Government contracting model for public bus industry
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Near Bulim cemetery
Near National Shooting Centre?
-
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
Does this move mean that SBS Transit and SMRT will go under the Government and ultimately become merged?
SBST/SMRT major shareholder is gahmen... so merge or dun merge no difference
Wld juz hope to have the operators use their own livery rather than standard LTA livery, already losing much of our heritage... -
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
Does this move mean that SBS Transit and SMRT will go under the Government and ultimately become merged?
Yes.
And then LTA will merge with URA and form UTA.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Yes.
And then LTA will merge with URA and form UTA.
hahaha
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Yes.
And then LTA will merge with URA and form UTA.
Oh no, We'll then see a mass bus operator (owned by government) operating everywhere! I prefer to see SBS Transit and SMRT as two separate companies operating different routes...
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
Eight bus services at Jurong East Bus Interchange are not in the first package, of which
- 160 and 506 are special bus services; 160 is a cross-boarder bus service and 506 is an express bus service.
- 197, 51, 52 and 105 are bus services originating from the Eastern region of Singapore.
- 98M and 143M are complementary bus services to 98 and 143.
Bus service 49 is in the list. I guess bus service 49 will be extended to Jurong East Bus Interchange and cover most sections of 143M and 98M and replace them, that's why 98M and 143M are not in the list.At Bukit Batok Bus Interchange, only two of the ten bus services are not in the first package: 61 and 852.At Clementi Bus Interchange, the ones in the first package are all bus services that loop within Clementi area, while one of them is from Bukit Batok Bus Interchange.Based on this first package, I guess the second package will also be in an area that is less developed and would utilise less than 500 buses in the beginning.Hi mr pervertedboy, sbs 49 will not be extended to jurong east interchange. Neither will it cover most sections of sbs 143M and sbs 98M. It will also not replace them. To begin with, sbs 49 and sbs 143M serve different routes. So how to replace??? A more probable reason is to have different operators compete against one another. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
Oh no, We'll then see a mass bus operator (owned by government) operating everywhere! I prefer to see SBS Transit and SMRT as two separate companies operating different routes...
Interesting.
So next time you will have 2 kids when you grow up.
-
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
Oh no, We'll then see a mass bus operator (owned by government) operating everywhere! I prefer to see SBS Transit and SMRT as two separate companies operating different routes...
Bro as mentioned both are ready owned by gahmen
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Bro as mentioned both are ready owned by gahmen
I'm refering to the standards from both operators (maintenance, timetable allocation. etc.)...
-
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
I'm refering to the standards from both operators (maintenance, timetable allocation. etc.)...
standards can only improve as overall oversee-er(no such word, oth place call it commissioner) is adamant on upping from present standards...
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
Eight bus services at Jurong East Bus Interchange are not in the first package, of which
- 160 and 506 are special bus services; 160 is a cross-boarder bus service and 506 is an express bus service.
- 197, 51, 52 and 105 are bus services originating from the Eastern region of Singapore.
- 98M and 143M are complementary bus services to 98 and 143.
Bus service 49 is in the list. I guess bus service 49 will be extended to Jurong East Bus Interchange and cover most sections of 143M and 98M and replace them, that's why 98M and 143M are not in the list.At Bukit Batok Bus Interchange, only two of the ten bus services are not in the first package: 61 and 852.At Clementi Bus Interchange, the ones in the first package are all bus services that loop within Clementi area, while one of them is from Bukit Batok Bus Interchange.Based on this first package, I guess the second package will also be in an area that is less developed and would utilise less than 500 buses in the beginning.I think 98M and 143M will be included bah since they are sub-routes of 98 and 143.
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
standards can only improve as overall oversee-er(no such word, oth place call it commissioner) is adamant on upping from present standards...
Hope that the government will improve the maintenance of the buses, especially the older buses which tend to require more careful maintenance to run properly. Some aspects I expect to see with this move:
1. Better maintenence (cleaner interior and interior properly in place)
2. Better allocation of frequencies (management over the frequency of services, especially those with low (> 15 mins) and high (< 5 mins) frequencies)
3. Better connections of bus routes (enhancements to current routes to improve connections without the need to introduce new routes and waste resources)
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr wsy1234, bus operators control bus driver. Not LTA. Cheers.
I refer LTA control the recruitment of drivers will be better, as LTA keep the bus fare, it will be better for LTA to give the driver the salary. I think if LTA can recruit drivers and training them, LTA and NTUC can setup a bus drivers training school, i think it will attact local and malaysia drivers to driver public buses with better pay. and also just in case the contracted company cannot make it there will no stopping of bus operation suddenly.
-
I see no point the two present bus compaies awarded the contract this will view as a failure from LTA or the minister. it will be a very good years for other transport operators and those young people seeking a career in the specialised field of logistics and supply chain management.
-
I think the bus service route might be share by two operators. this is what LTA want as to see which operators can run the same bus service route well.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
I refer LTA control the recruitment of drivers will be better, as LTA keep the bus fare, it will be better for LTA to give the driver the salary. I think if LTA can recruit drivers and trian them i think it will attact local and malaysia drivers to driver public buses with better pay. and also just in case the contracted company cannot make it there will no stopping of bus operation suddenly.
If LTA takes control of drivers, that is more or less a complete nationalisation and we can do away with competitive tendering.
The main (if not only) differentating point between operators is the manpower.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
If LTA takes control of drivers, that is more or less a complete nationalisation and we can do away with competitive tendering.
The main (if not only) differentating point between operators is the manpower.
you are wrong to think this way. the bus operator tender with fix amount of money to operate the service. if at the end of the day the operator cannot make it , they just lost the contract only. the bus driver should not be worry about lost of jobs. they just driver of the bus which is own by LTA. it nothing to do with the operator competitive. Also it will save time and money for the opeators to look for manpower. how about the present batch of drivers where they go? I think it better for LTA to employ the drivers. LTA provide the bus and driver. operators just operate the service. If not then make the operator to share a percentage of salary paid to the drivers.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
you are wrong to think this way. the bus operator tender with fix amount of money to operate the service. if at the end of the day the operator cannot make it , they just lost the contract only. the bus driver should not be worry about lost of jobs. they just driver of the bus which is own by LTA. it nothing to do with the operator competitive. Also it will save time and money for the opeators to look for manpower. how about the present batch of drivers where they go? I think it better for LTA to employ the drivers. LTA provide the bus and driver. operators just operate the service. If not then make the operator to share a percentage of salary paid to the drivers.
How do the operator the buses when they dun even have the control of the workers ?what is the point of paying money to outside operators if Lta is going to pay the salary? Might as well Lta operate all the bus services themselves ?
-
bus driver pay will be affected in a big time as operators have limited budget to work around depend on how much they tender to LTA. I don't think the driver will be paid as well as before.
-
the LTA idea of operator competitive is using drivers to force operators to work around the budget. which like contruction company tender so much and operate that much any thing higher company will go broke. I think LTA should not think this way for public bus service.
-
given how much LTA make from ERP and COE I think bus drivers salary should not be a problem to share by LTA and the operators.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
you are wrong to think this way. the bus operator tender with fix amount of money to operate the service. if at the end of the day the operator cannot make it , they just lost the contract only. the bus driver should not be worry about lost of jobs. they just driver of the bus which is own by LTA. it nothing to do with the operator competitive. Also it will save time and money for the opeators to look for manpower. how about the present batch of drivers where they go? I think it better for LTA to employ the drivers. LTA provide the bus and driver. operators just operate the service. If not then make the operator to share a percentage of salary paid to the drivers.
Wrong.
Human Resource one of the largest components making up the total costs of operation, and is what makes or breaks an operator. Getting the manpower aspect right also allows the operator to gain a comparative advantage over others.
Training is one example. A competitive operator can improve the productivity of its drivers by investing into training for drivers to be familiar with more routes. This allows the operator to become flexible with its day-to-day operation and increase its overall efficiency. If LTA has control and decides to redeploy drivers whenever they deem fit, the operator has no incentive to invest in additional training because there is no manpower stability.
Another example is the policy on rostering and shift hours. SBS Transit and SMRT Buses at one time have very different policies on the number of shift days and the number of working hours per day (though there is a legal limit defined by MOM). If the drivers have a uniform contract with LTA then such differences is hardly possible in the first place.
Renumeration policies is also a major source of incentive or disincentive for drivers. If LTA has control over renumeration of drivers, then it is very difficult for operators to change the behaviour of drivers through changing the components of monetary compensation (such as safety bonuses, bonus for KPI, skills based allowance, etc.). An attractive renumeration policy will also allow operators to lure prospective drivers away from the private sector, or even rival operators.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
the LTA idea of operator competitive is using drivers to force operators to work around the budget. which like contruction company tender so much and operate that much any thing higher company will go broke. I think LTA should not think this way for public bus service.
That is the whole point, though I do agree that it is not in the best interest of the drivers.
-
Interesting,so another round of contracts will be from Loyang depot? OT:There is a group of PRCs drivers waiting to work for SBST & SMRT by year end..hmm other nationalities gov not interested ah?
-
Originally posted by SBS3004X:
Sv 73 is full Scania KUB Euro V. You mean a Citaro will not be allowed to appear on this service just because of this?
That would make it very restrictive.