SMRT make $40.0m profits

[Silence Sky]

Is 40 million a lot? Lets say there is 500k passengers who take 2 trips a day. So 1million trips a day. 360 million trips a year. So SMRT makes around 11 cents per trip.
Think about it.

I have thought hard about it, and concluded that wool still comes from the sheep.

11 Cents profit may not sound a lot. Numbers do not lie but the ways it is put forward to the mass can be very deceptive.
I am paying $1.60 per trip + $0.50 feeder service = $2.10 per trip x 2 for return = $4.20 per day. I earn $50 per day after tax and CPF deduction. The transportation cost is 8.4% of my salary. This figure has not taken into account additional trips done over the weekends and on leisure.

Privatizing a public service is not always a good thing. For example, if we privatize our power supply service and get a second provider, we, the consumer, might end up paying more. The capital outlay is huge and the over capacity of the power plant will eventually translate into cost and it will be passed on to you and me. The separation and re-meager of our media industry is a good example of such failure. Does it make economical sense to have two authorities to run SMRT and the NorthEast line separately? Both have the same nature of business and serving the public in our 70 km sq of land. How many positions are duplicated in these two offices? Does it increase operating costs?

The problem with non-profit companies is that people running it tends to be less efficient as there is no incentive to cut cost. In the end, you might have to pay MORE for your MRT rides, either through increased fare or taxes used to keep SMRT afloat.
.

After privatizing, I have not seen anything but fare increase.
Cost cutting is essential to all businesses, but so far have you seen any cost cutting measures from them? I guess not! What I see and hear so far is operating costs are raising and fares have to increase to keep pace.
Ohh! I almost forget to mention, all the non profitable routes are already taken off service at the expense of commuters. That is reality of privatizing a public service company, the bottom line of a private company is still the profit margin. So is this good or bad?
If you live in the rural area and the power company finds that there are no benefits to lay power cable to you and your few neighbors. Therefore you will have to live in darkness and without electricity, what would you say?

 

[Silence Sky]

Public transport makes profits. How stupid.

Who stupid? The people or the Elites?:dunno:

 

[Silence Sky]

Will this thread be locked?:dunno:

 

[ricohflex]

Any enterprise with rolling stock needs profits. In order to have money to do replacement of the rolling stock.
Ask any tranportation industry guy and you will know.

Actually they are indirectly subsidised already.
They only operate the mrt trains.

Before the trains can move, someone got to dig the tunnels and lay the tracks and build the stations. That is where the big money is spent.

 

[I'm The One]

Will this thread be locked?:dunno:

as long as it's a healthy discussion.... why should it be locked :dunno:

 

[Silence Sky]

as long as it's a healthy discussion.... why should it be locked :dunno:

It is not healthy as long it involves politics, and I think this thread is heading that direction.:dunno:

 

[Silence Sky]

Any enterprise with rolling stock needs profits. In order to have money to do replacement of the rolling stock.
Ask any tranportation industry guy and you will know.

Actually they are indirectly subsidised already.
They only operate the mrt trains.

Before the trains can move, someone got to dig the tunnels and lay the tracks and build the stations. That is where the big money is spent.

I think you are correct, the government pays for the infrastructures.
And we pay the government to pay for the infrastructures.
Now the operator charges us at a profit for using the service and infrastructures we paid for. :thumbsup:

 

[yanyewkay]

rebates ! i want my rebates... ! :angry:

invest invest! i want to invest!!

 

[Spectrum]

Any enterprise with rolling stock needs profits. In order to have money to do replacement of the rolling stock.
Ask any tranportation industry guy and you will know.

Actually they are indirectly subsidised already.
They only operate the mrt trains.

Before the trains can move, someone got to dig the tunnels and lay the tracks and build the stations. That is where the big money is spent.

Well, it's been around 20yrs since (late 1987) the SMRT started operation. So have they cover back all these $$ which have been spend?:think: If not, where they get those $$ to upgrade some of the trains few years back?:think: Don't tell me after they upgrade, fare increase again?:think:

 

[bartman]

Go invest in some SMRT shares, make some money and recover some of your transport cost.

If you read their annual reports, they have other businesses that contributed to the total revenue.

 

[Hobbesyeo]

Well, it's been around 20yrs since (late 1987) the SMRT started operation. So have they cover back all these $$ which have been spend?:think: If not, where they get those $$ to upgrade some of the trains few years back?:think: Don't tell me after they upgrade, fare increase again?:think:

I can't say for sure if the 40m profit can be 'justified'. :think:

But I would like to point out that infrastructure expenditure is not just a once-off payment. Maintenance is required to keep them in good condition, and this would probably form a large part of their costs.

IIRC, the new trains aren't really "upgrades", but replacements for the older ones which are nearing/gone past their useful economic life.

 

[centuryegg]

Oh yes and dont forget that the new trains are now so much more efficent. Less seats so that there is more standing room which means more people can be squeezed into each train without increasing frequency of trains.

 

[Zplus]

In any economy there is a basic set of necessities which needs enough economies of scale in order to produce. These are usually provided by the state as public goods. Public transport can be one of them and education is another. The goal of these public companies is to make efficient use of public funds (collected via taxes, etc) to provide these public goods.

In our case, the public transport system has been privatised. So technically they are private transport. Same as taxis and private buses. And private companies are profit oriented. Period.

It is debatable whether basic transportation should be made public or private. If its public, it risk inefficiencies in allocating the public funds. If privatised, it aims to maximise profits.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

those profits should b spent on automated screen doors man. 1 person jumping d tracks = loss of $$ due 2 disruption of train services.

they should come out w/ a slogan: "life is precious. u jump on d tracks, i loose $$!". :bsmilie:

 

[Paul_Yeo]

In any economy there is a basic set of necessities which needs enough economies of scale in order to produce. These are usually provided by the state as public goods. Public transport can be one of them and education is another. The goal of these public companies is to make efficient use of public funds (collected via taxes, etc) to provide these public goods.

In our case, the public transport system has been privatised. So technically they are private transport. Same as taxis and private buses. And private companies are profit oriented. Period.

It is debatable whether basic transportation should be made public or private. If its public, it risk inefficiencies in allocating the public funds. If privatised, it aims to maximise profits.

i thot to make more profits, they need to satisify customers? :what:

if customers not happy with long waiting time, packed bus and trains, fare hike, how how?

 

[Cheesecake]

i thot to make more profits, they need to satisify customers? :what:

if customers not happy with long waiting time, packed bus and trains, fare hike, how how?

in this sense... the customers dun haf much choices, do they?:bsmilie: