Originally posted by sgbuses:If zone fares are adopted, you should be scared. Very scared.
Transperth charges up to 9 zones, $12.10 cash fare or $10.29 card fare (non-GIRO) for adults, $4.80 cash fare and $4.08 card fare (non-GIRO) for students.
I do think the current distance-based fare system is unfair towards operators and benefits mainly only commuters. Operators have been losing out. But then again, it seems to fit our highly hub-and-spoke route network...
In FY2015,
SBS Transit bus services made $645.785 million of fare revenue. (620.657 card + 25.128 cash)
SMRT bus services made $238.1 million of fare revenue.
The total fare revenue collected from public bus services was $883.885 million. (645.785 sbs + 238.1 smrt)
Singapore has around 430 bus routes. So, on average, each bus route generated around $2.056 million of fare revenue. (883.885 ÷ 430)
Tower Transit will get $111.2 million per year to run the 26 bus routes. (556.0 ÷ 5)
The 26 bus routes should generate around $53.456 million of fare revenue per year, in FY2015 context. (2.056 × 26)
This translates to around $57.744 million of loss per year, in FY2015 context. (53.456 - 111.2)
Indeed, the fare revenue alone cannot recover the costs.
If we want to recover costs solely by collecting fare revenue, fares must increase by around 192.57% (111.2 ÷ 57.744). This means we have to pay three times the bus fares we are paying now.
However, the problem is that the current fare model is integrated for bus and train services.
While our bus services is making losses, our train services is making profits.
In FY2015, SBS Transit's train services collected $213.403 million of fare revenue and spent $209.703 million of costs (213.403 revenue - 3.7 profit).
Whereas for SMRT, its trains services collected $654 million (644.2 mrt + 9.8 lrt) of fare revenue and spent $644.4 million of costs (654 revenue - 13.4 MRT profit + 3.8 LRT loss).
Total fare revenue collected in FY2015 for train services was $867.403 million (213.403 sbs + 654 smrt), and total costs spent on train services was $854.103 million (209.703 sbs + 644.4 smrt); our train services made a profit of $13.3 million (867.403 revenue - 854.103 cost).
If we increase the fares by two times just to recover the costs of our bus services, we will enable our train services to make two times more profit.
Nonetheless, as distance-based fare system offers the cheapest fare combination, we have to make do with this.
Currently, most of us spend around $4 on public transport per day.
If we increase fares by two times, we would spend $12 on public transport per day; $360 per month (12 × 30).
$12 for two-way public transport is about the same as the fare for one-way taxi ride. So, it's still cheaper than taxi.
But, is the general public willing to pay $360 a month for public transport?
The lowest income people earn around $1,200 per month. $360 to them is 30% of their salary. Are they able to afford to pay $360 every month, while pay other things like electricity, water, food, rental, town council charges, etc?
So, we have to be very careful when we increase the fares.
While the fare revenue should increase to recover the costs for buses, we have to be mindful that not everyone can afford to pay higher fares.
Of course, we can introduce concession pass for the lowest income people, among other measures. Actually, this is what we are doing now.
Personally, I think the current method is the best. We set the fares low so that everyone can afford. At the same time, we set progressive taxes where rich pay more tax and poor pay less tax.
So, there's nothing much to debate, actually.
In terms of money, this contracting model offers the best value for money solutions, so we can gain more from the same amount of money.
But that's on the costs, not the fare revenue.
Originally posted by gekpohboy:In FY2015,
SBS Transit bus operations made $645.785 million of fare revenue. (620.657 card + 25.128 cash)
SMRT buses made $238.1 million of fare revenue.
The total fare revenue collected from public bus services was $883.885 million. (645.785 + 238.1)
Singapore has around 430 bus routes. So, on average, each bus route generated around $2.056 million. (883.885 ÷ 430)
Tower Transit will get $111.2 million per year to run the 26 bus routes. (556.0 ÷ 5)
The 26 bus routes should generate around $53.456 million of revenue per year, in FY2015 context. (2.056 × 26)
This translates to around $57.744 million of loss per year, in FY2015 context. (53.456 - 111.2)
Indeed, the fare revenue alone cannot recover the costs.
If we want to recover costs solely by collecting fare revenue, fares must increase by around 192.57% (111.2 ÷ 57.744). This means we have to pay three times the bus fares we are paying now.
However, the problem is that the current fare model is integrated for bus and train services.
While our bus services is making losses, our train services is making profits.
In FY2015, SBS Transit's train services collected $213.403 million of fare revenue and spent $209.703 million of costs (213.403 revenue - 3.7 profit).
Whereas for SMRT, its trains services collected $654 million (644.2 mrt + 9.8 lrt) of fare revenue and spent $644.4 million of costs (654 revenue - 13.4 MRT profit + 3.8 LRT loss).
Total fare revenue collected in FY2015 for train services was $867.403 million (213.403 sbs + 654 smrt), and total costs spent on train services was $854.103 million (209.703 sbs + 644.4 smrt); our train services made a profit of $13.3 million (867.403 revenue - 854.103 cost).
If we increase the fares by two times just to recover the costs of our bus services, we will enable our train services to make two times more profit.
Nonetheless, as distance-based fare system offers the cheapest fare combination, we have to make do with this.
Currently, most of us spend around $4 on public transport per day.
If we increase fares by two times, we would spend $12 on public transport per day; $360 per month (12 × 30).
$12 for two-way public transport is about the same as the fare for one-way taxi ride. So, it's still cheaper than taxi.
But, is the general public willing to pay $360 a month for public transport?
The lowest income people earn around $1,200 per month. $360 to them is 30% of their salary. Are they able to afford to pay $360 every month, while pay other things like electricity, water, food, rental, town council charges, etc?
So, we have to be very careful when we increase the fares.
While the fare revenue should increase to recover the costs for buses, we have to be mindful that not everyone can afford to pay higher fares.
Of course, we can introduce concession pass for the lowest income people, among other measures. Actually, this is what we are doing now.
Personally, I think the current method is the best. We set the fares low so that everyone can afford. At the same time, we set progressive taxes where rich pay more tax and poor pay less tax.
So, there's nothing much to debate, actually.
In terms of money, this contracting model offers the best value for money solutions, so we can gain more from the same amount of money.
But that's on the costs, not the fare revenue.
Under such conditions in other cities, people will buy a car and drive because it is cheaper and faster. Australian operators will tell you to drive anyway if you are not willing to put up with their service (and several cities have adopted the Transperth model).
But because this is Singapore, taxi and ride sharing will make a roaring business. Their pricing would act as the de facto cap on public transport fares.
At some point it might be cheaper for a group to take Uber or Grab than to take public transport.
Adjustment to public transport fares traditionally has a substantial impact on prices of other daily necessities (such as food).
There is a DD on 77 on the GCM poster. Is this a sign that Service 77 will get DDs under TT?
Originally posted by SBS3004X:There is a DD on 77 on the GCM poster. Is this a sign that Service 77 will get DDs under TT?
high chance... TT took in so many new DDs.. sv66 should be also be deploying DDs on weekdays as well i think... lots of DDs doing sv66 training routes...
The frequency of Service 43 is totally rubbish. The headway in front of SDs is about 18 minutes average in off-peak, while the headway in front of DDs in off-peak is about 13 minutes (with the exception of SBS3461J). Also, the SDs are often on back-to-back slots during PM peak. There is also 1 DD slot with 9 minutes headway entering Punggol at about 3:20 pm.
When TT takes over 106 on Sunday, 106 will no longer have bendy bus. :(
189 also.
Bendy bus will soon become history in Singapore. Sigh. :(
I hope to see MAN A22 buses on 333, 334, 335 when TT takes over them in June.
Originally posted by lemon1974:the cost will have to bear by someone... either all the paxes, or all the taxpayers...
total revenue from bus operations is around S$1 billion per year,
estimated cost of GCM = S$100m x 12 packages = S$1.2 billion (this is just cost that pay to the operators),excluding cost of buying buses/building of depots etc.. so basically LTA will be losing money...
humm COE and ERP and GST
Increase the price of COE and ERP, and use the revenue to improve bus and train services.
And, zero increase of number of COEs in each bidding exercise, so number of cars in Singapore does not increase even with the increasing population.
Number of public buses should increase, not cars.
If LTA wants, they can also increase road tax for cars.
Originally posted by lemon1974:high chance... TT took in so many new DDs.. sv66 should be also be deploying DDs on weekdays as well i think... lots of DDs doing sv66 training routes...
I don't think Sixth Avenue can accomodate double deckers, otherwise I think 156 would have gotten a few DDs by now
Originally posted by SBS3004X:There is a DD on 77 on the GCM poster. Is this a sign that Service 77 will get DDs under TT?
DDs can go Toh Tuch and 6th Avenue? I dun think so
Originally posted by SBS3004X:There is a DD on 77 on the GCM poster. Is this a sign that Service 77 will get DDs under TT?
no DDs according to source. But first day got Wrights on 106
Originally posted by SMB5007J:DDs can go Toh Tuch and 6th Avenue? I dun think so
Is it because the gradient at Toh Tuck Road is steep, that's why you do not think DDs can ply Toh Tuck Road?
Actually, I think DDs still can run along Toh Tuck Road. The gradient is about the same as that at Nanyang Drive. If DDs can run along Nanyang Drive, DDs should be able to run along Toh Tuck Road.
as for Sixth Avenue, why you say DD cannot? the gradient looks okay what. it's a bit like Jurong West Avenue 4 between Pioneer Road North and JW Street 61/71.
I think it's because of insufficient loading, that's why 77 does not have high capacity buses. 77 is private houses all the way, only at Bukit Batok and Beauty World area then have HDB. most of its target audience do not take public transport. single deckers are good enough.
The "77" in the LTA poster is probably just an illustration.
By the way, is this model called "BCM" (Bus Contracting Model) or "GCM" (Government Contracting Model)? I am confused.
Originally posted by gekpohboy:By the way, is this model called "BCM" (Bus Contracting Model) or "GCM" (Government Contracting Model)? I am confused.
it was government instead of bus at first. I shall assume the name was silently changed to avoid association with the government.
Originally posted by gekpohboy:Is it because the gradient at Toh Tuck Road is steep, that's why you do not think DDs can ply Toh Tuck Road?
Actually, I think DDs still can run along Toh Tuck Road. The gradient is about the same as that at Nanyang Drive. If DDs can run along Nanyang Drive, DDs should be able to run along Toh Tuck Road.
as for Sixth Avenue, why you say DD cannot? the gradient looks okay what. it's a bit like Jurong West Avenue 4 between Pioneer Road North and JW Street 61/71.
I think it's because of insufficient loading, that's why 77 does not have high capacity buses. 77 is private houses all the way, only at Bukit Batok and Beauty World area then have HDB. most of its target audience do not take public transport. single deckers are good enough.
The "77" in the LTA poster is probably just an illustration.
Sixth Avenue have low branches on the route and the route has slopes and is quite narrow, thus, double deckers (and bendies) cannot be deployed at Sixth Avenue
Originally posted by SBS8002T:Sixth Avenue have low branches on the route and the route has slopes and is quite narrow, thus, double deckers (and bendies) cannot be deployed at Sixth Avenue
The old old sv5 from bukit panjang ply sixth ave with NAC DDs before. There are also DDs plying sixth ave before during some route diversions.
Slope mean DD can't ply? Even sv151 DD can climb up the steep slope at Kent ridge.
Originally posted by SMB5007J:DDs can go Toh Tuch and 6th Avenue? I dun think so
DD cannot go toh tuck road? Then sv41 all the while using SD?
Originally posted by TIB868X:it was government instead of bus at first. I shall assume the name was silently changed to avoid association with the government.
In case anything goes wrong...LTA doesn't want to take the flak.
PTA/Government of WA is having it tough - everyone is screaming "f*** Transperth".
Originally posted by sgbuses:In case anything goes wrong...LTA doesn't want to take the flak.
PTA/Government of WA is having it tough - everyone is screaming "f*** Transperth".
But, you know, in Singapore, we associate everything and anything to PAP. ;)
So, no matter what name they use, it's the same. :)
After so many years, we finally have a third bus operator. Yay. :)
Originally posted by sgbuses:In case anything goes wrong...LTA doesn't want to take the flak.
PTA/Government of WA is having it tough - everyone is screaming "f*** Transperth".
The lowest fare charge should be $1.20 not $1.40.
up to 3.2km:$1.20
3.3-3.5kmh:$1.40
3.6-3.9km:$1.60
4.0-4.3km:$1.80
4.4-4.7km:$2.00
4.8-5.1km:$2.20
5.2-5.5km:$2.40
5.6-6.5km:$2.60
Above:$2.80
Express should be from $1.80-$3.40 max