A fare-y tale

With Palmergate going on, I guess Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew must be getting some respite from those who have been haranguing him about his comments that bus fares must go up so that bus drivers’ salaries can. Frankly, it was a crazy thing to say. Nobody is going to take that sort of comment sitting down, especially about an essential service like public transport, ran by profit-making private operators who’ve just been handed $1.1b worth of new buses paid by taxpayers.

Mr Lui tried to clarify his position according to media reports today. Note I use the word “tried’’. Now he says it wasn’t to increase bus operators’ profits in the short-term but he just wanted to make clear that the money for salaries must come from somewhere, not just from operators or government subsidies. And of course, he meant that service levels must go up…you ninny.

He added: “What received less notice was my statement that when the fare review committee submits its report next year, we would be better able to see the relationship between any fare adjustment, wage increases, and what government support needs to be given to the groups most affected by the increase’’.

He might as well have said that he should have said nothing at all and wait for the Richard Magnus report early next year. If Mr Lui was flying a kite with his first comments, the kite’s been shot down. In any case, an increase in bus fares is poison for the G in any election…or by-election.

Driving me round the bend

I don’t know why anyone would bother to ask about how you feel about raising bus fares. Of course, the answer is no. No to higher fares, charges, taxes, fees and the price of kopi-o.

You want us to pay more? Better deliver more. That would be the layman’s answer. So Lui Tuck Yew’s very tentative kite-flying proposal on having to raise fares so operators can pay their bus drivers more has been universally derided. Far more productive is experts had been canvassed for their views on whether this is the only way to get a man to don a uniform and get behind the wheel.

Here’s a look at some facets of the “should we increase bus fare’’ question:

1. The Government already subsidises the transport infrastructure, even giving away buses for free. That is, with taxpayers’ money. And these are being given practically on a plate to transport operators.
2. The bus operators aren’t just bus operators. They operate a whole transport system and while the bus services might not be making money, other parts of the business are. And they are making money.
3. Which raises the question of why revenue from one part of the business can’t be shifted to another, unless there is some accounting barrier that can’t be crossed.
4. If the problem is paying bus drivers enough, then operators should look at their pay structure across the ranks, from top down and see what sort of re-calibration should be done to get more people to drive buses. They are “essential’’ manpower after all. And what about looking at private transport operators elsewhere which manage to ensure their drivers make a decent living?
5. A committee is looking at the fare formula which doesn’t seem to be working because it’s pegged too late to inflation. Also, seems costs have gone up what? 30? 40 per cent? Compared to small revenue rises. What’s this cost increase all about? Is there no way the bus companies could have trimmed that down? We don’t know yet what the new fare formula will look like but there seems to be a hint that a fuel or energy component will be included.
6. The G is tendering out routes to private bus companies, a sign which ST’s Chris Tan said today, of the G dipping its toes into a new way of structuring public transport. In other places, operators tender to run a service, and the G collects the fare. Problem is, operators tend to get tardy in such a scenario and not cost-efficient. Which brings us back to point e. Are the bus companies operating efficiently in the first place?

Finally, are we looking at this all wrong? So a COI was convened to look at MRT disruptions, SMRT is chided for bad HR practices, unions want in on the transport sector, LTA doesn’t seem to be strong enough regulator, a new committee looks at fare formula, bus drivers should be paid more, questions are raised on whether it is prudent for foreign labour to man essential services.

Is it time to take a more (I hate this word) holistic look at Singapore’s transport system than recommend piecemeal changes?

 

A smarting SMRT

No one should be surprised that SMRT got whacked by the COI over the train disruptions. The way the COI went at it during the hearings, it was clear the panel thought very little of the checks SMRT made and its emergency preparedness.

What’s surprising is the SMRT response to the report which have been variously reported as “harsh”, “mincing no words” etc. It defended its maintenance system, and talked about how it matched up to other standards. Of course, it said, it could have done more. Hmm…so is it accepting the report or not? Or is that taken as a given?

What is also surprising is that the LTA was taken to task in a gentle manner.

Today newspaper had this point as well : National University of Singapore (NUS) transport expert Lee Der Horng felt that the COI could have gone further in examining the LTA’s role.
Noting that the “whole report has one purpose – to assure us that the system is safe and reliable”, Associate Professor Lee said: “The incident was preventable but was not prevented. It is disappointing that SMRT did nothing, things that were supposed to be checked were not checked.”
He added: “And all this while, where was the LTA? They are the regulator and should know the system better than the operators – if not how do they regulate? I would question if the regulators have the corresponding technical capabilities to be able to regulate.”

It makes you wonder what sort of role LTA should play as developer and regulator – and whether as MP Cedric Foo suggested, the two roles should be separated. Apparently, the MAS works this way – it would be good to know more about this.

The Transport Ministry said it accepts the COI report and will give a fuller response next week. I hope it will be a blow-by-blow response, from why it was tardy with followups on maintenance, the gaps in its inspection regime and what it role it plays in drawing up evacuation plans. This is rather more important than drawing up a whole new set of fines for train operators who fall down on the job, as the LTA said it would do. I mean, you can fine a commercial operator to the hilt, cane them, jail them, hang them. But nobody punishes a regulator.

In fact, the regulator should have even higher standards and accountability.  It is the body the public places its faith in. We trust that the civil servants in regulatory bodies will do a decent job of protecting the rest of us from commercial predators and private interests. That’s what they are there for. In fact, BT noted that MP Irene Ng had asked the Minister if SMRT seemed more concerned about making money (for shareholders) than maintaining the rail system (for commuters). That was in January. Going by the COI report for SMRT to focus on the engineering aspects, I suppose her guess was right.

So really, everything will boil down to that perennial question: the balance between private profit and public service

I wonder how much all this will cost the SMRT? I don’t mean the penalties, but getting up to speed as the COI wants. Its already said it would replace the claws…How many more engineers will it need? More machinery, like that very sorry-looking lone train inspection vehicle that was left to rot? Or as Chris Tan says in ST – maybe technology to detect sagging third rails, high speed cameras?

Looks like plenty of money needed to add new infrastructure, and more to come up with checks that will have their engineers looking at every rail line. I suppose SMRT board is very busy now working out new administrative structures, setting out new budgets. The good thing is, it DID do well in terms of turning empty space into retail space…so maybe money from one side can finance the other…

On a separate note, I was so so glad to see the ST graphic on what happened to cause the breakdowns and how third rail, claw, fastener, collector shoes hang together. Finally, enlightenment!