I would like to comment on a published article bearing the same title as this post (refer to original article for article, URL available below).
The report on the new MRT line is stale news.
The five-station Downtown Line Phase 1, originally known as Downtown Extension, was already announced by LTA about two years ago.
It has simply just undergone a name transformation - just like the Marine Line that was renamed to Circle Line Stage 1.
The article seems to be conceived to pacify those who could be opposing more rail lines as they do not see the need of expensive rail lines, especially after the North-East Line experience.
As much as I like to concur with the author that having more rail lines will improve quality of life, I would like to pose some questions in response to the otherwise simplistic argument put forth.
Question 1: Given that "financial viability of the new lines might be an issue", would the Government be able to invite operators to operate the new lines? Both local operators, SMRT and SBS Transit, are public-listed companies.
If the revenue of the new lines are unable to cover operating costs, it is unlikely that the operators are willing to run the new lines at a loss unless compensated duly.
If that is the case, is the Government prepared to "subsidise" their operations? I could think of a number of ways that the Government can overcome this.
One is to convince the operators' management to accept lower profit margin.
This may be achieved by trying to get them to at the overall profit margin of all the lines that they are rather than looking at the profitability of a single line.
However, this might not be feasible as the public-listed operators will find it difficult to answer to their shareholders.
Another possible move is to allow the operators to recoup any losses by allowing them to have greater non-fare revenue.
Such could be in the form of more aggressive marketing initiatives in train stations, or more commercial spaces for rent.
Question 2: The expanding rail network will reduce the distance travelled, especially for the upcoming Circle Line.
Since our current train fare is distance-based (the longer you travel, the more you pay), having more rail lines will most likely reduce the fare because of the corresponding reduction in distance travelled.
Is it fair to the operators that while they incur more costs to run the new lines and offer better service in terms of reduced journey time to the public, they are getting lesser revenue due to distant-based fare structure? Since the author has called for more rail lines because it improves "quality of life", are passengers also willing to accept a similar argument for fares: that a portion of the fare can be pegged to "quality of ride" based on the amount of time savings they experience with the new lines? Not to forget that our train fair is one of the most affordable in the world! Question 3: Are we prepared for more bus rationalisation? The new rail lines will not be sustainable without extensive bus rationalisation to remove duplicating bus routes.
However, recent public sentiments have shown that there are a number who prefer the convenience of having direct door-step bus services over the need to make bus/MRT transfer trips.
This is especially true for the Woodlands and North-Eastern residents who have experienced the MRT extension to Woodlands and the new North-East Line.
However, extending the rail network without rationalising the bus services will result in less than ideal utilisation of the huge investments poured into constructing the new MRT lines.
I do understand that the Ministry is trying to give more choices to the people, but is it at the expense of building an expensive system that might not fully reaped its benefits? While the focus is providing a customer-centric travel experience, let us not forget the big picture amidst the myriad dissenting views.
Question 4: Is MRT the only option to meet the transportation needs of Singaporeans? How about other modes of transport, such as the Bus Rapid Transit system that could meet the transportation needs at much lower cost? As the article has pointed out, the cost of MRT extension comes from taxpayers' money.
As such, it would be dangerous to expand the rail network using the "quality of life" argument without having the cost-benefit analysis done proper.
In any case, the argument of "having more rail lines is a necessity" seems déjà vu.
Remember the great MRT rebate back in 1970s, on whether there is a need to built MRT line at all because of the huge financial cost? Given the huge amount of taxpayers' money (Christopher Tan from Straits Times estimated that Downtown Line would cost $10 billion), I would urge the relevant authorities to be more transparent in answering this question.
You are welcome to post any comments and share any views that you may have in my blog.
The report on the new MRT line is stale news.
The five-station Downtown Line Phase 1, originally known as Downtown Extension, was already announced by LTA about two years ago.
It has simply just undergone a name transformation - just like the Marine Line that was renamed to Circle Line Stage 1.
The article seems to be conceived to pacify those who could be opposing more rail lines as they do not see the need of expensive rail lines, especially after the North-East Line experience.
As much as I like to concur with the author that having more rail lines will improve quality of life, I would like to pose some questions in response to the otherwise simplistic argument put forth.
Question 1: Given that "financial viability of the new lines might be an issue", would the Government be able to invite operators to operate the new lines? Both local operators, SMRT and SBS Transit, are public-listed companies.
If the revenue of the new lines are unable to cover operating costs, it is unlikely that the operators are willing to run the new lines at a loss unless compensated duly.
If that is the case, is the Government prepared to "subsidise" their operations? I could think of a number of ways that the Government can overcome this.
One is to convince the operators' management to accept lower profit margin.
This may be achieved by trying to get them to at the overall profit margin of all the lines that they are rather than looking at the profitability of a single line.
However, this might not be feasible as the public-listed operators will find it difficult to answer to their shareholders.
Another possible move is to allow the operators to recoup any losses by allowing them to have greater non-fare revenue.
Such could be in the form of more aggressive marketing initiatives in train stations, or more commercial spaces for rent.
Question 2: The expanding rail network will reduce the distance travelled, especially for the upcoming Circle Line.
Since our current train fare is distance-based (the longer you travel, the more you pay), having more rail lines will most likely reduce the fare because of the corresponding reduction in distance travelled.
Is it fair to the operators that while they incur more costs to run the new lines and offer better service in terms of reduced journey time to the public, they are getting lesser revenue due to distant-based fare structure? Since the author has called for more rail lines because it improves "quality of life", are passengers also willing to accept a similar argument for fares: that a portion of the fare can be pegged to "quality of ride" based on the amount of time savings they experience with the new lines? Not to forget that our train fair is one of the most affordable in the world! Question 3: Are we prepared for more bus rationalisation? The new rail lines will not be sustainable without extensive bus rationalisation to remove duplicating bus routes.
However, recent public sentiments have shown that there are a number who prefer the convenience of having direct door-step bus services over the need to make bus/MRT transfer trips.
This is especially true for the Woodlands and North-Eastern residents who have experienced the MRT extension to Woodlands and the new North-East Line.
However, extending the rail network without rationalising the bus services will result in less than ideal utilisation of the huge investments poured into constructing the new MRT lines.
I do understand that the Ministry is trying to give more choices to the people, but is it at the expense of building an expensive system that might not fully reaped its benefits? While the focus is providing a customer-centric travel experience, let us not forget the big picture amidst the myriad dissenting views.
Question 4: Is MRT the only option to meet the transportation needs of Singaporeans? How about other modes of transport, such as the Bus Rapid Transit system that could meet the transportation needs at much lower cost? As the article has pointed out, the cost of MRT extension comes from taxpayers' money.
As such, it would be dangerous to expand the rail network using the "quality of life" argument without having the cost-benefit analysis done proper.
In any case, the argument of "having more rail lines is a necessity" seems déjà vu.
Remember the great MRT rebate back in 1970s, on whether there is a need to built MRT line at all because of the huge financial cost? Given the huge amount of taxpayers' money (Christopher Tan from Straits Times estimated that Downtown Line would cost $10 billion), I would urge the relevant authorities to be more transparent in answering this question.
You are welcome to post any comments and share any views that you may have in my blog.
Source...