Should SMRT and SBS Transit merge?
-
Originally posted by AnythingGoesLa:
can you support that claim? by saying that youre suggesting that the PTOs should do MORE retail and leave their CORE COMPETENCIES to rot/die.
Also, what do you mean by 'let public transport be a loss-making business?' As a division manager (retail) of a transport company, is it FAIR that my division's profits GO TO a LOSS-MAKING train/bus section? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Cross-subsidying suggests and implies that something is DEAD WRONG with a division in terms of cost management/revenue generation, and can reflect deeper and more chronic issues within the said division. As a paying commuter, Im not interested in whether the PTOs are in the black, but WHETHER their trains and buses divisions can make profits RESPECTIVELY.
Onto a little history, SBST is OWNED by CDG which was formerly SBS. Bus operations of SBS were spun off to form the subsidary SBST, and SBS eventually changed name to CDG and went listed.
Otherwise, what else can be done to ensure low fares and affordability of Public Transport?
- Actually, this may be the reason why for a period of time, SMRT emphasized a lot on building 'Xchange's at MRT stations and investing a lot on retail, because the Public Transport business is not making money and they are under pressure to not raise fares. To remain profitable as a company, SMRT invested in Retail. Now, it is investing in its Taxi business, by purchasing luxury vehicles and charging high cab charges.
- If SMRT only does Public Transport, it would have to raise PT fares to remain profitable, making PT less affordable to us.
Are you sure you want the Operators' trains and buses divisions to make profits? This would result in higher PT fares, you know?
Regarding your concern about lower service quality of Public Transport if Operators place more focus on retail, this is why the Land Transport Authority exists - "To...safeguard the well-being of the travelling public."(http://www.publictransport.sg/content/publictransport/en/homepage/about_us.html)
- The Operators operate the Public Transport, while the LTA regulates the Public Transport to ensure quality in our Public Transport.
-
Originally posted by AnythingGoesLa:
can you support that claim? by saying that youre suggesting that the PTOs should do MORE retail and leave their CORE COMPETENCIES to rot/die.
Also, what do you mean by 'let public transport be a loss-making business?' As a division manager (retail) of a transport company, is it FAIR that my division's profits GO TO a LOSS-MAKING train/bus section? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Cross-subsidying suggests and implies that something is DEAD WRONG with a division in terms of cost management/revenue generation, and can reflect deeper and more chronic issues within the said division. As a paying commuter, Im not interested in whether the PTOs are in the black, but WHETHER their trains and buses divisions can make profits RESPECTIVELY.
Onto a little history, SBST is OWNED by CDG which was formerly SBS. Bus operations of SBS were spun off to form the subsidary SBST, and SBS eventually changed name to CDG and went listed.
Much as I appreciated the thought put into this post, there is still a need to point out several things.
1. CDG is not formerly SBS. Please google for more info.
2. There is nothing wrong with cross-subsidising. In fact, cross-subsidising was what allowed Samsung to absorb years after years of huge loss-making in the DRAM market in the 1980s. The rest is now history, but few realised Samsung did not have an easy time in the earlier decades.
3. Both SMRT and CDG have been cross-subsidising, especially for the bus and LRT lines. Maybe you have not realised it. The foreign markets and the engineering arms have helped in that respect.
4. As a paying commuter, I want the cheapest and best where reasonably possible. Period. Why think so much? All I need is a good explanation of why fares are going up while service levels have stagnated or gone west.
***
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Much as I appreciated the thought put into this post, there is still a need to point out several things.
1. CDG is not formerly SBS. Please google for more info.
2. There is nothing wrong with cross-subsidising. In fact, cross-subsidising was what allowed Samsung to absorb years after years of huge loss-making in the DRAM market in the 1980s. The rest is now history, but few realised Samsung did not have an easy time in the earlier decades.
3. Both SMRT and CDG have been cross-subsidising, especially for the bus and LRT lines. Maybe you have not realised it. The foreign markets and the engineering arms have helped in that respect.
4. As a paying commuter, I want the cheapest and best where reasonably possible. Period. Why think so much? All I need is a good explanation of why fares are going up while service levels have stagnated or gone west.
***
CDG owned by SMRT Buses.
-
Originally posted by SBS7777Y:
CDG owned by SMRT Buses.
SBS Transit = (subsidiary of) ComfortDelGro Corporation = Singapore Labour Foundation (11.98% share) = (a statutory board of the) Ministry of Manpower = (a ministry of the) Government of Singapore.
SMRT Buses Ltd = SMRT Road Holdings Ltd = SMRT Corporation = Temasek Holdings (54.2% share) = (an investment company owned by the) Government of Singapore.
In short, SMRT and SBS Transit are both owned by the Government of Singapore.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Much as I appreciated the thought put into this post, there is still a need to point out several things.
1. CDG is not formerly SBS. Please google for more info.
2. There is nothing wrong with cross-subsidising. In fact, cross-subsidising was what allowed Samsung to absorb years after years of huge loss-making in the DRAM market in the 1980s. The rest is now history, but few realised Samsung did not have an easy time in the earlier decades.
3. Both SMRT and CDG have been cross-subsidising, especially for the bus and LRT lines. Maybe you have not realised it. The foreign markets and the engineering arms have helped in that respect.
4. As a paying commuter, I want the cheapest and best where reasonably possible. Period. Why think so much? All I need is a good explanation of why fares are going up while service levels have stagnated or gone west.
***
Delgro is formerly Singapore Bus Services (1978) Ltd. The current SBS Transit (formerly Singapore Bus Services Ltd) is listed separately. Delgro and Comfort Transportation merged to become what is known today as ComfortDelgro.I attribute stagnation of service levels to stagnation of wages, but that is another story (and this refers to Singapore as a whole, not just limited to the transport industry).
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
Otherwise, what else can be done to ensure low fares and affordability of Public Transport?
- Actually, this may be the reason why for a period of time, SMRT emphasized a lot on building 'Xchange's at MRT stations and investing a lot on retail, because the Public Transport business is not making money and they are under pressure to not raise fares. To remain profitable as a company, SMRT invested in Retail. Now, it is investing in its Taxi business, by purchasing luxury vehicles and charging high cab charges.
- If SMRT only does Public Transport, it would have to raise PT fares to remain profitable, making PT less affordable to us.
Are you sure you want the Operators' trains and buses divisions to make profits? This would result in higher PT fares, you know?
Regarding your concern about lower service quality of Public Transport if Operators place more focus on retail, this is why the Land Transport Authority exists - "To...safeguard the well-being of the travelling public."(http://www.publictransport.sg/content/publictransport/en/homepage/about_us.html)
- The Operators operate the Public Transport, while the LTA regulates the Public Transport to ensure quality in our Public Transport.
im not that interested in fares being affordable and cheap if the service isnt up to scratch (ie low frequency, poor maintenance etc). What matters more is that the service is up to scratch, then we talk about fares. To use very simple analysis (heck accounting maath here), if the PTOs are unable to make ends meet through simply revenue via buses/trains, they will need to scour elsewhere for money, and that will be bound to distract them especially if the other means of revenue becomes a cash cow.
simply put, i will pay for buses and trains as long as the service is up to scratch. if they are corporations and need to make a profit, so be it. its a win-win situation y'kw.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Much as I appreciated the thought put into this post, there is still a need to point out several things.
1. CDG is not formerly SBS. Please google for more info.
2. There is nothing wrong with cross-subsidising. In fact, cross-subsidising was what allowed Samsung to absorb years after years of huge loss-making in the DRAM market in the 1980s. The rest is now history, but few realised Samsung did not have an easy time in the earlier decades.
3. Both SMRT and CDG have been cross-subsidising, especially for the bus and LRT lines. Maybe you have not realised it. The foreign markets and the engineering arms have helped in that respect.
4. As a paying commuter, I want the cheapest and best where reasonably possible. Period. Why think so much? All I need is a good explanation of why fares are going up while service levels have stagnated or gone west.
***
totally agreed...
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Much as I appreciated the thought put into this post, there is still a need to point out several things.
1. CDG is not formerly SBS. Please google for more info.
2. There is nothing wrong with cross-subsidising. In fact, cross-subsidising was what allowed Samsung to absorb years after years of huge loss-making in the DRAM market in the 1980s. The rest is now history, but few realised Samsung did not have an easy time in the earlier decades.
3. Both SMRT and CDG have been cross-subsidising, especially for the bus and LRT lines. Maybe you have not realised it. The foreign markets and the engineering arms have helped in that respect.
4. As a paying commuter, I want the cheapest and best where reasonably possible. Period. Why think so much? All I need is a good explanation of why fares are going up while service levels have stagnated or gone west.
***
thks for pts 1. will look into it in more detail.
2 and 3. as for x-subsidizing, im firmly against it because it violates the principle of balancing the books (for the division thats in the red at least). I appreciate you quoting the Samsung exanple as a viability of x-subsidizing and how common it is, but please recognise that apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. Name me a PTO other than SMRT/SBST that x-subsidizes and i'll rest my case.
4. fully agree with you that recent rising fares should be explained in more detail. i like the way you look at it simple, but if u ask me, as long as they can convince me that rising fares can bring their books back into the black and set things straight, im okay with that as well. given how the PTOs run, im willing to forgo the cheapest fares if they wont fix the situation.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
That is what the government wants you to believe.
Do you think commuters in Choa Chu Kang, Sembawang and Pasir Ris really have a choice?
If there is real competition, Transdev or Arriva would be operating in Singapore already.
This is why the government wants to introduce the Contracts model in the Public Bus system and even have new operators to run routes in the Public Bus network.
Personally, now that I know that both SMRT and SBS Transit are actually owned by the Government, in my opinion, I feel that the new operators may also be set up by the Government. Nonetheless, ultimately, the objective is to ensure low and affordable fares for Public Transport. (maybe that's why there are various PT operators owned by various companies)(the reason for having many Operators is probably just to ensure low fares and the sustainability of the Public Transport systems)
Meanwhile, as the Regulator, LTA is responsible for the service quality and making sure that the service is up to scratch. (this is probably why the Government wants to introduce the Contracts model in the Public Bus system - to create real competition among the Operators it owns)
Regardless of who owns the Operators, or how many Operators there are, I just want a Public Transport that is cheap/affordable and a high quality service of Public Transport.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Delgro is formerly Singapore Bus Services (1978) Ltd. The current SBS Transit (formerly Singapore Bus Services Ltd) is listed separately. Delgro and Comfort Transportation merged to become what is known today as ComfortDelgro.I attribute stagnation of service levels to stagnation of wages, but that is another story (and this refers to Singapore as a whole, not just limited to the transport industry).
id consider it a depression of wages rather than stagnation of wages. there has to be some explanation for the kind of pay that BCs used to draw.
-
Originally posted by AnythingGoesLa:
thks for pts 1. will look into it in more detail.
2 and 3. as for x-subsidizing, im firmly against it because it violates the principle of balancing the books (for the division thats in the red at least). I appreciate you quoting the Samsung exanple as a viability of x-subsidizing and how common it is, but please recognise that apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. Name me a PTO other than SMRT/SBST that x-subsidizes and i'll rest my case.
4. fully agree with you that recent rising fares should be explained in more detail. i like the way you look at it simple, but if u ask me, as long as they can convince me that rising fares can bring their books back into the black and set things straight, im okay with that as well. given how the PTOs run, im willing to forgo the cheapest fares if they wont fix the situation.
sgbuses corrected me on point 1....I was wrong.
Personally I prefer a simpler life.
Live and let live.
So again, all I wish for is a good-enough explanation for the fares.
Then again, I had already seen the cost break-down in person, and all I can say is that the fare increases and BSEP are badly needed and have come way too late.
I think the public does not recognise how commodity prices have been soaring world-wide.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
sgbuses corrected me on point 1....I was wrong.
Personally I prefer a simpler life.
Live and let live.
So again, all I wish for is a good-enough explanation for the fares.
Then again, I had already seen the cost break-down in person, and all I can say is that the fare increases and BSEP are badly needed and have come way too late.
I think the public does not recognise how commodity prices have been soaring world-wide.
It's a small matter, no worries.
I have seen the cost breakdown as well. It makes certain past decisions a lot of sense, but I can't go into detail here.
Personally I am hoping that hybrid technology can help to reduce energy consumption of buses in the long-term future.
-
No. Did you remember about the illegal strike of SMRT bus captains?
-
-
Originally posted by SBS3004X:
No. Did you remember about the illegal strike of SMRT bus captains?
Yes. As I mentioned yesterday, SBS Transit and SMRT are actually both owned by the Government of Singapore, just that the former is owned by Ministry of Manpower, while the latter is owned by Temasek Holdings.
The illegal strike in 2012 is a good example that shows how related the two operators are. When SMRT faced a shortage of bus drivers due to the strike, SBS Transit "loaned" their drivers to SMRT. Meanwhile, there were also a few drivers from the private bus industry(probably also related to the government; upcoming 3rd public bus operator) who were also temporarily "loaned" to SMRT, to make up for the shortage of bus drivers it faced.
Another example is when the Downtown Line trains were delivered to Singapore in 2012. Despite the DTL belonging to SBS Transit, it was the SMRT workers who loaded the Downtown Line trains onto the track at Kim Chuan Depot.
As I also mentioned yesterday, the purpose for having two operators, despite both owned by the Government, is probably to ensure the sustainability of the Public Transport industry, and to help lower fares.
Analogy: It is better to put your eggs in more than one basket than to put all of them in just one basket.
Anyway, are you guys not tired? I think we have already discussed enough on the topic of nationalising Public Transport. *sian*
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
It's a small matter, no worries.
I have seen the cost breakdown as well. It makes certain past decisions a lot of sense, but I can't go into detail here.
Personally I am hoping that hybrid technology can help to reduce energy consumption of buses in the long-term future.
Without revealing too much here, there have been vendors who have indicated that they think hybrid is the way to go from here and are throwing a great deal of their lot in there now.
If that is correct, the all-diesel bus may be phased out sooner than many here think.
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
Yes. As I mentioned yesterday, SBS Transit and SMRT are actually both owned by the Government of Singapore, just that the former is owned by Ministry of Manpower, while the latter is owned by Temasek Holdings.
The illegal strike in 2012 is a good example that shows how related the two operators are. When SMRT faced a shortage of bus drivers due to the strike, SBS Transit "loaned" their drivers to SMRT. Meanwhile, there were also a few drivers from the private bus industry(probably also related to the government; upcoming 3rd public bus operator) who were also temporarily "loaned" to SMRT, to make up for the shortage of bus drivers it faced.
Another example is when the Downtown Line trains were delivered to Singapore in 2012. Despite the DTL belonging to SBS Transit, it was the SMRT workers who loaded the Downtown Line trains onto the track at Kim Chuan Depot.
As I also mentioned yesterday, the purpose for having two operators, despite both owned by the Government, is probably to ensure the sustainability of the Public Transport industry, and to help lower fares.
Analogy: It is better to put your eggs in more than one basket than to put all of them in just one basket.
Anyway, are you guys not tired? I think we have already discussed enough on the topic of nationalising Public Transport. *sian*
to clarify things, SMRT and SBST are NOT OWNED by the Govt of Singapore. They are listed companies, and it so happens that their major shareholders are either Temasek Holdings / GIC. having a controlling stake DOES NOT imply ownership, but more influence and control over the company.
the concept of a duopoly would apply well to singapore's transport system, and having 2x PTOs WILL NOT help to reduce fares but instead further encourage fare alignment to prevent destabilization of the market should demand to swing to either PTO, theoretically.But, given that the local PTOs dont duplicate their routes, there isnt a real duopoly of sorts but localised monopolies that WILL NEVER HELP to being costs down.
-
Personally I feel that just subsuming the operations under a single entity is better.
One reason why SMRT's cost of operations is significantly higher has to do as well with its disproportionately higher number of feeder services in its route bundle.
And this has to do with the way the core areas were apportioned.
Cost-savings from having less start-stop operations is no small amount especially at fleet-level.