It’s a relief to hear that Singapore’s LTA has finally woken up to the reality of the less than effective public transport system we have. While I agree that we have an efficient system in terms frequent bus trips, it is far from efficient and effective, with overcapacity and inefficient bus routings. Also, we have the long debated issue about whether a duopoly (SBS and SMRT) is efficient. Here are some of the shortfalls of our public transport system as I see it:
1. Inefficient bus routing – Quite a number of years ago, I remember bus routes being more direct. Nowadays, most services take commuters on a long ride around the neighbourhood, although there may not be many passengers at the stops along the longer routes. Bus companies do this as a way to increase their profits – by going a longer distance, passengers pay more. For example, it now takes me 1 extra fare stage to get downtown from where I stay, compared to in the past. Money is one thing, time is another. It takes an extra 10 minutes to ply the longer route.
2. Frequency of MRTs – Despite our claims of having a world class public transport system, the frequency of our MRTs is laughable. With the exception of morning and evening peak hours, we have to wait 6 to 8 minutes easily for a train, despite there being lots of commuters at other hours too. For some reason, trains always seem to be full, no matter whether it’s peak or off peak hours. Again, this is about public transport companies trying to optimize loads to maximize their profits. (Hey, we are talking about PUBLIC transport isn’t it? Shouldn’t it be more of serving the public/country rather than putting profits first? Granted, a profitable operation is essential to avoid having loss-making operators that rely on government subsidies – however, I think they got their priorities wrong).
3. Cost of ‘concession fares’ – It’s a big joke. Tertiary students pay $50+ for a month of bus concession, or $80 – $90 (not sure) for both bus and MRT. That’s a concession? Compare to here in Vancouver where students pay C$22 a month for unlimited travel on all public transit services (Bus and Skytrain, our MRT equivalent).
4. EZ-Link system – This is another big joke. A “world-class” country like Singapore needs to regulate its commuters so tightly that they have to implement a tap-in-tap-out payment system to ensure that people cannot cheat on their fares. Compare to a real world-class city like Vancouver where most often nobody checks whether you are holding a valid fare or not when you board the bus, where commuters can board from the back of the bus, and where Skytrain stations have no entry/exit gantries to make sure people actually pay. I think to be fair, maybe gantries at MRTs is not a bad idea… but EZ-Link certainly sucks. Why can’t we have some level of trust in our commuters? I am sure only a small percentage of people actually cheat on their fares, given the strong laws (jail/fine for not paying the correct fare?) governing it. Perhaps EZ-Link doesn’t make it slower when boarding or exiting from the bus, but during peak hours it would be good if commuters can board from the back… which given the EZ-Link system it is not possible.
5. Accessibility – A world-class country like Singapore only has a handful of buses equipped for wheelchair use. And really, how effective is that? How many wheelchair-bound people do we see use public transport? In contrast, here in Vancouver so far all the buses and Skytrains I see are equipped with space for wheelchair users. Also, buses have some kind of hydraulic function that bus drivers can use to lower the bus to the pavement for wheelchair users to board. Bus drivers are also very patient and used to helping such commuters. It’s not just for show. It is actually effective, because very often I see wheelchair users use public transit. Other able-bodied commuters are also civic enough to give up their seats at the front of the bus so that wheelchair users or those who are less mobile (like the elderly, parents with strollers, even people with huge suitcases) can have them. It is possible to push a 30″ suitcase effortlessly on board a bus here instead of relying on taxis to get home from the airport.
Oh, and buses here in Vancouver are also equipped with anti-slip flooring. This is really useful for everyone and not just less mobile people.
Accesibility is not only about wheelchair users, though. It’s also about the less mobile categories of commuters I mentioned. How often do we see parents with small children and strollers use the bus? Here, they can simply push the strollers on board. In Singapore, one has to fold it up and then find some way to manage when boarding the bus with a small kid, a stroller, shopping bags… and to top it off – uncivilised, selfish and unsympathetic people pushing and shoving and not giving way.
5. It’s about the people – Seriously, no matter how we reform the transport system, a large part of a comfortable ride depends on the people – commuters, bus drivers, MRT station staff, etc. If we have rude, uncivilised people, or if people cannot be more civic-minded, the transport system will still suck. Very often buses are not really that full, its just that some selfish people refuse to move to the back of the bus. Boarding buses or trains can be a more comfortable and efficient affair if everyone just stand in line and quit being selfish and wanting to push and shove.
I foresee that Singapore will still be a long way away from having a truly efficient and effective transport system… Unless public transport truly becomes a service to the public and not just purely business concerns.
No related posts.
RH: I have an essay on this in : http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/search/label/Public%20transport%20another%20SCAM%20by%20LIE%20KY
Dear Mrbiao,
Regarding your take on inefficient bus routing, it boils down to two different network planning approach — hub-and-spoke network as championed by SMRT vs direct bus from neighbourhoods connecting to other places as championed by SBS Transit.
In a hub-and-spoke network, the feeder services will wind through the neighbourhood to bring people to the neighbourhood interchange, while the trunk services will take the most direct route out. For example, look at Yishun trunk services 851-855, which exits Yishun via the most direct route of Yishun Ave 2/Lentor Ave. Another example is Woodlands, where the trunk services take the most direct route of Woodlands Ave 3/Woodlands Ave 7 out of the neighbourhood.
Compare this to SBS Transit network. In their networking planning approach of providing point-to-point bus services, they serve to create a network that offers direct bus services with minimum transfer. As such, the trunk services usually snake through the neighbourhoods to increase coverage. For example, look at the Bishan trunk services, e.g. Service 52-59, which snakes through nearby neighbourhods such as Sin Ming/Toa Payoh/Ang Mo Kio/Serangoon. The clearest example would be the extension of Service 54 to Bishan St 13, covering 3 more bus stops thereby increasing travel time from interchange by about 5 mins, but it reduces the hassle of transferring to 56 or 410 if one is to alight at ITE or Kuo Chuan Pri Sch.
It would be cheaper to take a direct bus over a feeder-trunk services under current fare system. However, when the distant-based throughfare system kicks in next year (pls refer to the latest land transport review announcement), there will be no fare difference between the two network. In fact, travelling time would be reduced as one can take a bus to a transfer hub where there are many more services to take him to the same destination, thereby reducing waiting time.
Regards,
Daniel Chin
Hi Daniel
That’s a very detailed and good insight you have there. You must be in the line of transport planning I guess.
Well I’m not in Singapore now so I haven’t been reading the news about how the new fare system works. But I see on your blog that the system is distance-based.
I agree with you that its a bad system. It doesn’t take away the problems we have now. Singapore is such a small city, why do we need a distance-based system to complicate things?
A zone system is like what they have here in Vancouver… where the city is split into different zones and there will only be 3 or 4 different fare tiers based on how many zones a commuter is crossing, no matter how many transfers he makes. There are also cheaper fares for travel during off peak hours for all commuters, which is a good way to encourage off peak travelling for ALL commuters (not just senior citizens above 60). That would help in optimizing loads.
As you said on your blog, centralised planning is a really good move – it resolves the problem of transport operators working for their own interests and profits by designing routes to maximise their profits.
There will be less overlaps with a centralised system, and resources can be freed up to provide better services and hopefully more direct services.
The way I see it, Singapore’s transport system is going backwards. It’s high time to introduce changes, and the changes better be effective otherwise we’ll still be stuck with different manifestations of the same problems (i.e. new fare system but still inefficient and unfair).
[...] Trains & Automobiles – The Lush Garden Within: Land transport reforms in Singapore – at last – Hear ye! Hear ye!: The wildcard in public bus reforms – Simply Jean: What I want to see in the [...]
I think peak and off peak pricing will not work everyone still have to go to work at 9pm regardless of the peak and off thing. You cannot tell your boss that “Erhm, I reach office at 11pm okay? 20cent a day makes 4 dollars a month , you know”
EZlink works great as we dont need to remember the pricing. I guess you forget those days where we have to press the price manually. Surely you will not want that.
I think the core of the problem is still :
1) getting from point A to point B. Without the bus going merry go round.
2) the bus driver being F1 driver wannabe. Sometimes I hope they can hit the front vehicle, so it will serve as a warning to the rest
3) the bus interval. So bus service really boil your blood one.
My comments is that Singapore route is already pretty efficient. So the core is just the planning. End of the day, if they DUN DO ANYTHING, we will still have to listen right? I dont think anyone will go riot or denounce his citizenship because of the bus service. So consider everything as value-added
And from what we read, one problem being tackle is on the pricing. Ask yourself, if you save a bit on other stuff (like a new ipod touch), the pricing is really insignificant. I mean, look at an average Singapore. I am sure no one will really care about the 1-2 cent hike. Yes, we all bitch about price hike, but ultimately I dun think it will burn anyone pocket, even if you got like 10 children to take care off. End of the day, its just about getting from point A to B.
Peak and offpeak pricing will encourage people like homemakers and non working people or those with flexible schedules to use public transit at non peak hours to free up the space for those who want to get to work quickly. The motivation of the system is to encourage offpeak use for those who can afford to do it, not as a cost saving solution for people who need to get to a place during the peak hours.
EZ-Link system where people don’t need to remember pricing of course is important in a distance-based fare system since there are many fares to remember. If there is a simpler model in use, like the zonal system, things will be less complicated and fares will be easier to remember. There will be no need to implement such a expensive (both on operators and users – remember we pay $5 for each card) system. Consider – Each card costs $5, we’ve got 4.5 million population. Not all citizens use public transit, but we have tourists or travelers who buy the card for short term use. We also have people who own multiple cards. How much does it add up to?
You are right on the 3 problems. Service intervals, routings and attitude of drivers towards their jobs are all issues to deal with.
Surely people will not renounce their citizenship or riot due to a poor transit system, but it is a very basic requirement of the government of a country that claims it is first class… to provide an efficient and effective transit system for taxpayers and their dependents. It is a right, and not a value-added service.
Indeed, the price hike of 1 to 2 cents is a non-issue for most people, even for lower income ones. However, the point of contention is not the hike – it is about how much money the operators are already earning versus how much they consider is enough. It seems that even though they have perpetually increasing profits each year, that somehow fare hikes are still ‘essential’ for them to continue providing ‘good service’.
The question is not about where we should spend our money… it is more about whether we are getting our money’s worth and whether the operators are getting out of hand in their profit making quests.
Lots of major cities also have pass systems – the MBTA in Boston has a one-month pass, valid on all local subway and bus lines in the city, for about US$60 while New York City’s MTA has a US$76, 30-day pass. I’m pretty sure we have a similar or even larger proportion of daily commuters. And yet – no pass system.
Another point about senior discounts. A government that is sincere about benefitting seniors would extend the discount system-wide and all-day. Not just during off peak hours. How about senior citizens that are taking up the government’s call to work in their twilight years? They would likely be doing low income jobs and will need to travel during regular hours – the current system really discriminates.
Another example is how Pre-U (JC) students are charged the same as children/students while polytechnic students of the same age are charged tertiary fares. That’s discrimination. The argument that poly students are tertiary students is really weak and skewed logic. How different are tertiary students from JC students? Many tertiary students do have to work part time to earn their own living expenses, and I believe they deserve concessions more, especially when their tuition fees are higher.
A first world country doesn’t discriminate in such a way.
In Seattle, seniors are charged as little as $0.25 for bus fares – at most one fifth of the regular fares. How’s that for real senior citizen discount?
It all boils down to the profit-making mindset of the operators. This is the ‘benefit’ we get from privatizing transportation providers and letting them get publicly listed – they can argue that they are doing it for the good of thousands of shareholders…. but what about the millions of commuters?
The planning of sites ard train lines n location seems to be out of synch. I take the NEL down to CBD daily, one observation is the north bound line in the morning is almost empty n the reverse in the evening. I though our highly paid civil servants had this idea of decentralising some offices and services out of the CBD to reduce costs n to spread out commuters travelling in the same direction. Apparently it is not as Raffles Pl is almost a mad house during lunch time. Talk abt planning since upmteen years ago.
[...] Reforms Announced – The Lush Garden Within: Land transport reforms in Singapore – at last – Hear ye! Hear ye!: The wildcard in public bus reforms – Simply Jean: What I want to see in the [...]