Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 0:20:47 GMT
I am intrigued to find out what has persuaded them to follow this model, I have always thought the system in Singapore was supposedly one of the best in the world as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Jun 18, 2014 12:58:51 GMT
One interesting thing is that the LTA will own the garages and vehicles. It will several years for the network to be tendered and like what happened in London the existing operators stay on the routes until everything has been tendered on the open market. I'd be interested to know what will eventually happen to the bus fleets and garages of SMRT and SBS. I can't imagine they've agreed to just hand them over for nothing. The above therefore means it is not TfL esque, I mean to say London doesn't have a monopoly on contracting out which is what is being inferred. The model being used is more like the model commonly used in Australia and a model that I personally believe would make London a lot more efficent. |
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Jun 20, 2014 3:05:33 GMT
Next you will say that buses in Abuja for example are Londonesque, because, umm they have buses. Something similar (they have buses) most things not even alike.
Just like comparing the contract model in London to the contract model in Singapore. The only thing that is esque is they contract out, the whole model is 100% completely different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 1:02:58 GMT
Can someone please explain how the Austrailian model and the proposed Singapore model work and how explicitly they are different to the TfL model?
|
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Jul 8, 2014 13:56:06 GMT
The Australian model, well the one used in Perth, Adelaide and Sydney, is the State Government owns the buses and in some cases the depots and contracts the day to day running to private operators (and in the case of Sydney to a Government owned operator) on a regional basis, which could be based on one or more depots. The government collects all revenue. Obviously in London, individual routes are tendered, operators buy/lease their own buses (except NB4L) and operators have their own depots and TfL collects revenue. Anyway below is a link to the plan in Singapore, mentioning how they examined BOTH the London and Australian bus contracting models. Clearly they decided to go the Australian way, in which case maybe the title should be Singapore goes Australian esque or maybe more specifically Sydney esque, because what Singapore is doing is exactly what the New South Wales Government has been doing in Sydney. Essentially taking over routes and buses from established private operators (operating under an historical model), then tendering them out as a package. In Sydney they have 15 regions with some operator names that may well be familair to those in London. Vis Transdev, Transit Systems and Hillsbus who is part owned by Comfort Delgro. www.todayonline.com/singapore/govt-own-all-bus-operating-assets-contract-out-bus-servicesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metropolitan_Bus_Service_ContractsAdelaide and Perth privatised a number of years ago, but unlike Sydney did not have any existing private operators to incorporate into their operations, so like London was purley a public to private tender, but not on a route by route basis. Brisbane has another model again. There the City of Brisbane (rather than the state government) operate buses in Brisbane. However there is now a South East Queensland state government authority that is responsible for the co-ordination of public transport in the region, including in Brisbane. They also provide a common ticketing platform for all operators. |
|
