Discussion Forum - Archives

8 Mar 2012, 7.56PM

6 comments & replies |by REACH Administrator | Getting Around

Speaking in Parliament, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew said that there is a marked difference between the support given to the bus and rail sectors.

Going forward, in line with the rail financing framework, the Government will bear the development and land costs for bus depots and bus parking infrastructure, and lease these to bus operators at a nominal fee. Public transport operators (PTO) will also be allowed to retain a portion of the advertising revenue from bus shelters. Mr Lui said that these measures will ‘lower the entry barriers for new operators when contestability in the bus industry is introduced’ and help PTOs cope with rising costs in the future.

Transport experts interviewed by the media welcomed the move, saying that it will enable PTOs to focus on other service improvements. The revenue from advertising also means less reliance on fare increases.

Turning to discussions on the public transport model, Mr Lui said that the long-term public interest is best served if the operation of trains and buses are left to commercial entities, as profit incentives will drive operators towards higher efficiency and productivity. Citing the examples of Hong Kong’s MTR and London Buses, Mr Lui noted that the most efficiently-run public transport services are provided by commercially-driven entities.

However, he added that while commercial entities are used to run public transport operations, the Government must still take control in key areas. These include planning for rail lines and bus routes, ensuring a firm regulatory mechanism for fares, setting rail and bus service levels and deciding on timely capacity injection to meet ridership growth.

Read The Straits Times article and Minister Lui’s full speech for more details.

1217 views | 6 comments & replies |

Sort By :

Guest

8 Mar 2012, 8.27PM

As long as the government refuses to plan infrastructure demands in conjunction with population increases, they will always be seen desperately coping with our transport issues. Why have they not planned? When are they going to plan? Are they going to continue the show as if we can't see what's going on?

Fat MaMa

Guest

8 Mar 2012, 10.51PM

"Turning to discussions on the public transport model, Mr Lui said that the long-term public interest is best served if the operation of trains and buses are left to commercial entities, as profit incentives will drive operators towards higher efficiency and productivity. "

---------------

This is a very confusing statement.

Looking at how government will bear the development and land costs for bus depots and bus parking infrastructure, and other incentives given to bus operators, isn't it already clear that that bus services cannot make a profit without government assistance?

Guest

9 Mar 2012, 12.28AM

Trust them. They are very incoherent these days. If this is not helping PTOs to be profitable, what is? And when PTOs need to be supported with so much state funds and infrustructure laid for them, then what is the meaning of privatization? PTOs on state welfare while our leaders are against a welfare state for its people? Hypocrisy or cover-up? Singaporeans, see for yourself.

Fat MaMa

Guest

9 Mar 2012, 1.05AM

Bus and Train service cannot be profitable. The quality of service required is high because car prices are high, taxi fares are not cheap, so we only have our buses and trains. Parents carrying baby with pram has to be able to use the bus during peak hours. This also applies to our elderly. Thus bus and trains cannot be packed. The frequency has to be improved and fare prices affordable. Any profit that PTOs get has to come from non-core business like retail and advertising. The idea that this should be consider as a separate part of the business and not use to subsides bus and train operations seems really strange.

Guest

9 Mar 2012, 9.25AM

All these problems are a result of overloading which in turn reflects their failure to plan. They can give all the billions to PTOs, but the transport system is still going to give way simply because it is not built for this capacity.

Guest

9 Mar 2012, 11.17AM

The way COE increase was cut (increase cost of car ownership) and the encouragement to use public transport partly contributed to increase in people using public transport. The ability to link the effects of different policies has to be improve.

The latest one Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) and new taxi minimum fleet size requirement from 400 taxis to 800 size policies could be the next to cause a headache. Why?

Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS)
Low carbon emission cars are electric and hybrids. Electric and hybrids cars tend to be expansive. Hybrids require two engines. Both electric and hybrid have to have their batteries change after a certain number of years. With the current Green Vehicle Rebate Scheme, the toyota prius was not competitive because of the high COE. Honda insight, another hybrid, still cost more than the normal toyota corolla or hyundai elantra. Under the new CEVs, the price of other cars will fall further. This will make hybrids even less attractive. This will likely lead to greater demand for COE for cars at the lower end.

new taxi minimum fleet size requirement from 400 taxis to 800 size
To increase the taxi fleet, more bids will have to be put in for Category A COE.

Less COEs, Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) and new taxi minimum fleet size requirement from 400 taxis to 800 size policies could lead to higher Category A COE prices. Added to that higher petrol prices, more and more people who might own a car at the lower to the middle end will be using public transport, while those who can afford it maybe going onto their second or third cars.