I would like to comment on a published article bearing the same title as this post (attached below).
Trains and the quality of life
SIX and a half million people. That's where the population is headed. As Singaporeans digest news of a new MRT line, they should bear in mind that number. For housing more people is relatively easy. More difficult is ensuring that a larger population gets to work, school, the market and leisure sites just as easily as people today.
But even that isn't good enough. Singapore's planners have never sought only to keep pace, but to radically improve the quality of life. So the aim must be for 6.5 million people to traverse the city in a faster, more efficient way than the current 4.5 million. That brings the discussion back to the MRT: From our perspective, a steady expansion of the system is key to keeping Singapore moving. Certainly there will be increased costs, but there will also be collateral benefits. It's just the way to go.
Building train lines in urban areas isn't cheap. This must be conceded. The just-announced 3.4km downtown loop alone will cost an estimated $1.4 billion. And eventually, the line will stretch 40km - so just imagine. Because new lines are built by the Government, the expense will come out of taxes. This will cause some to gripe. New lines are also unlikely to be as well used as existing ones which go to the most populated areas, and so their financial viability might be an issue. But looking at the dollar price alone isn't helpful. MRT lines greatly increase property values along their routes, especially for housing near stations. As for commercial developments, there is nothing like being near a station or along an MRT route to generate increased traffic and hence business. These are tangible economic benefits that ought to be factored into the equation. But the most compelling reason is really one of necessity. The road network may simply be unable to cope with the increased number of cars owned by a 6.5 million population unless even stricter ownership quotas are imposed. But this will be acceptable to the general population only if public transport, which means an efficient and expanded MRT network, meets their increasingly high expectations.
Urban planning isn't only about housing. It also involves giving people the means to move about easily. And the larger a population gets, the more the equation between private and public transport becomes weighted towards the latter. While there are costs here, the benefits overshadow them. Quality of life can't be priced in dollars and cents. So look at the Circle Line, the Downtown Line and any other extension to come to the MRT system as milestones in better living.
Source: The Straits Times, 16 March 2007
The report on the new MRT line is stale news. The five-station Downtown Line Phase 1, originally known as Downtown Extension, was already announced by LTA about two years ago. It has simply just undergone a name transformation – just like the Marine Line that was renamed to Circle Line Stage 1.
The article seems to be conceived to pacify those who could be opposing more rail lines as they do not see the need of expensive rail lines, especially after the North-East Line experience.
As much as I like to concur with the author that having more rail lines will improve quality of life, I would like to pose some questions in response to the otherwise simplistic argument put forth.
Question 1:
Given that “financial viability of the new lines might be an issue”, would the Government be able to invite operators to operate the new lines?
Both local operators, SMRT and SBS Transit, are public-listed companies. If the revenue of a new line is unable to cover operating costs, it is unlikely that the operators are willing to run the new lines at a loss unless compensated duly. If that is the case, is the Government prepared to “subsidise” their operations?
I could think of a number of ways that the Government can overcome this. One is to convince the operators' management to accept lower profit margin. This may be achieved by trying to get them to look at the overall profit margin of all the lines that they are rather than looking at the profitability of a single line. However, this might not be feasible as the public-listed operators will find it difficult to answer to their shareholders. Another possible move is to allow the operators to recoup any losses by allowing them to have greater non-fare revenue. Such could be in the form of more aggressive marketing initiatives in train stations, or more commercial spaces for rent.
Question 2:
The expanding rail network will reduce the distance travelled, especially for the upcoming Circle Line. Since our current train fare is distance-based (the longer you travel, the more you pay), having more rail lines will most likely reduce the fare because of the corresponding reduction in distance travelled. Is it fair to the operators that while they incur more costs to run the new lines and offer better service in terms of reduced journey time to the public, they are getting lesser revenue due to distant-based fare structure?
Since the author has called for more rail lines because it improves “quality of life”, are passengers also willing to accept a similar argument for fares: that a portion of the fare can be pegged to “quality of ride” based on the amount of time savings they experience with the new lines? Not to forget that our train fair is one of the most affordable in the world!
Question 3:
Are we prepared for more bus rationalisation?
The new rail lines will not be sustainable without extensive bus rationalisation to remove duplicating bus routes. However, recent public sentiments have shown that there are a number who prefer the convenience of having direct door-step bus services over the need to make bus/MRT transfer trips. This is especially true for the Woodlands and North-Eastern residents who have experienced the MRT extension to Woodlands and the new North-East Line.
However, extending the rail network without rationalising the bus services will result in less than ideal utilisation of the huge investments poured into constructing the new MRT lines. I do understand that the Ministry is trying to give more choices to the people, but is it at the expense of building an expensive system that might not fully reaped its benefits? While the focus is providing a customer-centric travel experience, let us not forget the big picture amidst the myriad dissenting views.
Question 4:
Is MRT the only option to meet the transportation needs of Singaporeans?
How about other modes of transport, such as the Bus Rapid Transit system that could meet the transportation needs at much lower cost?
As the article has pointed out, the cost of MRT extension comes from taxpayers’ money. As such, it would be dangerous to expand the rail network using the “quality of life” argument without having the cost-benefit analysis done proper. In any case, the argument of “having more rail lines is a necessity” seems déjà vu. Remember the great MRT rebate back in 1970s, on whether there is a need to built MRT line at all because of the huge financial cost?
Given the huge amount of taxpayers’ money (Christopher Tan from Straits Times estimated that Downtown Line would cost $10 billion), I would urge the relevant authorities to be more transparent in answering these questions.
You are welcome to post any comments and share any views that you may have.
As an ending, here are some relevant news releases on Downtown Line (aka the former Downtown Extension):
14 Jun 2005: Expanding the rail network with Downtown Extension
30 Aug 2006: LTA will construct a Common Utility Trench (CUT) to co-ordinate the diversion of utilities prior to Downtown Extension construction
14 Dec 2006: Minimizing impact Of Downtown Extension construction on traffic
.jpg)