economics extended essay

8/11/2019 Economics Extended Essay

1/25

Extended Essay

To what extentwould the nationalisation of the Singapore Bus Services be

justified?

Name: Aritra Sen

Subject Area: Economics

Word Count: 3975

Candidate Number: 004131 -0030

Exam Session: May 2014

School: Tanglin Trust School


2/25

Aritra Sen Extended Essay Candidate Number: 004131 -0030

2

Abstract:

This essay examines the proposed nationalisation of the bus services in Singapore. Bus

services in Singapore are currently run by two private operators, SBS Transit and SMRT.However, recent complaints have led to both citizens and politicians calling for a

nationalised bus service. For the purposes of this essay, a nationalised public transport

model would entail the bus services being run by one government owned operator, as

opposed to the two existing operators. The question being investigated here is:

To what extentwould the nationalisation of the Singapore Bus Services be

justified?

Scope:

Surveys were distributed amongst classmates and co-workers of my parents in an

attempt to assess current satisfaction levels with the bus services. Additional statistics

were gained from a second survey conducted by a local newspaper, and an examination

of annual reports from the two operators as well as the Government regulatory body,

the Public Transport Council.

These statistics were analysed to gain a more accurate understanding of the current

system. The essay then attempted to answer whether nationalisation would solve any of

the current problems. Secondary sources such as textbooks, websites and papers on

nationalisation of utilities were also considered.

Conclusion:

An analysis of the current situation resulted in the conclusion that nationalisation

would not be the ideal solution for the Singapore bus services. It is unlikely that

nationalisation would solve the current problems, and could lead to further issues such

as higher unit costs. The essay looked into a possible solution to some of the current

issues such as overcrowding and delayed services, concluding that the market should be

liberalised to allow some more service providers through a process of Competitive

Tendering with Performance Based Negotiable Contracts. However, the regulatory role

of the Public Transport Council should remain, ensuring that bus fares stay affordable.

Word Count: 298


3/25


3

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT-2

INTRODUCTION-4

CURRENT MARKET STRUCTURE -5,6,7

METHODOLOGY -7

RESULTS ANDANALYSIS -7,8,9,10

AN EXAMINATION OF THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS

-BUS FARES -11

-CROWDED BUSES AND LONG WAITING TIMES -12,13,14

-OBJECTIONS TO THE 1.1BILLION DOLLAR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY 14,15

DRAWBACKS OF NATIONALISATION -15,16

OTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS -17,18

CONCLUSION-18

BIBLIOGRAPHY-19,20

APPENDICES


4/25


4

Introduction:

Singapore is a city with an excellent network of roads and highways. Since the prices of

cars are extremely high in Singapore owing to a high tax, many residents opt to use

public transport to travel around the city. Public transport in Singapore consists of cabs,buses and an underground train system called the MRT, or Mass Rapid Transit (National

University of Singapore, 2010).

In the late 1960s and early 70s, there were 11 different bus operators(Menon & Kuang,

2006). There was no integration of fares or schedules, and the system soon became

unfeasible. Learning from these failures, the government intervened in 1973 and this

led to the merging of ten companies into one: SBS Transit. The second of the two

operators, the Trans Island Bus Service(TISB) was formed in order to provide

competition to SBS. In 2001, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Corporation(SMRT)

acquired these bus services (Menon & Kuang, 2006).

Recently, however, there have been calls for the nationalisation of the bus service, led

by the Workers Party, who claim that the wheels have been falling off the once well

run network. These calls became louder when the two operators in charge of the bus

services asked for an increase in bus fares. This led me to the question: To what extent

would the nationalisation of the Singapore Bus Services be justified?. I chose this

question because public transport, particularly buses, are extremely important in

Singapore. The average daily ridership of the Singapore bus services was about 3.48

million passenger trips in 2012 (Land Transport Authority, 2013). Given that the

population of Singapore was 5.31 million in 2012, the bus services clearly play a vital

role in ensuring that people can get around the city effectively. They are operated by

two publicly listed operators, SBS transit and SMRT Corporation, with bus routes all

across the island.

If efficiency were to increase or decrease as a result of nationalisation then it would

impact many commuters. The rationale behind the current market system of two

government subsidised operators is that it would encourage competition due to the

incentive of the firm to make profit. However, does the greater competition really lead

to better efficiency and quality of services for consumers? The main argument against

nationalisation is that it would take away the profit incentive which encourages firms to

become more efficient and competitive. However, many, like the Workers Party argue

that this solution will prevent firms from abusing their market power. It is possible that

if nationalisation were to take place, fares would remain steady. The essay seeks to

analyse the current market structure and failings of the market, before using data and

applications of economic theory to examine the case for nationalisation. Where possible,

alternative solutions shall also be looked at.


5/25


5

Current Market Structure:

The current market structure has two firms operating the majority of the bus services.

Thus, on first glance it seems to be a duopoly. Indeed, the current model does have some

similarities with the standard model of the duopoly, which involves a high

concentration of the market output in the hands of the two firms. SBS controls 75% of

the market share (SBS Transit, 2013), with SMRT controlling almost all of the rest.

There are strong barriers to entry to the market. The two bus operators have clearly

designated areas of responsibility within which they operate, although there are some

overlaps of routes. The Public Transport Council, henceforth referred to as the PTC,designates these areas of responsibilities (Menon & Kuang, 2006). Operators who wish

to enter the market may not provide what the PTC refers to as basic services, which

are the bulk of all services provided, including almost all intra town, feeder and trunk

services. Operators wishing to enter the market may only provide supplementary

services, which have much lower connectivity. Furthermore, consumers cannot pay for

these services using bus passes or an EZ link card (similar to an Oyster Card in London,

these cards may be topped up using cash and then scanned when entering and leaving

the bus, which deducts money from the card). Commuters must pay separately for each

time that they use these services, making them less competitive and more expensive.

Thus, competition for the two major bus operators if very limited due to the legislative

barriers of entry.

The presence of clearly divided up areas of responsibility leads to each firm becoming a

de-facto monopoly in the areas in which they operate. Bar a few overlaps in routes, the

bus operators face little competition in their own areas of responsibility. The standard

diagram for a firm in a monopoly seeking to maximize profit can be seen below.

According to their reports, SBS and SMRT both made losses on their bus services in the

last calendar year, which is reflected in the diagram.


6/25


6

However, there are some key differences between the structures of a traditional

monopoly (or duopoly for that matter), and those which define the market structure at

present.

In a normal model of a concentrated market, such as a monopoly or a duopoly, firms

have a high degree of market power. This enables them to set their own prices,

qualifying them as price makers rather than price takers. However, the bus fares in

Singapore are heavily regulated by the Public Transport Council. The role of the Public

Transit Council is to ensure that bus fares remain affordable. (Menon & Kuang, 2006)

For example, the PTC did not approve of fare increases for the year 2012 (Singapore

Business Review, 2012). Furthermore, the role of the PTC is not just limited to

maintaining a structure for the fares; it is also involved in ensuring that the two

operators are held to certain standards of accountability(Menon & Kuang, 2006).

A second difference would be the government investment into the two operators. While

the two operators do not receive a direct operating subsidy from the government, they

do receive government investment in aiding the financing of the capital cost of public

transport infrastructure(Menon & Kuang, 2006). This is a significant difference from a

standard model of a monopoly, which assumes that the firm does not receive thisgovernment assistance.

Thirdly, both SBS and SMRT seem to be taking on a degree of corporate social

responsibility, which suggests that they might not be single-mindedly seeking to

maximise profit at the cost of quality services. Both SBS and SMRT purchased buses that

met Euro -5 standards regarding environmental concerns. SMRT also sought to

introduce electric buses, in conjunction with a Chinese firm. The costs of these

initiatives are higher than those that would have been incurred had the firms opted to

buy buses with lower environmental standards. These decisions may not have beenmade in a purely profit driven framework.


7/25


7

In conclusion of my analysis on the market structure, I would suggest that the current

market structure is a government-regulated duopoly, with both firms acting as de-facto

monopolies in their areas of responsibility (again, with the government regulation).

Methodology:

I propose to gather data for my essay in the following ways. Firstly, online surveys shall

be distributed amongst classmates and co workers of my parents. These surveys will try

to assess what the satisfaction levels with the bus system are, what they are willing to

pay for the services and their thoughts when they make a choice in choosing between

two operators. The data generated by these surveys will be combined with data about

the bus services from the Public Transit Council of Singapore(PTC). Secondly, I will lookinto data from the reports of SBS Transit and SMRT from 2011 2012, to assess if thereis any abuse of market power by any of the service providers.

Results and analysis: PTC report

The Public Transport Council conducts a yearly survey in an attempt to understand the

satisfaction of the commuters with the bus services. These statistics have been takenfrom the most recent PTC report, for the year 2012-2013.


8/25


8

Customer satisfaction from the PTC report:

1) Satisfaction Score from 1-10, with 1 being the lowest

Bus Service

Attributes2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Waiting Time 5.8 6 6.2 5.7 5.7

Reliability 6.7 7 6.9 6.8 6.7

Service

Information7.1 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.1

Bus Stop

Accessibility7.3 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.2

Comfort 7 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1

Travel Time 6.6 7 7 6.7 6.8

Customer Service 7 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.8

Safety and Security 7.5 7.7 7.4 7.5 7.3

Overall

Satisfaction6.9 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.8

(Public Transport Council, 2011)

01

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Scores given by commuters on a range of

criteria from 1-10

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012


9/25


9

2) Percentage of people satisfied by each criterion

Bus Service

Attributes2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Waiting Time 55.5 60.3 64.1 56.3 54.2

Reliability 73.2 79.3 78.4 74.4 74

Service Information 80.5 81.7 82.5 80.7 80.9

Bus Stop

Accessibility84.3 88.6 90.1 85.7 84.3

Comfort 81 87.9 84.9 82.1 82.8

Travel Time 76.3 81.3 81.4 76 79



Overall Satisfaction 86.9 92.5 90.2 87.1 86.4

(Public Transport Council, 2011)

The table and graph indicate that on a whole, commuter satisfaction with the bus

services has remained more or less constant over the years, with the average rating

varying between 6.9 and 7.2, and the percentage satisfaction varying between 86.9%and 92.5% (Public Transport Council, 2011). However, a closer examination of the table


10/25


10

yields an interesting result. The value for the customer response for the criterion on

waiting time always seems to be significantly lower than the other criteria, as illustrated

by this graph.

Clearly, customers are unhappy with this particular criterion. I chose to carry out some

further research, in order to gain some more information about satisfaction but also to

better understand the dissatisfaction with the waiting times.

Results and analysis: Survey

My survey (attached in the appendix) seemed to support the opinions of the people

surveyed by the PTC. Respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied primarily by the

overcrowded nature of the buses, with the long waiting times at the bus stops.


11/25


11

47 of the 79 people said that long waiting times were something they were dissatisfied,

and 51 of the 79 also suggested that they found the buses to be overly crowded. This is

supported further by a survey, conducted by a newspaper in February 2013 amongst

150 random people. The consensus was that they perceived overcrowded buses and

infrequent services leading to time delays as the two major problems in the current

system (Chan & Neville, 2013). Each person was allowed three choices, and a 104 of the

choices selected mentioned overcrowding and a further 41 called for more frequent busservices (Chan & Neville, 2013).

Having gathered my statistics, I proceeded to use these to analyse the arguments for

and against nationalization.


12/25


12

An examination of the different arguments

For nationalisation to be justified, there should be evidence regarding the abuse of the

market power by the firms involved. In my investigation, I have looked at two potential

instances of this. Firstly, a deterioration of the quality of services, in the form of

overcrowded buses, infrequent services and long waiting times for a bus at a stop, as

indicated by the gathered data. Secondly, I examined the bus fares for consumers to

investigate whether the firms were abusing their market power to demand higher

prices. This was motivated by public dissatisfaction when the two bus operators asked

the PTC to raise fares.

Bus Fares

Normally in a market structure where the output is concentrated, such as a monopoly or

a duopoly, firms have a significant degree of market power(Dorton & Jocelyn, 2011).

They have the ability to be price makers rather than price takers. In monopolies and

concentrated oligopolies, it is possible that firms will abuse their power in the market

and charge higher prices. If this could be proven, then grounds would exist to call for

nationalisation. Under government ownership, the incentive to make profit would be

reduced, or even removed. Consumers would see more stable prices.

However, an investigation into the bus fares in Singapore reveal that they have not, in

fact, risen substantially. Singaporean Transport Minister Mr Lui Tuck Yew said in a

speech in parliament that between 2006 and 2011, fuel prices had increased by 30%

and national wages by 25%. In comparison, bus fares had risen cumulatively by only

0.3%(SGPressCentre, 2012).

The argument that the bus operators have been abusing their market power to set

higher fares does not seem to be true. There is no evidence to suggest that the bus

operators have been increasing their fares by exploiting their market power. Onereason for this could be the strict regulation from the Public Transport Council.

Crowded buses and long waiting times at the bus-stop

Crowded buses and long waiting times represent a lack of quality in the services

provided by the two companies. It could be an indication that there needs to be an

increase in supply from the suppliers in order to meet the demand, especially during

peak hours. Owing to the high prices of cars in Singapore because of a heavy

government tax, bus services are a necessity (a good with very few comparable

substitutes (Maley & Welker, 2011)) during peak hours of transit. Singapore has about


13/25


13

half the number of cars per 100 persons as Tokyo, despite having a similar GDP per

capita. (Land Transport Authority, 2013)

The problems of overcrowding and the lack of sufficient bus services could be

representative of the fact that both the bus companies have not increased their supplyto match the growing demand. In my previous analysis of the market structure, I have

made the claim that because of the presence of clearly demarcated areas of

responsibility; each company is, in its individual areas, a de facto monopoly. Breaking

down the analysis to look at the effect that this could have on the overall supply of bus

services with respect to profitability provided me with an interesting insight.

Here we can see that under normal conditions, a firm under conditions of perfect

competition would produce Q1units of output at a price of P1. This is simply where

market supply meets market demand, and the firm does not have sufficient market

power to change this. This is because in perfect competition, the market is comprised of

a large number of small firms (Dorton & Jocelyn, 2011). Thus, if one firm were to alter

their supply, the effect of this on the total supply would be negligible. However, under

the existing de-facto monopolies, the market supply is highly concentrated in the hands

of the two bus operators. To increase profits, they can reduce their output, as seen

above. In the diagram above, the firm seeking to maximise profit is producing at thepoint where Marginal Revenue meets Marginal Costs, leading to an output of Q2units


14/25


14

and a higher price of P2(Dorton & Jocelyn, 2011) (It is important to note that prices do

not always increase in Singapore for the bus services because of the government

control). However the shortage in supply in peak hours is a concern (Chan & Neville,

2013).

There is no evidence to suggest that the firms have deliberately been contracting thesupply of their buses. However, the results from the surveys suggest that commuters do

feel that buses are overcrowded and infrequent during peak hours. Given the Singapore

governments desire to increase the population of Singapore to 7 millionby the year

2030, the strain on the public buses would only increase further. Thus, there is clearly a

need to expand on the range of bus services. Given the Singapore governmentsdesire

to reduce loading levels during peak hours from a maximum of 95% to 85%, it would

make sense to increase the number of buses providing services.

This led the government to consider an investment plan in order to expand the bus

services, which has also led to complaints.

Objections to the 1.1 billion dollar government subsidy to the two bus operators

The Singapore government injected 1.1 billion Singaporean dollars into the two bus

operators as part of their Bus Services Enhancement Program, or BSEP. The aim is to

increase the number of buses by 800(550 from the Government and 250 from the

operators) specifically in order to tackle the problems of overcrowding and delays in

service. This would see an increase in the total output of bus services by 20%(Land

Transport Authority , 2013).

There have been objections , by political opposition, to the Government investing such a

substantial sum of money into two companies (The Workers' Party, 2012), who make

millions of dollars in profit, when considering their other operations, such as MRTs and

taxis (SBS Transit, 2012) (SMRT, 2012). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the

combined market capitalisation of the two companies is 2.6 billion dollars. This fuels the

argument that nationalisation would be a beneficial solution, seeing that if the

government were to invest similar sums of money in the future, they could end up

spending more than the combined market capitalisation.

The Government counters this by claiming that the 1.1 billion dollars will not contribute

to the profit of the two bus operators. Instead, the revenue derived shall be recovered.

They claim that it is necessary in order to keep fares low and increase the total supply of

buses.

Although the BSEP has reduced waiting times on average by 3-5 minutes (Land

Transport Authority, 2013), it may not be sustainable for the government tocontinuously inject these levels of funding into the bus services, particularly if it is


15/25


15

experiencing times of economic instability and crisis. The BSEP does solve the problem

in the short run, but is not enough to ensure a long-term efficiency and smoothness in

services. While the money injected may not be directly contributing to operator profits,

it is still a significant use of taxpayersrevenue. It would be logical to assume that if

there could be a system, which would reduce government, costs while keeping thewelfare of the consumer in mind, then such a system should be adopted. This led me to

look into competitive tendering later on in the essay.

Drawbacks of Nationalisation

There are several drawbacks that come with nationalising the bus service and putting it

under governmental control.

First of all, a nationalisation of the Singapore Bus Service would take a considerable

amount of government revenue to run. To finance such a project, the government would

have to possibly raise revenue through increased taxation, or use funds from the

government surplus. This could be seen as inequitable on those who do not use public

transport. It is easier for private firms like SBS and SMRT to raise revenue through

investment. The government would find it particularly difficult to raise revenue for

long-term investment projects, something that is crucial in public transport. One of themajor reasons why it was necessary to privatise public bus services in several countries

during the 1970s was the unsustainable nature of a government run model (Hensher &

Wong, 2011). The bus services needed large government subsidies, something that

could not be kept up in face of mounting debt (Hensher & Wong, 2011). This led to

several cities in the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia to privatise their public

transport systems, in the hope that the profit incentive would drive private operators to

lower their unit costs and increase their efficiency.

Building on this point, an examination of the reports of the two bus companies revealsthat both have made losses on their bus operations. SBS have lost around 6 million

dollars (SBS Transit, 2012) and SMRT have lost about 11.6 million (SMRT, 2012).

Keeping in mind that these are private operators driven by a profit incentive and are

likely to do all that they can to keep down their unit costs, a nationalised model would

be a strain on the governments financial capabilities.The lack of a long-term profit

would also take away dynamic efficiency, or the capability of a firm earning abnormal

profits in a monopoly or concentrated oligopoly to reinvest these profits in order to

innovate in their services.

The question of a profit incentive leads us to an examination of a possible efficiency loss


16/25


16

in a nationalised bus service. Historical evidence in countries like Britain and Sri Lanka

have shown how privately owned bus service providers could supply their services at

significantly lower unit costs (Hensher & Wong, 2011). This is because government run

operations lack profit incentives, and are often trapped by bureaucratic procedures

(Yeoh, 2013). This reduced efficiency in the model can be explained by X efficiencytheory, suggesting that there will be inefficiency in a model with imperfect competition.

A nationalised bus service would have no competition, and thus may lack an incentive to

increase the quality and efficiency of services.

Thus, nationalisation does not seem to be the answer to the current problems in the

market for bus services in Singapore, namely a shortage of bus services during peak

hours leading to delays and overcrowding, as well as the issue of the 1.1 billion dollars

invested by the government. The government would have to spend far more than that,

given the inherent inefficiencies in the nationalised services and the losses that the two

bus companies already make.

During my investigation, I was struck by the remarkable role that the Public Transport

Council played in ensuring that bus fares remained affordable for most of the

population in Singapore. Given how important bus services are in this city, I decided to

look for a solution that could solve some of the problems in the current system without

reducing the influence of the PTC on the affordability of the services.


17/25


17

Possible solutions:

The best solution to the current dilemma regarding efficiency was suggested to me by

the revelation that most people surveyed considered SBS buses and SMRT buses to be

perfect substitutes, on an instance of route overlap.

The answers to this question seemed to indicate elements of Perfect Competition, where

firms sell homogenous products or services. Bus Services cannot operate in Perfect

Competition, because each firm would not make sufficient profit in order to remain in

business, instead they would only make a normal profit (Helm, 2009). However, this

initial thought led me to explore the possibility of liberalising the bus services and

opening it up to some more competition, maybe through the addition of one or two

operators.

The Prime Minister of Singapore has rejected this idea, claiming that it would lead to

cherry picking of routes that are profitable, leading to a disrupted service. Others point

out that liberalizing the market could lead to similar results as pre 1971, where

Singapore had 11 independent bus service providers, with no integration of schedules

and fares which was extremely chaotic (Menon & Kuang, 2006). Opening up the market


18/25


18

however, could still entail with it government regulation for the benefit of the

commuters (Bradburd, 1992). Cherry picking of profitable routes, as happened after

Thatcher privatized bus services in the UK (Helm, 2009), can be avoided using

competitive tendering of contracts of bus services. The government could ask service

providers to bid for exclusive rights to provide services on a bundled package of routes,thus preventing firms from only serving busy profitable routes. The PTC could still play

a strong role, ensuring that bus fares do not become unaffordable for commuters(The

Scarlet Ibis , 2011) (Menon & Kuang, 2006). This would increase the competition of the

market ensuring greater innovation and competition. If these contracts were to be

negotiable based on performance (Negotiable Performance Based Contracts) (Hensher

& Wong, 2011), then there would be a strong incentive for firms to maintain a high

standard of services. Furthermore, increasing the number of service providers would

also take the strain of the growing population of the two present operators, leading to

less crowded buses for commuters.

Conclusion

I started out in order to investigate whether the nationalisation of the Singapore bus

service was an economically viable idea. Through my analysis of data and the

shortcomings in the market, I have reached a different conclusion. Nationalisation could

potentially lead to an inefficient market, with no profit incentives and difficulties in

raising money for long-term investments. True to the vision of the original Land

Transport Master Plan, the market for bus services needs to be opened up to greater

competition to take the load off the two over-burdened operators. There is a need

however, for the existing governmental regulations to apply to ensure the operators

meet standards. The PTC can still play an important role in maintaining the affordability

of bus services for all. Opening up the market would also reduce the financial burden on

the government, which could result in lowering of taxes for Singaporean residents. The

way forward should be a market structure with greater competition and more service

providers, but with similar regulatory structures that can prevent an abuse of market

power by firms.

Limitations to my investigation could be my lack of further primary data. I tried to

conduct interviews at a bus stop during peak hours, but did not gain any satisfactory

responses because most people seemed unwilling and were in a hurry.

Therefore, in reference to my research question, I believe that the nationalisation of the

services would not be justified, as improvements in the present model would be much

more appropriate in solving the present problems.


19/25


19

BibliographyNational University of Singapore. (2010). Competition for Public Sector in Singapore: Is there room

for more than one operator?Hiroshima: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.

Hensher, D., & Wong, G. (2011). Different approaches to Public Transport Provision.Retrieved July 1,

2013, from ltaa.gov.sg: http://ltaacademy.gov.sg/doc/J11Nov-

p31Hensher_DifferentApproachestoPublic.pdf

The Scarlet Ibis . (2011). Does Nationalisation solve our problems?Retrieved August 14, 2013, from

http://thescarletibis.org/2011/07/14/public-transport-%E2%80%93-does-nationalisation-solve-our-

problem/

Menon, G., & Kuang, C. L. (2006). Lessons from bus operations.Retrieved July 22, 2013, from

ptc.gov.sg: http://www.ptc.gov.sg/_files/LessonsfromBusOperationsREV5.pdf

Bradburd, R. (1992). Retrieved April 15, 2013, from worldbank.org: http://www-

wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/1992/04/01/000009265_3961002

204456/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf

SMRT. (2012).Annual Report.Annual Report, Singapore.

Public Transport Council. (2011).Annual Report.Singapore.

Land Transport Authority. (2013). Retrieved November 11, 2013, from www.lta.gov.sg:

http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/FactsandFigures/Stats_

in_Brief_2013.pdf

Chan, H., & Neville, A. (2013, February 13). No. 1 Peeve: Packed trains and buses. Retrieved October

29, 2013, from Aisaone :

http://www.hss.ntu.edu.sg/News/Documents/Packed%20trains%20and%20buses.pdf

Land Transport Authority . (2013, August 30). Bus Service Enhancement Program - One-Year Report.

Retrieved November 11, 2013, from www.lta.gov.sg:http://app.lta.gov.sg/data/apps/news/press/2013/20130902_BSEP-1year-30Aug13v7.pdf

Maley, S., & Welker, J. (2011). Economics developed specifically for the IB Diploma.Essex: Pearson.

SBS Transit. (2012).Annual Report.SBS transit.

(2012). Retrieved October 28, 2013, from SGPressCentre:

http://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/mot/speech/S-20120307-

2/AttachmentPar/0/file/1%20-

%20COS%202012%20Public%20Transport%20Speech%20_Final__revised%20after%20delivery.pdf

Dorton, I., & Jocelyn, B. (2011). Economics Course Companion(2nd Edition ed.). Singapore: Oxford.


20/25


20

Singapore Business Review. (2012, March 8). MOT: No fair hikes in 2012. Retrieved October 15,

2012, from Singapore Business Review: http://sbr.com.sg/transport-logistics/news/mot-no-fare-

hikes-in-2012

SBS Transit. (2013). Overview. Retrieved August 20, 2013, from SBS Transit:

http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/transport/trpt_bus_overview.aspx

Yeoh, T. S. (2013, August 17). Ending Nationalised Public Services. Retrieved October 18, 2013, from

Asean Investor: http://www.asean-investor.com/ending-nationalised-public-services/

Helm, M. (2009).An Incredible Journey: The First Story.Cambridge: Granta Editions.

The Workers' Party. (2012, July). Debate on LTA Ammendment Bill - NCMP Gerald Giam. Retrieved

October 20, 2013, from The Workers' Party: http://wp.sg/2012/07/debate-on-lta-amendment-bill-

ncmp-gerald-giam/


21/25


21

Appendices

Questionaire:

Question 1:


22/25


22

Question 2


23/25


23

Question 3


24/25


24

Question 4


25/25


Public Transport Council - Data Tables

1)

Bus Service

Attributes2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Waiting Time 5.8 6 6.2 5.7 5.7

Reliability 6.7 7 6.9 6.8 6.7

Service

Information7.1 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.1

Bus StopAccessibility

7.3 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.2

Comfort 7 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1

Travel Time 6.6 7 7 6.7 6.8



Overall

Satisfaction6.9 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.8

2)

Bus Service

Attributes2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Waiting Time 55.5 60.3 64.1 56.3 54.2

Reliability 73.2 79.3 78.4 74.4 74

Service Information 80.5 81.7 82.5 80.7 80.9

Bus Stop

Accessibility 84.3 88.6 90.1 85.7 84.3

Comfort 81 87.9 84.9 82.1 82.8

Travel Time 76.3 81.3 81.4 76 79



Overall Satisfaction 86.9 92.5 90.2 87.1 86.4