Duration of Free Morning Off-peak Rail Rides Scheme on North East Line

Mr Speaker, this reply also addresses related questions filed by Ms Poh Li San, Ms He Ting Ru as well as Ms Elysa Chen for subsequent Sittings.

The new free morning off-peak travel programme is intended to reduce peak hour crowding. We are piloting the free off-peak travel programme on the North East Line (NEL) and Sengkang-Punggol Light Rail Transit (LRT), which is currently the most well-used section of our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network. By shifting a small proportion of peak hour commuters who are able and willing to travel off-peak, we improve the commuting experience for those who still have to travel when it is most crowded. Redistributing the peak load also enables the overall capacity of the train line to be more efficiently used. Furthermore, a smaller peak load will reduce the impact of a train delay or disruption, if it happens.

When we introduced a similar free travel programme in 2013, about 7% of commuters shifted out of the morning peak. If we are able to achieve a similar and sustained result, we will not need to have additional resources to support higher commuter traffic before 7.30 am. The free morning off-peak travel programme will be fully funded by the Government. The level of Government funding required will depend on the eventual take-up rate and therefore, the effectiveness of the scheme. We will assess after a year before deciding whether to extend the scheme further.

Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Acting Minister. First, I understand from the CNA article that when speaking to the reporters back then, the Minister shared that the peak hour passenger load on the NEL is not close to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) operating performance standards. I was wondering if the Minister can elaborate on this, because in relation to an earlier Parliamentary Question I filed in September, I had asked about the maximum passengers per hour per direction and capacity utilisation during peak hours. So, if the Acting Minister can give us a sense of these numbers to understand where it is today and where is the ideal level that LTA is looking at.

The second supplementary question is in relation to the NEL today. Are there any technical limitations to increasing the frequency further in terms of reducing the time between trains or even, let us say, increasing it from the current six cars to seven or eight, depending on the possibilities?

Mr Speaker, on the hon Member's question on the peak hour passenger load, today, our operating performance standards are five passengers per square metre (sqm), which translates to about roughly 1,600 people per train on the NEL. In practice, the trains are not filled to the maximum because commuters decide not to board the train if it gets too crowded. But today, when we track the loading of the trains, it is in and around four passengers per sqm, which is not anywhere near the operating performance standard.

In terms of the technical limitations of improving the capacity of the train lines, the free off-peak travel programme is one of a suite of measures that we have to try to manage the overall capacity of the train in terms of optimising it, but also to reduce the peak level crowding.

Beyond that, we have been adding new trains to the NEL over the years. We have improved the signalling systems so that the headways between the trains have come down significantly. Outside of the train system, we have also added City Direct buses to bring people from their residence in the North East to the city centre.

As for whether or not we can add more train carriages, that is often suggested. In Singapore, we have not taken this step because most of our train lines are underground and if we have trains that are longer than the station length, firstly, you either have to shut down the line to expand the station or there would be fire safety considerations because the carriages that do not have the exit doors, passengers would have to come through a longer way to get out and typically, that is not recommended for us to do that. So, we have not taken that step yet.

What we have done is, for future lines, going forward, to see if we can budget for stations that are longer, in advance, and then, perhaps, in future, to only have smaller capacity trains and to extend the capacity of those trains when we need to.

Thank you, Speaker. And thank you, Minister. I would like to understand with this shift of travel patterns to an earlier timing, would there be more resources required of the operator, SBS Transit? The other question is, what is the expected revenue leakage and is this sustainable in the long run?

I thank the hon Member for her question. In terms of more resources, as I had mentioned in my reply, if the outcome of the programme is around what we expect, which is hopefully about 7% of the peak hour load shifted to off-peak, then there is enough capacity during the off-peak and we will not need additional resources before 7.30 am.

The programme as of now, as a pilot, is fully funded by the Government. So, there are no additional resources that are needed. The revenue loss to the system is entirely covered by the Government. But what actually will be the Government expenditure on the scheme really depends on the take-up of the scheme.

Thank you, Sir. I have got two supplemental questions for the Minister. The first is, whether the programme is expected to result in net positive movement in congestion and what are the considerations? Taking into account that there is a quite a number of Build-To-Order (BTO) and condominium projects coming up, will that be taken into account when deciding whether to continue this programme?

The second supplemental question is, earlier, my colleague Mr Chua said about the 7% shift from when we did a similar project in 2013. I am just wondering what happens if we hit or we do not hit that 7%? What is the decision going to be either way?

Mr Speaker, the scheme that we have proposed is a series of continuous adjustments that we make to the public transport system in response to travel demand. On the whole, in the longer term, what agencies do is they do plan the transport infrastructure and the capacity of the transport infrastructure in tandem with housing developments. The time frames are long for an MRT line – it takes about 15 years to build. And housing is about five years for a new BTO estate. So, they try to make sure that is synchronised.

But in the short term, on a year-to-year basis, we also make continuous adjustments, whether it is adding new buses or in this case, proposing this free off-peak travel scheme. And I think overall the objective is to optimise the capacity of the train network, in particular, of specific trains during peak hours and to make for a better travel experience for our commuters.

So, we should see the free travel scheme as part of that series of continuous adjustments. As for whether or not, we will proceed with the scheme after a year, let us evaluate the scheme. The 7% was based off a previous scheme which had very different parameters. But roughly, if we hit something like that, I think we can think about whether or not to either continue with the scheme, extend it in its current form or adjust the parameters further or even fold it as a permanent feature into the system. That is really up for debate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, whether the Ministry can shed light on the thought processes and data types selecting only the NEL and Sengkang-Punggol LRT for the free off-peak pilot – as you know, Bishan is a very crowded station with two lines as well – rather than other high congestion interchange stations.

My second question is to ask the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has conducted an accessibility impact assessment to determine whether the free off-peak scheme will disproportionately benefit able-bodied commuters who can flexibly adjust their travel timing, while vulnerable commuters such as persons with disabilities, elderly commuters and parents with young children who may have inflexible schedules due to work, school, medical appointments, or childcare constraints, will gain minimal benefit? And whether the Ministry will consider alternative subsidy mechanisms targeting vulnerable commuters with fixed schedules?

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for her questions. The scheme applies to the NEL for two reasons. The first is that this is the most well used part of our MRT network at present and we think we want to see whether we can optimise the off-peak crowding on that line.

The second reason is that for parts of the NEL that are above Kovan station at the moment, they do not have an alternative route to the MRT network, until the Cross Island Line is built in five years time. And so, should there be a disruption and when there is a disruption, actually, the impact is quite significant to manage. Therefore, it is in our interest to try to reduce the peak hour crowding as much as we can.

Bishan, in relative terms, is slightly less crowded, more well-connected. So, for the moment, we have decided to keep the pilot to the NEL.

On the second question on accessibility, I fully understand the Member's concerns. Our objective with the scheme is to move a small proportion of those who are able and willing to move from peak hour travel to off-peak. And we are giving them a little incentive to do so. This will not only benefit these commuters, but it will also benefit the commuters who have no choice but to travel during the more crowded periods. It will benefit them through having less crowded trains, hopefully shorter waiting times for the trains and generally a better commuter experience for them. So, it is a win-win situation for all. And more broadly, beyond that, accessibility considerations are very much top of our priority when it comes to public transport. We will be very sure to focus on that.

I thank the Minister for this initiative. I thank the colleagues in LTA, SBS Transit for doing this good initiative.

Nevertheless, when you look at the loading in the North East area, I think this good initiative is but a interim measure – whether it is the buses where in the previous question, Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling told me that the buses loading versus MRT capacity is a great difference. So, my simple supplementary question is, with this good initiative, would the Seletar Line be accelerated?

Because, ultimately, with all the housing density being built up in the North East region, whether in Punggol or in Jalan Kayu, including Sengkang, I think fundamentally, a new MRT line would be needed. And if you can consider accelerating the Seletar Line, it would be very much appreciated by many residents in the North East region.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Ng Chee Meng for his question on the Seletar Line, which is not the first time he has asked this. As I explained earlier, the planning of an MRT line is in tandem with housing developments and travel demand. These are longer-term plans which the agencies work together very closely and we try to make sure that there is enough travel capacity to accommodate the demand for the long term. In the short term, we do make adjustments in terms of continual improvements, whether it is adding new buses to the transport corridor, whether it is introducing the free off-peak travel scheme. These are short-term adjustments that we try to make, to make sure that the commuters' travel demands can be adequately catered for.

The Seletar Line is being studied. I hope to have an update on this sometime across the turn of the year and most probably during the Committee of Supply period. But we will take a look at it and let LTA do its work to study the line.