Who does what?

yuuka
yuuka
Aug 26, 2017 · 6 min read

Explaining transport franchising — past and present.

Public transport in Singapore is not unlike a puppet show. There is a puppetmaster, and there are puppets that you actually see. To understand how it all works, though, we need to go back to the 1980s, with the MRT Corporation.

Those days

In 1987, the MRT Corporation, which had all along been responsible for the construction and equipping of Singapore’s first MRT lines, created a (for-profit!) company named SMRT to operate the first line from Yio Chu Kang to Toa Payoh (edit, not Yishun), while MRT Corporation was to construct the lines and then hand it over to SMRT for operation under a lease. They were two sides of the same coin — down even to sharing the same office building along North Bridge Road.

Later on, MRT Corporation, along with a few other statutory boards relating to land transport, were merged into one entity — the Land Transport Authority, under the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act 1995. However, the close bond between the new LTA and SMRT still remains, even to this day, although LTA is now based in Hampshire Road in Little India.

An older bus stop pole, all of which have been removed nationwide (source: Wikimedia)

Bus routes, too, were technically privatized — in the old days, Singapore Bus Service (now SBS Transit) and Trans-Island Bus Services (now SMRT Buses) had the autonomy to decide how they wanted to run their bus services, which meant that unprofitable bus services could see a reduction in service or a complete withdrawal, even if there were passengers that relied on it. There was little if any coordination between operators, as you can see in the picture on the left.

Following the SMRT merger with TIBS at the turn of the millennium, LTA decided that it wasn’t very comfortable with SMRT as the only operator with both rail and bus services, and so after a round of “competitive” bidding, the lease for the North East Line was given to SBS, who up till then had only run bus services (and dabbled in taxis under the CityCab brand).

Everything changed in 2011

The inquiry following the great MRT disruptions of 2011 turned up some rather disturbing things. It showed the fault of the leasing system, which put responsibility for maintenance and renewal, as well as financial risk, in the hands of the operator in charge. While SBS Transit has stayed on the ball about keeping the railway running, SMRT took a different approach, choosing to follow in the footsteps of MTR Corporation and the JR Group, and focused more on property development and investment, thus neglecting the railways, their core business.

This was because under the old arrangements, everything was borne solely by the respective operators. To run a higher service, the operator pays for it out of their books. This made them hesitate somewhat to increase service, since there had to be extra people taking the added trains/buses or new bus routes to pay for it, or they would end up taking a loss on the route. And no company wants that, they want to maximize profit for their shareholders.

Following the 2011 disruptions, LTA did not want to have any of that anymore. It would be difficult to take a beleaguered SMRT to court to force it into fulfilling its maintenance obligation (and I believe nothing on a maintenance regimen or minimum service levels was mentioned in the initial documents), so there was a need to change the rules of the game.

LTA thus looked around for ideas, and settled on a system not unlike what Transport for London had put in place for operation of the DLR and London Overground.

Eye power, indeed

As was very much publicized, LTA decided to take over all assets from the transport operators (both bus and rail). This would give it the autonomy to unilaterally determine service levels for rail and buses, and plot new bus services as necessary to serve (relatively) isolated communities.

It also received the burden of asset upkeep, where government funds, not operator profit margins, would pay for maintenance and renewal of the rail and bus network. Transport operators would become mere concessionaires, responsible for day to day operations, and be required to meet targets put in place by LTA.

This is, of course, very good in theory, but in practice it doesn’t seem to be working. From a commuter’s perspective, nothing is changing (in fact, it would seem to actually be worsening).

Firstly, the Bus Contracting Model, where the many routes run by SBS and SMRT were, in a way, nationalized and then split up into many smaller groups, has also had quite a few hiccups along the way. New entrant Go-Ahead had some widely-publicized issues with retaining employees when it first came in, and a series of mass resignations followed. On the other hand, Tower Transit, which came before it, has had a smoother rollout, though not by much.

On the rail side of things, things aren’t any better. LTA’s involvement as asset owner has added a new layer of bureaucracy to SMRT’s renewal efforts. And bureaucracy does not get things done — on the other hand, it actually slows things down, with the need to get the support of one more stakeholder before any work can be done.

Can we do better?

Well, it’s only been around a year since the transport concessions came into play, so we’ll have to watch that space for any more moves the authorities may make. But for now, I’m not impressed. It would seem like the operators are still pretty much on their own whenever a disruption happens, with SMRT and SBS reliant on their own bus fleets and employee strength to provide bridging bus services.

To me, the NRFF and BCM as currently implemented represent a seriously missed opportunity. Having given itself central control over all public transport operators in Singapore, LTA should also recognize that with great power comes great responsibility, and it needs to take that responsibility that comes with control.

In the UK, even for the London Overground, Network Rail has sole control of all railway infrastructure (except for the trains, which are run by specialised leasing companies) and has the authority to unilaterally begin upgrading programs and such. Arguably the support of the rail operator is still needed, but the rail operator’s role is much reduced, having to play with the cards Network Rail gave them.

LTA can thus take a more holistic approach to handle upgrading and when incidents happen. Of course, as Minister Khaw pointed out with his comments about “unfair media coverage”, it is easy for me to talk from the outside looking in, but I don’t think LTA is doing enough. Whenever shit hits the fan, it seems more that LTA are hiding in the background and leaving SMRT or SBS to deal with the mess alone. The most they do is give authorization to provide free bus transfers when there’s a train disruption.

So what I suggest, just as how TfL can activate private bus operators to help when there’s a tube or Overground disruption, other operators can be called in to help when something happens on any MRT line, thus preventing SBS or SMRT from having to shoulder the entire load by themselves. This would require LTA to be more proactive in managing incidents, choreographing the response provided by its concessionaires to keep Singapore moving.

Right now, everything is in a state of flux. LTA has given itself big shoes to fill — and it must fill it. The operators, now with a diminished role, can and should be given the space to focus on their key service delivery requirements. We, the public, must also recognize this state of transition, and while it may be wrong of me to say that we should grin and bear it, we do need to apply pressure on the entire value chain to be able to fit into their new roles.

Can we do better? Yes, we can do better. Tempers are running high, and confidence is plummeting. No “superhero” can come out and say that “I can fix this”, it takes an effort by all involved parties. Especially the regulator, which sits at the centre of it all.

Just as no puppet show can take place without a puppetmaster.

Questions and comments welcome.

)

yuuka

Written by

yuuka

Sometimes I am who I am, but sometimes I am not who I am not.

From the Red Line

A blog on transport issues in the Garden City of Singapore. Posts can get technical!

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade