Government contracting model for public bus industry
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
I would suggest that u go read the press release again. N at the same time go look at the individual capacity of each bus depot before commenting. N did u take into consideration of those dual depot service ? So sv7 will be operated maybe by sbst from bndep n maybe smrt from bbdep??? If not all services will switch to single depot instead???
actually, I am also wondering this. like how will the bus operator run bus service 174 (from Boon Lay to Outram Park) if the buses are supplied from only one depot?
well, I am sorry for missing out the part of the press release which mentioned " the Government will own all bus infrastructure such as depots" (3rd paragraph).
I think we can only wait until next week when LTA announce more details (CNA just now say that LTA will announce details on the 3 packages next week) , then we will have a clearer understanding on how the bus contracts model will be implemented.
but I think most likely the bus depots will be shared, along with the buses, among bus companies, which means most likely in the bus depots, certain bus services will be allocated certain spaces in the depot and every depot will be seperated into different parts for bus companies to book and use, based on which bus services they operate. #justsaying
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
N maybe the final outcome is that smrt quit the bus business entirely once their assets are transfer out to gov. This is highly possible.
if after this bus contracts model SMRT still making losses, then I think it will either sell its train and bus businesses to other transport companies, or merge its entire self to become part of another transport company.
who knows, maybe in future, @SMRT will be a retail developer, instead of transport operator, in Singapore. #justsaying #guess #maynotbetrue
-
All, from what we know how things operate in Singapore, we can roughly predict this. Singapore govt owns the whole infrastructure. The two incumbents, sbs transit and smrt will still get most of the bus routes. Some minor operators will take up the remaining bus routes. The bus services around your houses will either be same or increase. Only issue is that the bus number may change and the service provider may change. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Then the trains also called comfortdelgro?
Wa sekali he turns out to be right 5 years later.
wahahaha
to think about it, it would seem a bit awkward to see comfortdelgro bus operate the trains.
I think it is quite likely that should comfortdelgro want to merge SBS Transit with its other subsidaries (to enjoy economies of scale, better control of resources, etc.), it will merge it with itself and all of SBS Transit's bus and train operations will come under Comfort Delgro.
Meanwhile, the newer taxis at Comfort and City cab now use the Comfort Delgro name/logo instead of the seperate names/logos. So I guess eventually, all of Comfort Delgro's bus, train and taxi operations will combine and come under the "Comfort Delgro" name, instead of 'Comfort', 'City cab' or 'SBS Transit'. #justsaying #opinion #idonotwanttogetintotrouble
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
actually, I am also wondering this. like how will the bus operator run bus service 174 (from Boon Lay to Outram Park) if the buses are supplied from only one depot?
This raises an interesting point for routes with dual depot deployments. There are three possibilities:
1. The operator runs only from one depot. This will be inefficient given that there will be a lot of dead milage.
2. If the contract does not explicity specify that a certain route must be operated out from any specific depot, the operator may choose to operate out of any two depots that it has access to. If the operator loses one of the contract that leads to the loss of one depot, it will revert to (1).
3. If the packages are put out at the same time, operators may choose to submit a combined bid covering more than one package that involves dual depot deployments and lists out the possible cost savings. If LTA accepts the proposal, the operator operates the contracts together under that agreed arrangement.
OR
If the route is too large for a single operator to manage, there is always the option of having two or more operators (from their respective packages). This is practised in Perth and Hong Kong.
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
if after this bus contracts model SMRT still making losses, then I think it will either sell its train and bus businesses to other transport companies, or merge its entire self to become part of another transport company.
who knows, maybe in future, @SMRT will be a retail developer, instead of transport operator, in Singapore. #justsaying #guess #maynotbetrue
That's what happened to China Motor Bus in Hong Kong!
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
All, from what we know how things operate in Singapore, we can roughly predict this. Singapore govt owns the whole infrastructure. The two incumbents, sbs transit and smrt will still get most of the bus routes. Some minor operators will take up the remaining bus routes. The bus services around your houses will either be same or increase. Only issue is that the bus number may change and the service provider may change. Cheers.
even though it is open up for contracts model tendering, I think the government will definitely reserve around one or two packages for the incumbents, since they are local bus operators. I think they will ensure that while there is competition, the competition will not kill any of the incumbents. just make sure that the incumbents do not get "freehold lease" on any package and that they will kinda (somehow) rotate around the island once every five years. #justsaying
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
All, from what we know how things operate in Singapore, we can roughly predict this. Singapore govt owns the whole infrastructure. The two incumbents, sbs transit and smrt will still get most of the bus routes. Some minor operators will take up the remaining bus routes. The bus services around your houses will either be same or increase. Only issue is that the bus number may change and the service provider may change. Cheers.
As far as I recall from the City Direct and PPSS tender results, SMRT (bidding under Bus Plus) has not won a single route it had bid for so far.
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
to think about it, it would seem a bit awkward to see comfortdelgro bus operate the trains.
I think it is quite likely that should comfortdelgro want to merge SBS Transit with its other subsidaries (to enjoy economies of scale, better control of resources, etc.), it will merge it with itself and all of SBS Transit's bus and train operations will come under Comfort Delgro.
Meanwhile, the newer taxis at Comfort and City cab now use the Comfort Delgro name/logo instead of the seperate names/logos. So I guess eventually, all of Comfort Delgro's bus, train and taxi operations will combine and come under the "Comfort Delgro" name, instead of 'Comfort', 'City cab' or 'SBS Transit'. #justsaying #opinion #idonotwanttogetintotrouble
Maybe it will be like Metroline. So the logo would be "SBS Transit, a member a ComfortDelGro".
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
For bus enthuasists, this is effectively GAME OVER. This is almost similar to the Transperth model.
Bus assets including buses to be owned by government. This government will not want any odd vehicles or parts in their inventory.
Non WAB buses will almost certainly be disposed of by 2020 unless something else crops up.
A few observers were spot on that buses are likely to have a unified livery.
In Perth, Public Transport Authority has secured a contract to buy Volvo buses with Volgren bodywork exclusively for a decade (taking over from Mercedes-Benz). If LTA also decides to take up only one supplier as PTA does, tough luck.
I don't think LTA will secured a single contract from a single bulider or supplier for long term as other dealers will file complain to WTO or worse LTA purchasing department kelonging. remember the npark bicycles case? perth is local government that purchase the buses for operators not the centre government. Singapore is different from them. From What i see more or less the buses model will come from 3 or 5 main suppliers like now.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
I don't think LTA will secured a single contract from a single bulider or supplier for long term as other dealers will file complain to WTO or worse LTA purchasing department kelonging. remember the npark bicycles case?
Nobody mentioned anything about single contract.
But for sure fleet homogenization will be the way forward.
One simple reason is that the IBMS has to be catered for each specific models, and the last thing you want would be to have the odd buses here and there.
The even simpler reason is that it so much easier to manage when the fleet is homogenized.
Certainly the days of demo-ing may now be over.
-
As I mentioned previously, Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC and Punggol East SMC are the opposition candidates commonly and collectively owned from the GE2011, BE2012 and BE2013.
I guess the various constituencies that are going to lose (Pioneer, Potong Pasir, Hougang, East Coast, Nee Soon, Moulmein-Kallang and West Coast) are their first ones to get contracted out into opposition parties. Batch 2 will include Tampines, Joo Chiat, Marine Parade and Bishan-Toa Payoh.
I guess the People's Action Party (PAP) should remain as an incumbent for the votes in Bukit Panjang, Hong Kah North, Holland-Bukit Timah, Chua Chu Kang, Pasir Ris-Punggol, Ang Mo Kio, Radin Mas, Yuhua, Jurong, Sembawang, Mountbatten, Tanjong Pagar and Sengkang West.
-
For all the posts about bus contracting out,
has anyone lived in an area where franchised routes are prevalent esp in London? -
Fleet homogenization will not happen if we follow Tfl's way
https://tfl.gov.uk/forms/13923.aspx
Click on the top PDF file...
Pg 11 point 5.5
5.5. Types of Vehicle Utilised
Vehicles used on contracted services range from small midibuses through to 87 capacity double deck buses, depending on the specific requirements of each route. London Buses specifies the minimum requirements for the vehicles within the tender documentation. The operator may choose the vehicle manufacturer as long as the vehicles meet all of the criteria in the vehicle specification. -
So the parceling may actually see a 3rd local operator appear as there is no1 capable of running a comprehensive bus network...
The 3rd operator could be SSTA using brand new buses that would be purchased accordingly to LTA's requirements...
Standard livery MAY NOT appear in local buses, the operator will keep their livery -
After reading the hyperlink for Tfl...
Nothing is going to change much, it is SG you are staying in, any change is minor, small incremental steps and no major upheaval... -
Last but not least, juz remember this,
1. What happen to the 2 TV stations that were set to compete with each other, ie SPH vs TCS now Mediacorp?
2. What happen to the open competition of telcos when it was liberalised?! ie SingTel incumbent, Starhub n M1 newbies and does the government has stakes in both of them?
3. Remember Valuair? Jetstar? Tiger Airways after encouragement of budget airlines...
Valuair dun exist anymore... -
If anyone can get over the hype of seeing a 3rd FOREIGN operator here,
YES you will with partners from local tpt companies having a stake in the 3rd Foreign operator... -
Hong Kong CTB/NWFB is both owned by Chow Tai Fook Holdings...
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Fleet homogenization will not happen if we follow Tfl's way
https://tfl.gov.uk/forms/13923.aspx
Click on the top PDF file...
Pg 11 point 5.5
5.5. Types of Vehicle Utilised
Vehicles used on contracted services range from small midibuses through to 87 capacity double deck buses, depending on the specific requirements of each route. London Buses specifies the minimum requirements for the vehicles within the tender documentation. The operator may choose the vehicle manufacturer as long as the vehicles meet all of the criteria in the vehicle specification.http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/Item05-Independent-Bus-Review-July09.pdf
1.3 ...at present, fleet financing is the responsibility of operators.
Transport for London does not own the buses, the operators in London do. A possible alternative is for operators to lease the fleet from a private company (as what UK rail operators and even Singapore Airlines is doing).
This is the main difference between the London system and LTA's proposal.
That is why LTA's proposal is closer to the Transperth model.
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Hong Kong CTB/NWFB is both owned by Chow Tai Fook Holdings...
Again, the assets are owned by their respective operators in Hong Kong.
The whole purpose of LTA taking over the bus assets is to lower the barrier for entry as a public bus operator.
-
I think this means all future new buses will be from MAN or Mercedes-Benz. Great news! I'm just worried that it'll all be MAN though since ST Kinetics is the local distributor...
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Again, the assets are owned by their respective operators in Hong Kong.
The whole purpose of LTA taking over the bus assets is to lower the barrier for entry as a public bus operator.
When LTA realise it has bitten more than it can chew, it will back to square one again...
Tem everything is fluid... Tweaks to proposals are to b expected
-
Originally posted by nfshp253:
I think this means all future new buses will be from MAN or Mercedes-Benz. Great news! I’m just worried that it’ll all be MAN though since ST Kinetics is the local distributor…
Gahmen is not so blind to have everything from MAN, it will lead to protests from other bus dev nations even though scania is GERMAN owned...
-
Since all the bus assets are gonna be owned by the government from 2016 onwards, meaning SBST and SMRT may soon go into history.
The companies will still be there, but there will be a unified LTA livery if im not wrong. Which means to say, whether it is SBS or SMRT buses, depending on tender, you may see the current SBS buses doing SMRT services and vice versa.
Correct me if im wrong here.
Actually, if u take a closer look about it, isn't this very much like nationalising public transport?