Convenience versus Cost. Does One Come at the Expense of the Other?
The life of a diamond: Explosively transported by Earth’s “pipes” to the surface, discovered by an astute prospector, and then chiseled to perfection before being purchased by the consumer. It differs little with organised public transport. From the very first bus service in Nantes, France , thousands (if not more) have been challenged to perfect one of the most important discoveries in the modern world.
Akin to the lasers that labor upon the rigidity of a rough, unrefined diamond, we ponder upon the increasingly tricky issues regarding Singapore’s public transportation. Today, perhaps the most exigent of these is the issue of convenience of public transport against its cost of implementation and maintainance, as Singapore strives towards fully integrated public transport – a system that provides door-to-door public transport services .
As always, perception comes into play. To public transport providers, many forms of convenience have always had some direct relation to costs, more specifically to investment and maintainance cost. With high supply-side costs, sustainable social welfare maximization then necessitates the transfer of a portion of this high cost to the end-user. However, with the Public Transport Council (PTC) managing end-user cost through two variables completely unrelated to convenience – Inflation and Consumer Average Monthly Earnings – end-users do not directly experience the cost incurred by suppliers in providing such convenience. Passengers have little reason to see a positive relationship between convenience and cost.
Yet, while unseen, increasing the number of operational buses and taxis to ensure high availability and frequency definitely necessitates substantial investment and higher running costs. Hidden social costs in the form of air pollution from additional vehicles also cannot be discounted . Moreover, the accompanying facilities are not exempted. The five-station MRT extension line to be built in the Marina South area is expected to cost S$1.4 billion . However, with the government funding such infrastructure development, the public again finds little need to consider the supply cost of wider networks (although taxpayer money is the main source of government funds).
Still, consumer perception that convenience is not linked to cost might hold water to a certain extent. Even as convenience governs cost (and vice versa), the relation is not completely true. Indeed, convenience can come without greater expense.
This has been noted in the past. Strict time schedules, with well-regulated intervals between buses and trains, have proven to be a key convenience factor – one generally requiring little additional cost – in Singapore. Detailed MRT network maps with accurate end-user fares have been equally convenient. But well thought out bus and MRT station placement seems to have provided the greatest convenience at presumably little to no additional cost.
In recent times, the five ‘I’s have granted or have the potential of granting end-users substantial convenience at little additional expense, but most definitely with additional planning and effort. They are Physical, Network, Fare, Information and Institutional Integration .
In Physical Integration, the latest MRT stations are designed to integrate with commercial development (e.g. Novena) and at least one other transport mode, namely buses and/or taxis (e.g. Woodlands, Toa Payoh). In Fare Intergration, the EZLink Card serves as a common fare card for all bus, MRT and LRT services – substantially saving passenger time and effort in switching modes. It must also be noted that such Fare Integration actually reduces supply-side cost over the long run due to coin collection and counting, and ticket printing, though requiring substantial initial capital outlay.
“Costless” Institutional Integration has so far been achieved through corporate mergers to form two key operators: SBS Transit and the SMRT Group. While standard merger and acquisition costs apply, rationalisation in management and capital, as well as reduced route overlapping reduce costs rather than incur them in the long run. End-users gain from the increased efficiency brought by (post-rationalised) firms, primarily through better integrated transport routes, e.g. better distribution of buses, less bus routes to remember.
Presently, however, Information and Network Integration – though key providers of convenience – tends to be associated with considerable expense. The MRT Circle Line under construction will link suburban areas and complement the existing MRT lines running through the city, and thus reduce passenger traveling time. But it is expected to cost $6.66 billion .
Nevertheless, the potential for future “Costless” Convenience is immense. In view of Singapore’s ageing population, this can come from simple changes, such as reduced escalator speed and reduced gaps between platform and train. Both improve the ease of movement for the elderly, which is expected to make up 19% of the population in 2030 – a significant percentage indeed.
Extension of EZ Link use to pay taxi fares would certainly provide further Fare Integration. However, administration concerns can be expected since most of the current taxi service providers are outside SMRT and SBS Transit’s sphere of control. Furthermore, encouraging tourists to purchase EZ Link Cards upon arrival to Singapore – while not being a direct integration measure – would not only increase tourist public transport convenience, but also improve the convenience level of domestic passengers at zero additional cost, through reduced traffic at General Ticketing Machines. On a more creative (and perhaps, less feasible) note, further Fare Integration can be established by linking the EZ Link Card with Malaysian LRT fare cards, e.g. PUTRA’s Karib Card . This would be convenient for end-users given that 48% of the 372,000 Singaporean adults traveled to Malaysia at least twice in 2000 .
Further Information Integration can occur through the creation of online MRT schedules. With the established presence of the TransitLink Guide website, providers would not incur substantial cost to setup a passive schedule of approximate MRT arrival times, which would prove to be convenient for those who like to plan their schedules well ahead.
All in all, public transport convenience clearly has its roots in both cost and non-cost improvements, with “Costless” Convenience being the buzzwords for tomorrow’s Singapore. Alike public transport, refinements in diamond design can come from both expensive laser processes and an artisan’s ingenuity. But, is it not the artisan that is the true master?
(1000 words, excluding headers and footnotes)
References
Websites
1) Find Articles, at www.findarticles.com
2) Get For Me Singapore, at www.getforme.com
3) NationMaster.com, at www.nationmaster.com
4) Public Transport Council (Singapore), at www.ptc.gov.sg
5) Channel News Asia (CNA), at www.channelnewsasia.com
6) Workers’ Party (Singapore), at www.wp.org.sg
7) WordNet, Princeton, at http://wordnet.princeton.edu
NUS Faculty of Law, at http://law.nus.edu.sg
9) UrbanRail.Net, at http://www.urbanrail.net
10) SingStat, at http://www.singstat.gov.sg/
Books
1) Tietenberg, Tom (2001). Environmental Economics and Policy.