TR EMERITUS

Many issues with study hailing Singapore as best in class in transport On 2nd and 3rd of Jun 2014, Straits Times alerted Singaporeans to yet another international study, this time by Credo Business Consulting LLP and sponsored by Siemens AG Singapore, honoring Singapore for having the best transport network in its class in terms of annual cost of commuting. It reminds us of another accolade, the Best Metro Asia Pacific award Singapore won for two consecutive years in 2009 and 2010 before the most catastrophic MRT disruptions in the history of our nation the following year in 2011. The sorry episode of 2011 tells us that beyond glamour and facade, awards don’t tell us of the crumbling and rotting from within the so-called best in class. Hong Kong has done better Credo’s study shows that Hong Kong has done better than Singapore as far as metrics relevant to current public transport performance are concerned: Credo metrics (higher means better) Hong Kong Singapore M1 Current capacity & crowding 10 10 M4 User functionality 9 9 M5 Reliability & onboard quality 5 6 M6 Affordability 5.5 3 M10 Density of network 10 4 M11 Average commuting time 5 5 Overall 7.4 6.2 Yet Credo deems Singapore as having done better than Hong Kong presumably because Credo divides annual cost of commuting by per capita GDP. Singapore’s higher per capita GDP compared to Hong Kong’s will result in a lower annual cost of commuting for us despite our inferior metrics. Credo should consider dividing annual cost of commuting by wages instead to eliminate the unique problem in Singapore where per capita GDP is high but wages are low. As far as Singapore and Hong Kong are concerned, public transport is fully paid for by wages and so should be normalized by wages, not per capita GDP. Credo can introduce a different metric to reflect differences in fare box recovery across nations. Affordability Credo’s affordability metrics contradicts LTA’s 2013 average bus and MRT fares: Credo affordability metric (higher is better) LTA average MRT fare (S$/pax trip) LTA average bus fare (S$/pax trip) Hong Kong 5.5 $1.60 $1.20 Singapore 3 $0.90 $0.70 New York 5 $1.50 $1.30 Tokyo 5 $1.20 $1.60 London 1.5 $2.60 $0.90 Credo lists Hong Kong’s, New York’s and Tokyo’s fares as being more affordable than ours whereas LTA claims, year in year out, that Singapore has the cheapest fares amongst the five cities. This is despite Credo dividing fares by per capita GDP which tends to favor Singapore due to our high per capita GDP. Again for the same reason of fairness, Credo should consider dividing the affordability metric by wages instead. LTA’s figures can be obtained by aggregating fare revenues for SBS and SMRT and then dividing by their combined ridership: Revenue (million $) Ridership (millions) Fare ($) SMRT bus $223.90 335.4 SBS bus $644.90 973.5 Total bus $868.80 1,308.90 $0.66 SMRT train $607.90 654.4 SBS train $148.10 175.6 Total train $756.00 830 $0.91 The average bus fare of $0.66 is lower than the minimum bus fare and obviously comprises lots of rebated fares, which means transfers from trains, from other buses, from SMRT to SBS and vice versa. Herein lies the problem with the LTA approach, it gives the average price for all part journeys that we make every day but it does not give the combined price of a complete journey from home to destination or vice versa. It doesn’t reflect our true fares. Congestion and overcrowding Like Hong Kong, Singapore scored a perfect 10 out of 10 for congestion and overcrowding. Credo calculated congestion and overcrowding by dividing public transport capacity by peak AM demand weighted by modal share (page 57 of preview report). An attempt to recalculate the figures using Credo’s methodology arrives at a completely different picture below: Hong Kong Singapore Current congestion and crowding (Credo) 10 10 Peak AM volume of commuters (Credo) 1,555,000 997,000 Train percent share (LTA) [1] 55% 41% Peak AM volume of train commuters (Peak AM volume × train % share) 853,975 406,185 Total train capacity (passengers / hour) [2] 599,200 147,000 Calculated train capacity / AM volume 70% 36% Bus percent share (LTA) [1] 45% 59% Peak AM volume of bus commuters (Peak AM volume × bus % share) 701,025 590,815 Total bus capacity (Number of buses × seating capacity) [3] 766,630 347,400 Calculated bus capacity / AM volume 109% 59% Calculated total capacity / AM volume 88% 50% What the congestion ratios should be 10 5.6 The table above shows that if Hong Kong scores a perfect 10 for congestion and crowding, then comparatively, Singapore should have barely passed only. That would have greatly impacted our annual cost of commuting and our ranking in the Credo study. Reliability and on-board quality Credo used the reliability and on-board quality metric as proxy for waiting time when calculating cost of commuting (page 56 to 58). This metric considers age of fleet, service reliability, air conditioning and Wi-Fi connectivity. • Credo didn’t take into account Singapore’s hub and spoke model of public transportation that forces most journeys into multiple part journeys that compounds and exacerbates our waiting time • It is unfair to include air conditioning as a criterion because air conditioning is largely not required for the cooler climates of most Western nations which are tolerable even in summer given their lower humidity. • The inclusion of Wi-Fi connectivity as a criterion is problematic because while our MRT stations may claim to have Wi-Fi connectivity, the connection breaks once we enter the tunnel. People can read books, play pre-installed games, watch pre-downloaded movies, pre-downloaded news on buses and trains and don’t have to rely on Wi-Fi. Conclusion Credo should divide annual cost of commuting and the affordability metric by wages instead of per capita GDP for better fairness. It can introduce a new metric to account for differences in fare box recovery across nations. Credo’s study debunks LTA’s yearly statistics showing Singapore having the lowest fares amongst five cities. Credo’s congestion and overcrowding metric for Singapore seems way off which may significantly impact our annual cost of commuting and ranking in the Credo study. Credo’s classification of Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo as high density compact centres is problematic as other cities in the “well established” category may be no less dense or compact than them. Credo defines high density compact centres as: • Modern cities that have experienced recent or ongoing expansion, with high population density centres. Transport networks may be less developed than in well-established cities. It is not clear why Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo are considered less developed or not well-established. Credo should have accounted for the fact that Singapore being smaller than many other cities will, all else being equal, have lower fares. Thank you   Ng Kok Lim [1] Calculation of train percent share and bus percent share for Hong Kong and Singapore Singapore trips / person / day Hong Kong trips / person / day Train (from LTA’s Statistics in Brief 2013) 0.44 0.67 Bus (from LTA’s Statistics in Brief 2013) 0.64 0.55 Total 1.08 1.22 Train % 41% 55% Bus % 59% 45% [2] Calculation of total train capacity for Hong Kong and Singapore Capacity per train arrival Interval between trains (seconds) Peak hour capacity (number passengers per hour) North South line 1,400 120 42,000 East West line 1,400 120 42,000 North East line 1,400 120 42,000 Circle line 700 120 21,000 Total capacity 147,000 Data for Singapore trains • A six-carriage train can carry about 1,400 commuters during peak hours, said SMRT rail strategic planning director Lui Weng Chee. [Straits Times, Passenger capacity to increase up to 50%] • This leads to gaps of at least 120 seconds between a train leaving and the next one entering the station. [Straits Times, NEW SIGNALLING SYSTEM Work to ease congestion on busiest train lines] Hong Kong train lines Peak hour capacity (number passengers per hour) East Rail Line 101,000 Island Line 85,000 Kwun Tong Line 85,000 Ma On Shan Line 32,000 Tseung Kwan O Line 85,000 Tsuen Wan Line 85,000 Tung Chung Line 45,000 West Rail Line 64,000 Airport Express 6,400 Disneyland Resort Line 10,800 Total capacity 599,200 Data for Hong Kong trains • Legislative Council Panel on Transport Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, Capacity and Loading of MTR Trains, CB(1)980/13-14(03), Annex [3] Calculation of total bus capacity for Hong Kong and Singapore Singapore buses Number of buses Bus seating capacity Number of buses × seating capacity SBS double decker buses 1,330 130 172,900 SBS single deck buses 1996 80 159,680 SMRT Bendy buses 114 130 14,820 SMRT single deck buses 1026 80 82,080 Total 4,466 347,400 Hong Kong buses Number of buses Bus seating capacity Number of buses × seating capacity Double deckers 5,123 130 665,990 Single deckers 388 80 31,040 Minibuses 4,350 16 69,600 Total 766,630 Data for Singapore buses • All 3,326 buses in our fleet are air-conditioned, with four in 10 being double decks. [SBS annual report, page 4] • Assumed 10% of SMRT buses are Bendy buses (welcome any information on this for update) Data for Hong Kong buses • Currently Hong Kong's franchised bus network is made up of about 600 routes, operated under six franchises by five franchised bus companies with a total fleet of 5,511 licensed buses (at end of 2013), comprising 5,123 double-deck and 388 single-deck vehicles. [http://www.hongkongextras.com/busservices.html] • With a fleet of 3777 buses, mostly double-deckers, KMB is one of the largest road passenger transport operators in the southeast Asia. [Information Services Department publication “Hong Kong: The Facts” dated Sept 2013] • Public Light Buses (PLBs) are minibuses with not more than 16 seats. Their number is fixed at a maximum of 4350 vehicles. [Information Services Department publication “Hong Kong: The Facts” dated Sept 2013] Straits Times, Study: Singapore's public transport system one of world's most efficient, 2 Jun 2014 SINGAPORE - Singapore has one of the most cost-efficient public transport networks in the world, according to a study released on Monday. Conducted by London consulting firm Credo, the study sought to calculate the "economic cost" of inefficient transport to the economies of 35 cities, as well as the economic benefits of investing in transport. It derived the cost of commuting using factors such as journey time, fares, crowding levels, and ease of using the network. The more efficient a transport network, the lower the impact on productivity. The study found that in Singapore, the economic cost of transport to an individual commuter is 8.9 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Mr Chris Malloy, a partner at Credo, described the rating as the proportion of a person's time that is unproductive due to transport. The study divides the 35 cities into three groups - high density compact centres, well-established cities, and emerging cities. Singapore was ranked first in the high density compact centres group, slightly ahead of Hong Kong (9.2 per cent). Other cities in the group include Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo and Beijing. Copenhagen (8.6 per cent) ranked top in the well-established cities group, and first overall of the 35 cities. Santiago in Chile (11 per cent) was the best in class for the emerging cities group. The study praised Singapore for its high capacity system to meet current demand, and "highly integrated governance" which has created sufficient plans to meet future demand. It saw the 42km Downtown Line which will be completed in 2017 as another plus, and listed high "reliability and punctuality levels" as another strength. However, it noted that the relatively low network density leaves some areas poorly connected, and an ageing bus fleet. It said there may be scope for further investment to improve the rail network density, and stressed the need for continuous investment to maintain standards. The study was commissioned by Siemens, and presented on the sidelines of the World Cities Summit at Marina Bay Sands on Monday. Straits Times, S'pore's transport network is best in class: study, 3 Jun 2014 S'pore has 'cost-efficient transport network' SINGAPORE has one of the most cost-efficient public transport networks in the world, according to a study released yesterday. The study by London consulting firm Credo sought to calculate the economic cost of inefficient transport to 35 cities, as well as the benefits of investing in transport. It derived the cost of commuting using factors such as journey time, fares, crowding levels, and ease of using the network. The more efficient a transport network, the lower the impact on productivity. The study found that in Singapore, the economic cost of transport to a commuter is 8.9 per cent of gross domestic product per capita. Mr Chris Malloy, a partner at Credo, described the rating as the proportion of a person's time that is unproductive due to transport. The study divided the 35 cities into three groups. Singapore was ranked first in the high density compact centres group, slightly ahead of Hong Kong (9.2 per cent), and other cities such as Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo and Beijing. Copenhagen (8.6 per cent) topped the well-established cities group, while Santiago in Chile (11 per cent) was first in the emerging cities group. The study praised Singapore for its high capacity system that meets current demand and "highly integrated governance" which has created sufficient plans for future demand. It saw the upcoming Downtown Line as another plus, and listed high "reliability and punctuality levels" as a strength. However, it cited a relatively low network density that leaves some areas poorly connected and an ageing bus fleet as challenges. There may be scope for more investment to improve Singapore's rail network density, it said, and stressed continuous investment to maintain standards. However, at least one transport academic cautioned against setting too much stock in the study. Said Professor Lee Der Horng from the National University of Singapore: "Knowing our standing with other countries is important, but at the end of the day we still have local issues to be addressed."  Read More →

Condominiums and the Singapore Flyer are reflected on the Kallang River (17 Jun 2014 )     Singapore's exports unexpectedly fell in May on weak shipments of electronics and pharmaceuticals to its key markets, data showed on Tuesday, indicating the city-state may not be benefiting yet from a recovery in developed economies. Non-oil domestic exports fell a seasonally adjusted 7.5 percent in May from April, trade agency International Enterprise Singapore said, well below a forecast of 0.5 percent growth. From a year earlier, non-oil exports in May slid 6.6 percent, compared with growth of 0.9 percent forecast in a Reuters poll.   Read more:     http://www.cnbc.com/id/101764256    Read More →

(Photo: SPH) With Primary 1 registration around the corner, this controversial issue is thrust into the limelight again ("Stricter Primary 1 priority rules for grassroots workers"; Thursday). I applaud the latest announcement, as it separates parents who become grassroots volunteers hoping to get priority for their children in the P1 registration exercise from bona fide volunteers. While the timing and the content of the announcement are welcome, it is bizarre that the announcement came from the People's Association (PA). It was not even a joint announcement with the Ministry of Education (MOE). The article mentioned that PA "reviewed the scheme and felt it was still relevant in promoting collaboration between schools and the community". Has PA taken over the setting of the eligibility criteria for P1 registration from the MOE? It is time the MOE reviewed this controversial and outdated P1 registration priority system. The school volunteer scheme is similarly abused. It is not uncommon to hear of parents who quit volunteering altogether once their child has secured a place in the school. The only considerations for a child's entry into a primary school should be his nationality, the proximity of his home to the school and the presence of an elder sibling in the same school when the child enters P1. All other eligibility criteria are controversial and are likely to be abused. One way to ensure heartlanders have equal opportunities to send their children to brand-name schools is to relocate such schools from wealthy neighbourhoods into the heartland. The Government should seriously consider reviewing the current P1 registration system to ensure its relevance and that it is not abused. Neo Lin Chen *  Letter first appeared in ST Forum, 14 Jun, "Who sets P1 priority eligibility criteria?"  Read More →