More questions about NEL
-
LTA's puzzling line of reasoning
If it is more costly to build a train station later, why wasn't the station between HarbourFront and Outram Park built?
by Lee Han Shih
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/4020.asp
REMEMBER the grassroots leader who drove his Mercedes to a charity event to get free textbooks? Even if you ignore the morality of the issue — the books were meant for the needy and not for someone who owns a Mercedes — it was a dumb move anyway, as the money he lost on the wear and tear of the car, and the petrol he used, exceeded the value of whatever books he managed to grab at the event.
For years, this was the best example of how Singaporeans can be penny-wise but pound-foolish. Then, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) came along with its decision on the Buangkok MRT station (picture).
Buangkok, in the Hougang area, is one of 16 stations on the $5-billion North-East MRT Line (NEL). The line was built by the LTA and operated by publicly-listed SBS Transit.
Three days before the NEL began its commercial run on June 20, SBS suddenly announced that it had decided not to open the Buangkok station because it did not think there would be enough traffic to justify the trains stopping there.
Predictably, the residents of Buangkok raised a howl. After all, if the Government had spent $5 billion to build a railway, what was the reason for not opening one or more stations there? Isn't that a waste of public money?
No, the LTA answered. It said the low traffic volume in Buangkok meant that SBS stood to lose $1 million to $2 million a year if it opened the station and that would translate into higher fares for commuters.
The LTA also went to some length to defend the building — but not the using — of Buangkok station. It said that even if some of the stations are not used for the time being, it was much cheaper to build all the stations along the NEL at one go. Putting up 16 stations for the NEL and opening only 14 of them (the Woodleigh station is also closed) is, therefore, the best use of public funds, it said.
This was the same argument the LTA presented its boss, Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong. On July 13, Mr Yeo told reporters that Woodleigh station may not open for seven to eight years — "if you don't build it now and you build it later, it's going to be a lot, lot more expensive". Putting up MRT stations by stages was not a good way to use public money, the Minister added.
Now the LTA has contradicted itself — and Mr Yeo as well — in a letter to The Straits Times on Wednesday. Answering a reader's query on why there was no station between Outram Park (designated NE3) and Harbour-Front (NE1), the LTA said the distance between the two stations is 2.6km and "is much longer than the average station spacing".
It added that it had made provisions to build a station in between (presumably to be called NE2), but "we have not built it as there is no current need to do so". But "in the long run ... (changes) may justify another MRT station being built".
Excuse me? The LTA did not build NE2 because there was no traffic, but it built Buangkok and Woodleigh stations anyway despite the lack of traffic for these two stations. If, as Mr Yeo said, it could be "a lot, lot more expensive" to build a station later, shouldn't the LTA have built NE2 together with the rest of the stations and save the public "a lot of money"?
There is more. The Buangkok station cost $80 million to build and is good for perhaps 20 years. This means a depreciation of an average of $4 million a year — regardless of whether the station is open or closed. If the Buangkok station is open, the annual $4 million depreciation is spent to serve the public. If it is closed — as it is now — the $4 million goes down the drain.
So, why is the LTA willing to keep Buangkok closed and let $4 million go to waste every year so that SBS can save $1 million to $2 million?
The LTA may argue that it could not command SBS, a commercial concern, to open the station and incur a loss from doing so. But why not? SBS made a commercial decision to operate the NEL and if it overestimated the ridership and ended up making a loss, this is what business is all about. The losses should be borne by SBS and its shareholders, and not by raising fares or closing one of more stations so that SBS can recover from its mistake and make money from the operation. Why, in other words, should commuters and residents of Buangkok suffer for a bad decision made by SBS?
Of all the issues left unanswered over the Buangkok station, this is the most puzzling: The willingness of the LTA to help a commercial concern like SBS make money.
.
SBS made a commitment to run the North-East Line. If it can't do the job, it is the LTA's duty to take the line back and give it to someone who can. -
i have some questions and comments about his article.
"Excuse me? The LTA did not build NE2 because there was no traffic, but it built Buangkok and Woodleigh stations anyway despite the lack of traffic for these two stations. If, as Mr Yeo said, it could be "a lot, lot more expensive" to build a station later, shouldn't the LTA have built NE2 together with the rest of the stations and save the public "a lot of money"? "
the location of NE2 and that of Buangkok and Woodleigh are quite different. one is near the city centre while the others are suburban, housing estates. hence the price of land would be very much different and so would the price of land and use of land in NE2. i am not sure what plans URA has (if it has one) for the land around NE2, but we can almost be certain that we will build flats around Buangkok and Woodleigh. and we can temper demand by starting to build flats at these 2 sites eariler, as they are now doing. as for NE2, this cannot exactly be done. we have also to factor in the opportunity cost of land there too.There is more. The Buangkok station cost $80 million to build and is good for perhaps 20 years. This means a depreciation of an average of $4 million a year — regardless of whether the station is open or closed. If the Buangkok station is open, the annual $4 million depreciation is spent to serve the public. If it is closed — as it is now — the $4 million goes down the drain.
firstly the 20 year lifespan is an assumption. and i am not sure if straight line depreciation should be used here - both for operating the station and not operating the station.Of all the issues left unanswered over the Buangkok station, this is the most puzzling: The willingness of the LTA to help a commercial concern like SBS make money.
we have to start this from the fact that SBS is privatised now. hence SBS is a commercial entity, answerable to its shareholders, and like all such entities, they have to make money and start profitable and viable. at the same time, from the fact that SBS is a major player in our bus service and now the NEL, i think LTA would not like to see SBS fold - imagine the chaos that can happen!
that said, of course the question comes back to whether LTA should have allowed SBS to privatise in the first place. i personally feel the argument of efficiency brought about by privatisation, while generally true, may not be applicable in singapore. hence i am not for the privatisation in the first place. but since it is unlikely we can do anything to reverse that, it should be fair that SBS has to act like a commercial entity although it is providing a public good. -
Is SBS really privatised? Or is it just a facade of being privatised? Who is the majority shareholder? Temasek Holdings ie the government? Just because there are some private shareholders does not mean it is privatised. Just like the facade of our 3 "private" telcos operating in our "deregulated" telecommunications sector, privatisation is in name only. The fact is that the government still has controlling interests over all these companies, SBS included.Originally posted by wuming78:the location of NE2 and that of Buangkok and Woodleigh are quite different. one is near the city centre while the others are suburban, housing estates. hence the price of land would be very much different and so would the price of land and use of land in NE2. i am not sure what plans URA has (if it has one) for the land around NE2, but we can almost be certain that we will build flats around Buangkok and Woodleigh. and we can temper demand by starting to build flats at these 2 sites eariler, as they are now doing. as for NE2, this cannot exactly be done. we have also to factor in the opportunity cost of land there too. [/quote]
While there is indeed some small scale private residential apartments around Woodleigh, I do not believe there are any short to medium term residential development plans around Woodleigh. So is that argument still valid then?
[quote]
we have to start this from the fact that SBS is privatised now. hence SBS is a commercial entity, answerable to its shareholders, and like all such entities, they have to make money and start profitable and viable. at the same time, from the fact that SBS is a major player in our bus service and now the NEL, i think LTA would not like to see SBS fold - imagine the chaos that can happen!
that said, of course the question comes back to whether LTA should have allowed SBS to privatise in the first place. i personally feel the argument of efficiency brought about by privatisation, while generally true, may not be applicable in singapore. hence i am not for the privatisation in the first place. but since it is unlikely we can do anything to reverse that, it should be fair that SBS has to act like a commercial entity although it is providing a public good.
And if it is privatised, why is SBS, a supposedly "private" company, punishing the public for its ineptitude in the running of the NEL to protect its (SBS) pockets, when in REAL private companies who don't have the authorities on their side, the company's pockets are hit?
Do you see the conflict of interest here? The LTA, a government agency, is helping SBS, a government-owned company (again, despite all pretences to the contrary) cover up and tide over its incompetence and hurting the public (which the LTA is supposed to speak for).
Either way, the facts stand that either:
- the LTA (a government agency whos stated aim is to serve the public) is protecting the interests of a private company over that of the public or,
- the LTA (a government agency) is protecting the interests of a company owned by the government (Conflict of interest)
Then again, whats new? -
In the 1950's through the 1960's, and until the early 1970's, Singapore had at least five Taxi Companies owned by Private Enterprise.
Similary for the bus services, there were at least seven bus companies owned also by Private Companies.
These were all "nationalised" by the Government - on the pretext that these private companies were operating the services inefficiently, and the profits were not "ploughed back" for the interest of the commuting public by offering newer buses.
It is odd that the Government should have accused these private owned companies when they were regulating the fare increases more stringently than they do today - that allow fare increases every two or three years.
The purpose then seems to be more political than commercial, as most of these privately owned transport businesses were largely in the hands of Chinese educated business men, who betted on the wrong political parties, and continue to provide financial support to the other political parties.
What is the difference in the transport system in the 21st Century, besides having the mass rapid transit system ?
We still have three main bus companies and a slew of privately owned smaller fleet that are licensed to operate on other shorter routes; and also at least five taxi companies.
The only difference is that all these main public transport companies are Government Linked Companies.
It is not so discernible, but politics have seeped into the corridors of the commercial world. -
The current state of affairs regarding the NEL bus cancelation affair is discusting, the only one that makes good in this situtation is SBS which reaps in more money by forcing many consumers to take a ridiculus two bus one mrt ride combo, paying twice as they have did before.
Route duplication is one thing, but forcing consumers to take your system at their expense is another. -
the subsuming of private bus companies in the past was due to a threat - communism. of course this threat does not exist anymore today.Originally posted by Atobe:In the 1950's through the 1960's, and until the early 1970's, Singapore had at least five Taxi Companies owned by Private Enterprise.
Similary for the bus services, there were at least seven bus companies owned also by Private Companies.
These were all "nationalised" by the Government - on the pretext that these private companies were operating the services inefficiently, and the profits were not "ploughed back" for the interest of the commuting public by offering newer buses.
It is odd that the Government should have accused these private owned companies when they were regulating the fare increases more stringently than they do today - that allow fare increases every two or three years.
The purpose then seems to be more political than commercial, as most of these privately owned transport businesses were largely in the hands of Chinese educated business men, who betted on the wrong political parties, and continue to provide financial support to the other political parties.
What is the difference in the transport system in the 21st Century, besides having the mass rapid transit system ?
We still have three main bus companies and a slew of privately owned smaller fleet that are licensed to operate on other shorter routes; and also at least five taxi companies.
The only difference is that all these main public transport companies are Government Linked Companies.
It is not so discernible, but politics have seeped into the corridors of the commercial world.
anyway now they are privatising the transport companies again, no matter how one can say they are linked to the government indirectly.
the fact is public transport is a sort of like a public good, and there are good economic reasons for the government to regulate. for example, no buses will ply along seletar road if public transport is totally private. -
SBS currently runs the NEL as well as several bus services along the route run by the NEL. so it makes economic sense to cut back on SBS bus routes that are duplicating the NEL, of course since the NEL's operating cost is high, so they can recover the costs. this is purely a commercial decision which all private companies will make. we as commuters have to understand this. the role of PTC comes in here to ensure SBS does not raise fares by too large amounts and too frequently so that public transport is always affordable. comparing our public transport with that of the other cities, for the standard we are getting, it is really considerably cheap.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The current state of affairs regarding the NEL bus cancelation affair is discusting, the only one that makes good in this situtation is SBS which reaps in more money by forcing many consumers to take a ridiculus two bus one mrt ride combo, paying twice as they have did before.
Route duplication is one thing, but forcing consumers to take your system at their expense is another.
but i do have to agree on another separate but related issue, where the PTC squeezed out a private bus company running the NE route, in the name of saving resources. i feel this is not the role of the PTC and should be left for the market to decide. if the bus company feels in the end that no one is taking his bus, then he will surely divert the service. in this sense, it becomes a case where PTC is seen to be helping SBS maximise rider-ship in the NEL, which i feel, is totally the responsibility of the SBS. that is the spirit of privatising the company in the first place! -
I believe there are more viable alternatives to cutting routes, such as maintaining the services, but reducing their frequency, to maintain choice for the consumer.
SBS does not have to cut costs, but it should be wary that its customers do not have to pay the cost of their incompetence or blunders. What they are offering now witht he current setup is a slap in the face to the consumer. Increased costs, and at the same time less efficency in getting from point A to B due to waiting times, and having to take two buses in addition to the train ride. Doing means that SBS is actually reducing the efficency of their transport system for certain consumers and upping costs to over twice that of normal. Which is riduculus.
SBS should seriously rethink their defination of "transit". It appears that they are simply being myopic in resorting to such measures to up NEL usage.
Personally I have nothing against the NEL, I find it useful. But on the other hand, I sympatise with those who not only have to pay more, but also suffer a degration in the efficency and quality of their transport. They should seriously rethink their stragety instead of simply cutting strings here and there in an attempt to shunt customers to roll in the cash like mindless lemmings.
SBS dosen't have to cut costs to please customers, but at the same time they should seriosly think about bringing the best value forward to, instead of what they are doing now, which is simply a move to pad their pockets with more cash, at the expense of the consumer. I'm sure there are many other ways where both party can win in this situtation.
But it appears SBS is simply too arrogant or ignorant to expore these alternatives, opting for the myopic, easiest way out, who-cares-about-providing-quality-service-sinch-they-can't-say-much-anyway-transport.
But then again, what do they care, they have to offical protection of the gar'men. -
in the end SBS is private and has to answer to its shareholders.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I believe there are more viable alternatives to cutting routes, such as maintaining the services, but reducing their frequency, to maintain choice for the consumer.
SBS does not have to cut costs, but it should be wary that its customers do not have to pay the cost of their incompetence or blunders. What they are offering now witht he current setup is a slap in the face to the consumer. Increased costs, and at the same time less efficency in getting from point A to B due to waiting times, and having to take two buses in addition to the train ride. Doing means that SBS is actually reducing the efficency of their transport system for certain consumers and upping costs to over twice that of normal. Which is riduculus.
SBS should seriously rethink their defination of "transit". It appears that they are simply being myopic in resorting to such measures to up NEL usage.
Personally I have nothing against the NEL, I find it useful. But on the other hand, I sympatise with those who not only have to pay more, but also suffer a degration in the efficency and quality of their transport. They should seriously rethink their stragety instead of simply cutting strings here and there in an attempt to shunt customers to roll in the cash like mindless lemmings.
SBS dosen't have to cut costs to please customers, but at the same time they should seriosly think about bringing the best value forward to, instead of what they are doing now, which is simply a move to pad their pockets with more cash, at the expense of the consumer. I'm sure there are many other ways where both party can win in this situtation.
But it appears SBS is simply too arrogant or ignorant to expore these alternatives, opting for the myopic, easiest way out, who-cares-about-providing-quality-service-sinch-they-can't-say-much-anyway-transport.
But then again, what do they care, they have to offical protection of the gar'men.
public transport is a very personal issue where everyone has an opinion. of course when the price of travelling increase commuters will tend to be unhappy.
i personally do not know how much changes SBS has done to the bus routes along the NEL. but im sure perhaps when i discover that i am in fact inconvenienced yet have to pay more, i will be unhappy too. well. public transport is almost like the right of all citizens, especially when the government would like us to move towards using public transport to cut the number of cars on the road.
but mabbe we should give SBS benefit of the doubt - that indeed they have done their studies and found that its not economical to maintain the status quo. -
its the profits they care abt n not providing the service ppl wanted... too bad...
-
Communist threat in Singapore ?Originally posted by wuming78:the subsuming of private bus companies in the past was due to a threat - communism. of course this threat does not exist anymore today.
anyway now they are privatising the transport companies again, no matter how one can say they are linked to the government indirectly.
the fact is public transport is a sort of like a public good, and there are good economic reasons for the government to regulate. for example, no buses will ply along seletar road if public transport is totally private.
If it was real, then perhaps solid evidence would have been produced to charge a man in court, instead of locking him up for more then 25 years without trial - imprisoned for a period that is longer then Nelson Mandela of South Africa, and at least Mandela had a trial on a specific charge.
This unfortunate man is Chia Thye Poh, who was locked up just because LKY say that he is a Communist.
Just the same when LKY accused some eight Church Activists to be Communists and had them locked up in the 1990's.
If there was a threat of Communism, it was very much under control by the ruthless manner in which LKY utilised the Internal Security Act that was crafted by the British Colonials and refined by LKY.
Was it necessary to dismantle then, those bus companies that were privately owned ? Was it for economic or political reasons ?
Back in the 1950's and 1960's, many businesses, and especially those controlled by the Chinese educated, were not supportive of LKY, who was seen as an upstart 'new kid on the block', pushy and arrogant; and who could not speak a word of Mandarin, let alone any dialect.
You will be surprise to know that these Private Owned Bus Companies operation had covered every corner of Singapore even at that time, and Seletar was well served, including the entire length of Yio Chu Kang Road, as well as to the remote corner of Ama Keng in Chua Chu Kang.
Even at the present day in 2003, Private Owned Bus operators are only too eager to be let loose and compete with SBS to operate full time on routes that SBS claim are not profitable.
The only reason that this has not been done on a wide scale, is that it will only show up the weakness of the big boys. -
In the end it's their funeral, they annoy consumers who are inconvienced and have to pay more, they are adding in their own way to the already mounting woes of Singaporeans aroung in these times, reflecting in reduced productivity and yet again in the overall showing of the nation.
Just look at SIA, cabin crew ratings are down and they are still in denial. When will they wake up their idea and listen to what the masses are feeling? Without the people there will be no company, all most want is a fair deal, not constant hardball with sudden retrenchment and working for wages that forces us to live virtually on nothing while watching FTs come in and take the positions that are really needed.
Myopic I think, in the long run it's only going to hurt Singaporeans as a whole. And while insulated from it for some time, the upper management of this country will feel the heat sooner or later... I just hope it won't have to reach that point. -
Wuming78,Originally posted by wuming78:in the end SBS is private and has to answer to its shareholders.
public transport is a very personal issue where everyone has an opinion. of course when the price of travelling increase commuters will tend to be unhappy.
i personally do not know how much changes SBS has done to the bus routes along the NEL. but im sure perhaps when i discover that i am in fact inconvenienced yet have to pay more, i will be unhappy too. well. public transport is almost like the right of all citizens, especially when the government would like us to move towards using public transport to cut the number of cars on the road.
but mabbe we should give SBS benefit of the doubt - that indeed they have done their studies and found that its not economical to maintain the status quo.
again, my question is: Is SBS really a private company, or is it just maintaining a facade of being one, while being a government controlled entity? Please, refer to the facts and look at Temasek's (and hence the governments) stake in it and therefore their clout within SBS before coming up with an answer.
Look at it this way, being a facade of being a private company while in actual fact being an extension of the government's control of Singapore, actually makes it easier for them to stiff Singaporeans (like they're doing now) because they can hide behind that excuse of being a "private company" to justify price hikes, than being a wholly owned government subsidised company, because any attempts to hike fares as a government subsidiary would run into more opposition from the people.
Benefit of the doubt? Theres no need to, just run a check on how their profits continually increase year after year. The information would be readily available on their website. And since they obviouslly f***ed up the show when doing their studies on NEL ridership, why should we accept the studies on NEL-bus service at face value without any questions?
ST, the difference between SBS and SIA is that SIA is a GLC competing in the real world with real competitors where it cannot hide behind government rules, anti-competitive measures and government-controlled watchdogs, while SBS is "competing" in a PAP-world where the above don't apply and the "competition" are other GLCs. -
Originally posted by Viper52:
The reason why station NE2 (between NE1 HarbourFront and NE3 Outram Park) cannot be built now:
[b]LTA's puzzling line of reasoning
If it is more costly to build a train station later, why wasn't the station between HarbourFront and Outram Park built?
by Lee Han Shih
[/b]
The tunnel from NE1 to NE3 runs under Telok Blangah Road, continue via Keppel Road, passing underground next to Keppel DistriPark, run under Malayan Railway (KTM) land, then continue via Kampong Bahru Road and Eu Tong Sen Street before reaching Outram Park station.
Imagine that the location of NE2 is somewhere half-way between NE1 and NE3, then that will be the land of Malayan Railway (KTM)Tanjong Pagar staion (I think that's the maintenance depot?), can our government build an MRT station on Malaysia-owned land? No, unless Malayan Railway (KTM) moves out of Tanjong Pagar station and return the land back to Singapore. -
For those not really affected by the NEL, here's the story from a north-easterner. I am staying in between Kovan Station and Serangoon Station.
The recent adjustments of bus services, practically cut all my buses. I have a bus-stop in front of my house, but it's practically useless now. Only 82,80,153 and 136 is available, it used to be double the amount, and mind you, those cut were the main trunk services to town etc. 82 goes to shenton way, which in their way, should be cut, because it's a duplicate(Tanjong Pagar MRT). 80 goes to Harbourfront(???) and 153 goes to Bukit Merah via Toa Payoh, and 136 loops Hougang and AMK(???)
By using SBS's method of which services to cut, only 153 should remain, but of course, that's not what i wish.
The services they have diverted/cut are:
85(cut)-goes to Harbourfront/Zouk
111(orchard-buona vista)
97 (city hall-jurong east)
81(Pasir Ris-Outram)
It is clear the services which have affected me are very important routes.
I now have to wait for either 82,80,153 to go to the nearest NEL. Note that these are trunk,not feeder services. I now have to take a trunk service to 2 stops away to take the NEL. It has not only inconvenienced me, but i also have to pay more.
Further inconvenience includes getting back from town, where i have to catch the train, then transfer to the bus, hoping that there's still a last bus.
I feel sad for the many commuters who depend on service 85 which goes into punggol. Many of them are more badly affected than i am, especially the students from the various schools there.
If i had known NEL would cause the services to be disrupted, i'd rather not the NEL be built.
I feel that the transport system in Singapore is far from world class. Our buses doesn't seem to be cleaned at all. We are forced to take multiple transfers. We 'lan-lan' also must take SBS even if we hate it to the core, unless we travel on foot.
Talk about consumer choice..... -
Hmm...so many unhappiness abt e transport system & NEL....luckily me no stay there..so me never get 2 use NEL!!
-
i suggest they will built together wif circle
-
Circle or no Circle line, those living between stations are greatly inconvenienced.
-
you've not seen buses in other countries. trust me, ours is CLEAN. it's much much better than the rest of the world.Originally posted by nikonll:I feel that the transport system in Singapore is far from world class. Our buses doesn't seem to be cleaned at all. We are forced to take multiple transfers. We 'lan-lan' also must take SBS even if we hate it to the core, unless we travel on foot.
Talk about consumer choice..... -
Originally posted by nismoS132:you've not seen buses in other countries. trust me, ours is CLEAN. it's much much better than the rest of the world.
x2 -
Bah, at a recent press confrence, concerns about SBS latest actions met with unproductive stonewalling and the public left with more questions then answers.
SBS has failed to answer several contradictions pointed out in their offical stand, and said they would "look into it (ie.dismiss it)" and finally in a show of their true colours, said, "well, you can't please everybody."
With big brother on their side, SBS has little to fear. It has the customer gripped firmly by the neck and can choose to listen or not to listen on their whims. I wonder how serious they actually are about listening. If they are not, they should just hold a press confrence and say "it's our way or the highway." and safe us the trouble to bother to voice out and to resume our little lives as pawns and cogs in the machine.
If SIA tried a stunt like what SBS is pulling now, it'll fold up pretty fast. In the real world, there's no time and room for such wayang.