable as LTA has never mentioned it. This is definitely crystall-ballism which is not allowed. We are an encyclopedia not some "what will happen in the future" website. --Terence Ong 04:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How long have you been tracking statements by the LTA, or by the URA? Plans to build a rail line along Orchard Road and Marina South are for real (the Orchard Rd plan was pretty recent, in fact, while the Marina South one was at least a decade old), and the orbital line actually refers to the current circle line under construction, albeit it is refering to a much earlier plan which envisaged a network of LRT lines instead of the current plan employing a combination of both. There are indeed LRT lines planned for the East as well as Northeast regions. A book as old as "The Next Lap" already details these early plans.--Huaiwei 11:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, the comment was made in April. Please note the time difference its almost five months since you made this comment, check dates for goodness sake. The Circle Line (Marina South) was always tagged as a MRT line, not a LRT line. But the problem is there is no sources for this. Show me the sources for the Orchard one then? Proof it? No source, no proof. Don't use your wild imagination, does the papers ever carry such information. The answer is no. Ok, then do source it then, if you have the time to do so. Aren't the lines part of the MRT? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool down please :D. Huaiwei was just asking how confident you were about "never recalled the Land Transport Authority saying this", and whether you would be familiar with earlier plans, say 10 years ago. I do remember LRT proposals for Dover (NUS students would remember this) and Marina South. This again serves as reminder of how old I am, :P --Vsion 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah I even have a newspaper cutting of the proposed LRT system in Buona Vista. Anyway, the system isnt entirely thrown out of the window...there are still plans for a PMS system with links to NUS if the one-north concept plan is to be implimented in full [2] (click on transport map).--Huaiwei 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should five months make a difference here, when plans for those rail lines in question date several years back, sometimes even several decades? Pick up "The Next Lap", a book published in 1991 (which I was compelled to buy as a student by my school), which shows a Concept Plan with LRT lines snaking through the Eastern areas of Hougang, Aljunied, Marine Parade, Tampines, Pasir Ris. Sengkang, Punggol, and Seletar. The routings mirror part of the current Circle Line, as well as the planned Northshore Line. Since decades ago, there has been much talk on a "downtown LRT system", linking up the New Downtown with the rest of the city, and various routing proposals could be seen many decades earlier. Refer to past Singapore Master Plans and Concept Plans for this. The current Concept Plan of 2001 [3] clearly shows plans to build an MRT/LRT line along Orchard Road, as well as along the Scotts Road/Paterson Road corridor. It also clearly shows the entire range of proposed LRT lines in all the areas listed in the original book above. Just because plans were changed to accomodate a new Circle line dosent mean the non-existance of previous plans which include LRT lines, so quit assuming "wild imaginations" are at play here. Your ignorance is no excuse to berate others who happen to "know better".--Huaiwei 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Show the cutting then, scan it, I want proof. Oh, trying to find fault with me, is it? Then go and cite it, why discuss it? Arguing will not benefit at all, then you go and do it since you are the smart one. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which "cutting" are you referring to, my friend?--Huaiwei 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper cutting you were talking about. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When I talked about that cutting I was referring to the Buona Vista system, which has nothing to do with whatever User:Ragnaroknike tried to add. Furthermore, I was conversing with Vision with regards to that cutting, and not with you. I suppose you consider it gracious to demand for a cutting you do not deserve, but no, I am not going to scan a copyrighted article just to put a check on your run-away gap.--Huaiwei 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a private conversation, go and talk among yourselves on email and on Windows Live. Do consider that this is a wiki, anyone can edit, so don't think it is between you and Vsion. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Images for stations

I think we need more images for the stations, even if they are not opened, such as Soo Teck LRT Station. -User:Ragnaroknike

Please don't expect me to go to a remote place to take some stations pics. I don't live in the North-East, so I can't do it. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 12:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ridership and cost

Are there any figures for LRT ridership and the operator's cost per passenger compared to buses? LTA's decision would seem to indicate that the LRTs are a failure from this point of view. Jpatokal 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Failure" seems too strong a word to be applied to all three LRT systems. At least in Sengkang, it seems to be doing well. The problem is the high capital costs invovled in introducing it to existing towns were there has never been a provision made for LRT systems, and the resulting backlash it can create should the public complain that it does not offer them doorstep service the way buses do (which LRTs in their current configurations can never do).--Huaiwei 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NS logo.jpg

Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct name?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to surf the internet for what our "LRT" means exactly. It seems the only 2 unabbreviated sources i could find states "Light Rail Transit" not "Light Rapid Transit". SMRT Trains LTA Public Transport Overview Anyone else can confirm this? If yes I'd like to move the article (including all related ones) to it's correct name. - oahiyeel ^talk 09:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems the official name is Light Rail Transit. The Ministry of Transport website states it as Light Rail Transit, so does a number of Singapore-government related websites, as does the initial company SLRT Pte Ltd (Singapore Light Rail Transit) set up to run the first LRT system in Singapore. I'm renaming it to Light Rail Transit (Singapore) now. - oahiyeel ^talk 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to place a partial list of sources here for reasons why I have moved the LRT specific pages to Light Rail Transit:

1. http://www.mot.gov.sg/landtransport/publictransport.htm
2. http://app.mot.gov.sg/data/s_03_09_2.html
3. http://www.lta.gov.sg/public_transport/pt_overview.htm
4. http://www.lta.gov.sg/corp_info/corp_public_trans.htm
5. https://app.mti.gov.sg/data/article/1962/doc/ESS_2005Ann_Ch12.pdf
6. http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr99-08.html
7. http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr96-34.html
8. http://www.ura.gov.sg/ar/2002/ar02-34.pdf
9. http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains/trains.asp
10. http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/press/2007-07-27-02-S.aspx
11. http://www.comfortdelgro.com.sg/files/fin/statement/attachment/42.pdf
12. http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/MOT_EE2007.pdf
13. http://www.mfa.gov.sg/london/issue22003.pdf
14. http://www.stee.stengg.com/lsg-grp/capabilities/pdf/transport/rail/SengkangPunggol_LRT_Eng.pdf
15. http://www.stengg.com/AR2003/6_innovation.htm
16. http://www.stee.stengg.com/2005/newsrm/2004/prt-08-01.htm
17. http://tt.ecitizen.gov.sg/pages/public_transport_overview.htm
18. http://www.nccc.gov.sg/Newsroom/speeches_5.shtm

 - oahiyeel ^talk 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has actually worked in the public sector will know which sources are typically far more realiable. Websites, press releases, and even speeches are not as reliable as physical publications, because while the later typically goes through far more checks and counter checks by people in the know (since they are typical self-publications), people pay far less attention to online publications. Speeches, while also checked time and again, may not always go through the people in the know on technical details...with an almost hit-or-miss pattern. In this case, I would consider the Land Transport Masterplan [4] published by the Land Transport Authority in 2008 as the most realiable. And to demonstrate just how unrealiably inconsistent online sources can be, here is a list from government sources which write "Light Rapid Transit":

• http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/article/352/doc/ESS_1999Ann_Ch12.pdf
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/public_transport/index_pt_rail.htm
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/public_transport/pt_rail_lrt.htm
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/public_transport/public_maps_rail.htm
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/index_proj_maprail.htm
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/notice/tenders_notice_may_1282.htm
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/images/Appendix%201_LTEA%20Winners.pdf
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/corp_info/doc/Fare%20Review%20Mechanism,%20Feb%202005.pdf
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/dbc/doc/rdh/Requirements/RDHDataCollectionSpecificationV1.6%20Part2.pdf
• http://www.lta.gov.sg/dbc/doc/rdh/Requirements/RDHDataCollectionSpecificationV1.4Part2.pdf
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=294
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=1903
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=824
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=1124
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=856
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=350
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=587
• http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltmp/pdf/LTMP_Report.pdf
• http://www.mot.gov.sg/landtransport/milestones.htm
• http://app.mot.gov.sg/data/PRESS%20RELEASE-31%20AUG%202002.htm
• http://app.mot.gov.sg/data/p_05_01_15Addendum.htm
• http://app.mot.gov.sg/data/p_03_06_06.htm
• http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2005/expenditure_estimates/attachment/MOT_EE2005.pdf
• http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/MOT_EE2007.pdf
• http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2005/expenditure_estimates/attachment/Explanatory_Notes_EE2005.pdf
• http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2006/expenditure_estimates/attachment/MOT_EE2006.pdf
• http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=33
• http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/revenue_expenditure/attachment/MOT_EE2008.pdf
• http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20080318986.htm
• http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10221p.nsf/Attachment/AR2000/$file/P48-61HDB.pdf
• http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10297p.nsf/ImageViewGen/HDB_COMMERCIAL_LAND_JWP_ACOTJWP3(27/$file/hdb_commercial_land_jwp_ACOTJWP3(27.12.04).pdf
• http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10297p.nsf/ImageViewGen/HDB_COMMERCIAL_LAND_JWP_COTJWP3(27/$file/hdb_commercial_land_jwp_COTJWP3(27.12.04).pdf
• http://www.ura.gov.sg/ppd/mp2003/download/northeast/transportplan.pdf
• http://www.ura.gov.sg/dgp_reports/choachuk/pp-trans.html
• http://www.ura.gov.sg/dgp_reports/sengkang/pp-trans.html
• http://www.ptc.gov.sg/statistics_chrono.asp
• http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,1991,
• http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,9058,
• http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_538_2005-01-05.html
• http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_248_2005-01-20.html
• http://www.scdf.gov.sg/downloads/FS_Publication/SFSRTS_2005_Edition_Rev21092005.pdf
• http://app.stb.gov.sg/asp/common/print.asp?id=6183&type=2
• http://www.mnd.gov.sg/Handbook/MND_Handbook.pdf
• http://www.singaporeedu.gov.sg/cn/doc/res/Studying%20&%20Living%20Orientation.pdf
• http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/article/352/doc/ESS_1999Ann_Full%20Report.pdf
• http://app-stg.mti.gov.sg/data/article/352/doc/EDA_1999Q4_Report.pdf

And may I also note that the NLB's infopedia article on the LRT says it means "Light Rapid Transit" [5].--Huaiwei (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Two reminders has been recorded in User_talk:Oahiyeel#Light_Rapid_Transit to address the issue at hand, with no response thus far. If there are no objections in the next seven days, the rename exercise will be reverted as per reasons stated above.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away for examinations, due to end next week. I have a few points to make:

1. My mistake. Insufficient investigations have been put in prior to the renaming, thus I had been bold and started the renaming. I must apologize for it.
2. As proven by the posts above, the sources simply contradicts each other; i.e. even sources from the Singapore Government agencies are inconsistent with the naming. As such even publications from them do not 100% indicate the correct names.
3. As in the case from the masterplan, it is only briefly mentioned once, and as such is also insufficient to conclude its actual name.
4. In the case from Infopedia, you may wish to note in the reference section: "Green light for Light Rail system (1994, December 4). The Straits Times, p. 1." and "SMRT. (n.d.). About us: Introduction to SMRT Light Rail Pte Ltd."
5. The name "Light Rail Transit" may not be correct, but it does not imply that "Light Rapid Transit" is correct either.
6. As such I would like to put forth the strongest argument for the name "Light Rail Transit". When the MRT network was launched, (then) "Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Pte Ltd" was formed. Similarly when the first LRT, BPLRT was completed, (then) "Singapore Light Rail Transit Pte Ltd" (now SMRT Light Rail) was formed. This is the strongest indication yet of the correct name of the system. The company name is registered and cannot be disputed.
7. Also, the LRT system in Singapore is not a rapid system by any means; it is actually an automated people mover. This is a weak argument, since there are non-rapid systems in the world that has "rapid" in it's name, but I thought is worth mentioning.
8. Apart from only 2 of us discussing the "correct" name for this article, I'd like to seek opinions from other editors who are usually actively involved in editing Singapore rail related articles.
9. If at the end of the discussions, no consensus can be reached, I'd recommend keeping the current title to minimize disruption to the readers and users of Wikipedia.

 - oahiyeel ^talk 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies.

1. There is no real issue with being bold per-se, but it can become an issue when you are talking about a drastic change of this magnitute. Even if no one answers your queries in this talkpage (which is quite understandable because it is tucked in a secluded low-traffic area), I would think it best to post an inquiry in the Sg noticeboard for example.
2. You appear not to understand what I have writtern above. I have stated that physical publications, eg books and annual reports, are far more reliable sources compared to corporate websites, for instance. Speeches would fall somewhere in between, but much closer to the reliability of physical publications. I state this based on experience in actually working in the civil service and handling publication work, unless you have experience to show an opposing view. Otherwise, do not assume they are of equal reliability. I believe the long list of examples above clearly demonstrate this unrealiability, be it corporate websites, press releases, or even speeches.
3. Kindly note where this term appeared in the actual publication. It was in the Abbreviations section, which appeared prominently just after the minister's forward and the chairman's message. An entry of this level of prominence cannot be dismissed, even if it appears only once.
4. You may also note that NLB has chosen to ignore both mistakes when choosing to name its article as such.
5. Unless there is evidence to show that the LTA has made a mistake in its own recent publication, I would not consider this a valid point for consideration.
6. The names of corporatations tasked to operate the lines have absolutely no bearing on how the government authority chooses to call its rail system. If this was so, we would be renaming the system each time the companies change their names, which clearly did not occur. This can hardly be considered a strong point, when both SMRT[6] and SBS Transit[7] has refered to the LRT system as "light rapid transit", in particular the former which goes: "SMRT Light Rail Pte Ltd was set up in 1997 and operates Singapore's first fully automated light rapid transit (LRT) system - the Bukit Panjang LRT system." Care to see the distinct difference now?
7. Can you define for us what a "light rapid" system is, and how it is distinguished from a "light rail" system?
8. I would strongly recommend that all names be restored to their original names immediately, before waiting for community input, for this should have been done properly in the first place. Why should a restoration be discouraged to avoid a "disruption" to readers, when the same user has found it apt to do similarly "disruptive" edits without conducting proper research himself? And why should this current version be kept should there be no concensus, when this version fails to meet any guideline in keeping its current form, and where there is an impasse situation with regards to common usage, it is still usage by official sources which will take precedence, which is the Land Transport Masterplan [8] published by the Land Transport Authority in 2008?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if no input is recorded in the next seven days, the above changes will be reverted.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely at the arguments you present, they also suffer from the reliability issue that you mentioned earlier; eg. point 4,6. Point 4 is a clear case of biased interpretation. What makes those to be judge as mistakes? Wouldn't a counter argument such as NLB made the mistake hold as little water as this argument? Especially since internet publications suffer from reliability issues. Point 5: It is for you to prove that LTA publications is reliable, not the other way round for people to prove otherwise; in this case, the different name used on different publications from LTA slants it away from being a good reliable source for this particular naming issue. (It remains reliable and valid for all other contents such as future plans etc.). Point 7: They are all over the web. You can research and read up on them if you are interested to do so. Point 8: Please assume good faith. This user had not found it apt to do disruptive edits; but made changes to reflect the correct name (in previous context). Also if you wish to make the massive reverts (quote:)"before waiting for community input" go ahead. You may wish to look at the comment I left on your talkpage. I've said all there is to this issue - you won't find me further involved in this discussion, since I expect no compromising/satisfactory outcome to this. - oahiyeel ^talk 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I walked into the National Library a few days ago, picked up a book called "The Journey - Singapore's Land Transport Story" published by the Land Transport Authority in 2005, ISBN 981248101X [9], flipped to the Acronyms page, and found that the entry "LRT" is paired by the entry "Light Rapid Transit". I flipped to the index, looked up "LRT", and found that all references to it correspond to "Light Rapid Transit". With two major and recent publications by the Land Transport Authority consistently using the phrase "Light Rapid Transit", I do not think it neccesary to debate on "biased interpretations" and "reliability issues", seemingly the only primary arguments Oahiyeel could use to keep this preferred version. I will give him 20 more minutes to return with a better response to support an overturning of WP:V, failing which the reversion will take effect, especially considering he has indicated his unwillingness to discuss this matter further despite being given an additional week to return with a better response[10].--Huaiwei (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive of discussions

As oahiyeel has recently attempted to censor all past comments on this issue in his talkpages by labelling it an "eyesore"[11], I provide a link here for ease of reference[12]. Refer specifically to the section headlined "Light Rapid Transit"--Huaiwei (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, also, a rather interesting comment in the edit history as recorded here[13].--Huaiwei (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's an interesting comment, but it states the truth. - oahiyeel ^talk 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Including the names

I don't have a strong opinion on whether Rail or Rapid is "more" correct, but it's obvious that both terms are consistently used even by very authoritative sources (LTA, MOF, URA, etc), so the article body should definitely mention the other — and now it does. Jpatokal (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light Rail Transit (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022195642/http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=8a70fc51-fd2a-4793-ac12-700db7586496 to http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=8a70fc51-fd2a-4793-ac12-700db7586496

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)