Debated in Parliament on 16 Feb 2024.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport on the rationalisation of bus routes (a) whether LTA applies quantitative criteria and conducts quantitative cost-benefit analyses; (b) if yes, what quantitative criteria are applied and what are the factors taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis; and (c) how are intangible factors, such as certain buses providing a less crowded alternative to trains, taken into consideration.
Mr Speaker, our public transport services are heavily subsidised by the Government, at more than $2 billion per year. This includes a subsidy of around $1 billion for trains and another $1 billion for buses. To keep our public transport system sustainable for all stakeholders, we had previously explained in this House that it is important to strike a balance between providing convenience for commuters and keeping the overall costs affordable for commuters and taxpayers.
This includes making changes to some of the existing bus services which run parallel to new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines and have experienced significant reductions in their ridership levels when more commuters switch to taking the MRT. These assessments are done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account commuter travel patterns and the overall connectivity and resilience of our public transport network.
Sir, like Mr Giam, I also have residents who are affected when we make changes to existing bus services. It is certainly the more popular thing to do if we just keep all bus services intact, even if their ridership levels have fallen significantly, while adding new MRT lines and introducing new bus services and routes to serve residents from new estates.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Giam if he accepts that taking the above approach means the total costs of our public transport system will shoot up. And the cost increase will then result in higher fares for commuters and larger subsidies paid by taxpayers. This is the trade-off that we face, between providing convenience for commuters and keeping the overall costs affordable for commuters and taxpayers.
So, when we argue against changing existing bus services which run parallel to new MRT lines and have experienced significant reductions in ridership levels, we must also be honest in acknowledging that such proposals will come with a price tag. It is not correct to only focus on the convenience for some commuters without recognising that such an approach will end up with higher fares for all our commuters and higher subsidies that all taxpayers have to bear.
Mr Giam.
Sir, I have some supplementary questions for the Minister, and I will address his question after that.
And if so, what were the results and what were the reasons why one mode was preferred over another?
Secondly, does LTA factor these survey results in deciding whether to withdraw bus services that run parallel to new MRT lines?
In response to the Minister's question, I would also offer the point whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) has considered the cost to the economy, to our environment, if people avoid taking public transport and they choose to continue driving cars or taking other forms of private transport? That entails a cost as well and has MOT calculated the cost of that if, let us say, public transport is not as convenient or is perceived to be not as convenient as it was before?
Mr Speaker, I think Mr Giam has not answered my question. I will still put it to him one more time because I do want to know what his position is – which is that, if we just do what is popular, we keep all the existing bus services intact, even when the ridership levels have fallen significantly, when they run parallel to new MRT lines and we keep introducing new bus services to serve new routes, to serve new residents from new estates, would that not then lead to overall cost for the public transport system increasing? And if so, then, that means that it would translate into higher fares for commuters and higher subsidies that all taxpayers have to pay. So, I would like to get a reply from Mr Giam on what his position is on my question.
Sir, in response to Mr Giam's questions, LTA would look at the bus changes very carefully. I think I have explained this to Mr Giam previously in this House. These are not decisions that we take automatically; just because there is a new MRT line that comes up, automatically or immediately you would remove some of these existing bus services. Because we understand that there is an impact on commuters.
So, therefore, we would have to look at whether there are other bus services that are serving these routes that run parallel to the MRT. So, we do not take away all existing bus services that run parallel to the new MRT lines. We do preserve some of the services. But in deciding which ones to retain and which ones to change, shorten or remove, these decisions would then have to be also based on the changes in commuter travel patterns. Because I think that is one of the most objective ways of assessing whether commuters still prefer to take this bus service or are commuters then switching to other bus services or are commuters switching to taking MRT.
So, for cases where the bus service has experienced a significant drop in ridership level because commuters are now shifting to other modes of public transport – not in the way that Mr Giam has described, in that they avoid taking public transport, I do not think that is the case because the overall public transport ridership level has not dropped. But what we see is people now switching to taking other bus services or they switch to taking MRT. And in some cases, when you switch to taking the MRT, it is actually faster for the commuter because the travelling time is more direct. And this includes walking, taking the bus and taking MRT. It is still faster than taking a direct, long trunk bus route.
Mr Giam.
Sir, I sense the Minister is trying to paint me as being a populist by calling for all buses to run parallel to the MRT lines. I never called for that. In fact, if the Minister has tracked the arguments I have made about this issue in the past two years, in my area in Bedok Reservoir, several buses were removed. I do not recall calling for the buses to be restored. But my focus was always on increasing the frequency of the remaining bus, which is Bus 228, which is still a live issue with my constituents because whenever I go down to the constituency, it is a very common feedback I get that the frequency of the bus is not enough and, because of that, they call for the bringing back of the other buses that were taken away.
But my argument to the Government has always been to increase the frequency of Bus 228. In contrast, Bus 167 was removed and now it has been brought back, possibly because of public pressure.
What was the second point that the Minister was asking me about? Does that answer the question that the Minister was asking me?
Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Giam, first of all, for acknowledging that – although not the most popular thing to do – it is necessary for us to make some changes to existing bus services which run parallel to new MRT lines so that we can reallocate the resources – the buses and the bus captains – to serve other areas, for example, new estates and new residents. They will need new feeder services. There will be new routes that will be required.
I just want to say that I did not call Mr Giam a populist. I thank him for acknowledging that point and for supporting the important principle of why we are facing this trade-off and why we need to make some of these changes.
Sir, in response to Mr Giam's point about Bus 228, indeed, we recognise that the changes do affect the commuters in the Bedok area, because when we shortened Service 22 and Service 66, which used to ply Bedok Reservoir Road, we retained Service 65 and, then, we also increased the frequency of Service 228 during the morning peak. And this is to serve commuters who travel between Bedok Reservoir Road and Bedok interchange, where there are other bus options.
Sir, I have previously mentioned to Mr Giam that if there are some specific local issues that his residents are facing with regard to how we can better improve bus connectivity and bus services, we will be happy to get his feedback and the LTA team can then assess how we can make some adjustments to better serve the commuters. So, that offer still remains.
Mr Giam.
Sir, I would like to address another point that the Minister made. He said that when there is a choice between taking MRT and a bus on a parallel route, it is faster to take the MRT in many cases. The lived reality for a lot of residents, especially the elderly, is that speed is not the highest priority. Very often, it is if they can walk less and there is a sheltered way all the way that they can take without having to get wet, they would prefer to take the bus rather than MRT. I am not saying that we do not get rid of the buses which have low ridership. But I think the fact is that we cannot just look in terms of efficiency, in terms of the speed of the trip, because different commuters have different priorities.
Mr Speaker, I think Mr Giam and I may not differ so much on that point. First, I did not say that we only look at efficiency and just because the MRT is a more direct and faster route, therefore, we remove all buses. I did not say that.
In fact, we deliberately, as I have explained, maintain and keep some of the bus routes that run parallel to MRT lines precisely because they are different commuters who require different options. But at the same time, we need to make some adjustments because the resources are finite and we do not want to have a situation where we just keep adding new bus services and new bus routes without actually reallocating some of the existing ones which have seen a drop in ridership levels. So, on that front, I do not think Mr Giam and I differ that much in terms of the approach that we want to take.
Order. End of Question Time.
PAPERCUTS