Trading in MRT

[contaxable]

Haha. I rest my case. My stand stays. For me, that rule is stupid (especially considering that SMRT makes millions in profits year in and year out). Of course, you can disagree as much as you like, for whatever reason you think is "right".

:Later,

i think the fear from smrt is when people cheat fares by abusing with a-b-a or a-b-a(+- afew stops).

so next time, just meet outside the station is best. otherwise, they should errect electric fense as a deterrant and treat them as animals.

 

[jacob]

felt like i'm in the court room.............

 

[vince123123]

Let me expand a little on this "trick" that people use, into a form which is completely legal and which MRT and LTA cannot question or deride under the existing legal position:

Person A, travels from Station 1 to 10.

Person B, travels from Station 10 to 3

They arrange to meet IN THE PAID AREA of Station 5, to pass the item. Once passing of item is over, A goes on to 10, and B goes on to 3.

This will not run afoul of Regulation 31 since there is no transfer from a paid to unpaid area (or vice versa), and SMRT cannot ask them to pay extra because both remained within the paid area.

Nice isn't it?

Just to be clear -- in case somebody misreads your post -- I have never done and will never do an A -> B -> A route. That will be silly on my end to do that.

My transactions/dealings have always been A -> B -> C (i.e. City Hall -> Paya Lebar -> Tampines). Being forced to exit station B in order to comply with *that* rule is for me, stupid.

:Later,

 

[vince123123]

If you feel so strongly, please do write to MRT to tell them to change the system. I seriously doubt they will change the system for you or that you have sent them a revelation they never thought about.

The reason the company chose to adopt this particular method of calculating fare gates is after a cost benefit analysis - cost of the new system, vs the benefit of the lost fares. They then implemeented the current system.

Hence, sorry to say, they have already factored the people going from A to B to C, as well as those going from A to B to A in their pricing structure.

I'm not sure why you keep saying what the company must care about, when it is clear they have considered the various permutations and implemented what they feel is the best cost-benefit solution.

Hence, whatever your own personal stand of how travel should be calculated, that remains your own. Do not impute that to what the "COMPANY" must care about, because, they have considered and decided to absorb it - evident from the current fare structure.

then what was the point of getting so worked up? what i said was:

But even here, whether it's an unreasonable charge is questionable: You voluntarily terminated your ride. However I don't think most transactions would fall in to this "mid point" case in the first place. Pray tell me, what's the point of "over the gate" transactions in cases like this?​

Anyway, even in "mid point" case, I don't think you have a very solid stand. Whether one takes "only few minutes" or not is not what matters. What matters is whether your termination of the travel was voluntary. You can't say you didn't terminate the travel just because you "took only few minutes" or you have other "future plans in mind". What your ultimate destination at the end of the day isn't what a company must care about.

Having said that, I was talking on the clear case of A -> B -> A in particular, if you cared enough to read.

 

[estel]

If you feel so strongly, please do write to MRT to tell them to change the system. I seriously doubt they will change the system for you or that you have sent them a revelation they never thought about.

The reason the company chose to adopt this particular method of calculating fare gates is after a cost benefit analysis - cost of the new system, vs the benefit of the lost fares. They then implemeented the current system.

I was not advocating for harsher rules. Neither do i want to educate a company whose regulations anyway show that they are aware of possible ways of payment evasion. In case this wasn't clear, I was questioning the criticism on these added regulations. I do not know if you did not read my posts which said that the charge at gate system would have been implemented that way because it was convenient and cheaper to do so. I also said that a more complex system would possibly cost more to commuters. Are you saying something new when you say "cost benefit analysis"?

 

[Pinoy]

Nice isn't it?

It is, Chief! :thumbsup:

:Later,

 

[shojibake]

i smell troll

 

[estel]

If you feel so strongly, please do write to MRT to tell them to change the system. I seriously doubt they will change the system for you or that you have sent them a revelation they never thought about.

If I decided to take cheap shots like this, I'd have said "those who think the regulations are stupid please do write to MRT to tell them to change the system. I seriously doubt they will change the system for you or that you have sent them a revelation they never thought about."

But I wouldn't, despite the fact that it was not I who had the problem with the regulation hence it was not I who needs to protest SMRT.

 

[vince123123]

I'll say one more time.

1. SMRT does not make the Regulations I quoted, LTA and the Minister does.

2. Since they are aware and they choose it to be this way, hence they have made that decision already. I'm not sure why we are still trying to "think for the company" or trying to be in the company's shoes and trying to advocate that half-trips must be charged. The company already decided it would not.

I was not advocating for harsher rules. Neither do i want to educate a company whose regulations anyway show that they are aware of possible ways of payment evasion. In case this wasn't clear, I was questioning the criticism on these added regulations. I do not know if you did not read my posts which said that the charge at gate system would have been implemented that way because it was convenient and cheaper to do so. I also said that a more complex system would possibly cost more to commuters. Are you saying something new when you say "cost benefit analysis"?

 

[vince123123]

Heheh, thank you very much Hope it is useful to the rest too!

It is, Chief! :thumbsup:

:Later,

 

[vince123123]

I'll treat this as another of your many posts which are not directed at me even though you quote me in your post, because I didn't express any view on whether the Regulation is stupid or not.

And, MRT has no say over what the Regulations are, so writing to them is a wrong move :devil:

If I decided to take cheap shots like this, I'd have said "those who think the regulations are stupid please do write to MRT to tell them to change the system. I seriously doubt they will change the system for you or that you have sent them a revelation they never thought about."

But I wouldn't, despite the fact that it was not I who had the problem with the regulation hence it was not I who needs to protest SMRT.

 

[estel]

I'll treat this as another of your many posts which are not directed at me even though you quote me in your post, because I didn't express any view on whether the Regulation is stupid or not.

And, MRT has no say over what the Regulations are, so writing to them is a wrong move :devil:

I quote the post I wanted to show. It was you whop said "if you feel so strongly ... " and I quoted it. I wanted to show how I could phrase the same pointless argument my way if I wanted to hence the quoting.

Anyway I don't think continuing on this line is productive. I rest my case.

 

[estel]

I'll say one more time.
2. Since they are aware and they choose it to be this way, hence they have made that decision already. I'm not sure why we are still trying to "think for the company" or trying to be in the company's shoes and trying to advocate that half-trips must be charged. The company already decided it would not.

I'm not advocating half trips must be charged. I'm questioning those who think that the existing system is unfair. Is the difference clear?

 

[chikubang]

I still dun understand the stir-ups here regarding trading over the gates.

If I am not wrong, when you enter and leave the same station within a certain period of time, you are charged 70cents. (I havent even boarded the train, mind you! because stomach pain need to go toilet.) Do you know that they can charge you for a considerable amount of fares from doing this: A-->B-->A. You may check the fares if you need to.

Personally, I dun see the need to go out of stations because some transactions only take a few minutes and I find it absolutely redundant to go out just to do a few minutes of transaction.

If you choose to be the ethnically correct, there are many other important things for you to care about than this meagre case.

 

[chikubang]

If you choose to be the ethnically correct, there are many other important things for you to care about than this meagre case.

No offense though.

 

[vince123123]

Hahah, okay lor, then rest it (as you said the previous time), why keep bringing it back up?

I quote the post I wanted to show. It was you whop said "if you feel so strongly ... " and I quoted it. I wanted to show how I could phrase the same pointless argument my way if I wanted to hence the quoting.

Anyway I don't think continuing on this line is productive. I rest my case.

 

[vince123123]

Nope, because the existing system being perceived as unfair has nothing to do with SMRT, but LTA and the Minister who makes the laws.

Hence, it has nothing to do with needing to pay on a "per exit from the train" basis. It is just illegal, period.

Differentiate between the commercial entity and the legislative entity please.

I'm not advocating half trips must be charged. I'm questioning those who think that the existing system is unfair. Is the difference clear?

 

[vince123123]

Yes you are absolutely correct. SMRT has already factored in the whole idea of a round trip entering and existing from the same station, into their business model.

Trading over fare gates is a legislative rule, which is separate from how SMRT prices its fares.

It has a whole lot of other (policy) implications other than fares - such as passing items at areas not monitored by cameras and the like. This rule has nothing to do with helping SMRT recover costs.

I still dun understand the stir-ups here regarding trading over the gates.

If I am not wrong, when you enter and leave the same station within a certain period of time, you are charged 70cents. (I havent even boarded the train, mind you! because stomach pain need to go toilet.) Do you know that they can charge you for a considerable amount of fares from doing this: A-->B-->A. You may check the fares if you need to.

Personally, I dun see the need to go out of stations because some transactions only take a few minutes and I find it absolutely redundant to go out just to do a few minutes of transaction.

If you choose to be the ethnically correct, there are many other important things for you to care about than this meagre case.

 

[Pinoy]

when you enter and leave the same station within a certain period of time, you are charged 70cents. (I havent even boarded the train, mind you! because stomach pain need to go toilet.)

Ey! If this happens, just approach the staff at the control station and tell them you need to go to the toilet and they'll open up the gate for you (out and back in).

:Later,

 

[estel]

Person A, travels from Station 1 to 10.

Person B, travels from Station 10 to 3

They arrange to meet IN THE PAID AREA of Station 5, to pass the item. Once passing of item is over, A goes on to 10, and B goes on to 3.

as a matter of fact, there is another possibility.

A needs to travel from 1 to 4.
B needs to travel from 10 to 6.

Both travel to 5, exchange, and travel BACK to their respective stations
conforms to all existing regulations.

Again, vince, I don't want to "write to MRT" about this. I think they know of this too.