The state of the bus market
Some folks would be better off spending their advertising dollars somewhere else.
Some are clearly quite interested in the propaganda of the deed. There’s nothing wrong with that, let me be clear. In fact, I’d give the marketing team a thumbs up for a job well done, since word of mouth has clearly worked in order to get local bus fans excited about their products. The question now is how much these efforts will pay off where it matters.
Show me the money
When you make bold political promises, it is a very natural consequence that somehow or rather, some entity magically appears to sell its technologies. The discourse around gadgetbahns in the West is part of this; but over here, it appears to be all the electric bus companies if you ask me. They’re not the first. BYD, working with Go-Ahead, had already brought in a K9 for trials in 2017. Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have also been allowed to deploy trial buses as well to assess the suitability of their products to the Singapore market.
Maybe I’m just being a bit paranoid here, but we can see this happening with all the supposed leaks of “trial buses” which may or may not have been offered to the LTA, of which photos somehow find their way out of whatever storage company is handling the storage and transport of these buses. The bright green and SGBUS stickers are quite obvious, copyright and whatever issues aside.
And now the usual bus video Youtubers are falling in line for exclusive scoops — albeit this round is probably more curious with everyone repeating the same taglines. Now, again, there’s nothing wrong with that. The LTA may be willing to entertain a trial provided for no cost to them, but what I think is not likely, at least in the next few years, is if these trials can actually turn into sales for the respective companies.
The first issue is of course storage and the expansion of the MRT system. Enough has been written here about that, so I shall not repeat myself, albeit to point out that extended pandemic control measures may result in a permanent drop in transit ridership, making the issue of excess capacity far more obvious. The second issue is of course, all the very new vehicles procured in the past few years — their 17-year lifespan means they’re set to retire in the mid to late 2030s — making us early for a scheduled 2040 phaseout of combustion engine vehicles. You could talk about offering conversion kits, but I think we can cross that bridge when we get there, which might be at the end of this decade or maybe early in the next one.
Additionally, with the Linkker electric buses yet to enter service, the science experiment may not be over yet — the model of opportunity charging has yet to prove itself in Singapore conditions, in order to make a fair decision on what operating model to use. Getting the findings from this, to me, is highly important, as the decision could impact far more than just bus and charging system procurement.
Not those Euros
On the topic of emissions, the Early Turnover Scheme exists to provide an incentive for businesses to scrap their vehicles not meeting stricter emissions standards, and replace them with cleaner ones. This may or may not include hybrid or electric models. Recently, it was “enhanced” to also cover Euro IV models as well.
Why does this matter to public transport? Simply put, it may be a way we can quickly push forward emissions standards in the public transport industry. The last of the Euro III buses, the CDGE-bodied Volvo B9TL buses, are being retired early and it’s quite likely they’ll all be gone by the end of the year. We might then be able to turn our attention to the 500 Euro IV Scania K230UB buses — to get them out at roughly the same time as when the Early Turnover Scheme is valid for Euro IV buses.
Yes, that is a lot. And there may be space for a second order of electric vehicles to replace these 500 buses — except that order’s already been made, under Contract T251. In short, what I’m saying is that a lot of these Euro IV buses will be replaced with nothing, since it can be possible to reduce fleet requirements as bus routes are shortened to avoid significant overlap with the MRT network, especially as several currently-high demand services become feeders to the TEL. However, it is not very likely that 500 buses can be removed from the SBST network by the end of March 2023 just with a new MRT line alone, so we’ll still need something to fill in the gap.
Fear not, says SMRT, we have too many buses too! SMRT can thus consider returning more of its Government-owned buses, allowing SBST to take them over, and use its own excess buses to operate what remains of its bus network. It may have done so, but other things are happening too. Word on the street is that the LTA took over the buses SMRT was seeking to dispose of (likely at an irresistable price) and handed them to other operators such as Tower Transit. Different approach, same results, since SBST could also receive additional buses from the storage pool to replace any Euro IV ones they might want to scrap.
Now, though, the question may be how to allow SBST to take advantage of the incentives under the Early Turnover Scheme — since it’s mainly for businesses replacing their vehicles, but the asset-light BCM means SBST doesn’t need to buy any more of their own. Perhaps a discount in leasing fees? Either way, the Environment Ministry could also share a part of the bill in order to take this opportunity to bring forward emissions standards for cleaner air.
The considerably larger proportion of Euro V and VI vehicles would make a similar effort somewhat harder to implement for these batches, but maybe at that time the electric vehicle market might be more competitive; be it either through new vehicles or conversion of existing bodyshells. The choice of an operating model for electric buses might also be decided upon already. But since for now they’re only selling new ones, it may not be wise to expect to make any sales to the LTA in the short to medium term.
Your princess is in another castle
The private sector, though, also receive the same incentives under the Early Turnover Scheme, and thus can also be targeted as a possible market for electrification — so far as they are willing. Can we make them willing, then? The relative success of the BYD C6 may be encouraging, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t obstacles.
According to vehicle population statistics, only one in three buses in Singapore is an omnibus running public transport service. Excursion buses, in particular, have seen a doubling from 2010 levels, likely due to increased levels of tourism and perhaps lesser red tape to register them compared to other categories. Although it has to be said that current events leading to the poor fortunes of the tourism industry may have been one of the reasons that the population of excursion buses peaked in 2019. If and when the industry does recover, this is a prime target for electrification as industry players consider buying new vehicles. Such as, for example, NTU and its contractors.
But why is this important? Heavy vehicles may be one of the most important parts in a push for electrification, not just the household car which most current initiatives appear to be targeted towards. While commuters to the workplace could and probably should shift to public transportation as much as possible, goods transportation vehicles do more useful work throughout the day, instead of sitting in a car park between 9am and 5pm. As such, they naturally emit more.
Furthermore, the statutory lifespan for such vehicles is 20 years, more than 17 in public transport. However, the need to renew the COE on an older vehicle compared to purchasing a new one might have been a double edged sword, meaning efforts to introduce cleaner emissions standards may go at either the same, or at an even slower rate compared to cars — if not for the Early Turnover Scheme.
That said, there are steps government can and probably should take to help the adoption of electric vehicles in the private sector, though — and one of them is to push for the provision of electric vehicle charging points at heavy vehicle parks. A push for electric trucks and other electric goods vehicles can also stand to benefit from such provisions. But we can start small, since initial development of charging facilities can only be sized for the population of 12k private buses, and expanding later for 43k heavy goods vehicles, as standards for things such as e-highways are decided upon.
Privately-owned buses may also not be able to rely on government infrastructure for opportunity charging, not only due to the lack of government largesse in providing access to high-wattage chargers. Even if they had that access, one has to consider that they don’t necessarily operate the same routes every day. The overnight charging approach may be better for such privately owned vehicles.
The lesser energy density of electric vehicles, and consequently more underfloor battery space needed, may also be less attractive to travel operators who need to transport tourists and their luggage, but this will resolve itself as technology marches on, and in the meantime there are still things like shuttle buses that can take the lead, as well as the 900 or so Private Buses.
And then things got worse
At the Committee of Supply, previous transport minister Ong Ye Kung made an interesting comment:
I used to be a union leader for the transport workers’ union, and bus drivers on these services will always lament, 很心痛，载空气 。In English, it means, when they drive, they have no passengers, they have a bit of heartache as they are ferrying air.
It is understandable why this can be a demoralizing thing for a bus driver. Their bonuses depending on how well they adhere to the EWT algorithm, after all, and emptier buses and roads recently have resulted in what some might say are more unpleasant driving experiences.
But that’s what the politics demand. The vagarities of the roads mean that in Singapore, bus drives you in order to achieve stable frequency and reasonable waiting times. Still, as a frequent long distance bus user, this is no panacea — some idiot crashing his car on the expressways, far too common in the morning peak commute, can and do affect the long distance trunk routes rather disproportionately, resulting in increased travel time, and thus, bus driver shift duration. Furthermore, the need to staff the additional service demanded has resulted in things like SBS Transit allegedly denying rest days to their drivers.
So to me, apart from the financial considerations, cutting bus routes has also now taken on a dimension of safety as well due to the driver shortage. This is because fatigued drivers without enough rest may not be able to safety take on their bus driving duties — as we can see in the recent spate of accidents, up to and including what happened at Bukit Batok. Overall driving hours can and should go down, at least in this period of lesser demand. Similar issues were pinpointed to by KMB unions to be a possible cause of the 2018 Hong Kong bus accident, so it’s worth examining before things get even more out of hand. At least, come the 28th of August.
And to the bus makers, I think this may drive home the point that the BCM has no appetite to take any more new vehicles at least for the next few years, so you’re better off selling to the private sector instead. It may not look like a lot but it’s likely going to be the same level of sales as that available from the LTA in the next five years. The need to build infrastructure for the private sector might even present first-mover advantages.
