Cannabalism vs. Competition vs. Complementary
-
All bus services would have some parts of their routes duplicated by other services. However, the premium bus scheme and MRT-bus rationalisation seem to suggest that cannabalism is not to be tolerated. I am just thinking if duplication is really such a bad thing? Isn't competition meant to drive up service levels and efficiency, thereby lowering costs?
The 2 transport giants are almost given exclusive rights to the hdb towns that they control. But this lack of competition actually means that there are many missing links. Till now, there is no sbs basic bus that goes to Bt Panjang and Choa Chu Kang and Sembawang...
Then there is another unique situation where sbs rationalises some of their feeder or introduces some trunk that complements (and therefore cannibalises) their feeder. Example of 57, rationalise 274 and 131 complements 275.
Any views on this 3Cs?
-
When a feeder services merges with a trunk service to form a new service, isn't that good? You're able to travel to somewhere else instead of just to the town center and having to make a transfer after that!
Also, on the fare side, your fare remains the same. It's ensured that portion of the route the new service takes will cost the same as when it was served by the feeder service.
-
i like the witty title that u came up with
-
Originally posted by SBS3758D:
i like the witty title that u came up with
I thought this in the nature forums.
Very thoughtful.
-
Here's my 2 cents' worth:
I believe competition is good so that both companies can strive to work harder to give the best they can offer. But like what TS say, each company seems to run their own routes, cannabalise their own network, what's there competition to say about? I believe competition to them is defined as who earns the most at the end of the day? SMRT have the main rail network as their trump card, while the larger bus network is under SBST's hands. Both seem to earn good money in parallels.
If competition is underway, I believe we ought to really get better service in terms of the bus frequencies, service standards of BCs etc... However, in a recent survey, the figures aren't very pleasing although it's showing signs of improving. The only time the 2 bus companies cooperated, in a sense, is their fare structure. We still witness lousy news articles and stomp reviews about buses each week. This seems to void the outcome of competition between the 2 bus companies.
Complementary, instead of complimentary, network is essential to save running costs for transport companies. I believe SBST has thought of implementing single bus routes to areas where SMRT monopolised and vice versa but I think they aren't going to earn much. From a businessman point of view, I will rather consolidate my strengths, improve and tweak it, rather than betting on a plan that might backfire. This might give me more returns. Afterall, both are private companies that survives on revenue and profits.
I feel the transport system, both rail and bus, is doing fine. Although improvements can still be made, both companies are set to survive independently and we can only continue to watch the dominance of the 3Cs helplessly. However, since the PTC is the guardian of the 2 companies, at least there is a neutral governing body that is able to give us their listening ears to whatever feedback that we have.
-
Originally posted by pumpkin on bus:
All bus services would have some parts of their routes duplicated by other services. However, the premium bus scheme and MRT-bus rationalisation seem to suggest that cannabalism is not to be tolerated. I am just thinking if duplication is really such a bad thing? Isn't competition meant to drive up service levels and efficiency, thereby lowering costs?
The 2 transport giants are almost given exclusive rights to the hdb towns that they control. But this lack of competition actually means that there are many missing links. Till now, there is no sbs basic bus that goes to Bt Panjang and Choa Chu Kang and Sembawang...
Then there is another unique situation where sbs rationalises some of their feeder or introduces some trunk that complements (and therefore cannibalises) their feeder. Example of 57, rationalise 274 and 131 complements 275.
Any views on this 3Cs?
SBST has reasons to deploy such services on the roads. Sv 57 to rationalise Sv 274 is due to duplications while Sv 131 & 275 mainly serve as a backbone between Bt. Purmei Ave & Bt. Merah Int so that if Sv 131 is packed during peak hours they can have another option to take Sv 275.
-
Not only 131 is packed, sv 123 also..
-
Originally posted by pumpkin on bus:
All bus services would have some parts of their routes duplicated by other services. However, the premium bus scheme and MRT-bus rationalisation seem to suggest that cannabalism is not to be tolerated. I am just thinking if duplication is really such a bad thing? Isn't competition meant to drive up service levels and efficiency, thereby lowering costs?
Good intro for compo, keep up
The 2 transport giants are almost given exclusive rights to the hdb towns that they control. But this lack of competition actually means that there are many missing links.who say dun have, 66 vs 67, 25 vs 854, 168 vs 969 and so onTill now, there is no sbs basic bus that goes to Bt Panjang and Choa Chu Kang and Sembawang...why there is a need, SMRT good enough liao mah
Then there is another unique situation where sbs rationalises some of their feeder or introduces some trunk that complements (and therefore cannibalises) their feeder. Example of 57, rationalise 274 and 131 complements 275.???????zzzzzzzzz????
Any views on this 3Cs?
see my views on the bolded part in quote
-
Originally posted by pumpkin on bus:
All bus services would have some parts of their routes duplicated by other services. However, the premium bus scheme and MRT-bus rationalisation seem to suggest that cannabalism is not to be tolerated. I am just thinking if duplication is really such a bad thing? Isn't competition meant to drive up service levels and efficiency, thereby lowering costs?
The 2 transport giants are almost given exclusive rights to the hdb towns that they control. But this lack of competition actually means that there are many missing links. Till now, there is no sbs basic bus that goes to Bt Panjang and Choa Chu Kang and Sembawang...
Then there is another unique situation where sbs rationalises some of their feeder or introduces some trunk that complements (and therefore cannibalises) their feeder. Example of 57, rationalise 274 and 131 complements 275.
Any views on this 3Cs?
why not smrt going 2 sbst places instead? sometimes could be more reasonable wad...and duplication is gd...other then competetion, it also helps to ease the loads and waiting time
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
see my views on the bolded part in quote
168 vs 969 not really.
-
Originally posted by SBS7382C:
why not smrt going 2 sbst places instead? sometimes could be more reasonable wad...and duplication is gd...other then competetion, it also helps to ease the loads and waiting time
Yes, but it's not economically feasible. Even if it happens, I believe they will like duplicate at most 50%. Haha....
-
Originally posted by jayh272416:
168 vs 969 not really.
yup....but it also compete in Tampines to WDL stretch.......
-
Good to see the comments coming in.
Have been wondering if the reason why some bus services cannot make it.
Is it because of :
1) the inherent route design,
2) the change in environment and demographic (thereby affecting the passenger demand)
3) the idea of the 3Cs at play, either too much cannabalism as a result of strong competing services, or too many other complementary services.
Most likely a combination of all 3 reasons. Think that another possible reason is that of policy. Suspect that the reason why some service route changes got rejected by PTC is due to the strong opposition from the rival camp of bus operator. PTC may be over-protective of preserving a non-competing environment for the benefit of the bus industry as a whole. But this is just what i feel lah, maybe got other reasons.
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
yup....but it also compete in Tampines to WDL stretch.......
not really. 969 is mainly tampines to yishun. 168 tampines to woodlands. not much ppl will take 969 full route
-
The question to ask is:
Would competition really work...?
Or I should rephrase it.
Would deregulating the market work, as a lot of people would like?
Well, based on empirical evidence, the answer is....no. Simply because of asymmetrical information leading to mis-aligned incentives.
If the companies in question "believe" in competition...you should be wary. Many believe that competition drives down prices....as theory states. But the theory assumes "perfect information", which obviously the real world lacks. Remembering that firms aim for supernormal profits (price > cost) in the long-run, why should they try to compete when they know that by theory, competitors would drive prices down causing normal profits (price = cost)? Wouldn't it make more sense for the current status quo?
It's simple. Because the firms do not believe in market competition actually. What they actually intend to do is: Compete the competitions away and hence distort the market through the creation of only a few or even 1 dominant company.
Doing so has serious consequences. In the initial stages, the companies will try to expand aggressively. That means expanding their capital, resources etc etc. The danger is, when this stage is over, you get excess capacity and that obviously leads to wastages. And of course, when you have only 1 or a few dominant companies, then obviously the purpose for the competition is defeated.
Worse. Deregulating is easy. Tightening the reigns will not be if too much leeway was given.
After all, how come Microsoft is still pretty much on top despite all the anti-trust laws in place? Do not under-estimate the corporates' abilities in twisting and turning to gain at our expense...
-
deleted
-
Originally posted by jayh272416:
not really. 969 is mainly tampines to yishun. 168 tampines to woodlands. not much ppl will take 969 full route
if ptc didnt hav the cross territorial rule thingy i wonder if 969 would just go 2 yishun or sembawang only... after all so many services operate frm yishun to woodlands