BMTA NGV Bus Plan

[pong]

sawasdee, hello, oder gruezi mitenand, rene=(khun or nong?) sombat. Nice to see that more people share this interest in the Thai transport scene. Sadly this is my last day this winter in BKK and have not much tme-follow up later.
However, now that the nr of Chinese (assembled in Thailand-the former Tv factory in Rayong) is slowly growing further-not just the yellows here in BKK but also with various other private operators around BKK- I doubt if your points 2+3 are still valid:
the chinese buses are cheaper-and the quality is-for this latest generation-not necessarily less. What I also discovered during recent trips in China itself. The private rot ruam operators clearly always know where to find bargains. But of course none can compete with the Swisstrolleys and other Post buses that easily last over 40 years.
Yes, those seats are not the most comfortable-but thats about the easiest thing to change, I think.
PS; there is also thaitransport.blogspot.com

[Sombat]

Hi Pong,
Thanks for your reply.

You are right, if the chinese buses made in Rayong are cheaper and if the quality is the same like the competitors then I would buy them of course.

When I'm talking about quality we can't compare a Thai or Chinese bus with a Swisstrolley. The standards are just not the same. So in point 2 I'm referring to the imported Golden Dragon buses of the City Bus company.
These are of a very low standard from a technical view.
Things I covered include:
- very bad and loud suspension after a short time in service (I know the streets aren't that good, but even the now 8 to 12 year old Euro II run much much smoother)
- very bad sound insulation of the engine (you can here them but not see them at all, especially at night)
- jerky switching of gears (for the ones with automatic transmission)
- not low floor just one step ( Who can benefit from one step?)

Another point, but related to the company ordering these buses:
- most have manual transmission (old fashioned but cheaper)

Even chinese bus operators have low floor buses in their cities if I remember correctly.
To me it seems the some companies are importing the cheapest buses from China and some middlemen earn a lot of pocket-money. This is also why I don't support the import of the 4000 vehicles. Quality is not the main reason.

I hope that we can see the new BMTA low floor buses in Bangkok made in Korat, Baan Pong, Thonburi and Rayong.

Btw you are leaving Bangkok, so you were there for a winter holiday?
Have a good flight back to Europe!

Thanks for the link as well.

Rene

[gwmss15]

Hi Sombat,

The link pong gave you is incorrect. This is the correct link http://thaitransit.blogspot.com

On the issue of low floor buses in bangkok. There is one small problem the roads of bangkok would create massive damage to the underside of the low floor buses.

Ever take a trip along Rama 2 road the bridges make a lot of low vehicles ground out. even the bumps of Rama 2 road has created stress in the front and rear windows of the golden dragon Chinese buses to the point that these windows have cracks running from the corners toward the middle.

The other problem with low floors is that when the buses travel over flooded roads large amounts of water could enter the buses creating more problems inside. This is a big issue in areas in southern Thonburi and paknam during high tides and the rainy season. It is not an issue that's going away any time soon.

Its probably best to stick with the floor level of the new Chinese buses that are currently in use as the under floor clearance is just enough and the one step keeps the water from getting in the bus during floods.

But whatever bus BMTA decide to buy get one with better seats and suspension than the Chinese buses currently out there.

[Sombat]

Hi gwmss15

Thanks for your reply and the link. I've been following the link for over a year now and it's a very good bloc. Interesting pictures and experiences. Have to meet that guy for sure on my next trip to Thailand.

Regarding the low floor buses. Flooded streets is a very good point. Well maybe BMTA should have different types of buses depending the area they serve.

The condition of the streets is a major problem. Buses built in the old style (body & chassis) don't suffer from bad streets. But buses like the Golden Dragons or all new buses here in Europe are all built as an integral body. If you would remove more than 1 window on each side the roof would collapse.
Cracks can occur, but if the body quality of the bus is at a high level then there should be no problem, even on Bangkok roads.

Here in Switzerland I take the bus on a daily basis and the street from my hometown to the city is very bad. The local bus company replaced nearly all the 20 years+ old buses (built like tanks) with new low floors. And if you're sitting on these low floor buses you can really hear how the body deforms. You can hear it bristling and cracking but there are no problems and cracks at all. Even the oldest lowfloors are now 19 years old and still ok. The manufacturer even gives guarantee here that the bus lasts at least 15 years. Something manufacturer can't give in SE-Asia I think (but we still can't compare the quality level between Europe and SE-Asia; exemption Australia & Japan)

Well I just hope they order good buses and reorganize and optimize the bus routes.

Regards
Rene

[ncr]

Hi gwmss15

Thanks for your reply and the link. I've been following the link for over a year now and it's a very good bloc. Interesting pictures and experiences. Have to meet that guy for sure on my next trip to Thailand.

Well "that guy" is gwmss15.....

[Yappofloyd]

Good to see that the Dems are not letting their coalition partners get away with inflating the prices in this scheme. I wonder what the political fallout will be?
Bangkok bus scheme runs into further roadblock, Abhisit says financial aspects do not add up By: AMORNRAT MAHITTHIROOK 20/05/09
The cabinet has again rejected a Transport Ministry scheme to rent 4,000 natural gas-fueled and air-con buses for greater Bangkok, saying the daily charge for maintenance was too high.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said the figures for the rent did not add up and must be reviewed. It is not the first time the scheme, backed by the coalition Bhumjaithai Party, has been delayed. Political analysts believe the government's unity could be threatened if the project, slammed by critics as catering to the interests of Bhumjaithai, is put on hold for too long. The ministry has been ordered to review the figures with the Finance Ministry and the Budget Bureau and return to the cabinet with updated details in two weeks.

Mr Abhisit said the proposed costs for bus maintenance were higher than those calculated by the working group of Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart, so they should be reconsidered. "It is the duty of the cabinet to carefully consider all proposals. This is normal; otherwise, the cabinet would not need to exist," he said. Mr Abhisit said the cabinet had agreed in principle to the bus lease project on the condition that at least 70% of the new buses would be assembled locally.

Transport Minister Sohpon Zarum, who proposed the 69.8-billion-baht bus lease scheme, tried to explain why the daily maintenance costs for each bus would be higher than the daily rent. He said the daily rent was set at 2,195 baht per bus but the daily maintenance cost was 2,250 baht. The maintenance cost stands at 7.50 baht a kilometre of the actual distance travelled. It is based on the existing maintenance costs that the city bus agency, the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA), posts at 7.60 to 8 baht a kilometre. Mr Sohpon considered the estimate realistic.

Last year, Chulalongkorn University engineers put the bus maintenance cost at 4.50 baht a kilometre. The BMTA has already reduced the estimated bus price from 6 million baht to 5 million a bus, excluding the onboard electronic equipment, the minister said. He said he was ready to let outsiders go over the figures.

A committee of representatives from the Budget Bureau, the Public Debt Management Office and the State Enterprise Policy Office will examine details of the project tomorrow and the minister plans to resubmit it to the cabinet on Tuesday. Mr Sohpon said he did not believe the bus project had been rejected for political reasons.

A Government House source said Mr Abhisit asked Mr Sohpon many questions about the cost leasing, maintenance and interest. The minister was unable to justify the figures so the prime minister ordered a review of the project. The BMTA plans to decommission 3,573 of its old buses - 1,972 air-conditioned buses and 1,601 non-air-con - over the next 10 years.

[Yappofloyd]

Buses, politics and the public interest By: Veera Prateepchaikul 20/05/2009 Bkk Post
The Democrats have once again stalled the Bhumjaithai party's push for the leasing of 4,000 NGV buses at a prohibitive cost of 69 billion baht for a period of ten years, but sooner or later they will have to give in otherwise the coalition government's stability may be at stake if the party starts rebelling. The cabinet has instructed the Transport and Finance ministries, in conjunction with the Budget Bureau, to revise and lower the maintenance charges and the loan interest rate.

The fee proposed by the Transport Ministry was 4,780 baht per day per bus. This was broken down into: 2,195 baht for rental, 2,250 baht for maintenance, 157 baht for the electronic system, 31 baht for insurance coverage, 8 baht for tax and 139 baht for management. The total cost of the entire fleet to be leased for a period of 10 years was put at 69.788 billion baht.

A special panel headed by Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart worked out a separate set of charges for the same project. The fee per day per bus was 4,522 baht -- 2,537 baht for rental, 1,359 baht for maintenance, 170 baht for the electronic system, 31 baht for insurance, 8 baht for tax and 417 baht for management. The total cost was estimated at 66.021 billion baht.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva who chaired the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, said it was the duty of the cabinet to consider every project carefully. His statement apparently was intended to pre-empt the Bhumjaithai party which oversees the Transport Ministry from accusing the cabinet, or to be more specific the Democrats, of double standards. The figures to be revised are the maintenance cost and loan interest rate, the two items deemed by the cabinet to be too high. The recommendation will given to the cabinet in two weeks.

Transport Minister Sophon Zarum, a pretege of Newin Chidchob of the Bhumjaithai party, has yet to comment publicly about the cabinet’s decision to further delay the project, which is viewed with suspicion by critics as a big piece of cake greedily eyed by politicians. As for Mr Newin himself, if he is not happy with the Democrats’ handling of the issue he is not likely to say it in public. The bus leasing scheme is not the first Transport Ministry project targeted by the cabinet. Earlier, the ministry’s dust-free road construction plans were substantially cut by the cabinet.

Eventually the Democrats will have to give in to Bhumjaithai, their major coalition partner, over the bus project -- which is, after all, in the best interests of the city’s bus commuters. Since, all the buses would have airconditioners travel would be more pleasant than using the hot buses mostly operated by private companies under licence to the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority, the city’s sole public bus operator.

But the Democrats need to see to it that the costs of the project, now estimated at between 66-69 billion baht, are written down to a reasonable and proper level. Outright rejection of the project would certainly offend the Bhumjaithai party, which would not bode well for the stability of the coalition government.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor of the Bangkok Post

I liked this comment on the post online;

Discussion 4 : 21/05/2009 at 01:42 AM4
Has anyone actualy added these figures up? At 4,780 B per day = $159.00 per day. Multiply this by 365 days in a year = $58,035 per year. Multiply this by 10 years (term of lease) =$580,350.00 For that amount of money they could BUY the buses for 2/3 to 1/2 of that price and actualy OWN them and not be at the mercy of someone else. Once again, too many hands in the pot wanting "their" money. AND of course who pays....everyday people. No matter how hard some people try to improve Thailand.....Some things never change.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/o...-stalled-again

[Yappofloyd]

Sohpon alters BMTA's bus plan to win over cabinet, Cost cut, but investors are still not convinced By: AMORNRAT MAHITTHIROOK 22/05/09 Bkk Post
The Transport Ministry will ask the cabinet to reconsider its controversial new bus fleet project after slight adjustments were made to the price specifications.

Transport Minister Sohpon Zarum yesterday held talks with Finance Ministry officials to finalise the cost of the plan to lease 4,000 buses for the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority. He said the cost would be reduced to 67.9 billion baht. The cabinet rejected the project on Tuesday after considering the cost of 69.8 billion baht as too high. It exceeded the estimate of 62 billion baht made by a panel led by Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart.

After yesterday's discussions, Mr Sohpon said the maintenance cost for each bus should still be 7.50 baht a kilometre. The annual interest rate was settled at 9%. He said the revised figures would be put to the cabinet on Tuesday. He was confident he could fully explain all of the details. The minister said the project would not cause rifts between the Bhumjaithai Party and the Democrats led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. The plan calls for 70% of the new buses to be built locally. The leasing plan is set for 10 years.

Boon Wanasin, an investor and chairman of Piyavate Hospital, on Wednesday expressed interest in the project, saying he might team up with local automotive assemblers including Thonburi Group to build the buses with engines supplied from China and Germany. But Dr Boon warned the BMTA that it had set. the daily rent too high at 4,870 baht a bus, making the project unfeasible. "The figures in the BMTA's plan are not feasible. What the BMTA is thinking will lead to losses. It will not be able to pay the daily rent of 4,870 baht as it will have to bear other costs as well," Dr Boon said.

He suggested the BMTA exclude unnecessary equipment such as global positioning systems and electronic tickets. Passengers could drop coins into boxes or buy tickets at bus stops. Cutting the unnecessary features could save tens of billions of baht. Acting BMTA managing director Chairat Sa-nguansue claimed the project was feasible as it was based on the agency's minimal passenger count of 50% of capacity. Senator Paiboon Nititawan questioned the BMTA's flat rent rate for the entire 10 years of the lease. He said the rent should gradually decline as the buses became older.

EDITORIAL Bus plan needs clear answers, BKK Post 22/05/2009
The Abhisit Vejjajiva cabinet made the right decision in ordering another review of the Transport Ministry's NGV bus rental project on Tuesday. There has been something fishy about this project right from its inception during the tenure of the Samak Sundaravej government more than a year ago. This project should in no way be allowed to get off the ground until every detail in the ministry's proposal is satisfactorily explained, to convince the public that the project is indeed above board and that taxpayers' money will be spent wisely for the benefit of the city's commuters.

Under the cabinet's instructions, Transport Minister Sohpon Zarum will have two weeks to clear up two contentious issues: Why has a steep maintenance fee been added to the rent, and why is the interest rate calculated in the investment as hefty as 10.5% per annum?

The cabinet's refusal to easily let through this 69-billion-baht scheme lends weight to the long-held suspicion in many quarters regarding the "unusual" nature of the project. Allegations have been more than widespread that it has been designed to benefit a political group now supervising the Transport Ministry. While Minister Sohpon of the Bhumjaithai party continues to insist on the project's transparency, he has yet to convince the public in general and the cabinet in particular that only the public will fully benefit from this expensive project.

The project was originally proposed in its full form last year to allow the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority to rent 6,000 buses from private firms for a period of 10 years for 120 billion baht. The threat of a no-confidence motion by the Democrat party then serving in the opposition, forced the Samak government to defer its decision. A committee headed by Maj-Gen Sanan Kachornprasart who was also deputy prime minister at the time, was then set up to study the proposal, which was later downsized to 4,000 buses. The scheme failed to get considered by the short-lived Somchai Wongsawat government and has now re-emerged under the present administration, with the trimmed down but still hefty cost of 69 billion baht.

Undoubtedly, the idea behind the proposal is noble. The project's engineers claimed that by replacing the BMTA's ageing non-air-conditioned diesel buses with the more fuel-efficient NGV vehicles, the operational cost for the financially ailing state enterprise would be substantially reduced. The BMTA currently has accumulated debts incurred through operational losses of 70 billion baht. It is estimated the debt will hit 140 billion baht in 10 years, in the wake of increasing diesel oil prices, if it continues to stick with the present bus fleet.

There is no doubt the BMTA's operations need a major overhaul to improve its service and management efficiency. Many administrations have tried but been unable to bring the agency's balance sheet out of the red zone and to significantly improve its service. The Government's policy to keep bus fares affordable for the poor and the working class has always posed a big challenge for past administrators assigned to oversee the city bus operation.With Bhumjaithai again proposing the project, the Government must make sure this controversial proposal is thoroughly scrutinised. The Abhisit cabinet must have the political courage to reject the project if doubts over its transparency cannot be cleared. It is necessary to protect the public interest, even if doing so places the coalition at greater risk of instability.

[ncr]

I liked this comment on the post online

...or how about this one:

Discussion 5 : 21/05/2009 at 03:56 AM5

As I have repeatedly stated from the very beginning, Transportation Ministry is the most corrupted post and everyone should keep their eyes on it. Not only that, they should never even close their eyes.

Apparently it has become true. It is the most corrupted! They are Newin's devils who got the deal from Abhisit who wanted the support of Newin. What a deal Abhisit got in return.

Now Abhisit is stuck in between the rock and hard place. Abhisit cannot stop the devils because they will make life miserable for him and may have to dissolve the Parliament.

Things are now falling apart after the Reds stopped their protests. But now Abhisit have to deal with the DEVIL Newin and his cronies---Sophon, the Transportation Minister and his crowns, and Porntiva, the Fresh Trader/Sarah Palin of Thailand Who Can See Russia From Her Window!

Discussion 4 : 21/05/2009 at 01:42 AM4
Has anyone actualy added these figures up? At 4,780 B per day = $159.00 per day. Multiply this by 365 days in a year = $58,035 per year. Multiply this by 10 years (term of lease) =$580,350.00 For that amount of money they could BUY the buses for 2/3 to 1/2 of that price and actualy OWN them and not be at the mercy of someone else. Once again, too many hands in the pot wanting "their" money. AND of course who pays....everyday people. No matter how hard some people try to improve Thailand.....Some things never change.

Or you could divide the total cost (69.8 billion Baht) by 4000 buses and arrive at 17,447,000 Baht per bus. (513,000 USD at a more realistical rate of 34 THB/USD, the above poster used 30/1.)

No, nobody's making any excessive profit from this project.....!

[ncr]

Senator Paiboon Nititawan questioned the BMTA's flat rent rate for the entire 10 years of the lease. He said the rent should gradually decline as the buses became older.

Good point. If you really have to rent instead of buying, then at least not under such conditions.

[Sombat]

Deleted. A new calculation is in post # 31. Thanks.

[Sombat]

Good point. If you really have to rent instead of buying, then at least not under such conditions.

But if you lease a car the rent doesn't decline when it is getting older. In the leasing business you pay a flat rate according the contract until it expires.
Same in the Airline industry.

[ncr]

Let's calculate with a more realistic operation costs:
Management: 139 Baht/day
Electronic system: 170 Baht/day
Maintenance: 1359 Baht/day
Insurance: 31 Baht/day
Tax: 8 Baht/day

Total operation costs would be: 1,707 Baht per day

6,720,000 + (1,707 Baht X 365 days X 10 years) =12,950,550 Baht for 10 years

17,447,000 - 12,950,550 = 4,496,450 Baht

...and if we assume your estimate to be correct, then the price for the total of 4000 buses is 17.9858 billion Baht too high, that means the fleet could be purchased and maintained for 51.8 instead of 69.8 billion.....

[Sombat]

yes you are right. Even if my estimate is too low and the operation costs are at the proposed 2 555 Baht a day it's still cheaper to purchase them...

In the longer term to buy is always cheaper than to lease or to pay back...
It doesn't matter if it is a Refrigerator, a TV set or a House.

I still don't understand why they want to lease the buses... One reason might be that the corrupt gang wants to do the same in 10 years again... grab the money from the country.

[ncr]

One reason might be that the corrupt gang wants to do the same in 10 years again... grab the money from the country.

Right..... we didn't even think about that aspect yet. What happens after the 10 years? If you buy the buses, you own them, and you'll probably operate them for longer than that. If you lease them, you'll have to sign a new contract after the first one has expired.

In other words, a sure opportunity for the pigs to get their snouts into the trough again.