THE GROWING FREQUENCY of disruptions to MRT services is infuriating commuters, and the weakening earnings at SMRT Corp and SBS Transit are irritating investors. The only thing the government seems to be doing about the former is imposing a tougher maintenance regime on the transport operators. This won’t make any one any happier, in my view.
Let’s face it: Like any mechanical system, all trains are bound to break down. The North- South Line, which saw massive disruptions late last year, is some 25 years old now and more heavily used than ever before. And, the recent breakdowns in the Circle and North- East Lines show that even relatively new lines can face difficulties. Maintenance standards can always be improved, of course. Yet, beyond a certain point, incessant checking of the tracks and other infrastructure will only interfere with the smooth operation of the trains. We need to accept that nothing works perfectly all the time.
The real reason many people feel the public transport system is failing is that it offers commuters limited choice and transport operators little opportunity to make money by offering differentiated services. In its 2008 Land Transport Masterplan, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) said it would take on the role of central bus network planner to further integrate the public transport system and create a seamless “hub-and-spoke” model. Buses would feed passengers on to trains, or trunk buses serving areas not covered by trains.
“This model has allowed us to avoid wasteful duplication of resources by ensuring that buses provide complementary services along corridors served by the rapid transit system,” the LTA’s report said. “From the commuters’ point of view, the entire public transport system should be treated as a whole, not separate parts, that is, buses versus trains.”
Such a system seems logical. In a small country, a duplication of resources — such as buses and trains plying the same routes — is perhaps a less efficient use of public funds. But it may also serve commuters better. The hub-and-spoke model puts trains at the centre of our public transport system. When a line is down, commuters feel stranded because they believe they have no alternative form of transport. The fact that fares are regulated is cold comfort.
So, how can Singapore fix this problem? Train and bus services ought to be developed as parallel, rather than entirely complementary, modes of transport that ultimately compete with each other. The MRT system is a natural monopoly and ought to be operated by a single player, working closely with the LTA and subject to strict regulation. Meanwhile, the bus operators ought to be allowed more latitude to ply routes and set price points that suit themselves and commuters.
LET MARKETS WORK
On a recent Monday morning, I took Bus No 585 from my home in the eastern part of Singapore to the CBD. Bus 585 is a premium bus service. It stops at a few places in the east, then takes the East Coast Parkway right into town, with no stops. When I boarded, the bus was full, with standing room only. “Are you sure you want to board the bus? You have to stand all the way and it’s $3.50,” the bus driver asked me and several other passengers in Mandarin. On a regular commute, the price would have been just above $1.
Yet, no one even blinked. Those who have to get into the CBD by 9am know what a battle it is. Getting on the train can be physically impossible. And, when you do succeed in getting into a train, it’s a highly uncomfortable journey. Bus 585, in contrast, was full but still a pleasant ride. It took one-third the time of my usual commute. As it happened, it was also a shorter walk from the bus stop to my office. ComfortDelGro Corp, the company operating the service, clearly saw demand in this space and took advantage of it.
If train and bus operators were encouraged to compete, more of such innovative and demand- centric bus services might be made available, freeing up some space on trains. It would also provide consumers with an alternative mode of transport, should trains break down. No doubt, in that instance, the buses would become very congested. Yet, surely that’s better than having no alternative mode of transport or having to wait for a bus bridging service.
Being offered a higher level of service for which they are prepared to pay might also change the mindset of commuters. At the moment, they not only expect refunds on train journeys that are not completed because of a breakdown but also free bus services. They would probably baulk at the suggestion of a fare hike, which the transport operators desperately need. In essence, the centrally planned hub-andspoke system offers few options, and commuters feel they shouldn’t have to pay when it doesn’t work.
Creating more competition in the public transport system could be achieved by deregulating the bus networks. Private operators that are given the freedom to define their own routes and charge their own prices could well be very creative in coming up with routes that serve the most people at the best possible price, allowing beleaguered bus operators to finally make some money. In the recent quarter, SMRT Corp’s bus business reported an operating loss of $6.6 million — compared with the year-ago quarter’s loss of $2.6 million. SBS Transit will announce its results at the close of trading on Nov 9.
The possibility that deregulation could result in some routes being underserved shouldn’t be a reason for not pursuing it. Instead, the government could address this issue by opening tenders for some subsidised routes to complement the fully private ones. And, because our transport payments are fully electronic, it should not be difficult to offer the needy subsidised transport fares the way students and senior citizens enjoy lower fares.
FALSE COMPETITION
The idea of contestability for a train line was put in place to motivate train operators to provide better services. It was also hoped that the multi-modal framework would allow them to better integrate their bus and rail services. “To make sure that the operators continue to operate efficiently and improve service standards for the benefit of commuters, the key issue is not so much whether there are one or two operators but to have a contestable industry in which the threat of competition must be real to the incumbents,” the LTA says.
Still, it’s questionable whether this competition really serves to motivate the train operators to do better. The New Rail Financing Framework, which is being applied to the Downtown Line and could also be applied to future lines, reduces the licence period from 30 or 40 years to just 15. Such short licence periods do little to motivate an operator to think long term. Also, just how does one train operator prove it can provide train services that are better than others? Competing for a licence to run a train line might come down to competing for engineering talent and resources in a very limited pool.
Pitting buses against trains requires the operator to be nimble and commuter-centric in its planning. How can it make a train ride more comfortable than a bus ride? While trains cut through traffic and long distances quickly, anecdotal evidence suggests that many commuters still prefer buses because they are more likely to get a seat, the bus stop is often right outside their doorstep and riding above ground is often more pleasant. To compete with this service proposition, train operators might run shuttle services from train stations to popular destinations nearby.
Finally, having a single train operator could mean better coordination with regulators on the planning and construction of new lines. Industry insiders say the current system leaves the train operators out of the planning process until a late stage, which means not all features of the network are constructed with the operator in mind.
A system of one train operator competing against many bus companies in a deregulated market won’t solve Singapore’s public transport woes, of course. For instance, it wouldn’t necessarily result in fewer train breakdowns. And, having more buses on the road might cause traffic congestion. On the other hand, a system that offers commuters more options for a speedy and comfortable journey might tempt more people out of taxis and private vehicles.
Whatever the case, it’s about time Singapore stopped tinkering with a centrally planned network that doesn’t really work and started experimenting with a system that has a better chance of success.
No comments:
Post a Comment