The Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA) is getting serious about rehabilitation, proposing a slew of plans in a scheme akin to that adopted for Thai Airways (THAI) to help the loss-ridden agency turn itself around.
The rehab scheme got the nod from the State Enterprise Policy Office (Sepo) during a recent meeting chaired by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. The scheme is to be forwarded to Gen Prayut's cabinet at the end of the month.
The scheme comprises a plan to write off the enormous debts which have accumulated over the past 40 years to 127 billion baht. The struggling agency in its drive to become financially sustainable is to introduce an early-retirement package for its staff, aiming to ditch 5,000 out of its 13,000 work force, or about 40%, change its business model, adjust routes meaning fewer lines; and also maximise its land use. And there is to be a new fare structure which means passengers will have to pay more for their trips.
Based on its survey, there are about two million bus users per day; the BMTA expects to earn around 60 million baht a day from new fares. The agency, in its proposal to Sepo, truly believes it will make profit by 2029.
I cannot see how the BMTA can increase efficiency, the key to transforming from a loss-ridden to profit-making agency, through its latest rehab plan. Looking back at its previous attempts, I am not convinced. Besides, something is missing: serviceability. How will the rehab benefit bus passengers?
That said, I'm not so sure if the rehab plan places the passengers' interests or ways to satisfy them as its focus. Bus passengers, unlike THAI passengers, hardly have bargaining power.
I can see that the rehab plan has put the focus on a debt moratorium.
According to the rehab plan, as the agency will have fewer bus drivers and conductors, it will install an e-ticket system. This reminds me of the failed cashless system that cost 1.6 billion baht that was scrapped a short time after it was introduced in April last year.
The BMTA said it would offer day and monthly tickets -- a day pass at 30 baht, a monthly pass at 635 baht for students and 720 baht for the general public. That sounds acceptable. But a single ticket that costs 15 baht, which is the starting price, is a bit too high for bus users, usually low- and middle-income earners. The plan to connect bus routes to other modes of public transport -- boats and city trains -- is an ideal way to boost mobility while the agency plans to hire a new fleet of 2,511 EV buses which should help reduce city air pollution a little.
However, I'm not so sure if it's a good idea to award the concession to operate the service to private operators. I cannot imagine private operators putting passengers' interests before making a profit. And we already have a lesson, the so-called rot ruam concessionaires which operate many routes in Bangkok charging higher fares versus the BMTA buses, while serviceability is not even in their vocabulary. The infamous bus No.8 which is synonymous with being fast and furious on city roads has hit the news headlines many a time.
Another proposal to cut the number of routes to less than half, from 269 to 108, looks set to be another disaster for passengers. Concessions for 54 more routes will be awarded to private operators.
In a press interview, BMTA director Surachai Iamwachirasakul proudly said fewer routes will benefit road users as there will be more public space (because buses, with their bigger size, take up more road surface?). Fewer buses on the roads, he insisted, would mean lighter traffic and less air pollution. I am afraid the opposite is the truth. In more advanced countries, buses have priority as they, if operated with efficiency, are a solution to traffic problems. Private cars are the villains on the roads, Mr Surachai.
The director is confident fewer routes will cause no problem for passengers as they can use the fixed-fare day pass to hop on and off any bus all day to get to their destination.
It's clear that the director doesn't know his product. Does he know how long one has to wait for a bus to arrive, not to mention how long one can get stuck in traffic?
The rehab plan may be good for the cash-strapped agency but not its customers. Obviously, the BMTA only aims to outsource the service, and gain more income from renting its property. Efficiency, and serviceability will likely remain elusive. Why do we need to spend our tax money to hire these people at a state agency?