i have some questions and comments about his article.
"Excuse me? The LTA did not build NE2 because there was
no traffic, but it built Buangkok and Woodleigh stations anyway
despite the lack of traffic for these two stations. If, as Mr Yeo
said, it could be "a lot, lot more expensive" to build a station
later, shouldn't the LTA have built NE2 together with the rest of
the stations and save the public "a lot of money"? "
the location of NE2 and that of Buangkok and Woodleigh are quite
different. one is near the city centre while the others are
suburban, housing estates. hence the price of land would be very
much different and so would the price of land and use of land in
NE2. i am not sure what plans URA has (if it has one) for the land
around NE2, but we can almost be certain that we will build flats
around Buangkok and Woodleigh. and we can temper demand by starting
to build flats at these 2 sites eariler, as they are now doing. as
for NE2, this cannot exactly be done. we have also to factor in the
opportunity cost of land there too.
There is more. The Buangkok station cost $80 million to
build and is good for perhaps 20 years. This means a depreciation
of an average of $4 million a year regardless of whether the
station is open or closed. If the Buangkok station is open, the
annual $4 million depreciation is spent to serve the public. If it
is closed as it is now the $4 million goes down the
drain.
firstly the 20 year lifespan is an assumption. and i am not sure
if straight line depreciation should be used here - both for
operating the station and not operating the station.
Of all the issues left unanswered over the Buangkok
station, this is the most puzzling: The willingness of the LTA to
help a commercial concern like SBS make money.
we have to start this from the fact that SBS is privatised now.
hence SBS is a commercial entity, answerable to its shareholders,
and like all such entities, they have to make money and start
profitable and viable. at the same time, from the fact that SBS is
a major player in our bus service and now the NEL, i think LTA
would not like to see SBS fold - imagine the chaos that can
happen!
that said, of course the question comes back to whether LTA should
have allowed SBS to privatise in the first place. i personally feel
the argument of efficiency brought about by privatisation, while
generally true, may not be applicable in singapore. hence i am not
for the privatisation in the first place. but since it is unlikely
we can do anything to reverse that, it should be fair that SBS has
to act like a commercial entity although it is providing a public
good.
