public transport

重新思考新加坡公共交通模式

严燕松（阿裕尼集选区）

这是我在2023年11月7日的国会里发表的英译中演讲。

______

生活成本危机：要求国会呼吁政府重新审视其政策，以减轻新加坡人及其家庭的生活成本压力。

议长先生，

新加坡面临着无可否认的生活成本上升趋势，这是由全球通货膨胀、供应链中断、能源价格上升和劳动力短缺等因素驱动的。然而，与武吉班让议员对动议的修改中所暗示的相反，国内政策决定，如消费税增长、水电费上涨、公共交通费用上升，以及拥车证的成本飙升，也导致了新加坡人的生活成本增加。

黑匣子研究最近的SensingSG调查发现，59%的新加坡居民认为生活成本是国家和社会所面对的两个最重要的问题之一。公共交通成本也是新加坡生活成本的组成部分，占新加坡金融管理局核心通胀篮子的2.5%。

在过去的10年中，地铁和巴士车资的增长率快于核心通胀率。在2023年的车资调整检讨中，公共交通理事会的车资调整公式建议高达22.6%的车资调整。尽管公共交通理事会选择将其限制在7%。这一项决定导致政府在2023年为公共交通运营商提供了约3亿新元的额外补贴，高于前一年的2亿新元。这一补贴仍未能消除剩余的15.6%的车资增长，公共交通理事会已将其推迟到未来的审核。

与此同时，公交业者继续公布惊人的利润。在2011年至2022年之间，SMRT和新捷运共计每年平均获利7460万新元，上一财年甚至高达1亿1千万新元。在车资上涨和政府补贴增加的背景下，这一利润尤其惹人注目。在我们当前的公共交通模式下，公交业者之间几乎没有竞争。这是因为不同业者运营的是岛内不同的交通路线。即使不同交通方式在相同路线的重复，也在逐渐被消除。巴士路线和新的地铁线路平行运行的公交服务也被取消了。

以上的论点引发了对当前车资调整公式有效性的疑问，以及围绕新加坡公共交通模式的可持续性的广泛讨论。

向国有化迈进

当前的模式包括政府对运输资产的所有权和在多个以盈利为导向的公交业者之间划分的运营合同。这个模式比政府更愿意承认的更朝向国有化迈进。。自2010年，所有铁路资产都转移到了政府手中。2012年，政府推出了每年11亿新元的巴士服务增强计划。2013年，巴士承包模式开始实行，陆交局在某些地区向公交业者招标巴士服务。这一过程在2016年完成。陆路交通管理局现在拥有巴士资产并向公交业者支付运营费，同时收取所有车费收入并设定服务水平。政府现在每年为公共交通服务提供20亿新元的补贴，即每次航程1新元。

目前的公共交通模式包括运营商、监管机构和政府，这可能会导致效率低下和额外成本。这些始终将转嫁到乘客和纳税人身上。这将表现为车资增加、政府补贴增加、服务覆盖范围降低，或三者兼得。

一些服务覆盖范围已经逐渐减少。在过去三年里，已经有大约30项公交服务被缩短或取消。这些变化已经影响到勿洛蓄水池一带的居民。他们不断地向我表达他们对长时间等待巴士和拥挤的勿洛地铁站接驳巴士的关注。那些偏爱直达干线服务以达到在通勤过程中步行距离较短的老年乘客，也受到了这些变化的影响。

工人党的国营交通公司提议

正如反对党领袖在提出这一项动议时所说的那样，我们必需重新思考政府发出一次性财政津贴的政策方法，并探索可能的结构性变化，以减少新加坡人的生活成本开支。

因此，重新考虑成立国营交通公司的提议是及时的。这一项提议最初由工人党在2006年提出。我们设想国营交通公司作为一个公共拥有、非营利、多模式的陆路运输实体，将监督新加坡所有的地铁、轻轨和干线巴士服务的规划和运营。

国营交通公司在多个方面优于当前的公共交通模式。

首先，在国营交通公司旗下，原本流向公交业者及其股东的可观利润可以重新分配给乘客。这样的收入可以减缓车资上涨并为老年人、残疾人士和低收入家庭提供交通补贴，直接解决生活成本问题。

其次，政府拥有权过问国营交通公司的财务记录，政府便可以仅设置足够高的车费来确保国营交通公司的财务可持续性，而不会过度负担乘客。复杂的车资调整公式可以废除。车资调整可以逐步引入，避免在经济困难时期突然变化。

其三，国营交通公司可以管理巴士换乘站、地铁和轻轨站，以及相关联的通道，利用这些黄金零售和商业区的租金来支持其运营。这将有助于减缓车资上涨和对不断增长的政府补贴的需求。

其四，国营交通公司可以根据专业知识、业绩记录和对公共服务的承诺，聘请国内外顶尖的交通工程师和管理人员。公司的成败由人才推动。利润动机并非是提高效率和生产力的唯一驱动因素。通过设定严格的关键绩效指标（KPI）并赋予这些专业人员的话语权，国家交通公司可以持续提高服务标准。相比之下，当前针对公交业者服务中断的处罚与其利润相比微不足道，也不会直接影响到高级管理人员的薪酬。国家交通公司的方法将在绩效管理上看到显著的改进。

其五，为了透明度和问责性，国家交通公司应该公开其高级管理人员的薪酬、主要利润来源和主要成本驱动因素，使国会和公众能够检查和审视其财务状况并追究相关方的责任。

其六，类似国营交通公司的统一交通实体将确保更统一的服务标准、增强的服务整合和全面的数据获取，用于服务改进。国家交通公司可以利用广泛的通勤者数据，运用人工智能预测通勤趋势，动态地指挥公交车和火车前往最需要的地方。通勤者在新加坡某一个地区提出的改进建议也可以在全岛实行。

其七，国家交通公司在采购、人员配置和技术基础设施方面也将产生规模经济，带来更多节省，使通勤者受益。

其八，国家交通公司将承担目前由陆路交通管理局持有的运营责任，让陆交局只专注于其监管角色，消除同时作为监管者和运营者可能出现的利益冲突。

最后，国家交通公司将被赋予自由去试行和引领陆路交通解决方案，并将新加坡置于全球交通创新的前沿。这可能为新加坡成为像自动驾驶公交车或环保的氢能源汽车等先进技术的早期采纳者铺平道路。

结论

议长先生，国家交通公司是对新加坡公共交通模式的重新思考。它让我们从依赖政府补贴以盈利的公共交通公司转变为一个非营利、统一的服务提供者，这将为通勤者和纳税人提供更高效、更具经济效益的服务。

这种新模式将把我们通勤者的需求和福祉放在我们交通政策的核心。它不仅会解决新加坡人目前的成本问题，而且还将引导新加坡的公共交通走向未来。

议长先生，我支持反对党领袖和阿裕尼选区议员，毕丹星先生，以及盛港选区议员，蔡庆威先生，提出的动议。

Rethinking Singapore’s public transport model to benefit commuters

This was my speech in Parliament on 7 November 2023 during the debate on the motion tabled by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and MP for Sengkang Louis Chua, on the cost of living crisis.

Cost of Living: That this House calls on the Government to review its policies so as to lower cost of living pressures for Singaporeans and their families.

Mr Speaker,

Singapore faces an undeniable upward trend in the cost of living, driven by factors such as global inflation, supply chain disruptions, escalating energy prices and labour shortages. However, contrary to what the Member for Bukit Panjang seems to imply in his amendments to the motion, domestic policy decisions, like the hike in the GST, increases in water and electricity tariffs, and rises in public transport fares, coupled with the skyrocketing cost of COEs, also contribute to the increase in the cost of living that Singaporeans are experiencing.

Blackbox Research’s recent SensingSG survey found that 59% of Singapore residents highlighted cost of living among the two most important national and community issues. Public transport costs are also a contributor to the cost of living in Singapore, making up 2.5% of the MAS’ Core Inflation basket.

Over the last 10 years, the rate of increase in bus and train fares has been faster than that of core inflation. In the 2023 Fare Review Exercise, the Public Transport Council (PTC)’s fare adjustment formula produced a whopping 22.6% fare increase, although the PTC chose to cap it at 7%. This decision led to the Government providing an additional subsidy to public transport operators (PTOs) to the tune of about $300 million in 2023, up from the $200 million the year before. This subsidy still does not eliminate the remaining 15.6% fare increase, which the PTC has deferred to future reviews.

In the meantime, PTOs have continued to post eye watering profits. Between 2011 and 2022, SMRT and SBS Transit have together posted profits averaging $74.6 million a year, reaching $110 million in the last financial year. This is particularly jarring against the backdrop of increasing fares and government subsidies. The PTOs in our current public transport model face little competition with each other, because they operate different transport routes across the island. Even duplications of the same routes for different transport modes are slowly being eliminated, as bus services running parallel to new MRT lines are removed.

These prompt questions about the efficacy of the current fare adjustment formula, and a broader discussion around the sustainability of Singapore’s public transport model.

Inching towards Nationalisation

The current model consists of a mix of government ownership of transport assets and operating contracts carved up among multiple profit-oriented PTOs. The model is inching more towards nationalisation than the Government would like to admit. Starting in 2010, all rail assets were transferred to the government. The year 2012 saw the introduction of the $1.1 billion a year Bus Services Enhancement Plan. In 2013, the Bus Contracting Model saw bus services in certain areas tendered out to PTOs. This was completed in 2016. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) now owns bus assets and pays the PTOs an operating fee, while collecting all fare revenue and setting the service levels. The Government is now subsidising public transport services to the tune of $2 billion a year, or $1 for every journey.

This mesh of responsibilities involving the operators, the regulator and the government potentially introduces inefficiencies and additional costs. These will eventually trickle down to commuters and taxpayers, manifesting as either increased fares, higher government subsidies, lower service coverage, or all of the above.

Some service coverage is already being reduced. In the past three years, about 30 bus services have been shortened or removed. Such changes have affected my residents in Bedok Reservoir, who continue to voice their concerns to me about long wait times and crowded feeder bus rides to Bedok MRT station. Elderly commuters, who favour direct trunk services which facilitate shorter walking distances during the commute, are also affected by these changes.

WP’s National Transport Corporation proposal

As the Leader of the Opposition said when moving this Motion, we need to move beyond one-time fiscal handouts and explore possible structural changes to existing policies to reduce cost-of-living expenses for Singaporeans.

It is therefore timely to revisit the proposal to establish a National Transport Corporation (NTC). This was first proposed by the Workers’ Party in 2006. We envisage the NTC as a publicly-owned, non-profit, multi-modal land transport entity which will oversee the planning and operation of all MRT, LRT and trunk bus services in Singapore.

The NTC offers many benefits over the current public transport model.

First, under the NTC, the substantial profits which go to PTOs and their shareholders could instead be redirected to benefit commuters. Such revenue could mitigate fare increases and subsidise transport for the elderly, people with disabilities and low income households, directly addressing concerns about the cost of living.

Second, with full access to the NTC’s financial records, the government could set fares just high enough to ensure the NTC’s fiscal sustainability without overly burdening commuters. The complex fare adjustment formula can be done away with. Fare adjustments could be introduced progressively, avoiding abrupt changes during times of economic hardship.

Third, the NTC could manage bus interchanges, MRT and LRT stations, and their associated linkways, leveraging the rent from these prime retail and commercial areas to support its operations. This will help moderate fare increases and the need for ever-growing government subsidies.

Fourth, the NTC could hire top transport engineers and managers, both locally and globally, based on their expertise, track records and commitment to public service. Companies are fuelled by their people. Profit motives are not the sole drivers of efficiency and productivity improvements. By setting stringent KPIs and empowering these professionals, the NTC can continually improve service standards. In contrast, the current penalties for PTOs’ service disruptions are trivial against their profits and don’t directly affect executive pay. The NTC’s approach will see a marked improvement in performance management.

Fifth, for transparency and accountability, the NTC should disclose its executive salaries, primary profit sources and major cost drivers, enabling Parliament and the public to examine its financial health and hold relevant parties accountable.

Sixth, a unified transport entity like the NTC would ensure more uniform service standards, enhanced service integration and comprehensive access to data for service improvement. Utilising the vast array of commuter data, the NTC can employ AI to forecast travel trends, dynamically directing buses and trains where they are most required. Improvements suggested by commuters in one region of Singapore could be applied island-wide.

Seventh, the NTC would yield economies of scale in procurement, staff allocation and technological infrastructure, leading to further savings that benefit commuters.

Eighth, the NTC would assume operational responsibilities currently held by the LTA, allowing the LTA to focus solely on its regulatory role, eliminating potential conflicts of interest from being both a regulator and an operator.

Lastly, the NTC would be given the freedom to experiment with and spearhead land transport solutions, and position Singapore at the vanguard of global transport innovations. This could pave the way for Singapore to be an early adopter of advancements like autonomous buses or eco-friendly hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Conclusion

Sir, the National Transport Corporation is a rethink of Singapore’s public transport model. It shifts us away from public transport companies that profit from government subsidies, to a non-profit, unified provider that will be more efficient and affordable for both commuters and taxpayers.

This new model will place the needs and well-being of our commuters at the heart of our transport policy. It will not only address the immediate cost concerns of Singaporeans, but also steer Singapore’s public transport into the future.

Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of my Hon. Friends, the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Aljunied, Mr Pritam Singh, and the Member for Sengkang, Mr Louis Chua.

Bus waiting time and fare increases

Public transport fares will increase 2.9% from 26 Dec 2022. I asked the Minister for Transport in Parliament on 8 Nov whether the Public Transport Council decides on fare adjustments based on bus service reliability. Minister S Iswaran said “steady improvements” had been made and that between 2018 and 2022, all services had met the required standards, including bus 228, which he said was “close to Mr Gerald Giam’s heart”.

In fact, bus 228 is even closer to the heart of my residents in Bedok Reservoir, who could previously take several other bus services from their homes to Bedok Interchange before they got rerouted. They now depend on only bus 228, which has an arrival interval ranging from seven to 15 minutes. I urged the Ministry to look into increasing the frequency of this service to improve the commuting experience.

The Minister recalled that I had raised the issue earlier this year in Parliament as well and noted my “consistency” in doing so. He replied that reducing headways had cost implications because of the need for more buses and bus captains.

I understand that more frequent buses will cost more, but these costs have to be seen in the broader context of getting more Singaporeans to shift from pollutive private transport to greener public transport.

Increase the frequency of feeder buses

The convenience and comfort of public transport is an important factor that commuters consider before going “car lite”. Fewer private cars on the road reduces both traffic congestion and carbon emissions. Conversely, inconvenient public transport can have the opposite effect of encouraging more driving or riding of private vehicles. Most residents, however, have no choice but to take public transport as cars in Singapore are unaffordable for them.

Many of my residents, especially those living along Bedok Reservoir Road, continue to voice their dissatisfaction to me about the Government’s decision last December to reduce the number of bus services plying routes to nearby bus interchanges and MRT stations, as well as trunk routes to other parts of the island. This represents an overall reduction in public transport convenience for them, particularly since the frequency of bus 228, which takes them to and from Bedok Interchange, has not increased enough to make up for their loss of bus service 66. The frequency of feeder bus services like bus 228 should be increased further, to make public transport a more attractive option for Singaporeans.

During the 9 May 2022 sitting of Parliament, I asked the Minister for Transport what percentage of bus services operate with frequencies (technical term: headways) of no more than five minutes during peak hours and 10 minutes during off-peak hours. This is the Minister’s reply:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport in the last six months, what percentage of (i) all public bus services and (ii) feeder bus services, operated with headways of no more than five minutes during morning and evening peak hours, and no more than 10 minutes during off-peak hours, respectively.

Mr S Iswaran: LTA monitors the performance of our bus operators against the standards stipulated under the Bus Contracting Model (BCM).

Under BCM, basic bus services have scheduled headways of 15 minutes or less during the morning and evening peak periods. At least half of these services are required to have scheduled headways of 10 minutes or less. Feeder services run at shorter intervals, with scheduled headways of no more than eight minutes during peak periods. In the last six months, bus operators have adhered to the standards set by LTA.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Read Land Transport Guru’s in-depth analysis of the bus service changes in Bedok Reservoir.

Bus services rationalisation

The Public Transport Council’s latest annual customer satisfaction survey found that satisfaction with public transport services has fallen to its lowest level in six years. The survey showed that discontent with public bus services was a factor, with many commuters notably expressing dissatisfaction with bus waiting times.

These sentiments are similarly expressed by many of my residents living along Bedok Reservoir Road, where four bus services were cut or rerouted last December. This has resulted in my residents having to put up with longer waiting times, crowded buses and losing direct routes to their destinations.

Before removing or rerouting bus services, LTA should conduct public consultations with affected residents. If bus services are being rationalised due to low ridership, I would like to suggest that LTA first consider switching to smaller buses or extending their headways.

If bus services must be removed, the frequency of the remaining feeder services to bus interchanges or MRT stations should be increased to make up for them. Commuters should not have to wait more than 5 minutes during peak hours or 10 minutes during off-peak hours for feeder buses.

LTA should strive to retain trunk bus services. These serve many elderly and disabled residents who have trouble walking between bus stops or transferring from bus to MRT. Many of them do not mind longer bus rides if that allows them to walk less.

While LTA and the public transport operators strive towards efficiency, they must pay closer attention to the comfort and convenience of commuters. LTA should proactively monitor public feedback and be open to bringing back bus services if there is strong commuter demand.

This was my speech during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Transport, 8 Mar 2022.

Bus announcements for visually-impaired commuters

Asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider using technology to equip (i) bus stops with audible announcements of arriving bus service numbers; and (ii) buses with on-board announcements of approaching bus stops to better enable visually-impaired commuters to travel more independently, safely and conveniently.

Parliamentary Question on 8 October 2014

BUS ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ASSIST VISUALLY-IMPAIRED COMMUTERS

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider using technology to equip (i) bus stops with audible announcements of arriving bus service numbers; and (ii) buses with on-board announcements of approaching bus stops to better enable visually-impaired commuters to travel more independently, safely and conveniently.

Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Minister for Transport): … Mdm Speaker, LTA is already in the process of developing a central bus management system which will be capable of relaying real-time information to and from buses and bus stops. This system will be implemented progressively from end-2015 and completed in 2017. At that time, we will have announcements of the next bus stop, for example broadcasted on buses, or delivered in a more targeted way through smart-phone applications and other devices. Today, however, the bus operators have separate fleet management systems and do not have the necessary infrastructure and systems in place to support such announcements.

In the meantime, LTA will continue to work with the bus operators to ensure that bus captains are trained to offer persons with disabilities the assistance they need to travel safely and reliably.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I really appreciate the assurance by the Senior Minister of State that this system would be rolled out. Can I clarify that with this new fleet management system, it will mean that there will be audible announcements on all buses and will that extend to the bus stops as well to announce the incoming buses so that the visually-impaired commuters will be notified of the incoming buses.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, the Member’s clarification is a useful one. Audible announcements being broadcasted on buses is fairly straightforward because only the people in the buses will hear them and so it does not cause much disturbance. For audible announcements at bus stops, it is something that we have to consider more carefully. The reason being that some of the bus stops are located quite near to people’s homes. At busy times of the day where the buses are arriving at a bus stop, sometimes on a continuous basis, can you imagine what it means for people who are living in homes quite near these bus stops?

That is something that we have to look at quite carefully. Now, there are only a very small number of cities in the world that have attempted audible announcements at bus stops and where they have done so, it has not been comprehensively implemented. There are only selected bus stops where they will introduce these audible announcements. What we also know is that typically the preference is for push button, on-demand type of announcements so that visually-impaired persons if they require these announcements can access them. However, these announcements are not made at all times of the day and as and when every single bus arrives.

Those are some of the issues that we will have to look into. But, as I said earlier, in today’s context the infrastructure and systems are not even in place to support such audible announcements at bus stops. We will have to let this new system be implemented and then we will at the same time look at how audible announcements can be made feasible at bus stops as well as on buses.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Senior Minister of State again for the reply. Is it technically impossible to do it or is it just the noise problem? Because I believe all the SMRT bus stops already have visual announcements of the incoming buses. So I do not see why that technology cannot be extended to audible announcements.

Secondly, I do not think the announcement needs to be that loud because visually-impaired commuters would tend to have more sensitive hearing so it does not have to be so loud that it disturbs the residents nearby. And, perhaps, the Ministry could consider some other alternatives. One is to have tactile announcements that use touch rather than sound to announce the incoming buses.

Thirdly, I think what some cities do is that the buses themselves have an announcement when it pulls into the bus stop to inform the commuters about what bus number that is. From my conversations with the members of the visually-impaired community this is a more pressing need than the announcements on board the bus. They could be at an empty bus stop and not have anyone to ask what the next bus number is. They have told me that even when the bus arrives and they ask the bus driver, sometimes the bus driver just gives a nod or shakes his head. So, to the visually-impaired commuter there is no response. I hope the Ministry can look into this. Thank you.

Mrs Josephine Teo: We certainly will. Thank you.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I would to ask the Senior Minister of State since we are buying a new fleet of buses, can we order the buses in such a way that the door is right at the back, so that commuters when they move into the bus, will move towards the back of the bus straightaway? I think the design of the bus will help commuters in moving towards the back of the bus.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, I do not see how this has got to do with audible announcements but we thank her for her suggestion. We will take a look at that.

———–

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports

Questions on the new bus contracting model

How will the Government ensure that there is genuine contestability and competition among the operators so that they will be kept on their toes to constantly improve service quality and efficiency? How will it ensure that the new model will not see the same few players dominating the market?

I asked the Minister for Transport 3 parliamentary questions and another 4 supplementary questions regarding the new bus contracting model, during the sitting of Parliament on 7 July 2014. This is the relevant extract from the Hansard.

—————-

1. Mr R Dhinakaran asked the Minister for Transport what are the key considerations for the change in the public bus transport model and what will be the initial investment by the Government in this model.

2. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport how his Ministry envisions the new bus contracting model in which operators will bid for a package of routes through competitive tendering as being able to achieve better service and affordable fares to commuters as well as the plying of buses on less lucrative but necessary routes.

3. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government has made a provision in the budget for the new bus contracting model and, if so, whether the budget will be made transparent to the public.

4. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport under the new Government contracting model for public buses (a) how does the Government plan to buy back the public bus infrastructure and operating assets currently owned by the two public transport operators (PTOs); (b) how will the value of these assets be assessed; (c) how will the Government ensure that the PTOs do not profit from the disposal of these assets; and (d) how will the Government fund these asset purchases.

5. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government expects to make an operating loss over the long term under the new Government contracting model for public buses; and (b) approximately how much operating subsidies the Government expects to inject into the public bus system each year.

6. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government has any plans to extend the new public bus contracting model to the MRT system; and (b) whether the Government is satisfied with the current MRT ownership and operating model.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 1 to 6 together, please.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: As announced in May, we are moving the public bus industry from the current privatised model to a Government Contracting Model.

We have been studying this move as early as the Land Transport Master Plan in 2008. Under the current model, the public bus operators rely on their fare and non-fare revenues to pay for their operations and buy operating assets, such as buses. When fare revenues are uncertain, as it has been in recent years, operators may be reluctant to expand capacity ahead of demand, or to improve service levels beyond regulatory standards on their own accord. This was why the Government had to step in with the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, or BSEP, in 2012 to quickly raise service standards and to add capacity, even as we worked towards a more sustainable bus industry model.

Under the proposed Government Contracting Model, LTA owns the buses, plans the routes and engages private bus operators through competitive tenders to run the services. This will enable us to respond more quickly and effectively to changes in ridership and commuter needs. The model also allows for more operators, potentially even overseas ones, to compete for the contracts. Bus operators will need to compete on the basis of costs and service quality. Over time, this will lead to the provision of better bus services in a cost-competitive manner, thereby benefitting commuters.

Mr Dhinakaran, Mr Gerald Giam, and Mr Teo Siong Seng asked whether the Government is setting aside a budget for the new bus contracting model, and how much the Government will subsidise bus operations. I think it is probably not in the Government’s interest to reveal any budget that we may have set aside and how much we are prepared to subsidise before the tenders are issued and the returns are seen, as this may well skew the bids against us.

The eventual amount of subsidy will crucially depend on whether fares and bus service standards are set realistically. Regardless of industry model, the cost of the overall bus system has to be paid for either by commuters in the form of fares, or taxpayers in the form of Government subsidies. There surely is no free lunch. Therefore, we have to strike the right balance. The Government is committed to ensure the affordability of public transport fares. However, regular fare adjustments are still necessary to ensure the overall financial sustainability of the public transport system.

Likewise new bus routes and higher service levels have to be assessed judiciously. Even today, we receive many requests to run bus routes that have low ridership. From the point of view of the select few who benefit, these bus routes are of course “necessary”. But if we run too many of these routes throughout the system, either higher fares, or more Government subsidies, will be required.

Mr Giam asked about how we intend to treat the current bus assets owned by the two incumbent public bus operators. We will discuss this issue as part of our negotiations with SBST and SMRT on the nine bus packages that they will continue to operate after 2016.

Finally, Mr Giam may perhaps not be aware that we have already implemented the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF) starting with the Downtown Line last year, even before the announcement of the public bus contracting model. In fact, the Government Contracting Model for buses brings us closer to the NRFF, where the Government, instead of the operator, owns the operating assets and is responsible for major capital asset investments.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Madam. I have four supplementary questions, three of which are related to each other. First is how does the Government ensure that there is genuine contestability and competition among the operators so that they will be kept on their toes to constantly improve service quality and efficiency? How will it ensure that the new model will not see the same few players dominating the market?

Secondly, how will the Government ensure that it is easy for new players to enter the market, and also easy for non-performing operators to exit?

Thirdly, how many new players does the Government plan to allow into this market?

Fourthly, does the Government have plans to set up a corporatised, not-for-profit entity like a National Transport Corporation or Transport for London, that manages the assets in the day-to-day operations of the bus network, while leaving LTA to play the regulatory and planning role, as this could lead to greater efficiency and accountability, and minimise the risk of regulatory capture?

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Perhaps, I will start with a reply to how we would encourage new players to enter the market, and then, I will go into the specifics of contestability and how many new players.

One important thing is to lower barriers to entry, which is why we decided that as we embarked into the Government Contracting Model that it would be best for LTA to purchase and own the buses. For each package, you may be looking at perhaps 400-500 buses. For 400 buses, you may be looking at $150 million and $200 million dollars – quite a significant capital investment if it has to be invested by a new player.

We do not want to preclude the possibility of operators that are already in the local market, running private buses quite efficiently, who may be prepared to make a bid for one of these packages, provided we lower the barriers to entry.

How do we ensure genuine contestability? Well, to have as many bidders as possible. To make the bidding as simple as it can be, so that your evaluation is as straightforward as possible.

There is another reason why we have decided to purchase and provide the buses. Because we intend to have a five plus two option – five years, with the option for an operator, if he is successful and performing well, to extend for another two years. So this is five plus two. After that, it is re-tendered.

Obviously, the lifespan of a bus extends well beyond the five or seven years. If an operator were to bring in their own buses, then the challenge is how do they cost this into their bid? Do they bring in second-hand buses, meaning the life span would run out by the time they finish; or do they bring in new buses knowing that this could disadvantage operators from certain countries, for example, the European countries because they are on the different side of the road. And so the buses that they use here may well not be so suitable if they were to use it some other place, like back in their home countries.

So, genuine contestability comes about from lowering the barriers to entry, making sure that you have got competitive bids, structuring the tender so that it is as clear and as simple as possible so that when you evaluate, you can evaluate across a common base line, so that the potential operators do not need to price in too many areas of uncertainty.

As to how many new players, we actually are open to this. The initial part is that three of the 12 packages will be put up for tenders and we will then negotiate with SBST and SMRT to run the remaining nine packages. Over the longer period, the intent is to put up all 12 packages for tender. Whether we continue to have two, three or more players will depend on the returns that come in.

On the not-for-profit entity and whether there should be a corporate player to own the buses, we do not see a necessity for that at this point in time. Basically, it is really the same model that we are trying to adopt as for rail. In rail, we provide the infrastructure, we provide the first set of rolling stock, and the operator then subsequently buys it over at the right point in time. The bus industry had been operating on quite a different model in the past because the operators used to have to pay for the depots, buses and everything. What we are trying to do here in the Government Contracting Model is to provide as much as possible the same kind of support to the bus industry as we did to the rail industry in the early years.

——–

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Interview with Straits Times on public transport woes

The Straits Times did an interview with me last week about the performance of public transport since the last General Election, quotes of which were published on Saturday’s (3 May 2014) Insight article, “On track to solve public transport woes?”. Below is the full transcript of the interview.

—————

[Straits Times] In terms of train reliability, the disruptions in December 2011 were probably the turning point for the worse. 2012 saw the number of train delays hit a high, and according to LTA stats the number of delays and withdrawals came down last year. Some measures the Govt has implemented to tackle this include setting up joint teams with the operators post COI, and raising the maximum fine this year. What is your sense of rail reliability since 2011? Has the situation improved, stagnated or deteriorated, and why?

[Gerald] The number of delays lasting longer than 5 minutes may have come down last year, but this was from a high base of 396 in 2012 and 393 in 2011. The number of delays in 2013 was still higher than in 2010 and 2009. So I think it is still too early to declare victory.

Furthermore, I have often experienced trains stopping many times for less than 5 minutes along the way, resulting in the overall journey being significantly delayed. This has also been the experience of other commuters I have spoken to. Sometimes the statistics that the Government looks at don’t tell the whole story.

[Straits Times] Looking ahead, what needs to be done in to improve train reliability further?

[Gerald] It is usually cheaper to maintain a machine regularly than to replace a machine that has broken down because of poor maintenance. Our MRT system has suffered for years of under-investment in maintenance. It will take a massive re-investment in maintenance to restore reliability to acceptable levels. Beyond maintenance, technology and infrastructure needs to be upgraded to keep up with population and commuter growth. For example, I believe the multiple short delays during trips that I mentioned earlier are often due to the signalling system not being able to accommodate shorter headways (the distance or time between trains).

[Straits Times] In terms of crowding, have trains become even more packed since 2011? Any feedback you have gotten from commuters or residents about this issue?

[Gerald] I find that the train frequency during peak hours has increased slightly, but trains are often still not arriving fast enough to clear the continuous stream of people who are entering the station platforms. Once there is even a slight delay, the platforms would be overflowing with people. While MRT operators may have increased train frequency, there are also more commuters due to continued population increases. It is meaningless to tell commuters that trains are now arriving every 2 minutes instead of every 5 minutes, when they needs to wait for 3 full trains to pass by before being able to board a train.

[Straits Times] Some measures to ease train overcrowding include travel demand management schemes such as free travel and Insinc, as well as introducing express/parallel bus services under the BSEP. To what extent do you think these have been effective? And do you think the overcrowding situation will ease when the Downtown and Thomson lines open a few years down the road?

[Gerald] If we can find a way to spread out the commuter load away from peak hours, that would help ease peak hour overcrowding. However, I don’t think free travel or other incentives will make a significant impact. These will only work if most commuters have flexible working hours, which is clearly not the case now. More employer mindsets need to change to allow for more flexible working hours and telecommuting.

We also need to develop more alternative city centres so that commuters do not all head in the same direction at the same time, as this causes additional strain on the public transport network.

I hope overcrowding will ease with the opening of new lines, but keep in mind there will also be more commuters in the coming years because of an increasing population. Furthermore, many of the new lines are serving areas which previously had no easy access to MRTs. I think the main benefit of these new lines would be an increasing mode-share of commuters taking the MRT. It may not translate to less crowded trains along the existing lines.

[Straits Times] Do you think bus services have improved overall since the BSEP was rolled out, and to what extent? Why or why not?

[Gerald] I understand there has been an improvement in bus frequency along routes benefiting from BSEP, with some services seeing waiting times of 30 minutes reduced to 10 minutes. With $1.1 billion of taxpayer money poured into this programme, plus another $1 billion or so on the way (with BSEP 2), I think this is the least that commuters can expect.

[Straits Times] Are there any problematic routes you know of – whether in terms of being too crowded/very long waiting time/bunching – that need to be addressed?

[Gerald] I am not able to itemise every problematic route, but I am told that SBS services 225G and 225W from Bedok Interchange often experience very long queues, such that passengers at the back of the queue are not able to board the bus or have to squeeze themselves onto the steps of the bus entrance.

[Straits Times] Moving forward, what else needs to be done to improve the bus network? More bus priority schemes, moving more quickly to the contracts model, or even nationalization?

[Gerald] We need to prioritise the needs of public transport commuters over users of private transport. The former mayor of Bogota, Colombia once said that if all citizens are equal before the law, then “a bus with 80 passengers has a right to 80 times more road space than a car with one.”

With this in mind, I would like to see more all-day bus lanes to make bus journeys smoother and more predictable in terms of timing, even if it means taking away some road space from cars.

I think whichever public transport model we adopt must incentivise operators to place reliability, affordability and commuter comfort and convenience ahead of profits. I can’t see how this can be achieved with two operators that are profit-oriented and enjoy de facto monopolies on each of their routes. The PTOs’ profits should be used to lower fares and for maintenance and upgrades, not to distribute as dividends to shareholders. Alternatively, we should, where feasible, introduce genuine competition that will spur innovation and productivity improvements to lower costs and improve service quality. It is competition that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements, not the profit incentive as our Government leaders wrongly assume. PTOs cannot be allowed to keep their profits yet be shielded from competition, because the ones who will suffer are commuters, who come mostly from the middle and lower income groups.

Fare increases and quality of service (COS – MOT)

The PTC chairman acknowledged that service reliability needs to improve, but said that this issue should be kept separate from fare raises, which are to cover rising costs for operators. This is quite baffling for most commuters, myself included. In most service industries, customers will demand good service before they even agree to pay. But for public transport in Singapore, we seem to be expected to pay more just to get satisfactory service.

Parliament, 11 March 2014

Madam,

In January, when the Public Transport Council (PTC) approved hikes in bus and MRT fares, many commuters asked why fares were being raised when they had yet to see satisfactory improvement in service reliability.

The PTC chairman acknowledged that service reliability needs to improve, but said that this issue should be kept separate from fare raises, which are to cover rising costs for operators.

This is quite baffling for most commuters, myself included. In most service industries, customers will demand good service before they even agree to pay. But for public transport in Singapore, we seem to be expected to pay more just to get satisfactory service.

Can the Ministry consider revising the fare review formula to incorporate service reliability as one of its components? This will create is a direct link between service quality and fare adjustments, and will better align the incentives for transport operators with the interests of commuters.

Public transport fare increases

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the quantum of MRT and bus fare increases sought by each public transport operator in their latest submission; (b) whether the new fare subsidy schemes recommended by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee will be rolled out before any fare increases take place and all eligible commuters given ample time to apply for the subsidy schemes; and (c) how the Ministry will reach out to all commuters to ensure that they benefit from the subsidies they are eligible for.

This was a question that I asked the Minister for Transport during the 20 January 2014 sitting regarding the public transport fare increases that the public transport operators had sought. I had filed it before the announcement of the fare increases on 16 January. (Parliamentary questions have to be filed 7 working days before the sitting).

————–

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the quantum of MRT and bus fare increases sought by each public transport operator in their latest submission; (b) whether the new fare subsidy schemes recommended by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee will be rolled out before any fare increases take place and all eligible commuters given ample time to apply for the subsidy schemes; and (c) how the Ministry will reach out to all commuters to ensure that they benefit from the subsidies they are eligible for.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew (The Minister for Transport):

The Public Transport Council (PTC) announced its decision on the 2013 fare adjustment last week. Although both public transport operators had applied for a fare increase of 6.6%, which is the combined fare cap for 2012 and 2013, the PTC approved an overall net fare increase of 3.2%, and rolled over the remaining 3.4% to the 2014 fare review exercise.

I would like to thank the Council for taking into consideration my earlier request during the November 2013 parliamentary sitting for the fare increase not to exceed the average national wage increase for 2013, which should come in at about 4-5%. The 3.2% fare increase is well below this, and hence public transport fares will continue to be affordable for the average commuter.

At the same time, the PTC decided to implement several enhancements to existing fare concession schemes as recommended by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC). Up to half a million commuters stand to benefit. These include young children, students, in particular, polytechnic students, senior citizens and adult commuters who are heavy users of public transport.

The PTC decided that these enhancements will come into effect on the same day as the fare increase, that is, 6 April 2014.

On its part, the Government has decided to implement fare concession schemes for two groups of commuters who may be most impacted by the fare increase, that is lower-wage workers who are under MOM’s Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme, and persons with disabilities.

Eligible recipients will be notified around 6 April to apply for the two concession schemes, which will take effect from 6 July 2014. Transport vouchers will be provided to help them for the interim period between the fare increase on 6 April, and 6 July when the concessions take effect. These being new schemes, we need more time to set up the frameworks and processes, and to cater to potentially half a million applicants.

Let me assure the Member that my Ministry, the public transport operators and TransitLink will extensively publicise the enhanced and new concession schemes in the coming weeks, so that potential beneficiaries are made aware and can apply for and enjoy the concessions.

[Source: Singapore Parliament Reports]

——————–

See also the Workers’ Party’s statement on 17 January 2014 in response to the announcement of the fare increases:

The Workers’ Party (WP) welcomes the new and enhanced concession schemes to make public transport more affordable for people with disabilities, senior citizens, low-wage workers, students and full-time national servicemen. These groups will finally enjoy some overdue relief for their travel needs, for which the public and the WP have lobbied for years.

The concessions, however, should not be used as a sweetener to make the latest fare increases palatable.

With an initial increase of 3.2% in 2014 and an increase of 3.4% rolled over to the fare review exercise next year, this could mean a heftier increase in 2015. We are concerned that the majority of the commuters may still experience a very large overall fare increase of up to 6.6% in the next two years.

This latest round of fare hikes comes on the back of a substantial $1.1 billion government subsidy in our public transportation system through the Bus Services Enhancement Fund (BSEF) last year.

The fare hike has also come despite train breakdowns having become a regular affair, further compounding the frustrations of commuters, who are frequently affected by such service quality and reliability lapses.

We are disappointed that the fare hike will take place three months before the concession schemes for low-wage workers and people with disabilities are to be implemented. We call for the fare hike to be delayed until the new concession schemes are implemented.

The WP believes that public transport should be provided as a public good and not for profit. Service quality, reliability and fare affordability should come before the need to ensure the profitability of PTOs.

DENNIS TAN LIP FONG (陈立峰)
Executive Council Member
The Workers’ Party