1. is there no other way than to tax the motorist in order to control car population and road traffic?
2. why must the motorist pay for a policy that discriminates against them?
3. why can’t the govt pay to control the car population and traffic congestion?

i think we are so accustomed to ‘paying and paying’ that we’ve forgotten that we need not have to solve all problems by paying.

why can’t the govt dangle some cash incentives to encourage the public to use public transport instead?

why can’t the public transport commuters be given rebates of say $30 – $50 a month? I am sure the car population and road congestion will vanish overnight.

if the carrot is not big enough, increase it to $100 a month. don’t tell me it won’t work.

the only reason it won’t work is because the govt is not willing to part with the cash needed for such a scheme to work.

it’s all about money. to use our money or the money with the govt.

Direct or indirectly, they goes into maintaining the those obscene papee ministers salaries, no choice the old man needs all these ppl to pull votes for the next GE to win the next 5 years term and continue his tomenting of the citizens.

As to the ERP $$. Where does it all go? THe ministers bonuses? Why doesn’t we see these $$ being pump back into the community like preventing the hike of bus and train fares?

Can someone enlighten me?

and that PAP will use scare tactics to make sure the public vote for them?

Check out what MM Lee has just said – Singapore will crumble if PAP is not in power….
http://news.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20080626-72963.html

nice…very nice…

About 1 KM after the gantry, there is a speed camera. Most drivers, just to be safe, slows down. Moving forward, there is the climb up Sheares Bridge and its common to see heavier vehicles (vans, bus and lorries as well) on lane 2. For heaven’s sake, this is a 4 lane highway! What are the slow moving vehicle doing in lane 2?

To make matter worse, the slip road from the ECP service road joins ECP just before the gantry. As all drivers would have noticed, vehicles will try to squeeze their way in the leftmost lane and quickly try to get into the 2nd leftmost lane. Well this slows down traffic considerable, and conviently just before the ERP.

With all these obstacles (slip rd, speed camera, steep bridge), how not to have slow traffice?!

Is it justifiable to charge ERP here? My experience (between 7:30 – 8:00 AM) is that there is practically no jam until after the Fort Rd flyover. At most, the jam is about 2 KM (from Fort Rd) and its all over 1/2 to 3/4 way up the bridge. With the new average speed method of determing slow traffic and ERP rates, I am waiting for the rate to go down. I am not holding my breadth though.

So, get rid of the speed camera, improve the slip road access or better still divert it and I am sure they won’t be anymore jams.

I have no idea how to get those heavy vehicle off lane 2 in a 4 lane highway though, short of having traffic cops there to book them for road hogging. Anyone know of this is still an offence?

2. The suggestions are good but surprising for a PAPist — surprising because they reveal an ignorance of what the LIEgime is all about, what its true 5 Aims really are [see my essay in http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/university-admissions-employment-and-help-for-the-poor/#comment-12416
-- just scroll down to my LAST Comment of 21 paragraphs, ignore the earlier, shorter, incomplete, versions].

3. They also reveal a hopefulness, a hope that the LIEgime is about good govt, or governing in the interests of the people instead of for itself [5 Aims], alas, a hope long betrayed right from 1959.

4. They also reveal a belief that things can change, for the better, and that all it takes is to suggest good ideas for improvements to happen. Another belief wrongly founded.

5. They reveal a misunderstanding of the nature of Power and how it Transforms almost every powerful man or woman into his/her worst manifestation possible, to the point of Absolute Evil even as they look themselves in the mirror every day and see a halo. Or wear White.

6. Finally, they reveal a naivete and a Sheepish mind to swallow all that PAPaganda, doubtless very powerful, the most extensive brainwashing in the history of mankind, over half a century so many have known nothing else, since, until the Internet, there WAS nothing else, to contradict the Offical Versions of Everything. This is why TOC is so vitally important. I state this somewhat worryingly, that my opinion thus may cause it to be destroyed, either bought out — its leaders and majors bought out, either directly or indirectly, even unknowingly, through job placements, deliberate time constraits, etc, in any of numerous ways the richest and most powerful govt in history has at its disposal. But I know that what TOC has already done, has started, will not easily be destroyed even if TOC is. Another will arise, and another, and another. ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’, which is why it abhors the LIEgime and the PAP. They are truly EMPTY.

* * *

Why Not Make Bus, Train Rides Free?

Other than the basic necessities of housing, food and education, the cost of transportation is probably one of the biggest expenditures of those in the last 20 per cent of the household income scale.

Statistics for the year 2003 show that households in this group have a take home pay of about $800 a month on average. A family of four would easily be spending about 40 to 50 per cent of this on transportation.

The money would go on the husband and wife’s combined bus/MRT fares just to get to and from work, and for their children to go to and from school. Trips to the market, a movie, tuition class or a hawker centre would be extra.

To people in such a tight financial situation, the catchphrases for the 2005 Budget (Creating opportunity, building community) and the 2006 Budget (Building on our strengths, creating our best home) will mean little – unless these are translated into something tangible, significant and pervasive.

Holistic approach

One way to do this, of course, is to help this low-income group. Considering the sum they have to pay for the necessity of travelling, the most effective way to ease their burden would be for the authorities to pay their transport bill.

Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on installing the Emas information system – which merely tells motorists how many minutes it will take them to get from where they are to various destinations – and other high-tech gimmicks of questionable value to commuters, surely it would make more sense to use that money to fund free bus and train services.

How can, you may say. That is tantamount to Singapore taking a giant step down the slippery slope that leads to a “welfare state”.

But that is far from the case, if the country takes a holistic approach to the matter, rather than view Singapore’s transportation system in compartmentalised silos of public transport and private transport, which is the situation now.

This is why: To pay for the free bus and rail system, I propose using the monies from motor vehicle taxes and vehicle quota premiums.

Consider – for the eight-year period from financial year 1997 to 2004, the average revenue collected from these two sources was $3.73 billion a year. Just over half of this amount – $1.99 billion annually – was used to develop the country’s transport infrastructure, that is, its roads, air terminals etc.

Which means, there was a surplus of $1.795 billion a year.

This sum is more than sufficient to fund Singapore’s public bus and rail services fully.

There would even be a hefty surplus of more than $1 billion if the two companies that run these services are merged.

According to SBS Transit’s 2005 annual report, the company’s total operating expenses was $533.2 million for the year ending Dec 31, 2005. Of this, 49 per cent or $261.2 million was spent on wages for staff.

SMRT Corp’s 2006 annual report reveals that its total operating expenses was $$572.9 million for the year ending March 31, 2006. Of this, 44.3 per cent or $253.5 million went to pay staff and related costs.

Private transport funding

If both SBS and SMRT are de-listed, then merged and converted into a non-profit statutory board running free bus and rail services, a lot of the expenses associated with fare collection – equipment, hardware and software – will be eliminated.

At the same time, most of the costs related to business development, investor relations, corporate disclosure and compliance, quarterly reporting and finance can be drastically reduced.

Having this new, merged agency will result in a much lower bill for wages, as only one set of administrative and support staff will be needed instead of two. Moreover, the cost of two sets of market-driven salaries for high-powered top management can be replaced with one set for an equally professional and competent team.

There will also be savings from the synergies arising from the elimination of duplicate routes and maintenance equipment.

At the same time, the SBS and SMRT’s taxi companies should be privatised, which means the expenses associated with running these cab services can be excluded from the operating costs of the new merged agency.

Doing all this could slash the new agency’s total operating expenses by at least 40 per cent, from $1.12 billion a year, which both SBS and SMRT pay now, to around $650 million annually.

Win-win-win situation

If Singapore plumps for this radical route, it will probably be the first large-scale implementation of a free public transport system in the world.

And one that is funded not by the government, but by motorists.

This would avoid any taint of social welfare and allow vehicle owners to have the satisfaction of seeing their motor taxes put to tangible as well as good use.

Moreover, with free public transport, a segment of this group will be greatly encouraged to switch from private to public transport – something which the authorities are currently working to achieve. If the switch does happen, it would ease the demand for more cars and more roads.

As a side benefit, tourists will be pleasantly surprised to have the unusual privilege of free public transport, which could increase the number of visitors here.

At the same time, taxi services will be prodded to become more competitive, which will benefit consumers too.

That promise of “Building on our strengths, creating our best home” will no longer merely sound good. It will be seen to be actually happening. And once again, Singapore will underline its already recognised ability to solve traffic problems.

Most importantly of all, poorer citizens will have a huge financial burden lifted from their shoulders.

I have some very bold proposals

1) Make it mandatory that a sizeable amount of revenue collected from ERP, roadtax, COE and petrol duties MUST BE USED to upgrade and improve the public transport system and infrastructure.

2) Remove most of the regulations with regards to private bus operators so that they can operate much more freely and compete with SBS and SMRT

3) Merge SBS NEL and SMRT into one railway corporation to cut unnecessary duplications. The savings can be used to reduce the fares for passengers. This was done in Hong Kong when Kowloon-Canton Railway (KCR) and MTR merged into the now MTR Corp.

4) As taxis are closer substitutes to owning a private car than buses and trains, charge taxis much lower ERP such that people would avoid driving and call a taxi. They may even think twice of owning a car in the first place. You rather have more taxi rides than having more cars on the road.

5) Half of the PTC should comprise of those who DO NOT DRIVE and take public transport.

6) Agreements must be signed between the Government and the public transport giants that in return for having the monopoly to operate the railway network and bus routes for certain number of years, they must cap their profits at a certain %.

Anyone interested in taking up these suggestions?

For you convenient, I have posted the link for your pleasure viewing. http://www.smrt.com.sg/main/index.asp

Just do the comparison between the two links.
http://www.mtr.com.hk/jplanner/eng/planner_index.php?spot=1&start=12&destin=15&x=63&y=16

This work weel for local who sledom take the train as well.

Sorry forogt to give you the link for their published Annual Report. You need to install Silverlight though to read it. Here is the link.

http://www.lta.gov.sg/corp_info/annual_report_0607/silverlight.html

They have those information publicly available. It’s just that we are confused who’s who.

You need to go visit the press release to get a clue who’s incharged. Here it is. http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=1853
Cheers!

- an annual report of sorts from LTA.
They take money away from us, then its only fair they tell us how they spend it.

“this is what we get from ERP last year. This is how we spent it. These are the activities we’ve done. This has shown results in that we’ve reduced bla bla bla….”

In business, private sector, we continually have to prove our existence and our roles to the bosses, every QUARTER. Since we’re Singapore Inc, then its only fair that civil servants stand up to the same scrutiny. And only then, i say, you can equate your salaries to the private sector and earn the same amount of money.

its not just NGOs or press etc, I would suggest organisations like the Chinese/ Malay/India Chamber of Commerce, petrol companies, CASE, other Ministries too…

If there is an ERP rise, how does it affects schools, hospitals, the military?

Everyone should be INVITED and given an opportunity to comment on how an ERP rise can impact their members and stakeholders.

yes – it will slow down the decision making, but at least it will be a decision everyone agrees, and for the betterment of a “people-centred transport system”.

you brought up an interesting point. sorry, guys, if you all have commented on this previously.

COE and ERP. If they keep constantly putting up ERP and raising prices, then whatever happened to the COE?

I’m beginning to think that COE and ERP planners dont talk to each other. Why are they NOT TALKING? I’m beginning to think its because they are different “business units”? i say this, and not “departments” because, i beginning to think that their goal is to become a profit centre, rather than an administrative tool to SOLVE our land transport needs.

Are they in line with the overall Mission and Objectives of their organisation?

I’m looking at the LTA website, the senior executives who are supposed to run LTA, their names are not there. The first statement is “we are part of the Ministry of Transport”….who runs LTA? who’s in charge? i dunno. Who runs the thinktanks in LTA who come up with all these wonderful ideas and policies? I dont know.

What does this tell me? the lack of taking accountability. Whatever they do, its not their fault…its the Ministry of Transport. If we reflect this against the Mas Selamat case, the NKF case, we can begin to see what is wrong with our public sector. NO ONE AT THE LOWER LEVELS WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY. Everything is back to the Ministers and the Govt.

Each ” business unit” goes about doing just what is nominally required, or just enough to make themselves look good to the boss. eveyrthing else is left for the Ministry to decide and take responsibility.

So – a small suggestion to solve the public transport issue,

1. Give accountability to LTA.
- Publish the names of the people who set these policies on the websites, the people who sit down to think about these policies.
- COE, ERP and whatever other departments they have in LTA, they need to sit down together and solve the problem together.
- remind everyone that their goal is “to provide an efficient and cost-effective land transport system for different needs”, and to achieve the vision of a “people-centred system”.
- They have to announce WHY certain decisions are made, i.e. whatever proposal they plan to bring up to government is open for public scrutiny for a certain period of months.
- Public / press/ NGO/ transport organisations have an opportunity to comment and feedback. (But we have to be responsbile too, in providing input. Not complain but constructive feedback).
- The Ministry implements a solution that been been reviewed and approved by the people most affected, THE PUBLIC themselves.