Government contracting model for public bus industry
-
The feeder bus services at Woodlands and Yishun have two sections and the bus stops at the bus interchange halfway in the service. Personally, I feel that this is not an effective way of using bus resources because
- Firstly, there may be a wastage of bus resources, where one area may not require the additional buses that were added to serve the other area in the same feeder bus service.
- Secondly, there is a limitation in the reliability of feeder bus services, as a traffic congestion at one area may lengthen the waiting times for people at another area to get onto the same feeder bus service.
- Thirdly, from what I see on Onemap.sg (using the BusRouteExplorer feature), there seems to be wasteful duplication of resources - especially at Woodlands Checkpoint area - while some areas surrounding it do not even have a bus service from Woodlands bus interchange.
In my opinion, I feel that LTA has to re-create the bus network at Woodlands and Yishun, before it implements the bus contracts model there. Therefore, I do not think the bus services at Woodlands and Yishun bus interchanges will be among the first three packages.
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
The feeder bus services at Woodlands and Yishun have two sections and the bus stops at the bus interchange halfway in the service. Personally, I feel that this is not an effective way of using bus resources because
- Firstly, there may be a wastage of bus resources, where one area may not require the additional buses that were added to serve the other area in the same feeder bus service.
- Secondly, there is a limitation in the reliability of feeder bus services, as a traffic congestion at one area may lengthen the waiting times for people at another area to get onto the same feeder bus service.
- Thirdly, from what I see on Onemap.sg (using the BusRouteExplorer feature), there seems to be wasteful duplication of resources - especially at Woodlands Checkpoint area - while some areas surrounding it do not even have a bus service from Woodlands bus interchange.
In my opinion, I feel that LTA has to re-create the bus network at Woodlands and Yishun, before it implements the bus contracts model there. Therefore, I do not think the bus services at Woodlands and Yishun bus interchanges will be among the first three packages.
You're referring to the intratown routes in Yishun and Woodlands, namely 811, 812, 911, 912 and 913. Similar to SBST's townlink svcs (in AMK, Pasir Ris, Tampines etc), these bus routes were formed by combining 2 feeder svcs that serve diff parts of the estate together, thus providing connections from one end of the estate to another (eg Woodlands checkpoint to Admiralty area), without the need to transfer buses.
1. That's partly why LTA introduced the peak period short services, though another reason is to further test the feasibility of contracting bus routes to pte operators. Since these P svcs are likely to be subsumed under the contract for the routes in the respective area, they may be repackaged as shortworking trips for these intratown/townlink svcs.
2. Agreed, another reason why some of the P svcs only serve one loop for the intratown/townlink svcs, instead of both loops.
3. This is a legacy issue, a result of the former bus terminal being located at Woodlands checkpoint, before the new Woodlands regional interchange opened.
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
The feeder bus services at Woodlands and Yishun have two sections and the bus stops at the bus interchange halfway in the service. Personally, I feel that this is not an effective way of using bus resources because
- Firstly, there may be a wastage of bus resources, where one area may not require the additional buses that were added to serve the other area in the same feeder bus service.
- Secondly, there is a limitation in the reliability of feeder bus services, as a traffic congestion at one area may lengthen the waiting times for people at another area to get onto the same feeder bus service.
- Thirdly, from what I see on Onemap.sg (using the BusRouteExplorer feature), there seems to be wasteful duplication of resources - especially at Woodlands Checkpoint area - while some areas surrounding it do not even have a bus service from Woodlands bus interchange.
In my opinion, I feel that LTA has to re-create the bus network at Woodlands and Yishun, before it implements the bus contracts model there. Therefore, I do not think the bus services at Woodlands and Yishun bus interchanges will be among the first three packages.
Just curious, how many commuters actually travel between the Intratown sections? (that is, beyond the interchange?)
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
The feeder bus services at Woodlands and Yishun have two sections and the bus stops at the bus interchange halfway in the service. Personally, I feel that this is not an effective way of using bus resources because
- Firstly, there may be a wastage of bus resources, where one area may not require the additional buses that were added to serve the other area in the same feeder bus service.
- Secondly, there is a limitation in the reliability of feeder bus services, as a traffic congestion at one area may lengthen the waiting times for people at another area to get onto the same feeder bus service.
- Thirdly, from what I see on Onemap.sg (using the BusRouteExplorer feature), there seems to be wasteful duplication of resources - especially at Woodlands Checkpoint area - while some areas surrounding it do not even have a bus service from Woodlands bus interchange.
In my opinion, I feel that LTA has to re-create the bus network at Woodlands and Yishun, before it implements the bus contracts model there. Therefore, I do not think the bus services at Woodlands and Yishun bus interchanges will be among the first three packages.
obviously u did not go see the real situation at the interchange on how they deploy these intratown buses.... how often does WDL and YIS have traffic congestion??
and based on your point 3, all these buses should not call at interchange as well since it is a duplication of resources?? u did not see the crowds that are travelling on 911/912/913 to woodland checkpoint??
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Just curious, how many commuters actually travel between the Intratown sections? (that is, beyond the interchange?)
I have observed on 291/293... Very few people travel between sectors... I think it is because the time wasted in going to interchange, loading/unloading just takes too much time...
People in Tampines use services like 34 as intra town... You will see lot of people commuting between ave 5 and ave 2/7... Same goes for Sv 8 between ave 1/2/7 and Sv 28 from ave 1/2 to st 34/45, ave 9.
there is a need for intra town services without doing interchange.
On the other hand, 222 works well as intra town... You will see many from Bedok north road going to chai chee... 268 also...
265 again is poor because of time wasted at interchange... Though not as poor as 291/293.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I have observed on 291/293... Very few people travel between sectors... I think it is because the time wasted in going to interchange, loading/unloading just takes too much time...
People in Tampines use services like 34 as intra town... You will see lot of people commuting between ave 5 and ave 2/7... Same goes for Sv 8 between ave 1/2/7 and Sv 28 from ave 1/2 to st 34/45, ave 9.
there is a need for intra town services without doing interchange.
On the other hand, 222 works well as intra town... You will see many from Bedok north road going to chai chee... 268 also...
265 again is poor because of time wasted at interchange... Though not as poor as 291/293.
dun u know that 265 pax increased after it started calling at interchange?? a few mins wont make much difference, but after calling at the interchange, 265 provided lots of convenience to the pax....
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Just curious, how many commuters actually travel between the Intratown sections? (that is, beyond the interchange?)
I do not know about Woodlands and Yishun areas, but from my experience in Jurong West where there is a high number of commuters travelling intra-town, to Bukit Batok, Clementi, Choa Chu Kang and Tuas, I guess there are many commuters travelling intra-town from every town in Singapore.
Well, what I meant is that the two-in-one feeder bus services at Woodlands and Yishun should be split into two, and the two large groups (feeder and intra-town) of commuters should be separated - with a 100% feeder bus service for commuters going to MRT and a 100% intra-town (trunk) bus service for commuters travelling intra-town.
Benefits of splitting a two-in-one feeder bus service into two feeder bus services:
- First, there can be better allocation of buses as it would be more clear which area needs more buses. As mentioned, this would prevent wastage of bus resources as only the area that requires more buses would have more buses.
- Second, there can be better management of buses, since the coverage is smaller and there are less buses to manage per feeder bus service. It is easier for the bus company to manage the frequency and reliability of the feeder bus service when the route is shorter.
Benefits of separating two large groups (feeder and intra-town) of commuters apart:- First, this would reduce the number of commuters on board a feeder bus and improve the feeder bus connectivity for commuters who only want to commute to a MRT station and continue their journey on the MRT, as the chances of getting onto a feeder bus would be higher.
- Second, for the commuters who travel intra-town, besides having a higher probability of getting a seat on the bus, commuters travelling intra-town can get to their destination in a shorter time, as they would not have to stop at the bus interchange along the way.
- Third, since this would increase the number of commuters on board intra-town bus services and reduce the number on board feeder bus services, it would mean that LTA can generate more revenue and reduce the reliance on subsidies (which part of it comes from the tax we pay) to recover the costs of operating public bus services that is not recovered by the revenue generated.
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
dun u know that 265 pax increased after it started calling at interchange?? a few mins wont make much difference, but after calling at the interchange, 265 provided lots of convenience to the pax....
Yes of course... I can imagine... And in fact 265 loads come from the interchange... Few from ave 4 go beyond interchange...
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Just curious, how many commuters actually travel between the Intratown sections? (that is, beyond the interchange?)
Last time I observed 359 during off-peak hours and every time about 2-4 pax stay on the bus when reaching the interchange.
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
obviously u did not go see the real situation at the interchange on how they deploy these intratown buses.... how often does WDL and YIS have traffic congestion??
Well, during my secondary school days, I went to Republic Polytechnic for four days during the September holidays in 2011 to attend AEM lessons there.
From my memory, I remember the traffic was rather smooth at Woodlands Bus Interchange in the morning peak hours. However, the buses were quite packed and it was quite hard to get onto a bus. I guess there was an under-supply of buses; It is because there are not enough buses deployed to the bus services, that's why the traffic was smooth.
Whereas for Yishun Bus Interchange, there was once in 2012 when I went to a primary school there for an event. After the event, I was to go to somewhere else in Yishun, so I commuted on a bus service - but in the wrong direction. Instead of bringing me directly to a particular destination in Yishun, the bus went around another area and made a stop at Yishun Bus Interchange, before going to that particular destination in Yishun. It was bus 811, by the way. It was because of this experience I had that's why I feel that the two-in-one feeder bus services at Yishun and Woodlands should be split into two. (I know, this is not related to the 5 reasons I gave, but it is this that I realised the bus services at Yishun may not be as good as in Jurong West, and I am suggesting how it can be improved.)
-
Originally posted by array88:
Last time I observed 359 during off-peak hours and every time about 2-4 pax stay on the bus when reaching the interchange.
Pasir Ris intra towns also do not have pax who stay on bus through the interchange. . You are right.. Even in PM peak.. You will see 4/5 pax max...
People prefer taking 3/39/81 instead and walk a bit if required than waste time on bus going in and out of interchange.
-
UNRELATED
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
Well, during my secondary school days, I went to Republic Polytechnic for four days during the September holidays in 2011 to attend AEM lessons there.
From my memory, I remember the traffic was rather smooth at Woodlands Bus Interchange in the morning peak hours. However, the buses were quite packed and it was quite hard to get onto a bus. I guess there was an under-supply of buses; It is because there are not enough buses deployed to the bus services, that's why the traffic was smooth.
Whereas for Yishun Bus Interchange, there was once in 2012 when I went to a primary school there for an event. After the event, I was to go to somewhere else in Yishun, so I commuted on a bus service - but in the wrong direction. Instead of bringing me directly to a particular destination in Yishun, the bus went around another area and made a stop at Yishun Bus Interchange, before going to that particular destination in Yishun. It was bus 811, by the way. It was because of this experience I had that's why I feel that the two-in-one feeder bus services at Yishun and Woodlands should be split into two. (I know, this is not related to the 5 reasons I gave, but it is this that I realised the bus services at Yishun may not be as good as in Jurong West, and I am suggesting how it can be improved.)
If you divide the service into two parts, you will have two feeders out of these services. If you split 811 and 812 like this, you would be getting back former 801 and 805 out of 811 and 802 and 803 out of 812...
-
Originally posted by SBS3004X:
I hate the fact that several demonstrators are spare. Especially the SLBP ones...
You and SLBP...
-
It will be no difference if SBST and SMRT is to award to run the first parcel, most likey will go to the local operator. my instinct.
-
Originally posted by phillipC:
It will be no difference if SBST and SMRT is to award to run the first parcel, most likey will go to the local operator. my instinct.
Exactly bro tts wat i have been trying to point out in my earlier posts in this thread...
-
Originally posted by phillipC:
It will be no difference if SBST and SMRT is to award to run the first parcel, most likey will go to the local operator. my instinct.
What about WTS? Tong Tar? -
Originally posted by iveco:
What about WTS? Tong Tar?Hands full w current ops
-
There is a recent case study in Macau to explore the possible mistakes of a competitive bus tender system. Under this system, ownership of buses were retained by the companies but fare revenue was taken over by the government. This system was implemented on August 2011 (and resulting in the addition of a new operator, making a total of three operators). What has happened since?
- Many of the existing fleet were retired on August 2011. Some buses as young as 8 years old were out of the fleet altogether.
- Many routes switched hands. Because all changes took place in one day, there was chaos on day one. Reolian had a shortage of drivers, resulting in disruption of services and the other two companies were pulled in to help.
- Because the main consideration was costs, the three operators bought China buses. It is possible that the operators tried to undercut each other to get the contracts. Almost all public buses in Macau are now Chinese brands. Residents particularly did not like the design of Reolian's minibuses, and this affected their perception of the operator.
- The public considered the system negatively, and in particular saw the newcomer Reolian to be the worst amongst the three. The drivers were deemed to be dangerous and unprofessional. Some commuters found that their choice of operators actually reduced (now being served by one operator only, and though stuck with Reolian were very unhappy). Commuters were unwilling to switch to public transport.
- Reolian was forced to increase wages by 30% to attract sufficient drivers. However they were inadequately trained and pushed onto service quickly.
- The new third operator, Reolian, eventually went bankrupt in October 2013. The government had to take over operations. (Classic case of privatizing profits and socializing losses).
A Masters thesis was dedicated to this subject (which some of these information was derived from) and makes for very interesting reading.
-
since the new bus contracts is divided up into 12 parcels and awarded operators running each depot with a few hundred buses only with their own workshops, the LTA need not restrict to mass purchase of 1 model anymore. hopefully we can see the return of varities of bus models on the roads again.
-
Lets go back to History
1973, 3 buses were merged to become SBS
1981, TIBS came to the picture to encourage competition...
Now its splitting up the public transport sector again... but it is still government owned...
Eg if you look at the breakup of Telecoms sector, SingTel became dominant, Starhub, M1 came in...
If you look at the structure of SingTel, Starhub, M1 all of them are owned by the government in way or another
Starhub > SPH
M1 > Keppel
So dun expect too much of a competition... -
Regulatory role needs separation
Two transport experts welcome the new bus contracting model and suggest improvements.
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/saturday/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/regulatory-role-needs-separation-20140604#sthash.LftjIrMO.dpuf -
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/saturday/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/regulatory-role-needs-separation-20140604#sthash.LftjIrMO.dpuf
In the past, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) had failed to properly separate the regulatory function from its other functions, such as building the rail systems.
Instead, it had often held the operators responsible for faults that were clearly the result of poor quality control during construction and a clear lack of stringent acceptance-testing procedures.
With the new bus-contracting model, a good way to separate the two functions will be to have the regulatory function assigned to another, independent entity, such as the Ministry of Transport.
One missing feature that can be incorporated into the bus-contracting model is published and strictly adhered-to timetables for the bus services.
All major cities in the world operate bus services on published timetables. This requires that 100 per cent of the services be performed.
Currently, the LTA lets operators get away with performing only 96 per cent of the scheduled trips without a penalty.
As a result, operators do not have any standby drivers in case one of the scheduled drivers reports sick or otherwise fails to show up. Instead, the scheduled frequency is then adjusted for the reduced number of buses operated.
In order to properly monitor timetable adherence, timing stops need to be identified and strictly monitored.
This can be done with the analysis of the ez-link database and does not require any costly, high-technology systems.
Examples of this approach can readily be found in Australian cities visited by the Ministry of Transport.
The MRT was originally designed to provide basic service for the heavy movements in major corridors where rail service is far more efficient than bus services. To that extent, even improved bus services will not be able to replace the MRT.
Unfortunately, the lack of proper attention by the LTA to the upgrading needs of the original MRT North-South and East-West lines, such as the long overdue replacement of the outdated signalling system, have caused the MRT's current lack of adequate capacity and hence popularity.
The LTA will have to prove its capability to plan for more appropriate bus services, given that the current routes are anything but efficient and often far too long to operate reliably. The LTA needs to find the relevant talent to plan better bus services.
With the LTA planning the bus routes and presumably the required frequency of service, who will be responsible for determining a realistic and achievable timetable and hence the required number of buses?
Will it be the LTA or the bus operator bidding for the route?
This is an important issue that does not seem to have been addressed by the LTA's announced changes.
If the LTA establishes the timetable, which then turns out not to be achievable, then who will hold the LTA responsible?
If the task is to be part of the bus operator bidding for the contract, then the LTA will need to provide all the necessary data available to establish a realistic and achievable timetable. A clear indication of the process is required from LTA.
The writer, a veteran transport consultant, was closely involved in planning for the MRT in Singapore in the 1970s.
-
PTC has to set expectations right
Two transport experts welcome the new bus contracting model and suggest improvements.
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/saturday/news/opinion/columns/story/ptc-has-set-expectations-right-20140604#sthash.v1XNPEpN.dpuf -
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/saturday/news/opinion/columns/story/ptc-has-set-expectations-right-20140604#sthash.v1XNPEpN.dpufAS A long-time advocate of the implementation of a full operating subsidy model for the public bus services in Singapore, I was delighted to read that the Government is moving to a bus-contracting model.
Under this model, the Government takes over the ownership of buses and assets, and contracts the running of bus routes to private bus operators for a fee. Fare revenue goes to the Government.
This is different from the current public transport model where the Government pays for and provides the infrastructure, such as railways and bus depots. The Government thus subsidises capital spending in public transport, especially for the MRT train system.
But these assets are held by the public transport operator, which has to pay operating expenses and the cost of depreciation for trains and buses. The operator recoups these in the form of fare revenue. In this way, it is ultimately the commuting public that pays these costs.
But commuters could expect only a level of service that the fare revenue could pay for. It has become increasingly obvious that the public demands a higher level of service than what is available with the current fare levels.
The concept of public transport has also evolved. No longer regarded simply as a service for people who do not own private vehicles, public transportation is also vital for the nation's economy and social integration. Once this latter concept is accepted, the idea that the Government should fund public transport whenever necessary should be embraced.
There are many ways that taxpayers' money can be used. One is to simply inject public money into private operators and hope, or pray, that they will spend the money wisely.
Another way is to nationalise public transport. In this model, the Government does not just own infrastructure and assets. It also takes on the responsibility of operating public transport on a daily basis.
Among the models available to policymakers, I believe the full operating subsidy model - known in Singapore as the government contracting model - is the best approach.
Under a nationalised public transport scheme, the Government must prepare daily operation plans, maintenance schedules, the recruitment of bus drivers and so on.
Some criticise this model on the grounds that it leads to the undesirable intrusion of Big Government. An equally important issue, perhaps, is whether it is practicable. It is always better if the relevant minister does not have to worry about whether there are enough bus drivers to run the system on a daily basis.
Under the government contracting model, however, the Government only needs to set the desired service level for the bus service and to evaluate the chosen operator based on the pre-specified quality standard. The details of running bus services will be the responsibility of the operator which offers the best price for delivering the service level specified by the Government.
If we believe in the power of the free market, we can be reasonably confident that competition among operators from all over the world will give the Government, and eventually Singaporean taxpayers, the best service and best price (or at least, something very close to it).
At the same time, however, it is important that local officials have the tools necessary to ensure that the system works smoothly.
The role of the Public Transport Council (PTC) may need to be expanded beyond setting fares. After all, the service level required of bus operators will be higher than what can be afforded by fare revenue alone. The difference between the two will have to be borne by the Government.
If commuters pay lower fares, taxpayers will have to pay more to cover higher public subsidies. Through the fare adjustment exercise, the PTC will determine the portions recovered via fare revenue and taxpayers' top-up.
A fundamental truth in life is that we get what we pay for. The bill that taxpayers have to pick up could be huge. There must therefore be a mechanism by which a consensus can be reached on the desired level of service and how it will be financed.
In addition to the fare adjustment exercise, the PTC may have to take on the vital role of striking a balance between the desired service level and the price people have to pay.