Community service
With election season coming, local MPs are working hard to fight for their re-election.
In transport, this means a curious bunch of locally-chartered shuttle bus services have popped up.
Marine Parade GRC isn’t the only one. Hillview is also joining in the fun.
“Don’t make your problem my problem”
The previous playbook followed by MPs had been to strong-arm the LTA into providing public bus services to serve the targeted passengers. Previously it worked, like how MP Low Yen Ling managed to get service 973 when the LTA refused to open Hume station. Perhaps, though, these days the LTA may plead that it doesn’t have the budget or ability to support such services, especially for smaller, niche groups that can’t fill a regular bus.
It’s useful to note that Marine Parade GRC chartered 22-seater minibuses; which may not be a useful tool in our public transport system, due to the need to still hire a driver. Likewise, many of Marine Parade’s free routes have long non-stop distances and serve only major landmarks along circuitous routes — all hallmarks of what this blog calls a car replacement bus, but which may be questionable as fixed public transport routes.
As a particularly egregious case, the route for Kembangan-Chai Chee has a lot of overlap with existing public bus services along Sims Avenue and Changi Road, the only difference being that it makes a turn to call at Chai Chee estate, essentially being a car replacement express bus alternative. Besides, for Chai Chee, Bedok Polyclinic is also much closer to them — and with more frequent public bus options — than Eunos Polyclinic anyway, calling into question the usefulness of such services.
Then again, Hillview’s service is also an outgrowth of a quite-logical free shuttle bus provided by the management of HillV2 to drive patronage to its shop. At the far end of Hillview Avenue, getting to HillV2 by public bus is difficult, as most public buses have already turned right to Hillview Road to access the MRT station and Upper Bukit Timah Road. And while Service 871 crosses to the other side of Bukit Gombak, it goes to Beauty World MRT, not Hillview estate.
Upcoming roadworks might give us a chance to fix that, but that’s still a while away. And it’s also a bit of a kick in the teeth that back when Hillview Estate was called Princess Elizabeth Estate, a bus terminal was located near the old CC. We could build one in today’s Hillview Estate for such a bus route; it would merely be bringing back something that used to be there.
Limited mobility
So why is the LTA poorly placed to just run bus service from these places?
Firstly, there are limited bases which proposed routes can operate out of. A new roadside bus terminal had to be built under the BSEP for Service 49 (just down the road from the old Jurong Bus Interchange, I must say), and facilities like Changi Business Park terminal were also needed to support new BSEP service expansion. But with technology, new bus management systems may allow operators to integrate their own timekeeping systems — as SMRT used to do — allowing bus drivers to be rested at arbitrary stops like MRT stations, doing their timekeeping within the bus management system, much like private operators.
And if still necessary, the government will have to invest in more interchanges and terminals, as was done during the BSEP, and land use plans will have to adapt. What happens at the Kembangan integrated development may be instructive, where there are plans for just “a bigger bus bay” for services that layover there. Or why place a bus interchange in Chencharu so far from Khatib MRT? Similarly, a new Kallang bus interchange will presumably provide more space for service expansion than Lorong 1 Geylang terminal.
There are two examples that show this need. Firstly, some form of bus terminal in Hillview is necessary, as mentioned. The second is Kovan Hub, where Service 115 still terminates today. While it‘s not exactly near Kovan station, SBS closed Hougang South Interchange — Kovan Hub’s former identity — because operations shifted to Hougang Central, which was better placed to serve Hougang New Town. Reinstating Hougang South as a terminal, at least for Service 115, means we can grow it in future for future developments along Hougang Ave 1/3, and at the very least, means the stop doesn’t have to close when constituency events take place.
Distance doesn’t matter that much now either. The new MRT system map identifies Tuas Link station as having a connected bus interchange, and Tuas Terminal is easily a longer walk from Tuas Link MRT than Kovan MRT to Kovan Hub. The same goes for Bedok South station, perhaps because of Upper East Coast terminal, if not the upcoming Bedok South ITH.
An equal and opposite reaction
Fleets matter as well — the storage bus fleet is much reduced than it was previously, and between growth areas in Tengah, Bidadari, and Tampines, we may even be able to exhaust that too. Prioritizing new BTO areas that have nothing, over providing car replacement buses to eliminate walking, should be the way to go. Private bus operators can always swing by their nearest showroom to buy a new minibus, after all, while the LTA must call an open tender, and that takes a while — at least a few months to a year.
But what worsens all these issues is that by being forced to keep existing bus service levels, the LTA cannot redeploy resources for new service — or if even mentioning it is politically untenable. I won’t be surprised if the LTA’s price for new bus service was a reduction in bus service quality elsewhere within the cluster, especially along Marine Parade and East Coast Roads, being told to take trains instead. If that happened, and local MPs insisted on having their cake and eating it too, then we know where the blame lies.
We may not have solved coverage, if you believe what Tin Pei Ling says; but to me, more often than not, politicians and populists are part of the problem, not the solution. You can’t take away car replacement bus service from people and ask them to take the train, because they will scream that first and last mile local service is bad. Yet, you can’t improve the first and last mile service, or some rail service, because resources are still being spent on direct services and competition for passengers still exists.
We must also address the working conditions of bus drivers. The perennial issue of driver recruitment likely handicaps the LTA’s ability to start new services. While Tower Transit may make headlines for three bus accidents in three days, a SMRT Buses driver was behind the wheel when a service 970 bus ploughed into a construction worker in Shenton Way, and likewise, it was a SBS Transit bus driver who crashed into a wall in Yishun, halting all services at Yishun interchange. A “task force” will only go so far without addressing structural — even political — considerations.
Previously I said that Taipei “might” be a possible future. I may have to change my assessment now and say that Taiwanese quality of bus services is clearly now upon us. Because after all, public bus drivers are recruited from Singaporean drivers; and the quality of the Singaporean driver is arguably decreasing, even if we see locals putting on the bus captain’s uniform. Taiwanese bus drivers may be paid above the median wage there, but the hours they are required to put in still dampen their recruiting prospects. The only way out is a shorter shift roster, and that means lesser service quality and longer waiting times, or cleaning up the network.
It’s always politics
What may start as well intentioned efforts to “complement” the public transport system may instead lead to competition, as it has in Jurong. Retirees with plenty of time may prefer to build their lives around a free hourly shuttle, instead of paying 70 cents per trip for public buses. They will thus not ride public buses, no matter how much fare concessions are offered. And when fewer people ride public buses, can you blame them for reducing service? With a public service, everyone can benefit with a fare payment.
It’s also useful to note that these Marine Parade services are funded by the Community Development Councils under the People’s Association, under the Ministry of Culture, Community, and Youth; a totally separate ministry from the Ministry of Transport. These may happen because local MPs were probably now told to fund these services themselves through constituency funding, instead of expecting the LTA to use Transport Ministry money.
In Marine Parade Cluster, bus passengers must sign up for an account, or obtain a special card, that will allow them to use the free shuttle bus —and to register, they must prove residency within the constituencies. This has uncanny similarities to the Bas Muafakat Johor network up north, which offers free bus travel to Malaysian citizens in Johor state. How do you prove Malaysian citizenship? You go to a counter and register for a Kad Muafakat Johor, or board the bus using the Touch n Go card that’s part of every Malaysian MyKad/IC. Hillview may not have such restrictions, but the shuttle bus operates totally within Bukit Gombak ward, so it may be considered to be serving local residents by that fact.
Let’s call it what it is — pork barrel politics. I’ve called out Bukit Panjang MPs for this before, considering that DTL capacity is already operated from Bukit Panjang station to Stevens where BP SMC folks join the train fresh off their expressway bus rides anyway. And I will do the same here, especially if car-driving Marine Parade MPs refused to take the train and accept any rebalancing in bus resources to facilitate new public bus services.
“Basic bus or bust”
Yet, there are lessons to learn from this; the fundamental idea being to raise more money instead of doing more with less. A “basic bus or bust” mindset is no longer tenable, especially as the expansion of the rail network replaces the need for basic bus services to provide comprehensive transport links.
Firstly, the LTA can consider developing a mechanism through which local politicians can use constituency funding to improve scheduled public transport service, instead of starting their own schemes or having the LTA use its own funds. There is precedent, looking at the digital services GovTech built for other government agencies — it’s not hard to imagine the PA having to co-fund maintenance of services like RedeemSG for CDC vouchers, for one.
This can also be extended to large campuses like NTU, where previously NTU-provided shuttle bus services were so bad that students were willing to pay for the public bus, instead of the shuttle bus that was paid for with their school fees anyway. The shuttle bus situation may have improved, but with the JRL knocking, there’s space for policy innovation in cost-sharing. Changi Airport, too, may find it simpler to pay the public transport fare for passengers and staff travelling between airport terminals on airport business, like at Heathrow, instead of running shuttle buses of their own or contorting a public access way into the T2-T5 Skytrain.
Likewise, this doesn’t apply just to public buses; private bus operators can move in to start Premium services too if their resources permit, arresting the decline in the Premium bus network, where services have been quietly withdrawn. Instead of forcing everything to be a basic bus, higher tiers of service can be implemented; people pay more but they should get something worth paying for. Services such as luggage racks can be implemented, as Hong Kong has with Long Win and Citybus’ Cityflyer.
Yet, history is not on our side. SBS’ early attempts to differentiate service with the CityShopper amongst other off-peak premium services mostly fell flat. And before withdrawal in 2022, Chinatown Directs also typically ran every half an hour, or worse, during the off peak period. They charged more than trunk services.
Marine Parade may be a solution in search of a problem. Yes, there is a limited group of people who can benefit. But policy innovation can happen here to better serve marginal groups, instead of forcing some kind of scheduled basic service. DRT vans? KL is doing that. If you make people download an app anyway, might as well have them call a van using that app that takes them directly to Eunos Polyclinic. It might even build a case to have the LTA implement scheduled service later once clear patterns emerge from the DRT trips.
But as things currently stand, these initiatives are a symptom of public transport stasis and a refusal to adapt to changes, which only exacerbates existing inequalities and inefficiencies. Of course, the greatest failure here is policy failure — the populist mentality taken by policymakers today just makes the medicine we will have to take eventually, harder and more bitter.
Apart from that, everything that I think can be said, has been said. I suppose there’s no appetite for policy innovation because DRT doesn’t meet the political aims, at least not within the current system.
Like what you read? Join the Telegram Channel for updates, or follow on Instagram for quick takes!
