The BIG Breakdown or Meltdown

[Way2GO]

d infrastructure is LTA’s responsibility, not SMRT.

D infrastructure would include d rail tracks, signaling system n stations among other fixed assets.
D problem now appears to be with the misalignment of the 3rd rail.
Looks like LTA’s problem to fix or it has become part of SMRT’s maintenance responsibility?

D infrastructure was built with taxpayers’ money. SMRT was incorporated in 2000(?)
n I believe d infrastructure capital costs n depreciation costs do not show up in SMRT’s accounting.
SMRT likely will not show hefty profits if these costs were taken into account.
Dis arrangement needs some scrutiny.
Taxpayers pay for infrastructure, SMRT makes a good profit (minus d infrastructure costs n depreciation)
n then pays nice dividends n bonuses to d stakeholders. How nice.
Taxpayers pay it one way or d other, or both ways. Who benefits most from dis arrangement?

[looking4Tutor]

Way2GO:

d infrastructure is LTA’s responsibility, not SMRT.

D infrastructure would include d rail tracks, signaling system n stations among other fixed assets.
D problem now appears to be with the misalignment of the 3rd rail.
Looks like LTA’s problem to fix or it has become part of SMRT’s maintenance responsibility?

D infrastructure was built with taxpayers’ money. SMRT was incorporated in 2000(?)
n I believe d infrastructure capital costs n depreciation costs do not show up in SMRT’s accounting.
SMRT likely will not show hefty profits if these costs were taken into account.
Dis arrangement needs some scrutiny.
Taxpayers pay for infrastructure, SMRT makes a good profit (minus d infrastructure costs n depreciation)
n then pays nice dividends n bonuses to d stakeholders. How nice.
Taxpayers pay it one way or d other, or both ways. Who benefits most from dis arrangement?

With such info, it is still very hard to convince those who have faith in \"good governance\".

[Angelight]

The trains broke down again this evening…looks like they haven’t fix the problem.

[3Boys]

Chenonceau:

Hence, I would still think that $18 a month of PURE profit per rider is too much. In absolute terms it looks small but considering the NUMBERS of people who take the MRT, it is not small.

Chenonceau, it is therefore important to dig under the surface to understand the numbers in order to understand impact, before we pass judgment or prescribe solutions. What if the $18 was $1.80 then instead, on the same profit number? Does it make a difference? How about if it were 1.8 cents? Hence my comment about margins, it is key to understanding how 'big' $160 million really is. Tripling of profits or not hardly matters if the margins are really small to begin with, seriously. If for instance SMRT's profit were $100 in 2009 and became $300 in 2010, would that raise an eyebrow? I would be at Hong Lim Square with a placard for SPH to resign in that scenario!

$18 is a point of opinion then, I can admit, but could hardly be considered bleeding people dry, yes?

My view is that the majority of folk can afford this, those going off to Phuket or Perth this December for vacation, those thronging NATAS fair, or SITEX.

For those who cannot, then I suggest a targeted granting system for the underprivileged is a far more effective way than rendering the entire train system subject to the vagaries of public management.

For those who recall, when the MRT was set up, one of the main goals was to get AWAY from the reliance on buses. Trains are for more efficient in terms of costs of operations and carbon footprint than buses. How does it then make any sense to duplicate bus services along the same routes as the train lines?? Just for the sake of competition? How about the unintended consequences? Like carbon emissions? Like traffic congestion? Like hiring foreign bus drivers? Traffic accidents? One must look beyond the obvious to the non-obvious knock-ons. Like in medicine, the cure can sometimes be worse than the disease! And to me, more buses is a real no-no

Many Metros in the world have just one operator on any single line, it is the nature of public transport that the infrastructure investment is so heavy that it just does not make sense to duplicate it.

[Chenonceau]

3Boys:

Chenonceau, it is therefore important to dig under the surface to understand the numbers in order to understand impact, before we pass judgment or prescribe solutions. What if the $18 was $1.80 then instead, on the same profit number? Does it make a difference? How about if it were 1.8 cents? Hence my comment about margins, it is key to understanding how 'big' $160 million really is. Tripling of profits or not hardly matters if the margins are really small to begin with, seriously. If for instance SMRT's profit were $100 in 2009 and became $300 in 2010, would that raise an eyebrow? I would be at Hong Lim Square with a placard for SPH to resign in that scenario!

Ah... now I understand your margins. But the margins are NOT $1.80. They're $18.

3Boys:

$18 is a point of opinion then, I can admit, but could hardly be considered bleeding people dry, yes? My view is that the majority of folk can afford this, those going off to Phuket or Perth this December for vacation, those thronging NATAS fair, or SITEX.

For those who cannot, then I suggest a targeted granting system for the underprivileged is a far more effective way than rendering the entire train system subject to the vagaries of public management.

I do like this suggestion. It still boils down to profit driven management. No profit driven company would think of this because it has a social agenda to it. There was a time when elderly folk had concessionary fares. That was taken away in the name of fairness. Now it is pay per distance. Some old folks go out less because of this. I talked to these old people. They were much saddened but have no way to make their representations.

3Boys:

For those who recall, when the MRT was set up, one of the main goals was to get AWAY from the reliance on buses. Trains are for more efficient in terms of costs of operations and carbon footprint than buses. How does it then make any sense to duplicate bus services along the same routes as the train lines?? Just for the sake of competition? How about the unintended consequences? Like carbon emissions? Like traffic congestion? Like hiring foreign bus drivers? One must look beyond the obvious to the non-obvious knock-ons.

To get away from reliance on anything is to create redundancy so people have choices and people have flexibility. This makes for commuter efficiency. To get away from reliance on buses does not mean to create a new reliance on rail.

3Boys:

Many Metros in the world have just one operator on any single line, it is the nature of public transport that the infrastructure investment is so heavy that it just does not make sense to duplicate it.

These metros are PUBLIC transport. Not PRIVATE and shareholder driven.

[Oppsgal]

3Boys:

Chenonceau:

Hence, I would still think that $18 a month of PURE profit per rider is too much. In absolute terms it looks small but considering the NUMBERS of people who take the MRT, it is not small.

Chenonceau, it is therefore important to dig under the surface to understand the numbers in order to understand impact, before we pass judgment or prescribe solutions. What if the $18 was $1.80 then instead, on the same profit number? Does it make a difference? How about if it were 1.8 cents? Hence my comment about margins, it is key to understanding how 'big' $160 million really is. Tripling of profits or not hardly matters if the margins are really small to begin with, seriously. If for instance SMRT's profit were $100 in 2009 and became $300 in 2010, would that raise an eyebrow? I would be at Hong Lim Square with a placard for SPH to resign in that scenario!

$18 is a point of opinion then, I can admit, but could hardly be considered bleeding people dry, yes?

My view is that the majority of folk can afford this, those going off to Phuket or Perth this December for vacation, those thronging NATAS fair, or SITEX.

For those who cannot, then I suggest a targeted granting system for the underprivileged is a far more effective way than rendering the entire train system subject to the vagaries of public management.

For those who recall, when the MRT was set up, one of the main goals was to get AWAY from the reliance on buses. Trains are for more efficient in terms of costs of operations and carbon footprint than buses. How does it then make any sense to duplicate bus services along the same routes as the train lines?? Just for the sake of competition? How about the unintended consequences? Like carbon emissions? Like traffic congestion? Like hiring foreign bus drivers? Traffic accidents? One must look beyond the obvious to the non-obvious knock-ons. Like in medicine, the cure can sometimes be worse than the disease! And to me, more buses is a real no-no

Many Metros in the world have just one operator on any single line, it is the nature of public transport that the infrastructure investment is so heavy that it just does not make sense to duplicate it.

For grants, total household income has to be below certain amount? if neither here or there, yet cannot afford to go to what vacation, then do what :?

So each time the train breaks down, then do what? Cannot afford cabs, take buses? If bus cannot reach the certain place and has to wait long time then how?

[3Boys]

Chenonceau:

These metros are PUBLIC transport. Not PRIVATE and shareholder driven.

Some, not all.

[3Boys]

Oppsgal:

For grants, total household income has to be below certain amount? if neither here or there, yet cannot afford to go to what vacation, then do what :?

So each time the train breaks down, then do what? Cannot afford cabs, take buses? If bus cannot reach the certain place and has to wait long time then how?

What's the point of effectively targeting the poor, if we do not define what poor is? Of course there has to be a cut-off, yes?

Transport delays can affect all, rich or poor. My boss missed his flight from New York 2 months ago, due to mechanical issues, and missed a work meeting and a personal engagement. We all live with it.

[3Boys]

I do not disagree that the train system be run for the public good, only that I differ in how we get there. We must resist the knee-jerk reaction to immediately link the breakdowns to the fact that SMRT is a public company. There are many publicly run Metros in the world with a worse service record than SMRT. Public does not mean better. To me, a healthy profitable train operator is preferable and sustainable than a loss making publicly owned one, one that contributes to national debt and gasp (national default).


Sorry if I am allergic to ballooning public debt due to heavily subsidised public services, as if we have not heard enough about Greece, Portugal and Italy.

[verykiasu2010]

3Boys:

I do not disagree that the train system be run for the public good, only that I differ in how we get there. We must resist the knee-jerk reaction to immediately link the breakdowns to the fact that SMRT is a public company. There are many publicly run Metros in the world with a worse service record than SMRT. Public does not mean better. To me, a healthy profitable train operator is preferable and sustainable than a loss making publicly owned one, one that contributes to national debt and gasp (national default).


Sorry if I am allergic to ballooning public debt due to heavily subsidised public services, as if we have not heard enough about Greece, Portugal and Italy.

agreed

all the more since they are profitable they must ensure reliable delivery of services with adequate investment in preventive maintenance

if they are loss making, then may be they deserve some forgiveness if there is no mismanagement in resources that result insufficient investment in preventive maintenance