If they really needed to evaluate different choices of buses,
they wouldn't need to come out with a concept for buses. What they
simply needed to do was to wait for whenever they need the buses,
come out with a tender, then evaluate from there, which is what
most bus companies and transit authorities are doing now, and
even if they really wanted to see how different buses
perform before making a purchase, they could have gave
their specifications and asked for demonstrators.
You don't see a lot of other cities with concept
buses. Coupled with the fact that the main issue with
public transport now is connectivity and
overcrowding, a concept bus ala NBFL is really just a
waste of money then, its simply a prestige project for certain
civil servants to show that they have done a part to improve public
transport, when they really haven't touched the root issues.
The whole point of a mock-up is to evaluate potential new
features and invite potential feedback. LTA has done this before
with the DTL rolling stock:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/downtown-line-train-mock-up-goes-on-display.html
If you recall last year, there was considerable academic and
public criticism relating to the interior configuration of the
existing buses, especially double-deck buses, operating in
Singapore:
http://sgforums.com/forums/1279/topics/487180
A concept bus mock-up may be an attempt to address these issues
and get the specifications right before calling tender for actual
procurements.
Furthermore, both operators took very different approaches when
it comes to deciding the interior configuration of their latest
buses (e.g. longitudinal vs traverse seating, swing-out door vs
sliding plug door, fold-up seats vs standing space, passenger
information systems, etc.). It is also possible that these design
choices remain proprietary information within the operators, or/and
there is a need to reconcile these differences to come up with a
new common standard.
