An express alternative
Thursday, 17 July 2008, 8:51 am |
Tan Kin Lian / Senior Writer
The Ministry of Transport is introducing a new fare system for public transport that is based on distance rather than the number of transfers. This will reduce one obstacle in the use of public transport, namely the high cost when several transfers are involved.
I hope that the change in system does not cost a large sum of money, as this will eventually be borne by the commuters through higher fares.
A simpler way is to increase the current rebate on transfers. This does not require a massive change to the fare computation system that needs to be installed on all the buses and train stations.
Feeder service
For a long time, commuters have complained about the long waiting time and the long traveling time to get a feeder bus to the train station.
Actually, feeder services are operated in only a few towns in Singapore. A large bus is used to operate this service. It has to take a winding route covering many streets in the town, to pick up sufficient passengers to collect enough fares to pay the operating expenses – leading to long traveling time.
For most parts of Singapore, there is no feeder service. The commuter has to take a bus service that happens to pass through the train station and the destination. This is usually a service that is intended to serve a larger part of Singapore. As this is a specialized service, it has a long waiting time of 7 to 15 minutes, depending on the time of day. If the bus does not keep to the schedule, the waiting time is longer.
If the bus is crowded, the commuter has to wait for the next bus, adding to the waiting time.
Mini-buses
A better system is to use mini-buses that serve an area of 1 or 2 km around a train station and bus interchange. There can be several services to serve different parts of this area, to reduce the traveling time. As the capacity of the mini-bus is small, there is no need for the mini-bus to make many stops to pick up sufficient passengers. This will reduce the traveling time.
With more mini-buses serving the commuters, the waiting time will also be reduced considerably. An accepted waiting time for a feeder service should be 3 to 5 minutes.
Many Singaporeans long for the old days, when “pirate taxis” offer a convenient low cost service in the rural parts of Singapore. These vehicles pick up and drop passengers anyway along a designated route. It is our “old day” version of the feeder service that I am now proposing.
Hong Kong
This service has been successfully operated in Hong Kong and other cities. A Singaporean friend sent this e-mail to me.
Hi Uncle Tan. I have just read your article on improving the Singapore transport system. I have been living in Hong Kong for almost 4 years and noticed that a few of your recommendations are actually live examples here, for e.g. the minibuses, trams and express buses….
I must say that the Hong Kong transport system is very good. Of the two offices I used to work in, scheduled buses brought me to work with door-to-door convenience… minibuses gave me short traveling time at a fraction of what a taxi ride would cost.
And the express buses are great…. not to mention the cheap trams (at less than SG 40 cents) which give you the ease of hoping on and off along the main arteries in Central….
And there is one more thing that I should add… something that was not in your article…. condominiums here have their own shuttle bus services… they are affordable and provide express transport for residents who live further away from the main centre of activity such as Central.
My baby is one year old and I decided to move to Lantau for its open spaces and greenery… the distance is long… (i am almost at the HK airport) …but the shuttle bus brings me to work within 45 minutes … when i was living in Mid-levels… it was even better… no more than 30 minutes… and if its winter… i could even use the escalator…which is free!
Express bus
I wish now to talk about the express bus service that I have proposed. An express service makes only a few stops along the journey. This will reduce the traveling time considerably. The express bus does not have to make many stops to pick up individual passengers, as this function can be left to the feeder service.
When I was in New York twenty years ago, I learned that there are express trains that stop every 3 to 5 stations and local trains that stop at every station. This reduces the traveling time for people taking the express train. A commuter can take the express train for most of the journey and switch to a local train for the final leg. As the transfer is made on the same platform, it is quite convenient for the commuters.
Some of the express bus services can operate on the same routes as the train to offer an alternative to the commuters. This will increase competition and spur the train operator to improve its customer service, such as providing more frequent trains and avoid over-crowding. They can serve as a backup to the train service in the event of a breakdown or accident involving the train.
Other express services can connect the towns directly and offer a shorter traveling distance for the commuters.
Transfers
It is important that the transfer should be made at the same platform or involves a short walking distance. The feeder bus should bring commuters directly to the train station or to the boarding point of the feeder bus.
I hope that these suggestions, which are simple and relatively inexpensive to implement, can improve the public transport in Singapore considerably.
—————-
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
As long as (LTA?/ PTC?) view that only in a monopolistic model can they make good profits for the shareholders of the transport operators, we will never see the commuter enjoying a higher level of transportation efficiency.
I just do not comprehend why our ‘public’ transportation services are ‘privatised’ with profits as the sole objective despite the fact that the MRT and other infrastructure was paid out of TAX? I agree that the major providers should not lose money but shouldn’t they operate on a ‘Cost +’ model where they make enough for future capital expenditure/upgrading? There can be room for smaller ‘feeder’ operators to still, make profits as the major operators operating on a cost + model will then keep these operators sane in their pricing. The market will find an equilibrium.
Oh one more thing - we shouldn’t slap ERP on these busses either if we to allow them to survive and serve their function as a form of ‘public’ transport and to encourage people not to drive to work. BTW there were private ‘express’ buses serving the heartlands and CBD circa 70’s and I remember they served their purpose and seemed to be cheaper?
I’ve been living/been in/to HK for short spans time and again too and can attest to their efficiency - the trams within Central is great and really cheap and adds a character to the place. What do we have for character here? Once can connect to almost anywhere within the territory from places like Admiralty on HK Island. Don’t forget, HK has the body of water to cross and yet they can manage to keep their system efficient. One has to accept that there are traffic jams in HK , no ERP mind you, but has that really stopped them from competing with Singapore economically?
It’s an obvious Fail for LTA not to have considered sufficient expansion of the transport system given the rapid increase in the number of people in Singapore since the government decided to import more migrant workers like a decade ago(?).
[...] ERPains, Trains & Automobiles - TOC: Improving public transport – an express alternative [...]
Dear Mr Tan,
Lets assume that a large sum of money is needed to change the system that calculates the fares and most conveniently this cost will be borne by the commuters, i.e. those who are not able to afford the oil , car and ERP.
Lets say the cost of system change is 1 million.
How many days does it take to earn back this 1 million? 1 day ? 2 days? I suspect half a day. I think only the transport operator’s accounting department knows.
If conveniently, a fare hike is introduced to ‘justify’ for this system change cost, will the fare be lowered back to pre-hike level once the cost of system change is recovered by the price hike? If not, what does this mean? Prices go Up Only and not Down? The justification for this assumed hike is the cost of system change. When this cost is recovered, and the fare is not lowered back to pre-hike level, does it not mean the operator is profiting more than before? What is the justification for this ? Public service?
In summary, what I am driving at is, the transport operator needs to really be able to justify in detail for any price hike and explain to the public.
Many goods and services have price hiked. Conveniently, oil price is quoted as the reason to justify their hike. But are these businesses saying, they do not profit more out of this hike? That is,
new (higher) fare - old fare = new (higher) oil price - old oil price + additional profit?
When oil price drops, I do not think businesses will adjust accordingly for consumers or commuter. I hope I am wrong. Now we are having rarely seen before levels of INFLATION.
Have a nice day.
Best regards
Bus_853
This does not require a massive change to the fare computation system that needs to be installed on all the buses and train stations.
sorry, please ignore the last 2 sentences. forgot to delete them.
Many commuters said that they do not like transfers. They prefer direct connections. Their preference is due to the poor feeder service, i.e. long waiting time, long journey time and long walk to the platform to board on the express bus or train.
It is important to have feeder service that are more economical, more frequent and have shorter jouney time, and also drop passengers on the same platform to board the bus or train. This will make feeder service more acceptable to commuters.
A good network of feeder service to support the express buses and trains will produce a more efficient and convenient transport system.
A distance-based fare calculator incentivises bus transport companies to have as many long-winding routes to maximise distance and change higher fares esp for buses.
Instead of short point to point routes, we are going to see a lot more circular routes than before.
At the same time, does it take into account transfers between MRT and buses?
Very well written and OUTSPOKEN article/letter. I’m SURPRISED ST published it even!
Anyway, this is a real honest to goodness “In-Your-Face Feedback” to the ‘our government’. So whether you as a “government” heed it or not, people couldn’t care less anymore about your ways of governing.
They are leaving, WE are leaving.
Keep Singapore to yourselves.
Dear Mr Tan,
Thanks for the article. You have pointed out many useful possible solutions. It is really surprising that the LTA/Govt have never considered these measures despite its simplicity and ease of implementation vis-a-vis fare overhaul.
I am just amazed how these ‘top brains’ would rather go for a much tougher ’solution’ considering it is their full time job to come up with solutions to solve the traffic problems. Furthermore, having distance-based fare does not solve the traffic problem. Despite all the proposed solutions (yours included), I have a feeling that the authorities will not listen.
Public transportation is for the people. Unless the govt/LTA makes serving the interests of commuters the priority, our transport system will always remain a second or even third rate one.
I hope the authorities will do the right things.
“It is really surprising that the LTA/Govt have never considered these measures despite its simplicity and ease of implementation vis-a-vis fare overhaul.”
Dear Keith,
We know all these simple solutions. However, we are expected to maximise returns for the shareholders. Moreover, with sanctioned monopoly, it will be rather foolish of us not to capitalise on this priviledge.
Singaporeans have been conditioned to accept increases and at times, even absurd policies, without resistance for the past decades. Therefore, we do not see a real need nor incentives to placate them.
By the way, your honest opinion has insulted our intelligence We do what we have to do to justify our multi-million pays. Hope this clarifies your doubts.
Regards
Minister of Monopoly Board
Singapore, a country full of talks, hardly any listener. Until now, not one logical explanation given on why public buses need to be charged ERP. And the suggestions put forth thus far - excellent, but will ‘they’ listen?
No matter what method they choose to use, the price will still increase. So, why should we bother about the method used? The price increase is not because they are making losses. In my view, they are just asking for more profit.
I estimate that the journey time on a express bus can be reduced by as much as 25%, if the bus is required to pick up passengers at fewer boarding points, and the passengers take a feeder bus to these points.
Alternatively the passengers can board the tuk tuk bikes for faster transfers. We could also have those triple deckers, free hugging wagons as seen in chennai and bombay to provide mass rapid transport in an increasing population.
Thomas Koshy wrote an article in Today, 18 July entitled “Why cruise empty, cabby?”
He suggested that taxis be allowed to pick up passengers at a feeder stop to bring them to a nearby train station for a fee of $1. This seem to be a good idea, and is worth trying.
The taxi can also take the passengers waiting for a feeder bus at the train station and take them along the route for a fare that is distance related. In this case, they can bring the passenger to the doorstep.
This type of taxi feeder can also be explored. It is similar to the tuk tuk system used in some countries, and raised by Travelling Girl.
We need to adopt a flexible apprroach and try more modes of operation.
“I am just amazed how these ‘top brains’ would rather go for a much tougher ’solution’ considering it is their full time job to come up with solutions to solve the traffic problems.”
The reason is that these top brains must continue to think inside the box as required by their political masters.
These top brains must make sure their “solutions” must not reduce the profitability of the transport operators which are majority-owned by Tamasek. If they are not thus constrained by their political master, and think like Mr Tan Kin Lian, they can also come up with similar solutions as Mr Tan.
“A better system is to use mini-buses that serve an area of 1 or 2 km around a train station and bus interchange. ”
From the commuter’s point of view, I support this idea. However, if these mini buses are run by small operators, I start to doubt their reliability and financial viability.
The small operator would still have the pay the driver an equivalent salary, but the driver can only service < 20 commuters at a time. This would mean halving his productivity.
To maintain 5-minute frequency for non-peak periods too would mean further lowering his productivity because of lower passenger load. Petrol consumption on per passenger basis would also increase.
Once the operational viability of the small operator is strained as per above, the reliability of the shuttle service would be badly affected when he starts to cut corners.
If the mini-buses are individually owned and run like “pirate taxis” of the past, the 5-minute frequency cannot be guaranteed.
Hi Faircomment (16)
The mini-bus operators in Hong Kong are able to make a living and provide a good service. The taxi drivers can survive in Singapore.
I believe that the mini-buses operating the feeder service can also survive and do well. Maybe, the feeder service can be 3 to 5 mins during the peak hours and less frequent during the off-peak hours.
No use giving feedback to the various sections of LTA. I wrote to the section i/c but it took a few days before someone called me to verify my feedback. Then, she distorted some facts and forward to another section which incharge, The reply came explaining about MRT charges,etc. I had to point out that my complaint is about buses and not MRT and that she is barking up the wrong tree. Finally I approached “Reach”for help. The organisation wrote to the QSM of LTA. Up to now, no reply from LTA.
osamakita jalan kaki baik
I have to drive through the CBD to get to Sentosa last evening. I passed through two gantry points. Each deduct $2 from my cash card. The total charges is $4. This is expensive, especially as it is late in the evening, and most people are just wanting to get home.
I did not know how to avoid the gantry points to bypass the CBD. If I try to find another way, it will add to more traffic congestoin and possibly an accident. So, I paid the ERP charges and accept it as an unavoidable cost.
My friend argued that ERP charges should not be imposed in the evening, as the delay in the travelling time does not affect business. Let people take a longer time to get home.
The imposition of ERP charges seem to be an excuse to get more revenue, rather than to improve business efficiency.
Mr Tan, I believe that everyone will be motivated to find ways to avoid ERPs, at the right price. For you, you may find $4 expensive but still affordable. When it becomes $10, I believe you will find a way to avoid it proactively, rather than accepting it after-the-fact.
If you’re coming from the North, you can take CTE -> AYE -> exit at Keppel. If you’re coming from the East, you should have taken ECP. There’s no need to go through the city at all.
There are already express bus services in the morning. I don’t really find them much faster. The stops they missed are the seldom used ones.
As for the feeder taxis, I don’t think $1 will ever work, as long as the flag down fee is $2.80. However, if you have 4 people coming out with $4, then it’s possible.
Hi nhyone
I agree with your views. Life is so complicated nowadays. One has to be an expert on how to avoid ERP charges. Your sugggestions are good, but I was not that well informed.
Most of the time, I take public transport to avoid the ERP charges. It is only the occasional situation that I would drive and usually if there are several people travelling to the destination.
The feeder taxi was suggested by another writer. I think that it is worth trying. Quite likely, the feeder taxi can take a few passengers along the route. So, it will be worth their while.
I believe that our express bus is not working well now. Right now, we are half hearted about the approach towards feeder service and express bus, which leads to its current state of affairs. The express bus service can be improved. We need to have a strategy and focus in order to achieve its beneficial results.
I met a friend, previously from Singapore, who has lived in Perth for many years. I asked him about the transport system in Perth. Here are his observations:
1. Perth is still a small town, so the traffic is not so congested. But the congestion may come soon.
2. A few bus services operate in the city. It is provided free to the commuters. It is convenient to hop up and down the bus. It is easy to get around the city on these buses.
3 There is a train that run from the north to south of Perth and its suburbs. Many people drive to the train station and take the train. There are large car parks, providing free parking space, at these stations. This “park and ride” scheme is successful.
We all know that nothing is for free. So, the “free city bus services” and “free fringe car parks” have to be paid by the tax payers. I believe that this leads to a more efficient system. It is all right for some public services to be funded by the city, so long as it is not abused.
My friend, who has travelled frequently and visited many cities, said that the transport system in Hong Kong is the best that he has seen. It provides convenient service to the commuters, is low cost and affordable, and does not require to be subsidised by the state.
Many people praised the transport system of Hong Kong. They seem to have the right approach.
I asked him if this was due to the system handed over by the British or was developed after Hong Kong returned to China. He said that it is probably due to both factors.
Hi Kin Lian (17)
“The mini-bus operators in Hong Kong are able to make a living and provide a good service.”
Could you elaborate how the mini-bus operators in HK operate?
Are the operators something like Sg’s Comfort which owns the vehicle and makes money just by renting out the mini-buses at fixed rates, not caring whether the drivers makes a decent income and the commuters pay through their noses?
Are the HK operators licensed and “protected” by the govt from competition?
Who decides the routes for the mini-bus drivers?
The answers may provide a clue as to why the transport system in HK is better than our “world class” system.
Hi Faircomment
I am not familiar with the actual operations of the mini-buses in Hong Kong. Let us wait for comments from the people who live in Hong Kong, Our Land Transport Authority people should also know how they operate. I suspect that they operate like our taxi drivers in Singapore.
In Hong Kong, there is this lassie faire system where the govt plays a minimal role in regulating these bus drivers. This was already in practice during the British rule. The downside is that during sudden heavy downpours or other ermergencies, the mini bus drivers raised their fares by just placing a handwirtten card, sometimes jacking up the fare as much as three times. Because it is left to a demand and supply situation, the drivers will ply a route that is profitable and popular. They will also change the route once demand drops or rises when there are structural changes like opening up of a new MTR station without waiting for the red tape and for any civil servant to take months before they realise the change. I am sure some of our ministers have been sent to study HK system before so they should be able to come out with a more official and accurate assessment of the situation there. Mine was observed from a two year stay there before the handover in 1997 and the frequent trips I made there since then.
Hi, I just like to say that MRT is the most effective transport solution for singapore. Without the late Mr Ong, we could not have had the chance to enjoy efficient MRT if alternative systems were implemented like more buses.
though efficient in transporting large number of people without having to suffer the delay caused by traffic lights and uncertain traffic conditions, the frequency of MRT needs to be increased to 1 train every 2 minutes or less from 7 am to 7pm. The frequency can be lowered to 3 minutes after these times.
Of course, I am just talking to the wall. I mean, I am looking at a mirror on the wall now as I type.
Hi to writer of post 27
I agree that the MRT system is good, and can be improved significantly by increasing the train frequency. I like the frequency of 2 mins during peak hours and 3 mins (or even 4 mins) during off peak hours. It will improve the service considerably, without any capital investment.
I also add my thanks to the late Mr. Ong Teng Cheong. He was a great leader of Singapore.
Mini-bus in Hong Kong. Information obtained through the internet.
Red Striped Minibuses are small passenger vans with maximum accommodation of 16 people. Generally they serve areas which are less accessible by buses. Passengers may get on or off anywhere en route.
Routes - not always fixed
Fares - Non-fixed prices
When to Pay - Pay as you get off
Payment - Small change can be given or use octopus card.
You hail a minibus just as you do with an ordinary taxi, but cannot hail or stop at any bus stops.
MORE ABOUT HONG KONG TRANSPORT SYSTEM, taken from the Internet.
Minibus - officially known as the “maxicabs”; there are two kinds - red top, and green top. They are 16 seat public vans. Most of them serve as short connecting rides between MTR stations, train terminals, shopping areas and residential areas.
As to where they all go, good luck! Even the locals don’t know except the routes they frequent. I suspect there is no web site on all the routes either.
Taxi - mainly there are 3 kinds: red, green, and blue. The blue ones can only operate on the Lantau Island (where the airport is located, but most likely your hotel is not there).
The green ones can only operate in the New Territories. The red ones can go anywhere except for outlying islands not connected with a bridge. All three kinds can go to and from the airport. So at the airport, get in the right queue! And when in doubt, ask! If you don’t want to ask, just get in a red one!
MORE DETAILS ABOUT MINI-BUSES FROM WIKIPEDIA
A Public light bus is a common public mean of transport in Hong Kong. It mainly serves the area that standard bus lines cannot reach as efficiently. It is also colloqially known as a minibus or a van.
Minibuses carry a maximum of 16 seated passengers; no standing passengers are allowed (although some drivers allow a standing passenger in the stairwell if he or she is about to let off another passenger). Minibuses typically offer a faster and more efficient transportation solution due to their small size, limited carrying capacity, frequency and diverse range of routes, although they are generally slightly more expensive than standard buses. The popularity of public light bus services in Hong Kong is due to the high population densities which are needed to support the extensive network of minibus routes.
Overview
A passenger wishing to get on a minibus simply hails the minibus from the street kerb like a taxi. A minibus can generally be hailed down at any point along a route, subject to traffic regulations, although sometimes particular stops are marked out. To alight from a minibus, a passenger customarily calls out to the driver that they wish to get off. The driver then raises his hand to acknowledge him. Tourists are often confused by the calling system, as one must know the route somewhat well to know when to call.
Landmarks, intersecting streets, and even grocery stores such as Wellcome can be used. Some Green minibuses are now equipped with a bell similar to those that are found on the regular buses. Passengers who ride on minibuses equipped with such bells are encouraged to ring the bell if they wish to get off at the next stop. However, calling out to the driver is still the dominant method of letting the driver know that a passenger wishes to get off the minibus.
There are two types of public light minibus, Green minibuses and Red minibuses. Both types have a cream coloured body, the distinguishing feature being the colour of the external roof, and the type of service that the colour denotes. In the past, the minibuses had a band of red or green painted around the body instead of colouring the roof.
Most of the minibus are Toyota Coasters, but a new and environmentally friendly Iveco Daily Green minibus has also been introduced to reduce air pollution. Most of the buses run on Autogas (liquefied petroleum gas or LPG). This type of fuel is not only cheaper, but also reduces emissions. The transport commission is making further efforts to reduce emissions by providing incentives for bus drivers to make the switch to even more efficient electric vehicles.
By 2005, there are 4,350 public light buses in Hong Kong, of which 1,660 are red minibuses (RMBs) and 2,690 are green minibuses (GMBs). The operations of these two types of services are regulated through conditions imposed by the Commissioner for Transport under the passenger service licences (PSLs).
Green minibuses
Green minibuses operate a scheduled service, with fixed routes and fixed fares. There are currently around 250 green public light buses routes with route numbers assigned. The exact fare must be tendered, or payment can be made by Octopus card. On some routes, passengers may pay a portion of the full fare (called section fare) if they are only travelling a section of the route. Sections are usually distinctive physical landmarks, such as crossing a tunnel or a bridge.
Red minibuses
Red minibuses run a non-scheduled service, although many routes may in effect become fixed over time. Red minibuses may operate anywhere where no special prohibitions apply, without control over routes or fares. The operation of red minibuses provides services according to market demand.
In most red minibuses, passengers pay just before they alight, and change for cash payment may be available, or may have a small amount deducted off the amount of change for the inconvenience (of giving change). Only a few red minibuses are equipped to accept payment by Octopus card. Red minibuses’ fares and timetables are not regulated by the Government, and so, may occasionally be more expensive than their Green counterparts.
As routes are not tightly regulated, the flexibility of routes is higher than green minibuses, since drivers may choose the optimum route to travel.
Problem
The greatest problem are with fares. As the minibuses do not have fixed fares, routes and timetables, the fluctuations in fares can be quite large. Some routes may reduce their fares to an unreasonable price in order to win more passengers, but when demand increases (e.g. during typhoons, when regulated buses and minibuses services are suspended), they can make increases in fares without limitation.
Another issue is speeding. From late at night to the early morning, in order to make more rounds during their shifts to earn more, drivers may risk speeding. A typically long journey can be dramatically reduced
mr tan . u stand with us and know what the whole problem or trouble we face , u breath with us and willing to take “public” transport and do “common” thing like us although u have ur own car. than y u understand us. the problem u pp up there is they wont know how things work or things we face. cause they dun take “public” transport i wonder do they know how to take or not…
Hi Kin Lian
With the additional information you provide, I can now see why mini-buses work for HK.
Instead of mini-buses, I would prefer to call them jumbo taxis because they operate without fixed routes (ie where there is demand only), fares fluctuate according to condition (eg typhoon), board and alight anywhere reasonable, supply of jumbo taxis changes dynamically to changing demand. I think the greatest advantage is you really see market forces at play in HK - not over-regulation or protection of transport operators’ bottomline as in Sg.
Jumbo taxis require a large and constant customer base to be economically viable and it may be introduced in Sg during peak hours. However, passenger load during off-peak is definitely lower and they may not be willing to pay a higher fare to compensate the driver for the lower volume. Unless there is a solution to this, Jumbo taxis may not be viable on an overall basis in Sg. Maybe when Sg achieved the target population of 6.5 million. Personally, I wish this target will not be achieved in my lifetime.
Just to clarify your friend’s comment, at 1.3 million population, I don’t think you can classify Perth as a “small town”. It is in fact a city!!!
I hope that Mr Tan article read by people at the Ministry of Transportation.
SMRT operates some services using double length buses. They occupy the space of two buses and crowds out other bus services at the bus stops. With double capacity, the bus can take more passengers. This means fewer buses to serve a certain demand, and double the waiting time for a bus. These buses are more unweildy and may cause traffic accidents.
I suggest that SMRT should use these buses for an express service with few stops. They should use the regular size bus for their normal services, which are expected to pick up passengers at many stops.
With high petrol price, it is time to look at alternative ways of transport using electricity. The trains run on electricity. We have to have more people travelling by train, i.e MRT and LRT.
There is another mode called PAT (personal automated transport). This uses electrically opeated cars (seating 4 people) that run on rails. There is no driver, as the cars are programmed to travel automatically. Some countries are experimenting with this form of transport.
It is like a taxi without a taxi driver.