Beneficial? Bus lanes have been around for decades
IN GENERAL, I support measures by the Land Transport Authority to improve public transport and encourage more people to use it. After all, Singapore is a tiny island and, given our population density, we cannot drive our own cars, however ideal that may sound.
There has been much debate about the implementation of public bus priority measures by the LTA, such as new bus lanes and the upcoming bus-bay exit priority scheme. Obviously, some car owners are unhappy, while at least two bus commuters have written to the ST Forum to note that bus travel times have improved and chided motorists for complaining. As a driver myself, as well as a frequent user of public transport, I can be said to both 'benefit' and 'suffer' from the latest measures, so in that sense it is not in my interest to support one side against the other.
However, I must caution that it is too early and simplistic to jump to the conclusion that car drivers' latest 'sufferings' automatically translate into lasting 'benefits' for bus commuters. If I recall correctly, bus lanes have been around for decades, and have gradually proliferated over the years. If bus lanes are so beneficial, why do we still hear, year after year, the same complaints by bus commuters of slow journeys, long waits and crowded buses? It seems this is not as straightforward an equation as it appears.
Here, I would like to turn to the other big factor in the equation, which are the bus companies, which are probably the most vociferous supporters of bus lanes. Since bus companies are public listed blue-chip companies, it would not be wrong to say their main interest is to maximise profits for their shareholders. In fact, their directors have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to manage their companies in a profit-maximising manner. In general, they are constrained only by regulatory restrictions set by the LTA and the Public Transport Council (in terms of fares). Therefore, despite their calls for more bus lanes, I am highly sceptical as their interests are not always aligned with giving commuters a faster and smoother ride.
As a simple illustration, if a bus ride originally took 30 minutes and was reduced to 25 minutes with the introduction of a bus lane, would bus companies continue to keep the improved speed of service, or would they, over time, reduce their service level back to 30 minutes by sending out fewer buses (to cut costs), making commuters wait an average of five minutes longer?
Therefore, when looking at bus priority measures like bus lanes, the LTA needs to observe carefully whether such time-saving benefits have been passed on to commuters or have been absorbed by bus companies in their incessant quest to cut costs and maximise profits. I suggest that, wherever bus lanes are implemented, the LTA should also increase the minimum service standards of bus services that ply these new bus lanes.
Taking the previous example, it would defeat the purpose if the minimum service standard was 30 minutes on the bus ride, if the bus lane already cut travel time to 25 minutes. Conversely, if there are no improvements to travel time after a certain period of implementation, the LTA should consider removing the bus priority on that stretch, because it then becomes a cost to other road users without any benefit to bus commuters.
If this is not done, we could end up painting the whole island in thick yellow stripes and still not receive any tangible benefits from bus lanes, in which case, all Singaporeans - car drivers and commuters alike - will be subsidising the bus companies and their shareholders.
Ang Eng Liang
This article was first published in The Straits Times on Dec 8, 2008.
