A Remark on Jurong East, and MRT Station Designs
Being a west-sider in Singapore, I have visited Jurong East countless times. I grew up with Jurong Entertainment Centre, then with JCube, which both have since been demolished (is the lot cursed?) to make way for the J'den condo (a very cursed name). I loved visiting IMM, Big Box had a special place in my heart, and Westgate and JEM are reliable haunts.
As an adult, Jurong East is no less relevant as one train station I must pass by on my way to work. The increased frequency of my commuting has given me more observations of people coming and going, and I have come to the conclusion that, by design or by human nature, the way people go about changing trains at this terminal is suboptimal and, in my experience, has resulted in conflict between people.
I'm writing this to express my thoughts on how the design of the local MRT system can be better. I'm currently aware of plans for two new lines, and each time one is erected, it feels like a rushed job, not to mention all the environmentalist concerns.
The Layout
Image provided by SMRT via Facebook. Platform A was opened in 2011.
Jurong East (JE for short), as a terminal and and interchange, connects people from the end of the North-South line (NSL) to the middle of the East-West line (EWL), two of the oldest train lines in Singapore.
The NSL trains come and go via platform D/E. During peak hours, the NSL trains alternate between platforms A and D/E. The EWL train at platform B/C is eastbound, and the one at platform F is westbound.
JE quite nicely segments the westernmost part of Singapore, mainly the industrial hub, from the rest of the EWL, which includes the central business district and airport.
As you can tell, there will be two groups of people commuting at Jurong East in the morning, both headed to work in different directions.
The Problem
Most commuters coming from NSL going to the east would have no issue with the station's layout. They come in via any of the NSL trains, and can easily get to the eastbound EWL train at platform B/C.
With those heading west, however, there is a complication. The NS train that arrives in platform A is far from platform F. For them to make the transfer, they would have to go down to the concourse level and walk over.
What most of them do is stay at the train platform and walk through the trains to cut through to platform F. They'd have to go through the EW train (eastbound) and then the NS train at platform DE to get to platform F, in that order.
This, I feel, is suboptimal, which is a point I'll elaborate on, but understandably it's a locally optimal solution if one is to minimise stair climbing.
Still, it's disruptive. There was once, when the train was full, someone tried to shove through to get to the other side. This resulted in a bit of argument between passengers.
Another time, a passenger tried to cut through, but the train doors closed before he could get to the other platform. I observed him as he waited 'til the EWL (eastbound) train got to Clementi before he alighted and waited for the opposite train to reverse direction (and the JE -> Clementi distance is nothing to scoff at!).
The "Logical" Answer
If your solution to some problem relies on "If everyone would just…" then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now. Tumblr User squareallworthy
Obviously, the intended solution is to go down to the concourse. But this is a very Singaporean approach to solving problems: it requires co-operation, is inelegant, and frankly speaking I'm surprised there wasn't a barricade put up to coerce this behaviour.
Let me digress a little to show you that our infrastructure can be improved to accommodate the traveler, and their needs usually manifest in the form of desire paths. It wasn't too long ago that barricades were removed at Marina Bay MRT.
The next solution is probably also intended but never done in practice. Simply take the NSL train that's bound for platform D/E. On the other NSL stations, there is an announcement for which platform the next train is bound. Then, simply take the train that will arrive at the correct platform. For those heading east, either platform works, but only platform D/E is directly connected to F.
It's not immediately obvious, but it's better to wait for the correct train rather than take the first train you get and try your luck at JE when you get there. This is a classic greedy algorithm.
The reason why this is so is because the trains alternate platforms. If one goes to A, the next one will go to D, and they will always arrive in the same order, since they're on the same track up until JE.
Since the strategy for reaching platform F requires minimally for there to be an NSL train at platform D/E, the logical person will conclude that they should just be waiting to arrive in that NSL train. Furthermore, there needs to be an EWL train at platform B/C before they can cross the platform at D/E. If that train fails to arrive, then you might miss the chance to cross the NSL train at D/E, and have to wait for the NEXT one (which, because they alternate, would be the fourth train).
That means that by arriving at platform A and trying to cross the trains into platform F, the time you spend is roughly the same at best, and even more at worst!
The problem is just simply: this is not obvious!
If I had to commute to the west, I probably would have figured out to do this within the first few trips. It's not rocket science. But the average person going to the west during peak hours is generally showing up to work, and the nature of the work is typically industrial. It's not wrong to assume they're going to be a foreign worker, which is common in Singapore. And being foreign, they probably aren't too used to the transport system.
What can be done aside from tearing down the station and rebuilding it? Well, the simplest could be an information campaign to let NSL-riders know specifically that they should be paying attention to which platform the train will end up in.
That might not work, but it's worth a try. I think the real solution might be to just strong-arm it. Stop the train doors from opening on both sides. Now, if you want to access platform F, you MUST come in from platform D/E.
To make it fair, the trains at platform D/E could only open at platform E, so those going to the east need to take the one at platform A. I don't think this is necessary, as there's generally more people going east anyway, but in any case, you can see that any coercive solution that's for a generally beneficial outcome could be seen as unfair to certain parties on the small scale.
A Parallel: Raffles Place and City Hall
Let me digress again to mention that such problems to optimise interchanges can be solved elegantly. A very good example are the two stations Raffles Place and City Hall, which are both interchanges between the EWL and NSL, and are actually adjacent to each other.
Why have two interchanges next to each other? Well, these stations are smack in the middle of the central business district, the heart of the city, so there's a lot of coming and going. Also, by nature of being an interchange but not terminal, at least four train platforms are required: one for each direction, multiplied by one for each train line.
For these two stations, they've elected to have different lines on the same floor, and opposite directions on different floors. I'll illustrate the genius of its design with an example.
If I'm coming from Dhoby Ghaut (South-bound) and I want to go to Lavender (East), I would have to change train lines at one of the two interchanges. It makes more sense to change at City Hall, which is nearer to Lavender. Otherwise, I would have to pass through City Hall, then change at Raffles Place, and still pass by City Hall again as I'm headed east.
Here's the genius bit: The south train arrives at the same platform as the east train! So, commuters need only just walk (in practice: run) across and transfer seamlessly.
Well, what if you're heading west from Dhoby Ghaut? Do you go up/down another floor and transit there?
No! You simply continue on the NSL to Raffles Place, where the south train is on the same platform as the west EWL train, then cross the platform!
This design works for any direction you're going. Unless you need to reverse direction, you won't need to go up or down any floors.
Again, this is not obvious. But it's common knowledge to whomever actually commutes to these stations regularly. Why? I like to imagine it's not actually knowledge that had to be figured out per se, but an effect of elegant design that became noticed. Even if you don't notice it, it still has a positive effect on you.
Good design is obvious, great design is transparent. Joe Sparano
How they got it so right here the first time, and then never replicated ever again, it baffles me. Honestly, I probably have a lot more to say on the matter, but I'll probably save it for another time. I've spoken enough on this one topic already.
So what do we do?
I mean, it's obvious that Jurong East faces different problems from Raffles Place and City Hall. Many stations have unique problems to manage, and the issue is probably deeper than I can understand. For one, JE's platform A was built as an extension to support the rush hour. Within the constraints of time and budget, this was probably the best solution they could come up with.
With the construction of the new Jurong Region Line, perhaps these issues can be better mitigated. Until then, there's nothing to do but educate our fellow people, and be gracious in our interactions. We all have places to be.