Sec 3 Social Studies -- Cross Island Line by Padlet Humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8 en-us 2023-03-29 05:05:19 UTC 2023-04-12 23:57:03 UTC hello@padlet.com Video 1 pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536135274


]]> 2023-03-29 05:07:07 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536135274 Video 2 pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536136032 2023-03-29 05:07:54 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536136032 Source A pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536142608  
Source A agrees with this side.
The evidence from the source is, “the direct route will lower public transport fares by about 15 percent on average due to it being shorter and more direct.” --> travel faster/lesser time/affordable

The reason is people can travel faster/using lesser time taken to reach from one location to the other which makes it convenient for them. This also means that people will pay lesser [AFFORDABLE] for their train rides due to the direct route (shorter distance taken).

OR
Source A agrees with this side.
The evidence from the source is “it is a more environmentally friendly option as the direct alignment has a lower energy consumption.” --> lesser electricity used --reduced impact on environment



The reason is as the route taken would be shorter, the amount of electricity needed to operate the train would be lesser – reduces the impact on the environment.



]]> 2023-03-29 05:14:32 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536142608 Source B pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536144087 Source B agrees with this side.
The evidence from the source is “CRL, a public transport commuter travelling from Ang Mo Kio can reach almost any part of Singapore in less than an hour, saving up to 30 to 40 minutes of travel time.” 
The reason is that it will provide convenience for commuters as they will be able to reach far destinations within a shorter period of time/ shorter travelling time.


OR
Source B agrees with this side.
The evidence from the source is, “In the event of a service disruption on one of the lines, commuters will have a more alternative travel routes on the rail network to get to their destinations.  
The reason is with more lines they are more alternative ways to reach a location and if there are any disruptions which may affect the travelling journey, commuters can have alternative travel routes.  ]]> 2023-03-29 05:16:08 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536144087 Source C pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536147402 Source C agrees with this side. 
The evidence from the source is that the “skirting route will have “more curvatures” and be longer.”  
Also, “This could mean “more wear and tear”, leading to higher costs of train maintenance in the future.”     

The reason is when these skirting routes have “more curvatures”, the train track expands/ is longer hence they can be prone to having damages when used frequently. When these routes have such damages, the government will need to pay a high amount for the damage fees and for the train’s maintenance and repair works. -->expensive/ very costly]]> 2023-03-29 05:20:02 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536147402 Source E pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536150806 Source E: (what is it about?) 
- Negative impacts on the environment based on the direct route proposed by LTA
- Thus, skirting route is better – wont affect the nature reserve

Source E agrees with this side.
The evidence from the source is “Risk of contamination of soil and streams by toxic materials used during drilling”.
The reason is that it could damage the environment tremendously as since the direct route would be built very close to the nature reserve, there would be a very high risk of toxic materials used during the construction of the MRT line to escape into the environment and pollute the land and water of the nature reserve. Therefore, the skirting route would be a better option as even if toxic materials were to escape, they would not harm the nature reserve directly as the construction would be around it.

]]> 2023-03-29 05:24:21 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536150806 Source F pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536151314 Source F agrees with this side.
The evidence from the source is, “higher ridership and revenue” “will pay for higher cost over the lifetime of the line”.
The reason is if more people get to take the Cross Island Line, as it serves populated areas unlike the nature reserve where no people live, the revenue gained from the commuters when they use the transport at skirting will help to pay/return for the huge amount of money spent in building such route. 
]]> 2023-03-29 05:25:09 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536151314 Source G pad_humanities https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536195455 Source G agrees with this side.
The evidence from the source is “there is a possibility of opening another station” such as MacRitchie Reservoir Park to serve park users.”
The reason is that if the government were to execute the construction of the skirting route, there would also be a possibility of opening other MRT stations which would benefit commuters especially places such as hospitals where it makes it accessible for people to reach such places for visits/work.
OR to accommodate to the needs of other people in other locations. 
]]> 2023-03-29 06:06:28 UTC https://padlet.com/pad_humanities/dc8m2da130dr7di8/wish/2536195455