Urbanization and the growth of cities have propelled specific transportation systems to become the core infrastructure for mobility. Rapid urbanism has led to a surge in city populations, making efficient transit systems the essential backbone for how people move around. This is also becoming more important in the age where addressing sustainability as defined under the UNSDG agenda, is paramount.
Traditionally transport and transit systems are considered to be a public service, not for profit. However, I view that in an ideal scenario, transportation systems should strive towards financial self-sufficiency, alleviating the strain on government budgets. Freeing up resources for crucial social services like education, healthcare, etc. fostering a more equitable social order.
It is important to understand the cost of transportation & the economy of the cities and country. Richer countries could subsidise transport systems, whilst economically weaker countries and cities will find this to be challenging. Nevertheless, a well-designed transportation system is a perquisite for all urbanised cities / countries. Many Asian cities in Japan, Singapore & Hong Kong have very interesting business case for their transport systems. All of which are, in the motto of the Singapore SMRT, 'Kaizen', in a continuous improvement in state. Which needs to be the corner stone of transit systems - at least in commercial sense.
The two aspects of funding required, one for the capital cost and second for the operational cost. The capital cost will aways be a challenge for many countries. Even if you have a good GDP(PPP), you may not have the technology to deliver the works. An innovative mechanism such as PPP may be a suitable model? However, for the operational side, the system design needs to be robustly designed, such that system is able to pay for itself.
This analysis of operational funding and design will inform the next section, which examines successful models from around the world. By understanding how different cities have achieved a balance between fare revenue, government support, and other funding sources, we can learn valuable lessons for creating efficient and sustainable public transit systems that embody the "Kaizen" principle of continuous improvement.
Singapore's Land Transport Authority (LTA) plans, develops, and regulates an extensive network of trains, buses, taxis, roads, cycling paths, and congestion charges. The transit system is operated by SMRT Trains Ltd (SMRT), company responsible for the North-South, East-West, Circle, and Thomson-East Coast Line, as well as the Bukit Panjang LRT. While as SBS Transit (SBST) operates the North East, the Downtown Line, along with the Sengkang-Punggol LRT.
Government Grant (2022) = 2,923B Singapore $
Government Grant (2021) = 2,924B Singapore $
Government Grant (2020) = 2, 888B Singapore $
The financial statement for Land Transport Agency (LTA 2020-22) cannot be fully broken down for the mass transit systems only, as the government grant to Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) section is not clear. However, as the grant from the government is substantial (Greater than 50% of the operational income), and one can assume that MRT is also partially funded by the government?
Note 1: Both SMRT & SBST notes that they recorded net profit in 2021-23, except in 2020 due to covid anomalies.
Note 2: Singapore MRT does have retail in their stations, however they are ancillary to the station, & which I understand are under the LTA?
Any clarity on this government grants and operators' financial profitability statement will be appreciated.
Transport for London (TfL) is the public authority responsible for operating and managing most of London's transportation network. This includes the London Underground, buses, trams, Docklands Light Railway (DLR), London Overground, and cycling infrastructure. TfL operates under the Greater London Authority (GLA), overseen by the Mayor of London.
The above accounts shows a net cost of service deficit £1.23B in 2023, £2.13B in 2022, £4B in 2021 & £699M in 2020. There is some clarity on the operation in income and expenditure for the London Underground system. All years from 2015 shows a substantial deficit, except in 2020.
The balance sheet from TFL also notes a substantial subsidy for the buses, street and other operation, compared to the underground transit system. The number of bus journey compared to underground metro (Data to the right) makes the case for the overall subsidies required for the former, as the number of journeys on buses are close to double. Further increasing the capacity within the existing LuL system may be challenging?
So the question, is the design model of the LUL suitable for other countries?
The Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway (MTR) not only builds, but also operates the two-metro system in HK (KCRC, MTRC), the LRT and a Cable Car. They also own and operates Malls and commercial portfolio, runs transit system in Asia, Australia, Europe, etc, whilst also undertakes services for other systems globally. Whilst a limited company, almost 75% of the share is owned by the Govt of the HKSAR.
The colonial mentality of the early inception of the MTR (See right), has provided a wonderful background for the successes of the MTR
The Hong Kong MTR financial statement is a basket of goods that makes very difficult reading. A simple account of the above 10 years data shows that the main transport services (MTR, LRT, Buses, cable car, etc) suffered during the pandemic, whilst the figure was always otherwise profitable (Potentially due to government subsidising the ticket price during covid). Officially MTR records a marginal loss in 2020, due to the covid impact.
SOME EXCEPTION
MTR 10 year financial data shows that the Station Commercial Business (Station retail, advertisement, etc) has always made a substantial contribution to the fare box collection of the system. Data extracted from the 10 years statement above, shows a trend where it was increasing year on year from 2023 (+2X%) till the market impact immediately after covid (2022). The 2023 data shows a gradual recovery. Please review this in conjunction of their station design, in the following chapters.
Let me leave you from this section, with the images/data to the left. This is an absolutely false/fake news.
That for Singapore and Hong Kong at least. Meaning that passenger fare makes up the bulk of the graph for HK and Singapore. The London figure is dodgy too, In the wrong way. Citizens who use these systems needs to question how their hard earned money is being spent.
I hope the information above is informative and clarifies, how data are manipulated can be interesting! Please be inquisitive, and stay informed.