The Changi Problem, part 2
Some reflections on what they could be up to.
As part of Land Transport Masterplan 2040, the plan to transfer the Changi Branch to the Thomson-East Coast line was formally announced. This is of course subject to change, and if you ask me personally I don’t think it’ll last.
Last round I looked at the technical issues with Changi Airport station, this time I attempt to explore the strategic justification of doing that, and whether there may be a better way to achieve these goals.
Let’s start by remembering the two main districts that the government intends to develop as our main business hubs — the CBD and Jurong. In an ideal world, you should be able to get to these two places quickly enough from the airport.
“Hard choices, not necessarily popular ones”
Of all the things to consider, why extend a local line to the airport, you ask? TEL trains will make a minimum of 12 stops between the airport and Marina Bay, which is likely to take about the same time, maybe even slower, than the existing airport branch-EWL-NSL service.
This does compare quite unfavourably to other major airports in Asia. Really, there’s a lot to name, but Singapore is unique in that we will only operate local services to the airport, not even a mix of local and express service like Taipei, Tokyo and KL. Some say that a direct express can be quite unnecessary, since the Changi air hub largely still depends on connecting passengers. That argument probably holds water now, but given the rise of ultra-long flights (like Qantas’ Project Sunrise), it may or may not work in the future.
In fact, some quarters argue that local trains are in fact the best way to serve the airport, as they can also serve people who work at the airport and live nearby, or travellers going somewhere that the airport express doesn’t go to.
That said, if you really wanted to make an airport express work, then you’d need to think bigger. Singapore isn’t that big a city, and at some point in the future there may be a cross-border high speed rail line to Malaysia. Some folks suggest this could be extended to the airport, so let’s combine the two — through ticketing from any Malaysian HSR station to Changi Airport, and direct trains from KL/Johor Iskandar to Changi’s secure area without clearing Singapore immigration.
Locally, this would also provide convenience like what you see on the AREX line in Seoul. Check in your luggage and complete immigration formalities at the downtown terminals (Jurong for one, maybe another stop in Marina Bay), and then board the same train — that came from Malaysia — to the airport terminals. In the other direction it’s a bit iffy though, since you have to clear Singapore immigration before collecting your luggage at the airport.
Overall, the benefits of such a line are, arguably, questionable. Such an airport express would probably need 15–20 minutes to make the trip. Add in waiting time, and you wouldn’t save much time than if you took the TEL. The choice basically boils down to this: Do you want to spend more time in a station waiting for a train, or more time in the train itself?
Do not pass go, do not collect $200
So with the idea of an airport express out the window, what should we do with the MRT?
As I mentioned in the previous article, back in the early 2000s there was an attempt to run through trains from Changi Airport station to town. They even went so far as to order the C751B trains with luggage racks.
However, in 2002 Changi Airport wasn’t even half as busy as it was today (it didn’t even have 30 million passengers), nor did Changi Business Park exist, so the demand was simply not there. It was deemed pointless to send almost-empty trains to the airport while Pasir Ris and Tampines new towns were growing rapidly and needed more train service, so the Changi branch was shortened to a shuttle service and all trains sent to Pasir Ris. Of course, we may see this happen again at some point in the medium term, with the turnback works at Pasir Ris potentially limiting train capacity that can go there — and to maintain acceptable frequency on the rest of the EWL, the extra trains can go through to Changi Airport.
The C751B luggage racks were removed and today are used as additional standing spaces and/or wheelchair space. The current arrangement at Tanah Merah station, where airport branch trains are restricted to a single track between Expo and Tanah Merah stations resulting in the 8 minute frequency we see today, is also a relic of this original plan to offer through service.
Of course, this is one of the justifications behind them dropping another sum on Tanah Merah station to add an additional track for the EWL, so that the existing track layout can be modified in order to allow the Changi branch to have two tracks from Expo to the airport. The immediate effect is that they can immediately increase service on the airport branch since there is now a double track on approach to Changi Airport.
However, there are greater strategic plans. As part of the LTMP they wanted to extend the TEL over the existing airport branch to Tanah Merah — from Sungei Bedok, make a loop around the airport precinct, and feed into the existing airport branch tracks which end somewhere just before gate E20 at Terminal 2. Then continue along the airport branch to Tanah Merah, making better use of the new platform layout there.
Surprisingly, this is fine mathematically — and if they actually manage to solve the original Changi Problem, would actually be better. 4 car trains at 2 minute intervals (in peak) would give you 30 x 4 = 120 train cars per hour towards the CBD. Compared to the existing 6 cars every 8–12 minutes, which gives you 45 train cars per hour. Even with direct service, where the time between trains drops to 4–8 minutes, you’d still have 15 x 6 = 90 train cars per hour.
That roughly settles the CBD, but what about Jurong? This is where the CRL — the second MRT line — comes in. Recall that under the LTMP 2040, the intention is for inter-regional trips to be completed in under 45 minutes. The CRL local should technically be able to do that, but I may not be very convinced (especially once you throw in the detour from Terminals 1–3 to T5 for the CRL).
Perhaps it may be better to leave the existing station untouched, extend the Changi branch to the CRL Aviation Park station, and build for the TEL a new station near the existing Terminals 1/2/3 site? Maybe the rerouted TEL could even serve Terminal 4, too, providing a rail connection to that terminal — which many say can be a missed opportunity needing correcting, especially when T4’s main users are low cost carriers, whose passengers are more likely to take transit than hail a cab or call a private hire.
Missed opportunities
Speaking of missed opportunities, what else could have been? Of course, to begin with, it would have been much better if TEL4/5 was planned for express service, with overtaking tracks at selected stations along the ERL route. That way, much like Keikyu’s service in Tokyo, an airport express service could be provided using TEL trains and tracks which would probably have made offering such a service more viable.
Overall, though, we should look at Changi Airport’s land transport strategy. That there was no rail service to the airport for 20 years probably indicates that in the long run, planners still want road-based transport to be the main form of access to the airport — including cars, taxis, and the fast growing private-hire industry. Especially given the distributed nature of Changi’s terminals, is a centralized rail station really the best idea?
Bus service at Changi, though, leave much to be desired, especially compared to Hong Kong or London Heathrow. A part of me has long wondered why a central bus terminal, up to the standards of our new air-conditioned Integrated Transport Hubs, was not built as part of the Jewel project, both to provide a better access point to the bus system, as well as cater for future growth for such bus services. It’s pretty simple to say that the existing bus stops at Changi are pretty inadequate, especially when you consider their basement location (without environmental protection in the waiting areas) and that they don’t accept double decker buses.
Frequent, fast bus services to key parts of Singapore using the expressways, with dedicated space for luggage, may be an acceptable substitute for airport express rail service. It’s not that we haven’t tried it — the Scheme B buses used to be a thing, it was canned due to poor ridership — but with the development of Terminal 5 and Singapore as a destination, it might be worth reconsidering.
And, of course, the cost of providing bus service is much lower than that of rail service — but given the high-touch bus contracting model LTA has moved to, taxis and private hire vehicles may even be cheaper, since all you need is a licensing regime and market forces will do the rest.
It might just be useful, though, to reconsider that stance especially when the spectre of congestion comes up.
