By Lin Yanqin, assistant news editor at Today.
INFRASTRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS
Has the integrity of the rail system kept pace with the rapid population growth and the increase in ridership?
The SMRT, in media conferences addressing the breakdowns, has said maintenance was stepped up as demands on the system grew over the years. Annual ridership, which used to grow by 1 to 2 per cent, has risen by as much as 9 per cent per annum more recently.
But greater, and more specific, assurance that the operator has not grown complacent over the years is needed. Clarity is needed on the frequency and comprehensiveness of the SMRT's - and SBS Transit's, for that matter - maintenance processes.
Moreover, are operators themselves the best people to assess the adequacy of their maintenance regimes? What is the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) role in ensuring the processes are rigorous and complied with? Can a "scorecard" of disruptions and the corrective actions taken be published annually as part of the need for accountability and transparency?
ACCOUNTABILITY
Before tendering her resignation on Friday, CEO Saw Phaik Hwa's tenure was marked by the SMRT aggressively expanding its retail business, with shops springing up at stations, and rentals now make up 45 per cent of the company's total net earnings.
At the same time, commuters were becoming increasingly frustrated with packed trains and fare increases while the company reported healthy profits. Has the SMRT, in the process of trying to grow profits and answer to shareholders, lost sight of the interest of the public?
Under the LTA's new rail financing framework in 2010, licences granted to operators to manage lines will be shortened to 15 years, from the current 30 to 40 years. (The Downtown Line licence awarded to SBS Transit last year is for 15 years.) The LTA said this is to promote greater "contestability" between operator, spurring them to improve on service.
But could this lead to a scenario where operators focus on making as much profit as possible before the contract's end, with a diminished regard for the long-term maintenance and sustainability of the infrastructure?
The latest breakdowns have again raised the question of whether the fines imposed by the LTA make enough of a dent on operators' finances to an effective penalty. As Today letter-writer Cheong Weng Kit argued: "A hefty fine on SMRT is of no consequence to commuters."
Since SMRT has not offered anything more than fare refunds for affected commuters, is it within the LTA's scope to order further remedial action - such as free rides for a day?
REGULATOR'S ROLE
The rail network is operated by two private companies, but major train breakdowns have ramifications for the livelihoods of Singaporeans, business operations and the economy, as well as chipping away at the country's reputation.
Should not the LTA, then, play a bigger part in its oversight of a strategically-important asset? Transport academic Lee Der Horng of the National University of Singapore wants greater clarity and transparency on the regulator's role, particularly in maintenance.
Is the current mode of operation - private companies running the networks - "really bringing us efficiency, reliability and credibility?" he asks.
Under the new rail financing framework, the LTA instead of the operator will own the rail operating assets. "This means that the LTA will be in a position to make the decisions on replacing existing trains and operating assets, as well as investing in new trains and operating assets," the agency said in a statement in 2010.
This should enhance its future role in maintaining rolling assets (currently only the Downtown Line operated by SBS Transit comes under this framework). But until then, in the case of the two recent breakdowns, who takes responsibility for the dislodged "claws", damaged covers and "collector shoes", which were clustered around areas where floating slab tracks have been installed to contain vibrations from the passing trains? "Was the 'floating slab' properly designed? Were the maintenance and even the replacement issues of floating slabs considered during the design stage?" asks Prof Lee, adding that these details should be disclosed to ease concerns.
CRISIS RESPONSE
Even as the SMRT scrambled to activate bridging bus services and de-train trapped passengers, other commuters were still streaming into affected stations, unaware a disruption had taken place.
The SMRT said it had informed SBS Transit of both breakdowns. But there was little visible coordination between the two operators. During the first incident on Dec 15, oblivious commuters at Dhoby Ghaut interchange station were still making their way from the SBS Transit-managed North-East Line to the North-South Line, swelling the crowds.
Should not both operators develop a more systematic crisis response? For instance, signs notifying of a train service disruption could have been placed on SBS Transit's feeder buses headed to the MRT stations, so that commuters could immediately change travel plans.
Little has been said about the role of other agencies in major disruptions. Why was the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), for instance, not called in by the private operator to free passengers trapped on trains? Given the potential scale of public safety involved, and the SCDF's expertise in such matters, should the SOPs be reviewed? Could the Traffic Police also have been quickly roped in to help direct traffic near affected stations where there was heavy congestion?
As the rail network expands, future breakdowns could have an exponential impact. Should there not now be a thorough re-think of an integrated response plan to emergencies? Are operators required to stress-test their systems in worst-case scenarios and review crisis plans?
COMMUNICATION
During the breakdowns SMRT staff, while understandably under strain, were often unable to provide adequate advice or information to commuters at the stations or trapped on trains.
One example: Instead of funnelling commuters solely to its bridging bus services, which ended up taxing the operator's own stretched resources, staff could have directed them to alternative routes, such as taking the Circle Line from Bishan to get to Dhoby Ghaut or other public bus services.
Staff on the ground appeared to be waiting for directions on how to act. Why was there an apparent absence of a culture of initiative? Would not encouraging an empowered mindset serve the operator better in emergencies, not to mention day to day service?
THE BIGGER PICTURE
Understandably, the focus of investigations will be on ensuring a disruption of such scale never occurs again. But it might be wise to consider the worst-case eventuality, and make sure the public transport system as a whole can better absorb the impact.
One gap that was felt was the paucity of alternatives for commuters when train services were disrupted. The public transport masterplan envisions bus services that run parallel to all train lines. SMRT said in 2010 it would add bus services to that effect, to ease train congestion.
But so far there have been only two parallel bus services launched - one by SBS Transit to mirror part of the North South Line, and another by SMRT from north-west Singapore to the city. One reason, it is said, is that commuters prefer the faster train services.
Perhaps last month's incidents underscore a need to enhance that parallel bus network, after all?
ORIGINAL SOURCE
Content used in this not-for-profit blog remain the property of their respective owners.
