Tuesday, December 20, 2011

ST Online Forum - run parallel bus services


I SUPPORT the suggestion by Mr Christopher Jude Loh ('Viable alternative'; yesterday) to allow more buses to be deployed on a permanent basis to run parallel to the rail system.
The recent breakdown of the SMRT trains should wake up the people in charge.
It is better for the buses to be operated by private operators, who should be given a licence by the Land Transport Authority to operate this service. This will truly provide competition to SMRT and help to moderate its fare increases. It will also relieve the congestion on the trains, which now happens at most hours of the day. It will provide a true market alternative to commuters.
I suggest that the fares to be charged by the bus operators should be pegged to the same level as the SMRT fares. While this may appear to be on the high side, it will increase the supply of buses, especially from hard-working private bus operators.
The increased supply will reduce the demand for the train services and will force SMRT to reduce fares. Given the choice between standing in crowded trains and having a seat (I hope) on a bus at the same fare, some people may opt for buses, even if the travel time is longer.
There are other practical issues to be considered, such as the heavy investment required by private operators to buy a bus and install the fare system, but they can be addressed when there is a will to find a solution.
This will be market competition truly at work.
Tan Kin Lian

4 comments:

Tan Kin Lian said...

As the parallel bus services will run on bus lanes and have fewer stops, the travelling time might be only slightly longer than the trains.

C H Yak said...

Much lies in LTA looking at how best to "relax" and let private operators provide an alternative mode of public transport.

I wrote to the press many years ago, asking that rules be liberalised for private operators, especially to supplement the "hub" while the main service providers concentrate on the "spoke" and also part of the feeder service for the "hub". Do not set unnecessary standards and demands. I am afraid our Govt & LTA is more concerned about the "image" of buses. Be practical. I don't see why a minibus which ferries school children would be "unsafe" as public transport. Take HK for example - the minibuses are efficient.

The LTA is good at looking at rules to demand what may not be "practical" while the public needs "simple practical" solutions. But the "hubs" are where the LTA can let go. It is particularly so where there are private housing estates nearby.

Look at another angle which Mr Tan always support...LOL
E.g. 1 "Pirate Taxi" - "Illegal" vs "Green - saving fuel and is like car-pooling".

E.g. 2 "Minibuses buses only for school children & workers" & "Only Scheme B Buses are allowed" vs "Minibuses in the Hubs and connecting private estates to MRT Stations & Bus Interchange etc. Not SBS Interchanges are only for SBST Buses. Only visitors allowed are SMRT Buses. Minibuses may not be allowed to visit bus interchange, but I am sure there are safe bus-stops nearby or even drop-offs at MRT Stations etc.

LTA is always looking at how to "control and limit", not how to "implement alternative ways".

yujuan said...

The Govt is the main shareholder of the 2 public listed GLC transport service providers through Temasek Holdings, they want to monopolize and make all the money.
On certain routes we want to get to our destination quickly, and the Hongkong private mini buses serve the purpose perfectly, executing fast and convenient travel.
Privatize completely, with Temasek giving up shareholdings in SMRT and Comfort Delgro, then public transport would be more efficient, look at the constant upgrading of the MRT premises for more retail spaces, SMRT has morphed into a retail landlord, rather than providing mass transport service, with property rentals yielding 40% of its total annuual profits, rewarding shareholder Temasek handsomely, so that this SWF could use the dough to make some of its reckless investments abroad, with this back up cash to cover the losses conveniently.

Weng Mao Fa said...

Your proposed bus service in not a new idea. It had been existed from pt A to pt B in late-1980/1990s. It was cheaper and faster. Although non-aircon, poor workers like it very much.

The bus service has to follow many rules. Some of which might be unfair to the business. e.g. the parallel bus servide can not rush infront of a SBS Bus to "catch" passengers!

The service was end after some complaints from the public.

Trans Island Bus was finally acquired.
Why?
They face unfair competition ! e.g. TIB can not park its bus at a SBS Terminal! TIB was allowed to do business in "forest area" in 1980s.

Blog Archive