Commentary: Singapore’s MRT system is too big to fail but is enough done to improve reliability?
Too big to fail does not mean it will not. What it means is that everything that needs to be done to prevent failure must be done, says former veteran newspaper editor Han Fook Kwang.
by Han Fook Kwang · CNA · JoinSINGAPORE: Singapore’s Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system is too big to fail.
If there were any doubts about this truth, the incident on the East-West Line on Sep 25 should stop it in its tracks.
Too big to fail does not mean it will not. No system is completely foolproof. What it means is that everything that needs to be done to prevent failure must be done. It also means that if there are too many failures, not enough has been done.
It doesn’t matter what the operators or authorities say about their plans to improve reliability - the proof of the pudding is in the eating and every major disruption is a signal that perhaps not enough has been done.
Disregarding the early years, there have been 11 significant disruptions since 2011.
Cables have snapped, a tunnel flooded with water, electrical power tripped, a software glitch in the signalling system, a train stalled in a tunnel, among other incidents.
Too many for a system that so many are dependent on? It would appear so.
NOT JUST A MEANS OF TRANSPORT
Why is the MRT system too big to fail?
Look at the data: Last year, there were an average of 3.45 million trips on the MRT and Light Rail Transit, making up about 44 per cent of all commuter travel excluding those by private vehicles.
These numbers will go up in future when more new lines are added. When almost half the population depends on trains for their daily travel, it is a no-brainer that the system is too big to fail.
The latest disruption affected 358,000 passengers on the first day and 516,000 the next day. Over the six days before full service resumed more than 2 million commuters were affected.
The economic cost of travel delays and to businesses affected were huge, not to mention the emotional stress and anxiety caused.
You just have to look at what people were saying on social media for an indication of the public angst.
One positive note this time round: I think there was less of it directed at SMRT staff on the ground compared to previous incidents. In fact, several posts spoke well of them doing their best to help confused passengers.
More of the unhappiness was directed at the operator, its management, the bus bridging services particularly on the first day, and the lack of information during the incident.
Inevitably, the government suffered much collateral damage.
An Institute of Policy Studies survey in 2014 showed how much the MRT meant to Singaporeans, and not just in commuting numbers.
When respondents were asked about 50 significant historical events concerning the country, the launch of the MRT in 1987 was cited as the most positive for them.
The MRT takes pride of place among the people because it represents progress and efficiency.
Conversely any major issue affecting it will be remembered and evoke strong feelings.
When respondents were asked about the 2011 incident when a train stalled inside a tunnel, seven in 10 cited it as an important event and eight in 10 said it would have future implications.
The MRT system is too big to fail for Singaporeans at an emotional level.
The December 2011 incident was investigated by a Committee of Inquiry and led to sweeping changes in SMRT and how it was managed.
Then Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew admitted that the government including the Land Transport Authority were also at fault for failing to hold the operator accountable and ensuring it could deliver safe and reliable service.
Since then, much has been done to improve the system. A S$2.6 billion plan to renew the North-South and East West lines, the oldest here, is nearing completion, with new rail sleepers, signalling and power systems and the third rail, and every train will be replaced with new ones by 2026.
As a result, reliability has improved and the mean-kilometres-between-failure (MKBF), an internationally recognised measurement, has improved and is now more than a million MKBF.
But the nagging question remains amid the disruptions still occurring despite all the efforts so far: Has it been enough?
SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY
There is one other reason for the question to be asked, repeatedly: Lives are at stake.
In the recent breakdown, it was fortunate that no one was hurt when part of the undercarriage fell off as the empty train was being towed to the depot.
There could be more serious consequences if such a catastrophic failure were to happen in a packed train at high speed.
When the late Mr Lim Leong Geok who planned, built and operated the MRT system from the 1960s to the 1980s was asked by colleagues what was the most important thing for him, he said there were three: Safety, safety and safety.
He was a unique founding father of Singapore’s MRT system, an urban planner by training, who devoted his entire working life to public transport.
He had deep knowledge and experience (he also ran SBS, the main bus company) and mentored a generation of engineers who kept the trains running without a major fault for 15 years since operations began in 1987.
Mr Lim has passed on but the culture of safety and reliability that he developed must outlive him.
This is the central question that the panel formed to investigate the recent breakdown needs to answer.
A safety culture has to permeate the entire organisation from the very top man to the worker on the ground inspecting the tracks.
It is not about rules and procedures, though these are important, but a commitment by everyone to develop a mindset and working habits that places safety at the very top.
To be fair to SMRT, it has put in place a safety culture programme.
But culture is developed from day-to-day interactions and is strengthened by men and women who possess deep knowledge and experience of train operations which is by itself a highly specialised engineering field.
It is not only about maintenance schedules and inspection programmes but about the person doing the job. They might be going completely by the book, but did they spot something amiss in the axle, for example, that a less experienced pair of eyes would not?
Did the driver of the tow vehicle bringing the trains to the depot hear anything out of the ordinary when the undercarriage gave way damaging more than 2km of track along the way?
The panel conducting the investigation will no doubt be asking these questions.
For SMRT, there is one additional issue about staffing experience that needs to be asked, and it is about those at the very top.
If too many at senior levels are brought from outside the industry, there could be a serious deficit of knowledge and experience at the top,
You may not be able to find another Mr Lim Leong Geok.
But precisely because you can't, you have to ensure there are enough with industry experience to provide the necessary backup.
The MRT is too big to fail to do otherwise.
Han Fook Kwang is currently a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. He was a board member of the Land Transport Authority from 1999 to 2005 and a former veteran newspaper editor.
Sign up for our newsletters
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app