I don't profess support for every MAN product, I'm only stating
the fact that the MAN A22, A24 and A95 are so similar and credits
to them for making these three products for different market
segments so similar that it makes maintenance and operations easy.
This is in response to the countless posts where people think them
as very different buses, they are not, and thats the beauty of the
MAN A22, A24 and A95 family which I like about.
If you want me to point out a MAN product which I don't
particularly like, it is the MAN A66s/A80s which you can find in
Melbourne. Those are problematic especially during summer when they
tend to overheat, and you would know it yourself if you follow the
discussions on Transdev Melbourne in another forum. And between the
O.405 family and the SL/NL family, I would prefer the O.405 family.
So its simply a case where my preferences are based on my knowledge
of buses, just like a lot of people.
Part of the reason why the contracting model in Melbourne hasn't
gone down too well is because the package was too big, 1/3 of the
bus network was tendered out. Yes, it may be less than the size of
2 packages in Singapore, but you have to compare the scale of the
operations vs network. Australian bus companies have generally
smaller fleets but the fleet is more diverse, and have a bigger
geographical coverage, the longest bus routes (Smartbuses) in
Melbourne were affected. So if sh!t happens, the percentage of
commuters affected vis a vis total number of commuters will be
bigger. The risk was that a
new entrant would not perform up to standards and sadly complains
went up. The whole
exercise was just poorly planned with regards to risk
management. If they
had cut it into smaller packages, with more of a local emphasis,
the fleet that needs to be taken over will be more homogenous, and
less of such problems will occur.
You could see that LTA's
approach is different, they are more cautious than PTV, only 3 out
of 12 packages are tendered out/to be tendered out, and the 2 which
have been awarded are awarded to different operators. This
minimises the risk in a case where a certain operator fails to
perform up to expectation. And the rest of the packages remain with
existing operators until they are up for tender, which I take it
that LTA wants to observe how the tendering system turns out before
going full scale.
The issues regarding private school bus operators are different
from the issues concerning the public bus operators, school bus
operators depend on patronage to earn revenue. Under the tendering
system, public bus operators are free from revenue risk, and if
they have bid for the packages with their eyes open, they
should be earning profits.
And I doubt LTA will make a politically unwise move to increase
fares just because they are taking on the revenue risk.
In any case if SMRT gets affected in the third tender, I'm sure
they can find new services for any displaced buses, any upgrade in
capacity will be welcomed by commuters of services which get these
upgrades. Non WAB or not will become less of an issue as there are
already so many WAB buses around that will allow them to meet the
requirements.
I do understand your concerns about the GCM, but I hope you look
beyond the gloom and doom, because without this, bus operations in
Singapore will never be profitable and has to be subsidized from
rail operations.
This argument focuses on the chassis, but there is also the
bodywork that you should factor in as well. There is also an
underlying assumption that the bodywork manufacturer remains open
for another 17 years to provide the required spare parts.
I am not sure if LTA is buying this particular argument. The
probability is 1:1, we will have a better idea once the concept
buses are revealed.
If they are indeed buying this particular argument, then STK is
in a good position in Singapore to achieve what Volvo and Scania
has bagged back in Perth and Adelaide respectively (though through
repeated tender awards rather than a lock-in contract to meet WTO
rules).
Good. You are fleshing out details of how contracting model is
functioning or not functioning in cities. Incentive will play an
important part. Lack of a patronage incentive can cause operators
to go awry (such as skipping stops to make up time, you will know
MTM was infamous for that. I have detailed this issue previously in
the main GCM thread). Time will tell if LTA has got its metrics
correct.
The biggest issue is drivers, and as already pointed out it
takes up the largest expense component of operators. A shortage
exists because the salaries of Singaporeans are too low. There are
two perspectives to look from in dealing with this. LTA is one,
operators the other. By creating the GCM, LTA has essentially
bumped the issue to operators who in turn have to turn to market
forces, and they are competing for a scarce labour force currently
shared by public and private operators. Four outcomes are
possible:
1. The operator continues to face driver shortage, affecting bus
operations. Service does not improve.
2. Operator bears loss and runs risk of going bust (fictional
Merlion Transit scenario).
3. LTA takes on loss, funded through tax.
4. LTA passes on cost difference (fare increase).
As to why non-WAB articulated buses may become "homeless" if
SMRT Buses loses the third tender:
- There are around 250 non-WAB articulated buses still in
service
- LTA is unlikely to accept any of them under GCM
- GCM packages have a tendency to cover several feeder
routes.
- SMRT Buses has to surrender double-deck buses to feeder routes
that are lost to another operator under GCM (e.g. Service
189)
- SMRT Buses is trying to substitute articulated buses on trunk
routes with double-deck buses, and
- Several of SMRT Buses' feeder routes are wheelchair accessible
routes, which limits its ability to deploy non-WAB articulated
buses to a 1:1 ratio.
Unless, SMRT reverses its decision to covert trunk routes to
double deck buses. Not a popular decision IMO.
