Rate of Breakdowns on MRT and LRT Lines

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the average number of car-kilometres between incidents that caused greater than five-minute delays on MRT and LRT lines in the past one year; and (b) how this compares to other metros which are members of the Community of Metros (CoMET) and Nova international railway benchmarking groups.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport what the Government will be doing to restore confidence in the reliability of the MRT system in light of the increasingly frequent service disruptions.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Manap has asked about the average car-km between incidents that caused greater than five-minute delays on our MRT and LRT lines. It is the norm for the incident rate of service disruptions for MRT and LRT lines to be expressed in terms of incidents per 100,000 train-km operated, with a lower incident rate indicating a more reliable service level. I will therefore provide the information requested using that framework. Let me also mention upfront that the performance of the various MRT and LRT lines varies due to differences in system design and performance of equipment installed.

For 2011, the number of incidents that caused more than five-minute service delays for the various lines per 100,000 train-km were as follows: 1.8 incidents for the North-South-East-West Line (NSEWL); 1.0 for the North East Line (NEL); 2.1 for the Circle Line (CCL); 5.1 for the Bukit Panjang LRT (BPLRT) and 1.9 for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT).

Of the two operators, only SMRT is a member of the Community of Metros (CoMET) and Nova railway benchmarking groups. I understand that in the latest benchmarking exercise that was carried out for FY2010, SMRT's performance placed it in the top 25% of the group, but for confidentiality reasons, the other metros' rankings were not disclosed.

Regardless of what the figures suggest, the recent spate of service disruptions has inconvenienced and frustrated many commuters, as Mr Giam's question suggests. We take a serious view on this. We know that commuters' confidence in our rail system can only be restored by improving its reliability and have clearly communicated this expectation to the operators.

Several programmes have already been put in place to improve the reliability of various lines. SMRT recently announced plans to spend about $900 million on the renewal and upgrade of the ageing NSEWL. Apart from this, LTA and SMRT have been working together since last year on an improvement plan for the BPLRT, and several measures resulting from this have already been implemented.

More must be done to improve the reliability of the system in a holistic and systematic way. A panel of experts from the LTA and SMRT was formed with this intent. The joint team will comprehensively review near-term plans to make improvements to the system, as well as long-term plans to replace the operating and infrastructure assets that are reaching the end of their lifespan. They will also review improvements to the maintenance regime where necessary.

Page: 185

On top of this, the LTA is conducting a comprehensive review of the current regulatory and penalty regime. The review will take into account lessons learnt from the most recent service disruptions, as well as any recommendations that may arise from the ongoing Committee of Inquiry investigations. This will further strengthen our current regulatory and penalty regimes.

Let me assure the House that decisive measures are being taken to improve the reliability of the rail system. These measures will take time and may involve some inconvenience, such as during occasions when we have to allow for prolonged shutdowns to allow for more time for maintenance and upgrading works to be carried out. I seek Members' patience and understanding in the meantime.