SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment

[raysusan]

[quote]Both SBST and SMRT have submitted their proposals to the Public Transport Council to raise fares. This has generated some responses, including a suggestion for our public transport system to be nationalised. While this might seem like a very attractive idea, in reality, it has serious downsides, chief amongst which commuters and taxpayers (yes, even those who don’t take public transport) are likely to end up paying more, and possibly, for a poorer level of service over time.


A nationalised public transport operator that depends on government funding and which operates on a cost recovery basis would have little incentive to keep costs down. Cost increases will be passed on to commuters. Over time, this will lead to higher costs for the same level of service, which means commuters pay higher, and not lower fares. Not only would people have to pay more, nationalising the operators could result in a stagnation of service quality or efficiency over time.

On the other hand, it is the profit incentive of commercial enterprises that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements. This is the reason why many cities around the world have moved or are moving towards having commercial enterprises provide public transport services. Some people have said that the PTOs should not be making so much profit, although we should also recognise that as public-listed companies, it is not unreasonable for the PTOs to earn fair returns from the sizeable capital investments required to sustain their operations and to invest in future public transport needs.

What is important is to ensure that commuters’ interests are safeguarded even as we have commercial enterprises run the public transport services. Let me highlight the key aspects.

First, we have a robust framework to regulate bus and rail service levels through service quality and operating performance standards so that PTOs do not pursue profit at the expense of commuters. LTA will also continue to work with the PTOs to deliver improvements to the public transport system.

Second, the PTC regulates fares based on a fare adjustment formula

(0.5 CPI + 0.5 WI -1.5%)

that takes into account macro-economic factors, namely the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and average national wage increases, while delivering a productivity dividend to commuters. The fare adjustment formula protects commuters by capping fare increases – PTOs are not free to simply pass on their cost increases to commuters. As in previous years, the PTC will have to deliberate on the PTOs’ fare revision proposals bearing in mind the interests of commuters and the sustainability of our public transport system. In fact, there have been some years when the PTC approved fare increases that have been less than what the PTOs proposed but we should let the PTC deliberate on this properly and make its decision.

These two elements have enabled us to put in place an efficient, cost-effective and financially sustainable public transport system. Certainly, there are areas for further improvement so we can deliver a high quality public transport system, and I welcome your inputs and feedback.

Finally, the Government has invested heavily in our public transport infrastructure and we will continue to do so. On the rail network alone, we have invested about $20bn in the existing rail network infrastructure and will be investing another $60bn in new rail lines by the end of the decade. Government funding of public transport infrastructure is a key reason why public transport fares continue to be affordable.[/quote]http://www.facebook.com/notes/lui-tuck-yew/public-transport-fare-increase/190591647665341

[Daddy D]

\"A nationalised public transport operator that depends on government funding and which operates on a cost recovery basis would have little incentive to keep costs down. Cost increases will be passed on to commuters. Over time, this will lead to higher costs for the same level of service, which means commuters pay higher, and not lower fares. Not only would people have to pay more, nationalising the operators could result in a stagnation of service quality or efficiency over time.\"


I thought this is also the current problem?
Anyway, the authority will have their 1001 reasons to justify... :sad:

[pinky]

IMO, transport/hospital/education/utilities are a form of public service that should be provided for citizens so why keep harping on profits ?

[smurf]

It could be a political move.

[concern2]

Daddy

\"A nationalised public transport operator that depends on government funding and which operates on a cost recovery basis would have little incentive to keep costs down. Cost increases will be passed on to commuters. Over time, this will lead to higher costs for the same level of service, which means commuters pay higher, and not lower fares. Not only would people have to pay more, nationalising the operators could result in a stagnation of service quality or efficiency over time.\"


I thought this is also the current problem?
Anyway, the authority will have their 1001 reasons to justify... :sad:

Is he saying that all civil servants have \"little incentive\" to improve their services to the people?

Where is the competition that will drive down costs? What other public transport means do the public have if they refuse to take the only public transport in town?

In a market economy, isn't it lack of competition (monopoly) that will result in little incentive to keep costs down?

[daddy2007]

Just buy SMRT shares to hedge against the rise in transportation cost:)

[snowman.022851697]

look. I’ve said this many times and im gna say this again. You don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. The overhaul done on every train every 10 days that includes ripping every door out, the change of flooring for all 132 1987 Kawasaki c151 train sets (66 trains), how they manage to fix the new Kawasaki/CSR Qingdao c151a trains, the drivers who work from 5.30-11.30pm daily…smrt’s new purchase of possibly 162/132/200 MAN NL323F chassis with a well-known British body, sbs 's purchase of 1101 scania k230ub, 200+150 Volvo b9tl, 300 Mercedes Citaros… The inspectors only have 6 hours a day, they can’t check every train set and every bus. When there are problems, Ypu rant them out on websites but do you actually report them to smrt?

[daddy2007]

snowman.697:

When there are problems, Ypu rant them out on websites but do you actually report them to smrt?

:udaman:

[snowman.022851697]

I know people who complain about the weak aircon but for one it’s not even designed by SMRT -.- secondly obviously when there are so many people in the train obviously the aircon would feel stuffy!! I’m glad I have people here who actually listen, not like on Facebook where all of them gang up on me and try to compare with overseas transport systems. They can’t because all those are much more expensive than ours!!! I share my opinion with many other transport enthusiasts - jnfortunately singaporeans these days take public transport for granted. "there is no point arguing with these people" Ong you yuan

[sall]

snowman.697:

look. I've said this many times and im gna say this again. You don't know what's going on behind the scenes. The overhaul done on every train every 10 days that includes ripping every door out, the change of flooring for all 132 1987 Kawasaki c151 train sets (66 trains), how they manage to fix the new Kawasaki/CSR Qingdao c151a trains, the drivers who work from 5.30-11.30pm daily...smrt's new purchase of possibly 162/132/200 MAN NL323F chassis with a well-known British body, sbs 's purchase of 1101 scania k230ub, 200+150 Volvo b9tl, 300 Mercedes Citaros... The inspectors only have 6 hours a day, they can't check every train set and every bus. When there are problems, Ypu rant them out on websites but do you actually report them to smrt?

Well-said! hard to believe you're only 13.