Reduce commuting time
Wednesday, 14 May 2008, 12:02 am | 59 views
Like most big cities, Singapore is getting over-crowded. It is easy to build highrise apartments and offices for a bigger population but the challenge is in transporting these people between their homes and workplaces and back.
A denser population has led to congested roads, crowded trains and buses and long commuting time. Road traffic is a major contributor to the high energy consumption and increase in oil prices in recent years.
We have to find ways to reduce the need for commuting. People should be encouraged to find work near their homes or to move their homes closer to their places of work. Students should be encouraged to study in a school near their homes too.
Why can’t more people work near their homes? The obvious answer is that too many workplaces are centralised in the central and other business districts. Businesses find it easy to recruit from a bigger talent pool from all over Singapore, if their workplaces are convenient for their employees to travel to.
This means a lot of commuting. Most people have to spend one hour or longer to travel to work. And they have to spend another hour or more to travel home. This has to be multiplied by two million workers.
An alternative
Imagine a different situation – say, one third of these workers are able to work near their homes. This will reduce the commuting demand by one third. The congestions on the roads, buses and trains will be reduced by one-third. Energy consumption will also be reduced. Traveling time will be shorter.
What is needed to make it possible for people to work near their homes?
First, businesses must find it feasible to locate their big offices and workplaces in the residential towns where their potential workers are.
The businesses may be able to find some of their workers from the residents of the town but they may need to attract workers living in other towns, who do not mind moving their homes to be closer to their places of work.
Social and financial obstacles
There are two main obstacles in getting people to move their homes – social and financial.
The social obstacle is the desire to live near their parents and friends, or familiarity with their current neighbourhood.
The financial obstacle is the high cost of relocating to another place, such as stamp duty, legal and agent fees. This can amount to five per cent of the cost of the property, which is already very high in Singapore.
Another obstacle is the rule on the financing of Housing & Development Board flats. I understand that many people will not quality for the same attractive financing terms, if they changed to a new flat.
It may be difficult to overcome the social obstacle. Perhaps we can deal with the financial one instead.
Reducing the cost of relocation
If the cost of relocation can be reduced to say, 1 percent and the financing obstacle is removed, more people may be willing to consider this option. They can reduce their traveling cost and time and improve their quality of life by living near their places of work.
Another option is to encourage people to rent their property, rather than to buy the property that they live in. This will give them more flexibility in changing their places of residence and to be near their offices.
Under the current taxation system in Singapore, there is an incentive for people to buy their homes, rather than to rent it. This has led to the situation where more people buy their homes, and then get stuck to it. They lose the flexibility to move.
Renting, not buying
If renting is made as attractive as home ownership, more people may be interested to consider renting as an option. For those who wish to have a stake in property, they can invest in real estate investment trusts (REITS). The market will soon set up residential REITs, comprising of private properties or HDB flats, for these people to invest in, while they rent their homes.
I do not expect this new concept of “live near the place of work” to apply to all families. Some families have two income earners who have to work at different locations. Some may have to consider where their children study or where their parents live.
But it may be practical for some families, for example, where the spouse is a homemaker or is interested to do part time work in the neighbourhood.
We should also promote the concept of working from home. Some types of work are suitable to be done at home, such as call center work, design work, data entry and forms processing. These types of work can be done using a personal computer connected to the internet. The workers can receive and submit the completed work through the internet and be paid on a piece rate based on the actual work that is completed.
A coordinated national effort needed
We need a coordinated national effort to implement the “work from home” or “work near home” idea, including incentives for the pioneering businesses to make this possible. Incentives always help to achieve the desired outcomes.
To make this dream possible, and to reduce the commuting demand, we need the following policy actions:
1. Waive the stamp duty and reduce the agency and legal fees on property purchases for people who want to move to be close to their places of work
2. Give the same tax incentives for people to rent their place of residence, as is now extended to home ownership.
3. Encourage businesses to set up their offices and workplaces in the residential towns. Give incentives to cover the relocation costs or to have a lower starting cost.
4. Give incentives to businesses to promote working from home.
I hope that Singapore can take the lead in finding a solution to this challenge which is also faced by big cities all over the world. We can also contribute to the reduction in energy consumption and reduce global warming.
————————
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
Some of my observations, based on my working experience in both Spore and NZ:
1) When I was in Spore, I subsribed to the idea of needing to buy a flat, but with that, I lost the freedom to live near my work place which changes on average once every 3 years. I spent between 1 to 1.5 hours commuting one way daily, and it’s not a pleasant journey because of the crowded public transport.
2) Since I do not plan to live for the long term in NZ, I’m renting now, and I managed to find an apartment that’s a 5 mins walk from my office, right at the heart of the city. It’s very convenient with everything within 15 mins walking, and many people are quite surprised to learn that I don’t own a car here. One problem though, rental can fluctuate a lot, I was recently hit by a 25% increment. I believe it’s the same situation in Spore.
3) Living near one’s work place has many benefits, for example, more sleep, less stressful commuting, better concentration and productivity at work. A healthier lifestyle too, because I can go home for lunch instead of eating out (the cost saving is not significant in Spore’s context, but it makes sense in NZ). Not to forget the savings in transport cost, as mentioned in your article. A lot of things can happen in a 1 to 1.5 hrs commute, eg. MRT break down, accident on the road causing massive jams, which add to the stress(knowing one will be late for work).
4) For the majority of Singaporeans, it probably makes more financial sense to buy a HDB flat at the 2.5% mortgage rate, because it makes the mortgage payment very affordable than the average rental. In NZ, the mortage rate is 9%+, so renting can be more attractive.
5) The differences in the culture, especially in the mindset of most employers. I’m not sure is it just me, but in the 3 jobs I have held in Spore, most of the time I’m expected to be on call 24/7, this is very disruptive to my personal life. But here in NZ, although I’m in the same line, the expectation is 40 hours a week, and it’s up to us to adjust our daily hours. I tend to believe that Sporean employers need to see their employees “working” at their desks in the office, and one feels uneasy to leave on the dot. Telecommuting is also very common in NZ. People work from home at times for various reasons, like to take care of their children.
It’s a pity that the public transport in Auckland is not very well implemented and expensive, low demand leads to low frequency, even so, the buses seldom reach their full seating capacity. If only they are better, I’ll definitely live in the suburbs.
I like this article. Transport congestion means people spend unwarranted time on the road and we all agree that it is unpleasant and has a detrimental effect on the economy. I agree that there a national effort is neccessary to find alternatives to overcome this problem. But I am not sure if what is proposed here has real welfare benefits and am deliberately critical here.
When asking businesses to relocate to residential towns (Policy No. 3), I believe that we shall be mindful that is an effect of agglomeration of businesses in a certain areas because there are positive externalities for business to be close to each other. Another thing that must be considered is if the cause of such agglomeration is because of historical reasons (the port and river) or because there are simple natural advantages to being in a certain location (one econometric study used a natural experiment to provide support for the latter case). For example, logisitic companies might want to be near the ports. In the latter case, if we introduce policies which give incentives for firms to move away from the CBD to New Towns, then we may be wasting our taxes on subsidies that are actually distorting these hidden economic incentives
The policies (policy no. 1 & 2) to get people to move nearer to their workplaces must also be carefully examined. Some considerations are, the cost of relocation, and most importantly the extra cost of housing, assuming that living nearer to business areas might be more expensive . It means we have to weigh the benefits of less travel time against less disposable income. Hence, such policies may be distortionary. If one has a lower income, then it may make sense to live in areas which are cheaper (and probably further) even after taking into account the cost of wasted time travelling. Furthermore, there is housing available (for the right price) near or in the CBD (Novena, Tanglin, Redhill) and there are developers willing to develop housing in these areas because of the demand (just think of enbloc). Even if there are land constraints, we have a functioning property market. People that can afford to live near their workplace and like to do so, can do so.
I like the idea of telecottaging the most and feel that it makes the most sense. But I also agree with hanglian that there are cultural aspects that must be overcome.
It will be extremely optimistic to expect people to accommodate for this change, even if it maybe for the greater good. The free economy is powered by selfishness. No matter how noble your intentions are, they seem unrealistic.
It is only natural that anyone will first choose to get a job close to their homes. No one enjoys suffering in the MRT or bus for hours everyday or spend a quater of their salary on bus fare. The onus is on the government to implement changes and not the people. If the government propose to increase the population and bring in foreigners without consulting the citizens, then it is their call. They failed to anticipate this surge in usage something that we refer to in IT as Capacity Management.
If anyone here travels along Upper Serangoon Road and has to especially cross Hougang Avenue 2 every morning will understand how I feel.
Still Mr Tan Kin Lian I feel this a great issue that you’ve have brought up. I applaud you for your effort.
For a small city like Singapore, an efficient public transport system is vital for economic growth. In recent years, much of Singapore’s attention has been allocated to attracting foreign investments and spending much on construction, as a result a lack of space.
The idea of working nearer to home, despite being an idealistic solution to congestion, remains far-fetched as far as Singapore is concerned. One reason being that Singapore is simply too packed together.
I wish to respond to the comments by Nimzo. I agree that certain businesses have to be located close together, as they are part of an eco-system and other businesses have to be located close to the port, ariport or their customers,
My proposals are for other businesses that can be relocated without these disadvantages. Examples are:
> Backroom operations
> Office based businesses
If we can get 30% of the businesses to operate in this manner, or to adopt teleworking, we will be able to reduce commuting by 30%.
It is important to reduce the cost of relocation. This is an important aspect of my proposals, i.e. to waive the stamp duty and reduce the legal and agency fees (through a more efficient system).
Rakesh Rai said that my proposals are “extremely optimistic” and Jackson said that they are “far-fetched”. I agree that they are not easy. This is why problems such as global warming will continue to grow bigger until some concerted global efforts are taken. I think that the national effort to reduce commuting and traffic congestion is easier to tackle.
I thank Hang Lian for giving his perspective about renting in New Zealand. It shows that an alternative could be found, if the financial incentives are in the right place. In Singapore, too much incentives are given to buying a hope (i.e. low mortgage interest rate and property tax), and making people stay in that place (i.e high cost of relocation).
May I ask a simple question? If there are 6 people in a household how do you decide who should have the honour of choosing the location of his workplace?
Ideals are good but we have to be practical. This works only for really small household (maximum 2 persons) otherwise there will be much unhappiness
Hi Nancy
You hiave identified a sitaution where it is difficult to implement my suggestion..
Can you help me to identify the sitautions where my proposal will be practical? There must be quite a few.
I do not expect my suggestion to apply to 100%. If it can apply to 30%, it will be a great help to reduce traffic congestion.
The policies and proposals mentioned here will help reduce commuting time. And I agree that even helping 30% of firms to relocate will have huge welfare benefits for Singaporeans.
However, there maybe problems with implementation. For example, Nancy’s point on how to decide on who chooses the location closes to his/her workplace and that someone has to filter out firms types (e.g. back-offices) that qualify for a subsidy. Then we will need to find rules to identify several of these gray situations, while worrying whether these same rules have detrimental and unforeseen feedback effects. Cost of administering such policies (subsidies to firms and government revenue loss) will also have to be factored in. Unless there is a huge case of market failure in the property market in Singapore, I rather the government not interfere.
I really like Policy No. 4 and would like to add one idea to it. This solution would address the issue of congestion more directly: build telecentres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentre) dedicated to businesses/government in our New Towns. These would be offices which have meeting rooms, office suites and other shared complements that any back-office/office based business needs.
Their distinct features would be that
1. Anyone could hotdesk
2. Conference rooms can be booked for a number of time slots.
2. They have features that enable connectivity (e.g. high speed connectivity, VOIP, videoconferencing)
3. They have shared support staff (e.g. receptionist)
4. They have shared common office infrastructure (e.g. printers)
5. Firms/individuals are charged based on time/usage
Advantages
1. A telecentre would always be conveniently located to most Singaporeans if we have one in each New Town centre (Reduce congestion).
2. Companies can indirectly relocate, spend less on relocation cost (helps Policy No. 3) and can relocate quickly.
3. Government would not need to waive stamp duties, legal fees, give incentives to individuals (Policy No. 1 & 2)
4. Smaller firms would be able to use shared office facilities based on need rather than incur heavy investments.
If such an idea is feasible and profitable, why don’t we see entrepreneurs developing such telecentres. I believe that some of the reasons are a high initial development cost and a need of huge economies of scale to make it profitable That is, many companies must be willing to use such facilities even at an early stage. While there is demand for such services, I foresee no one signing up because of lack of understanding of such a service (cultural bias) and possibly the fear that there will be drop in productivity.
If the above is true and yet there are huge welfare gains that could be unlocked, then we have a clearer case of market failure here and there is reason for our government to actively intervene.
Here are some of the proposed steps:
1. Provide low-cost funding to develop such a project.
2. Subsidise the entrepreneur/service provider in the initial stage to lower prices and achieve the critical utilisation level to reduce the time necessary to break-even.
3. Be the first customer (stat boards, union, ministries, GLCs)
4. Educate our workforce to increase producitivity and overcome biases
5. Reduce the cost of broadband in Singapore to lower the cost of connectivity
While many ministries may not be in the CBD, they are still centralised in one location. Hence by moving some operations to telecentres (point 3), they will still be taking the first step in reducing congestion.
Point 4 & 5 are rather broad but I think that they are stumbling blocks to such a solution. I noticed that in a competitiveness report, a lack of educated workforce is cited as the biggest stumbling block for employers in Singapore. Our workforce must be sufficiently equipped to telecommute. The cost of broadband must be sufficiently low to make telecottaging feasible. In the same report, Singaporeans spend about 3% of our income paying for broadband. Many western counterparts pay a smaller percentage and also pay less in nominal terms (after currency conversion). An anti-competition body should study why we are paying more and find solutions.
I agree with Nizmo that telecenters will be useful. I think that it is possible. At the turn of the millenium, I served in a committee to look at the national manpower strategy for the 21st century. My committee proposed a similar concept, which was labelled an I.T. kampong. It was an idea at that time, and is feasible today.
I hope that Nizmo and other entrepreneurs can bring the telecenters into reality.
While I think Mr Tan raised a valid point, I do not think it would be workable in a small city like Singapore…
Unlike the US or Australia, one family can uproot itself to find work in another state or town, chances are we won’t be able to do the same…
Singapore is already so small - each satellite “town” is not self-sufficient like a city say in the US or Australia…a couple is unlikely to find employment in the same town here…
However, I think it is not correct to get distracted from the real crux of the problem - the transportation system is clearly not equipped to handle the mass of people we have now…
[...] - Feed Me To The Fish: ERP - Rates to be displayed at all gantries? - The Online Citizen: Reducing commuting time - national effort needed - A long and arduous road of an entrepreneur: Another Reason To Get A [...]
xtrocious is both right and wrong but I applaud the observation. However, finding jobs in the same area in the States should be taken into perspective. Working in Berkeley and San Jose is probably considered “same town” here but the two locations are about 70km apart!!!
Still xtrocious is right that the real problem is the transportation system, it is really crap compared to down here in the States. Note that cars and gasoline are much cheaper here and so the public transportation can lag behind without significant consequence. Public transportation is expensive for single truip but they benefit benefit frequent riders with monthly pass (and not just kids and teenagers only!).
Try a Hongkong style mini bus transport system running around whole island. It is quicker and able to carry more than a taxi and should be run by the government. TIBS and SBS should not be involved.
I think our MRT system is lousy. During peak period, if you are luckily seated, you do not know the station just arrived as the p.a. system announced only once. You cannot see through the windows for the station sign which are hidden away and out of sight also because of the reflection on the window and the trains are full of bodies. lso, the windows are plastered with advertisements which block our sight.You really have to ask somebody near you what station is outside as you don’t want to overshoot to the next station. In Hong Kong the destination signboard has light when the train arrives at a particular station. Can’t we install this on our MRT train.
No point of writing to LTA or MRT about the incovenience to passengers as there are everready excuses to tell you off.
Osama.sama Mati Lah
Several commentors said that Singaore is a small island, and it is not practical to ask people to live and work in the same town. It is easier to get them to commute to another town or the central business district.
Previously, I had the same opinion. Later, I observed that it does take up to one hour to travel from one part of Singapore to another, due to traffic congestion. I applaud the Government’s efforts to improve the public transport system, such as increasing the train frequency, whole day bus lanes, etc.
I think that this should be supplemented by a conscious effort to reduce the need for commuting. Every part of the strategy helps to solve the overall problem.
I agree that the “reduce commuting” strategy does not apply to everyone. I hope that, with a conscious effort, it can apply to 30% of the population. If we can reduce commuting by 30%, it will be a great help.
There are challenges involved in my proposed strategy. Someone said, “how do we decide on the incentives to be provided to businesses to locate in the suburban towns”. These are matters of detail that can be worked out.
We do have a habit in Singapore (and it is part of our culture) to identify what does not work (i.e. the 70% in my hypothetical case). It will be more helpful to identify what “can work” (i.e. the other 30%).
I hope that the authority monitoring this blog will think “out of the box” and contact me.
I have recently passed out of the 47th BSLC. To my horror I have been posted to ARMOUR TRAINING INSTITUTE, which is based in Sungei Gedong. I live in Upper Serangoon. Commuting there would take me about 2 hours. To get back would obviously take about the same. The journey is ardous.
The one to get to Pasir Laba Camp already takes a toll on me especially when I have corrective training on Saturdays. To avoid jams and take into consideration bad luck when waiting for buses requires me to leave another half an hour earlier to book in.
The great irony is that my posting is NOT based on my results (or so says my Sir and my Sergeants), and that it is completely random. I want to know, why the randomness, especially when there are postings in other camps which are available and are nearer to my house e.g. Medics in Nee Soon Camp or Combat Engineers.
Yes, booking out is a privilege. But I do not believe that it should be such a pain for all of us who cannot afford to drive and take taxis, especially in this time of rising living costs and low NSF pay. Moreover, there are many taxi drivers who do not wish to enter Sungei Gedong because it is such a desolate place.
I am truly stressed by this posting.
My personal experience of travelling from the extreme north to the other parts of Spore shows that the long winding route of the public transport is another reason for the long commuting time. Take SMRT service 963 for example, although it uses the expressway, the whole journey still takes at least 1 hour, (1.5 hrs including the feeder service). This is true for travelling to the eastern(SBS 168) and western parts too.
Taking the MRT is faster, but it’s quite uncomfortable in the morning. I keep hearing people saying that our MRT is so much better than the Japanese Train and the London Tube, I have never been to these places, could somebody please tell us how do they manage with the larger passenger volume? I’m already feeling suffocated and perspiring all over after a short journey.
I must admit though, it’s also partly my fault for choosing to live in one of the most ulu parts of Singapore.
If somebody is willing to provide a premium service that’s faster, more direct and more comfortable, I’m willing to give it a go.
Hi Mr Tan, Sorry for late response as I had some problems to get on TOC’s new
site. I refer to your point of Singaporeans have a habit / culture of identifying what that does not work instead of identifying what that does work (#19/5 8.32am).
What is the difference here, may I ask? If we can identify what does not work, we will have to find out how to counter this, am I correct? IMHO there must be a sincere desire to overhaul our public transport system to entice more people to it in order to free our roads of private cars. We should get to the root of the problem. Your call for a co-ordinated national effort is good but none of the 4 alternatives will be able to achieve the desired effect. Sorry I am just an old lady suffering in our present transport system and unable to offer any solution to you; I agree with Rakesh that it’s the onus of the govt to solve this before we hit 6.5 million. This will turn into a real nightmare.
Dear Nancy,
To solve the traffic congestion problem, most of the efforts in the past have focused on improving the public transport system and building more roads. I agree that this is important.
In my paper, I focused on another strategy, which is often overlooked, namely to reduce the need for commuting. They are to encourage people to work closer to their home, and also to expand working from home (i.e. using the internet).
Some people point out why it is not practical for them to work closer to their home. I agree. My proposal is not intended to apply to 100% of Singaporeans. I hope that it can apply to 30% of Singaporeans.
If 30% of people take public transport less, you may find it more convenient to take public transport (as you obviously do not belong to the 30% that can work closer to their homes).
Let us try to identify the people who now form the 30%. It may require a change of thinking and habit.
I have written in many places on the need to improve our public transport, i.e. buses and MRT. I find the present standard of service by the operators, and their focus on making more profit for shareholders, to be quite unsatisfactory. Read my blog for my comments on these areas:
http://www.tankinlian.blogspot.com
I am a regular user of public transport, although I do own a car.
Mr Tan,
How about having mini buses just like the ones in HK? It is faster and carries more passenger and is very good running in surburaban and maybe downtown as well….can also compliment existing bustops or allow commuters to board /alight anywhere they want. I always admired HK transportation and road networks. It seems to be much better positioned than SG when you consider that their population is so much bigger and their land area(flat land) is lesser than SG.
I agreed with your point that some jobs can work from home and people should be given incentives to stay near their workplace so as to reduce commuting time.
FG
Hi Fever Guy,
I strongly support the idea of light buses to provide a feeder service to MRT stations. I have advocated this idea on many, many occasions in my blog and through many other channels.
One recent blog entry congratulated LTA and SMRT for introducing more train services and asked LTA to allow SMRT to run these feeder services. We should not ask SBS Transit to provide these services as it is against their commercial interest.
We need a more integrated public transport system that can serve the public well, instead of creating inefficiencies that allows the transport operators to impose higher charges and make more profit.
I have long admired the light bus system in Hong Kong. Many people tell me that it is an excellent system (although I have not tried it myself). It make a lot of sense!
Mr Tan,
You are right about the mini buses too and also not getting the incumbent to run or ruin such services if ever rolled out in SG. HK has so much we can learn from them. The way they construct overhead pedestrian bridges linking from one area of shopping to another area is efficient and effective. It is not even in their shopping belt or HK island big malls. It is everywhere in HK. Their octopus contact less card was introduced more than a decade ago as compared to our SMRT introduction. So much more we can learn from HK.
[...] blog posts written with regards to the public transportation problem we’re facing now. Even Tan Kin Lian himself wrote about it on The Online Citizen. I don’t want to be a downer, but let’s face the [...]
Hi Fever Guy,
Two months ago, I emailed the Minister of Transport to suggest that there should be second level sheltered linkways to allow people to walk from various parts of the town to the town center, MRT station and bus terminus.
He sent my suggestion to the Land Transport Authority. Nobody contacted me. It is quite disappointing. It looks like sugestions are not welcomed.
I am glad to learn that Hong Kong has the second level linkways. I think that it makes a lot of sense.
Mr Tan - the reason why there aren’t second level linkways is due to cost or rather who has to foot the bill…I don’t think the government (LTA or whatever ministry or stat board) will pay for it…
If my memory serves me correct, there was a long drawn issue over a covered walkway between a MRT station and a building and there was an impasse over cost i.e. whether SMRT should foot the bill or the building’s owner should do it…
Can’t remember if it was eventually resolved but I suspect not if empirical evidence is anything to go by…
There is still a small gap between one of the Tanjong Pagar MRT exit and International Plaza - one will get wet if it rains…
Good point, I think that the best way to solve the traffic congestion in north east line, is to build some office building in sengkang, punggol area.
Woodlands, yishun also need some more office building.
As for China town, orchid road area, there should be more condos instead of shopping mall and office buildings.