Ah, it’s August again, that time of the year when the our little red dot literally turns red with the festive atmosphere of celebrating our nation’s birthday. Ironically, despite it being the first time National Day celebrations come back in full swing after the pandemic, it’s also been the least prominently registered on my radar, forgetting about it all the way until the month started. Anyway, as the tradition here at STC goes, National Day entails reflecting upon recent events, and in a slightly different twist this year, setting on our sights for what’s in store in the years to come.
2023 in a glance
On a very general note, it should be said that 2023 up to this point has been a comparatively better year for public transport versus those that came before. Overall, the vibes were more positive as a result of more “new” things being introduced this year (especially for rail), which certainly helped to offset the impressive string of incidents that plagued some new rail infrastructure earlier on this year. Though of course, the comparatively quieter transport sector in Singapore finally got around to having its own drama, after almost every other such sector has had their turn. In an unfortunate timing, in the middle of a nationwide crossroads for leadership change, I must add.
“Give your car a break, take TEL instead” read the promotional poster from the TEL3’s opening.
To great irony, events from earlier this year show that it might actually be the TEL itself that needs a break. And in an uncanny coincidence for some of those, the NSL and TEL’s ability to catch each other when they fall has been questioned, and should rightfully cast a shadow on whether bus cuts should even be attempted on TEL3, as LTA will likely be planning for later in the year.
Between January and April this year, the TEL broke down at least 4 times, while the NSL broke down 3 times. In 2 of these cases, there appears to be a correlation between the faults occuring between the two lines — one line would break down in the morning, and the other later in the evening, almost as if one was knocking on into the other. Whether or not there was a direct correlation between disruptions between lines remains unknown, but this can be considered the first major test for the TEL before it expands to be a full trunk line through-running through the CBD at the end of next year. It’s also a test for a new model of systems management in the public transport industry (LTSS), where management of the individual hardware systems (signals, electronic equipment, part maintenance) is outsourced to the OEMs rather than taught to the rail operator’s in-house technical staff. We shall see how the problem-fraught TEL holds up when new (loose end) links to East Coast and beyond open up, with at least half a decade more to go before the cash-sapped and cash-strapped medium-rail line receives another funding injection. I don’t have high hopes for TEL4 prior to the opening of the Sungei Bedok connection, despite whatever extensive PR campaign that LTA might trumpet for it when it happens late next year. Regardless, how East Coast residents receive TEL4 in comparison with their existing public transport options remains to be seen, given the startling lack of connections to existing rail lines. If LTA is to maintain any semblance of rationality with network planning of public transport in East Coast, bus cuts linked to TEL4 alone should remain highly limited, and should continue to remain so even after TEL5 opens. In any case, our newest rail line certainly needs some help.
2023 has also been yet another year of “out with the old, in with the new”, as we stand on the crossroads of a slew of new additions to both the bus and rail fleets, built to replace outgoing vehicles. The more major ones prominently featured are the double debut of the R151 and C851E (NEL) trains, the former of which built to replace all 106 trains on the NSEWL purchased last century. Lots of new shiny stuff, enough to keep enthusiasts and the genera public hyped and hopeful for a better future, even if the start may be rocky.
Buses have been more sluggish in this regard, although our public bus electrification process has been slowly but steadily inching on. Two new electric buses, both in the three-door configuration, were launched this year. I’ve always maintained that we won’t really get anywhere with just demonstrator units, and the news of a tender for 400 electric single decks to debut by 2026 is certainly met with welcome. In the meantime, keep the demonstrator buses coming, for that’s the most we are actually doing to actively electrify our bus fleet until a batch order arrives. Last year I did highlight some possible measures to further expedite this process through means to make our infrastructure and operations friendlier to battery electric technology. Thus comes the question: what is our eventual vision for a “clean” bus fleet? Full electrification? A mix between hybrid and battery electric vehicles? More importantly, when do we arrive?
What does it take, to go from 70 to 5800?
Misfortunes
However much drama has been created around transport happenings in Singapore, it has been a rather long while since it has directly affected the Ministry, mostly confined to questionable decisions coming out of LTA and occasionally CAG. As for the Transport Minister and Ministry, they have stayed relatively peaceful while their subordinates took all the flak, and their counterparts in other sectors landing in hot soup over various scandalous comments or actions. I suppose, at some point it’d have to be the Transport Ministry’s turn, and it finally happened this year.
No further commentary, just an image. A small note though: he’s still earning thrice as much as the Chinese President even while under investigation.
An outlook for 2023 and beyond
In past National Day posts from STC we’ve typically done “plea lists” to LTA where many initiatives and features we wish were implemented were stated down in open letters. Those lists continue to hold today, without much changes, which is why you’re not seeing that this year. (feel free to refer to past National Day posts to check them out though)
Instead, what’s more interesting is to look at future transportation prospects in the years ahead, and 2023 is a very exciting year for such. It’s about when LTA begins to formally kick the entire process of executing LTMP 2040 into high gear — now is when the contracts are called, planning conducted and the stepping stones towards it laid. Additionally, it’s also a phase of further cementation for other (questionable) initiatives initiated last decade as well, such as (ahem) BCM. Though, obviously, it will be fraught with self-imposed challenges and obstacles, and we should pay attention to such developments as they evolve in future.
Half our public bus fleet is spanking new, and the other half due for replacement within half a decade. News of new electric buses to replace the second batch of Scania KUBs (Euro 4) is met with great welcome, to credit its efforts in greatly advancing electrification progress. There is a little operational headache that LTA has thrown themselves however due to the rapid mass retirement of older Volvo double-deck buses during the pandemic — the combined retirement of 232 double decker buses has resulted in a nationwide shortage of high-capacity buses needed to operate the busy trunk and feeder routes which have seen their demand surge following the official end of pandemic management. Which is why the effects of such are only being felt now — demand wasn’t really high as late as early last year, and we had storage buses to buffer this fleet retirement. However, only a grand total of five double-decker buses are left in storage as of writing, and the last 17 CDGE buses are expected to retire in end-September, or even earlier as some rumours allude. With bendies tied up with their feeder duties in their respective towns, and not a single high-capacity bus order over the horizon, things will get rough in the short term. And it’s where the purchase of 400 electric single decks is questioned: with more than 120 single decks still in storage, what’s the purpose of adding more, when it makes greater fiscal sense to purchase additional higher-capacity buses to meet operational requirements? Already, a number of fleet downgrades have been made to accommodate the retirement of 181 CDGEs in 2021. I don’t expect this trend to be bucked soon, especially with manpower-short operators resorting to cutting trips in exchange for fleet upgrades to survive. (simple lingo: replacing many single decks with fewer double decks to save manpower) For this, also expect more of yet another dreaded event for bus passengers from LTA as they get desperate to search for replacement DDs:
Poof
Surprisingly 2023 has been silent in terms of actual bus route cuts, unlike the two years that preceded it, despite all the rail lines springing up (especially the Thomson East-Coast Line that closely parallels the Thomson and Sembawang roads). Needless to say, given the timeline of rail rationalisation exercises in the past, it will only be a matter of time before more routes get the axe. I suspect LTA may have withheld such amendments in lieu of the upcoming Presidential elections next month to avoid stirring political trouble, so do look out once we find out who’s succeeding Halimah Yacob as our next head of state. The very recent introductions of short trips 5A and 5B are also another indication of a possible cut in the making, since this appears to be a repeat of the 66 playbook from years past — degrade service levels to an unacceptable extent, before introducing a short trip and finally cutting the parent route. Given how poor Service 5 has performed (brief reference to its meme status as lousy route here) in recent years, there is something afoot, and we should be wary. This, on top of other bus services slated for cuts due to “duplication” with later stages of the TEL.
Somewhere in early 2023, LTA switched from using the term “rationalisation” to refer to the act of service cuts, instead opting for “optimisation” instead. But a spade is a spade, no matter how it’s rebranded. And I’m sure affected passengers don’t really give two hoots about the naming if their ride will be significantly affected. In June, rail redundancy policies were also dropped, meaning bus routes were no longer granted immunity against cuts due to their nature of partially duplicating some rail lines. If there’s any time for LTA to start getting serious about their “hub-and-spoke” based transport network structure by 2040, now is the time for them to act, as it appears to be. Another loss for third peak travellers came in the form of greatly reduced late night services on many major trunk routes, with scheduled headways after 9.30pm cut back to 20 to 25 minutes. Ostensibly to make buses less empty and reduce manpower requirements, this is not the way to go to encourage travel by public transport for any use, not just the peak commutes. A weak “Ride” in “Walk, Cycle, Ride” is the worst possible blow inflicted to our lofty car-lite visions of the future. When the time comes, I strongly urge all to campaign against service cuts, and be alert when telltale signs of service cut attempts appear. Ask them: what is being provided in return? And then ask whether it’s an acceptable choice for you and your community.
Back to just a North-South Expressway?
The first of public engagement sessions on the North South Corridor’s designs kicked off in late July, to seek public input on the design of the final NSC come 2027. Originally just a plain ole expressway but underground, it was modified to be more in line with abovesaid car-lite vision, to be more accommodating for pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders, as well as boost the well-being of communities located along it after getting messed with by a full decade of construction and it’s downsides. (Sorry Ang Mo Kio, you guys have to wait another 5 years before the CRL is also complete :p) However, the materials provided during the session, as was shared with STC afterward, seem to send mixed, if not conflicting signals on the nature of the NSC.
The original renders of the NSC circa 2018 are well-known by all who have been following the project since its early days — underground transit priority lanes, with bike lanes and wide green belts on top, together with a restricted road diet and space from what was originally 8-lane road repurposed for various uses.
However, some illustrations provided seemed to suggest otherwise. A 4-lane general traffic underground expressway in place of the original 6-lane underground tunnel (with 2 bus lanes), and a more liberal road diet with extensive general traffic at surface level too, minus the bike lanes. Minor differences in details, yet significant implications for various travel demographics. The confused messaging from LTA is not helping, and perhaps is an indication that they themselves have no clear direction of how NSC infrastructure should be utilised. A scarily dangerous prospect when engaging in public discourse, as public opinion is as divergent as the sky is wide, and without a coherent direction already in place to govern the overall course of the discussion, the hodgepodge of ideas doesn’t get one very far.
With four years left before the NSC is comissioned and open to public, all eyes are set on the road diet for the surface element of the NSC — which so far has not been worked on at all pending the completion of underground works. How bus routes will be organised to take advantage of the NSC (and more importantly, connect to other network elements intersecting the NSC at various points) remains to be seen, highly dependent upon the transit priority configuration which LTA will select. Is it possible, for the NSC to overcome the express-route dilemma (briefly mentioned in Western Woes) that other expressways have faced with routing bus services through them? Maybe that will be just yet another unfulfiled pipe dream, but I want to remain hopeful.
Not the president’s presidential purdah
The silence is deafening. It’s not openly said, but known to all — major changes to industry turf are coming. Such a silence doesn’t just apply to those for bus service cuts — a startling lack of public transport-related announcements in general resonates throughout the halls of the Hampshire Road office. This won’t be for long though — the announcement for the results of two major bus packages in the west will be announced soon — the Bukit Merah package under Ulu Pandan Depot (UPDEP) and Jurong West Bus Package under Soon Lee Bus Park (SLBP). Each greatly significant in that they have a near complete control over their catchment area, with the contract award decisions having great ramifications over the quality of bus service to passengers in said catchment areas
Through the grapevine, hearsay is beginning to speculate on the eventual winner of the second term of the Bukit Merah package, since that one in particular affects more prominent routes used by many more around Singapore, being the bus package in control of the bus infrastructure in downtown Singapore. The “closest” we have to a “downtown bus depot“, so to speak, even though it’s located all the way in Jurong East. An interesting caveat about this year’s BCM tenders, unlike previous ones held in 2021 and prior, is that this isn’t one of the established and aspiring players attempting to battle it out with their strength — the four current public bus operators instead have been severely battered by the pandemic as well as the new financing framework under BCM, leaving all of them with varying degrees of resources shortages in both capital and manpower. Sadly, it’s not a contest of “who’s the most fit”, but now reduced to “who’s the least unfit” to take up the commitment of a new bus package for another term. The operational and financial predicament of the bus operators today should be a warning bell to LTA that the Bus Contracting Model since 2016 has only made our buses perform worse than previously, even despite the introduction of the BSRF metrics to determine service quality. The fragmentation of the industry into isolated units has also destroyed the one possible redeeming factor of operational efficiency in public bus operations: economies of scale through multi-depot operations, that BCM is denying to the industry. Ironically, in its quest to make bus operations more efficient, it has made it instead more inefficient, resource-consuming, and lose-lose for both the operator, staff, and passengers alike. Classic neoliberal austerity policies at work. Should this trend continue don’t expect the next generation to be thankful to the current generation of LTA leadership’s “stellar results” delivered.
The middle on the side
context: Tengah literally translates to “middle” in Malay.
Walk down the URA urban planning gallery (open to the public for free) at Maxwell and you’ll find yourself immersed in all the promised mobility technologies of the future, reimagining the way we live, work and play (totally not stealing their quotes here), to come about in the town of the future. And there’s no ambiguity there, as the exhibits explicitly mention “Tengah” (as well as the future Punggol Digital District) as the pilot site for such initiatives. The bilevel urban street, personal rapid transit shuttles (for both passenger and freight, it appears) operating within the town in place of feeder buses, and surface roads that only permit buses and other essential vehicles to pass, handing surface street space back to the individual human like as was originally promiesd for the NSC.
(The “MRT stations under study” later became Jurong Town Hall and Jurong Lake District on the JRL and CRL respectively)
Of all these initiatives proposed, it appears only the last one might make it into reality after all. That’s not before we get into how watered down the proposals get due to the near-complete removal of the bilevel street system originally proposed.
A bilevel street is a road network configuration where general traffic is directed underground, away from pedestrians and cyclists, both to avoid pollution in residential areas and reduce conflict between pedestrians and motorists. Any remainder road at surface level (where the pedestrians are) would be for local-stop transit and emergency or utility vehicles to pass through, with most of the remaining space dedicated to walking, cycling, and community spaces. Half-examples of this have been implemented in scattered formations here, with the two most notable cases being the elevated pedestrian networks in Marina Centre and Jurong East.
Unfortunately, those grand visions for a truly car-lite town have instead been watered down to this:
Converting a short access road to be bus-only, while the rest of the road network in Tengah is just yet another run-of-the-mill road. At least you can say the conversion of Tengah Link to bus-only is considered a small step away from the status quo la. Yet for an urban planning initiative in the works since as far back as the 1990s, it’s disappointing how little we are doing. Some say the bilevel street configuration is restricted to the main arterials deeper within Tengah that have yet to open up, so we shall wait and see. They better do though, since the place will be very depressing if it’s just going to be a normal car-centric town with the usual 6-lane inner roads. Looking forward, yet with apprehension.
Unlike other “new towns” that have developed over previous years, Tengah is a true new town that literally springs up from the middle of almost nowhere, with zero existing transport connections to latch on to except those along Bukit Batok Road to the east. How bus routes will be organised to serve the travel needs of Tengah residents will be of intense interest that we can all monitor in real-time as LTA and HDB publish mobility guides for each new BTO precinct that is completed. So far, the lack of true trunk connections to Tengah is worrying. (Even the JRL that connects it only as far as the NSEWL nearby is, at best, a long feeder route that provides additional coverage while connecting points on existing trunk lines)
Regarding the Jurong Region Line, the visions of a confusing service pattern being hard coded into the infrastructure is quickly being set into stone (if it isn’t already so). Time to make haste with any noise that has to be made over planned JRL alignments, configurations and the like. Where’s the promised Haw Par Villa extension? Maybe the NSL is better suited for that role instead.
Speaking of which, it’s been a full year since the second stage of CRL was announced, and the then-Transport Minister assuring the public that “a solution will be found” to tie up the loose ends in the rail network around the Jurong East area. It’s the one announcement that I have been much anticipating, in vain. The official channels have also gone silent regarding the Cross Island Line’s final leg, although some sources indicate that its final terminus would be at Gul Circle rather than the previously speculated Tuas Link. Together with the recent announcement of 44 trains purchased for the CRL, much remains to be known regarding operational arrangements come 2030. Though we do have more pressing issues at hand to be concerned over first. I forsee the second purchase of rolling stock for the CRL to come in soon after operations commence, given its strong prospects in projected daily ridership. It wouldn’t be all that hard for the CRL to hit its targeted 1 million daily riders barring another major crisis, and the relevant parties should be very prepared for this, rather than be taken by surprise as is happening on the TEL currently.
new links in the chain
With the final stage of the Circle Line coming in just a little over two years’ time, the focus of attention now shifts towards the long-term stable operations phase, where the Circle Line will operate in its branched endless loop formation. It’s timely fitting that the extension also comes with more than sufficient trains needed to cover extra operations on the final leg between HarbourFront and Marina Bay, to future-proof it to a certain extent. Though as I have pointed out earlier this year, it won’t be long before capacity concerns resurface, as progress on the Greater South Waterfront begins, to hit its crescendo by the early 2030s. So far, the closest to a rail link directly serving the GSW would be the “9th MRT line” hinted at in LTMP 2040 (with no follow-up updates since 2019), though that is only coming along in, as you guessed it, at least a decades’ time. It’s rather concerning how not many transit plans have been made for the GSW, when the PLAB New Town slated for completion at a later date has comprehensive plans (including provisions on already-underway rail lines) in place.
If we set our sights further, possible opportunities for further rail lines such as the Long Island Line (set in current unreclaimed territory) and other lines forgotten in the archives emerge, though as our overall public transport network grows the law of diminishing marginal returns reduces the marginal benefit gained from adding new rail lines. Just like how the North-South Corridor might (and most likely will) be the final expressway Singapore adds for the forseeable future, the 9th MRT line will likely be the final MRT line we add, after which we transition to a “renewal” stage rather than “growth” stage, where we maintain current system assets without much expansion. Not until URA surprises us with the next big thing in our urban deveopment, that is.
Something’s cooking
In LTMP 2008, studies for implementation of bus rapid transit, the next step after basic bus lanes, was announced, to determine its feasibility here in Singapore. Since then, it’s been all crickets from LTA regarding this issue. In the meantime, our northern neighbour (yes, that place where we Singaporeans like to escape to over the weekends and during the holidays) has moved ahead with an even more upgraded variant of BRT, the ARRT. Since 2021, it has been trialled for the Medini line (ie AEON shoppers and LEGO enthusiasts are in for a treat!), slated for opening this year.
A good number of proposed rail lines from the 1990s onwards that didn’t make the cut nonetheless form rather important medium-capacity corridors in our transport network. With the failure of “LRT” locally, this is perhaps the ARRT’s opportunity to shine — doing what these “LRT” corridors planned for in the 2001 concept plan more cheaply, for greater returns. For instance, the Holland Line, which was suggested in as early as the 1970s Initial System drafts, yet never went past the planning table.
Maybe as we celebrate our nation’s 58th birthday, we should take a look at what our friends are up to. Perhaps they’ll give us inspiration for some of our existing problems.
Happy 58th to our beloved little red dot, and may her arteries flow with much ease in the years ahead, for greater urban vitality. As the sun sets, let’s set our sights over the horizon, for the ride has just begun.
Join the conversation here, and don’t forget to press the like button! Thanks for reading STC.
SG Transport Critic 
TEL will have none of the bus routes rationalised (except 196e, 531, 541, 547, Premiums).
CRL: 165 to replace 852 (go to Yishun)? 132 to go and replace 165 at Hougang (critical part). 852 will then go to Marina Centre (Bukit Batok – Marina Centre).
LikeLike