YouthQuake: Public transport the key to a less congested Singapore
Sunday, 8 June 2008, 4:28 pm |
The Workers’ Party Youth Wing (YPYW) held its second YouthQuake forum June 7 titled “Moving with the times -A Transportation Road Map by Youths in Singapore”.
Chaired by WPYW executive committee member and chairperson Bernard Chen, the public forum, with an audience of about 30 people, took place at the party’s headquarters in Syed Alwi Road.
Three youths were invited to speak — 20-year old Republic Polytechnic graduate Jamilah Lim, Nanyang Technological University final-year accountancy student and entrepreneur Kelvin Quee, and 21-year old Alvinder Singh, who recently completed his National Service.
Speakers gave their views on whether the current transportation system in Singapore serves the needs of youths. First speaker Jamilah Lim advocated a common national public transportation concession card for Singaporean students; second speaker Kelvin Quee suggested that privatisation of the transport system was the way to go, and last speaker Alvinder Singh called for a one-car-per-household cap.
Be fair with fares: treat all full-time students equally
First speaker Jamilah Lim spoke on the current fare structure and concessions for students. She explained that while primary to junior college (JC) or centralised institute (CI) students pay a flat fare of S$0.50 on public transport, polytechnic (poly) students pay full adult fare if they do not buy, or travel more than, what the tertiary student concession passes for them allow.
Lim argued that it was very unfair to make poly students pay adult fares, as like their JC and CI counterparts, they were also full-time students. Lim shared with the audience the results of a survey of 100 people she conducted, of which 35 were tertiary students. Lim revealed that 40% of the poly students among the 100 felt that the fares were fair, while 50% of this group felt that they were unfair, that is, that their JC and CI counterparts received subsidised fares while they had to pay adult prices. 30% of the 100 felt that the fares were fair, while 20% did not care. Lim quoted one survey respondent as saying “we don’t actually complain with [sic] low prices”.
“What is the purpose of having a concession pass as a student of an institution of learning in Singapore when the benefits of those wearing a school uniform are not extended to you?” Lim said.
Lim advocated a common national public transport concession card for all full-time Singaporean students, that is, the same level of concessionary fares.
Forum attendee Alex Au asked her how one decided what was “fair”, and gave an example of a 45 year old full-time student studying in a polytechnic. He asked if giving such a student concessionary fare rights would be fair. Lim replied in the affirmative. She confirmed that concessions should be given to all full-time students, that is, the educational status of the individual should be the decisive factor in whether or not to grant concessions. She clarified, though, that most full-time polytechnic students were of the same age as their JC and CI counterparts and that she was referring more to this group rather than the mature full-time student.
To a question posed by forum attendee Gerald Giam as to whether full-time private school students also deserved concessionary fares, Lim also argued that yes, they ought to enjoy the concession as they were not earning an income but studying full time.
Allow privatisation of part of the public transport sector to improve service quality
Second speaker Kelvin Quee gave a summary of Singapore’s land transport initiatives and papers, studies ranking the transport systems and expenditure of different countries, as well as statistics on the profit margins of public transport companies. Quee also shared his personal experience with the bus service that serves the routes in his university campus.
“Our country seems to have this obsession with the hub-and-spokes [transport] model…I think it’s good for flights or for large scale [transport flows], but what about direct point-to-point [transport services]? There are many routes that are unserved, or underserved,” said Quee.
Quee argued that for such routes, the Government ought to allow smaller private operators to compete with the existing public transport operators, as while it might not be profitable for the latter, it could be for the former.
Alex Au asked him to clarify his position, whether he was advocating a fully-centralised public transport system, or a laissez-faire one. Quee replied that he had no fixed position as the two had their merits and drawbacks. Instead, Quee emphasised that the only thing he thought was necessary was the need to introduce competition for un-served, or under-served routes.
Audience member Goh Meng Seng felt that the public transport problem needed to be looked at in a more holistic light, saying that the way housing was built in Singapore contributed to the current public transport problems. He noted that Singapore had to consider the pros and cons of structured central planning (housing is spread out so that you have average population density across areas), or business-centric planning (concentrate housing so that you have high population density, making it easier to provide public transport services to these areas).
Agreeing with Goh, Quee added that there was currently a “capacity-management problem”. He said that while the population was spread out through housing planning, Singapore’s industries are concentrated in the city centre, with the city centre being made a transport hub. This invariably meant that the public transport system would be taxed to the limits at peak hours in the mornings and evenings, as there would be a large flow of people in the same direction at those times.
Restrict car ownership to one car per household only
Last speaker Alvinder Singh gave a summary of Singapore’s transport situation. He noted that currently, roads take up 12% of our total land area in a country that is already land scarce and densely populated. Singh also highlighted statistics on the increasing number of highly-educated, affluent young people, the increase in the car population, especially of large-capacity cars, and the more intensive usage of cars, and suggested that this group of people were likely contributing to the congestion problem on the roads.
Singh gave an overview of the Ministry of Transport’s (MOT’s) policy strategies, elaborating in detail on integrated land-use planning and the making of public transport a choice option. For the former, he highlighted four initiatives in particular: 1) the Government’s buying of land around the rail transit system and then later selling it at a profit, 2) bike, pedestrian and car park facilities around MRT stations, and 3) the decentralising of commercial and other economic activities through the development of regional, sub-regional and fringe MRT stations.
For the latter, he highlighted the Government’s efforts in building new rail lines, running more train trips during peak hours, new bus service frequency rules to take place by August 2009, and the expansion of the bus lane network, as well as extension of the full-day bus lanes.
Coming back to restriction of car ownership to one per household, Singh said that for such a policy to work, there was a need to “integrate public transport into the daily living of Singaporeans”. He identified the Government’s efforts to move in this direction, through the building of more air-conditioned bus interchanges at MRT stations, and LTA and Transitlink’s promise of an Integrated Public Transport Planner to be made available on the Internet by July 2008.
Bicycle lanes, carpooling, and the perceived need for cars
Forum attendees were then given the floor in the open question-and-answer session. Questions relating to the viability of alternative forms/models of transport through a dedicated bicycle lane on all roads or a national carpooling scheme were asked. There was also a robust discussion on the vehicle-ownership aspirations of Singaporeans, and whether Singaporeans could do without cars altogether and rely on public transport, given the small land area.
Bicycle lanes
To the first issue on the viability of having a bicycle lane on all roads, Lim felt that it was a good idea, but would not be adopted as widely as hoped. She felt that while students might consider the idea seriously, those working in the Central Business District (CBD) would also not bite the idea as they would not want to get their work clothes dirty. The latter group would also find it a hassle to handle their work bags and ride at the same time.
Quee felt that having a bicycle lane would come at “great cost” to Singapore. He felt the idea was not viable as there was already congestion on the roads, and having a dedicated lane for bicycles would reduce already-precious road space.
Singh supported the idea and said that it was “the way to go”. Singh highlighted the example of Amsterdam, which has a “very strong cycling culture”. Additionally, Singh noted that it was a green and clean form of travel, and would have the added benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Car ownership and the need for cars
The issue of people’s aspirations of car ownership versus the need for cars as a form of transport drew spirited debate amongst the speakers and forum attendees. All more or less agreed that the growth of cars, if left unchecked, would cause a problem, but there was no consensus as to what extent the Government should regulate car ownership. Quee in particular disagreed strongly with Singh’s suggestion of restricting car ownership to one per household (i.e. if a household chooses to buy a car, they can only buy one), as he felt that this would be excessive Government encroachment into his personal life.
On the same vein of personal choices versus the public good, there was also a philosophical discussion on whether one would actually leave one’s car at home in favour of public transport after spending so much money to buy a car.
In general, though, everyone agreed that people were buying cars because they felt that the current public transport system was not good enough and not meeting their needs.
Carpooling
Quee felt that a national carpooling system would not be viable. He argued that a lot of people considered their cars as a “personal item” and that a car was about “ownership”. Not many people would want to carpool as they would want to have exclusive usage of their car, he argued.
Singh was in favour of carpooling. He suggested that the upcoming Integrated Public Transport Planner could be merged with a national carpooling match-making database, providing a one-stop shop for people to plan seamless journeys.
Private operators will plug the gap between public and private transport
The forum closed with each speaker being presented the WP’s anniversary publication as a token of appreciation.
In a summary of the forum’s discussion on the most immediate and viable solution to the public transport situation in Singapore, forum attendee Gerald Giam said that there was currently “[a] gulf between public transport [and private transport]” in pricing and quality. Private operators could be the key to bridging this gulf, as it would not only introduce more competition in the transport system, but it [would also] provide a more convenient way for people to get from point A to B.
“If [we] pay a bit more, so be it, but…at least [we] do not need to pay taxi fares to get to those places,” he said.
——————
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
RH:
“…not bite the idea as they would not want to get their work clothes dirty…a hassle to handle their work bags and ride at the same time.”
1. In a tiny islet of 46km x 23km, cycling to work like Amsterdamers is truly feasible. It is much faster than waiting for crowded buses and trains, as those who do it will testify, given the stupid Hub&Spoke system of public transport imposed by our geniuses copying large cities.
2. Drawbacks include Safety, Sweating, Parking, Exertion.
3. For Safety, cyclists should be given preferably, their own lane. Cyclists will include battery-powered bicycles, usually about the same top speed as a fast cyclist. Cyclist Helmets should probably be mandatory. Bike bags and panniers will solve the problems of carrying 1’s briefcases, laptops, handbags, etc. Some are lockable, like those on motorbikes. If pavements are allowed for cyclists, this will be safer for Them, though maybe not for Pedestrians! But experience and experiment can solve this. There are ways for both to use pavements rightfully. There may be a need to Type-Approve certain models to ensure roadworthiness, for example, every cycle must have Reflectors, battery-operated Flashers, Reflective Vests/Helmets?, Bell, etc, for night.
4. Sweating is a big drawback in our hot climate. However, if offices can cheaply modify toilets/install hotwater showers and changing rooms for personal make up and grooming after showers, this is solved. A govt tax incentive could encourage every building to install hotwater showers and changing/grooming rooms, [with Lockers]. Even as standalone public facilities built by govt. Maybe a small fee may be charged for use, to encourage building owners to build/maintain them. There is need for shampoo and shower cream dispensers, though most will bring their own. There is a Chicken and Egg problem as people will not buy cycles and cycle to work until there are showers but if they don’t, building owners and govt won’t build them.
5. Physical Exertion pedalling a bicycle is no problem because modern bicycles are cheap, light, [even battery powered], multi-geared, for easy pedalling. The Exercise will be beneficial.
6. Parking could be unsightly but fairly easy to solve by designating/building Cycle Stands, maybe easily by modifying current Roadside Barriers which currently serve only to separate/control pedestrian vs vehicular traffic.
7. Thus, there are no unsolvable problems to promote cycling to work. Just some commonsense initiatives needed.
Hi,
Congrats to WP for hosting such forums as these are constructive for Singapore!
About Cycling
I strongly advocate that cycling should be seriously studied as a viable alternative mode of transport!
If efforts are made for the road system to be more friendly and safe for cyclists in the business district, the minor problems such as sweatiness/ cycle parking areas etc will sort themselves out. If there is a demand for these, the marketplace will cause industries such as showers ( eg cubicles) and cycle rental systems to mushroom.
If there is a will there is a way. I just wonder why the govt is so negative about this.
Do we always have to force them to do something good for us?
About carpooling
Those of us old enough like me would remember that this was already tried and proved to be a failure. The car pool was the predecessor to the Area licensing scheme ( must line up to buy daily license) which led to the ERP. Car-pooling failed as forcing cars to carry at least 4 people before being allowed into the CBD caused a small “bogus” passenger for hire to sprout from nowhere. People will stand outside the gantry post and get paid small sums of money just to make the number and once past the post, these fake passengers will alight and then walk back to be picked up by other cars.
Anyway, good effort by the three speakers.
About fair transport fare for full time tertiary students, I am in support of them having the same benefits as those wearing uniforms.
They are studying without an income. I understand these “poor” students. If I am not wrong, this issue has been raised infinite times but no action is taken or even attempted. We must remember SMRT and SbsTransit are private and listed in SGX and thus profitability is particularly important. If we still think we are taking public transport everyday then we are being naive. They are all private!
Cheers
hongjun
http://hongjun.blogspot.com/
RH:
8. I suggest that those below Sec 3, that is, about 14 years old, be disallowed from cycling, to ensure nobody is too young to physically and safely handle all the requirements for safe commuting by cycle, given that they also have heavy school bags plus need to know and understand traffic rules and conditions and be sufficiently ‘mature’ so as not to endanger themselves with playful behaviour on the roads. I don’t think a Cycling Licence is needed!
9. The reason why cycling is faster than public transport is that cyclists can take the shortest cut direct to and fro plus not have to wait or walk far to catch a bus or train. They can pedal down alleys or narrowly down side streets between buildings, even against the flow of traffic, etc, thus always able to take the shortest cut almost like pedestrians would walk, only much faster.
The concept of park and ride has been around for a long time, but it applied to cars. I have often found it very useful to ride my bicycle to the MRT station which is nearby (too far to walk but too short to drive kind of situation), and then commute by train to the city and farther. However, theft is almost pandemic and SMRT authority is not helpful here as despite feedbacks, they chose to train their cctv systems only on their concourse and deliberately or not avoid covering the bicycle parks, for reasons I am at a loss to understand. At least, if they do, it may help to deter cycle thefts. But they dont want to be responsible and so they dont care.
LTA, SMRT, SBS should take more charge of things like that. One way is to build covered bike size lockers for them. Like lockers found overseas in Greyhound and train stations in Europe, US and Canada. They can be rented out by the hour at an affordable rate and being covered, reduce the theft esp of those more attractive and expensive bikes. CCTV should be deployed to enhance security,and if thought out properly, the whole surveillance and rate chargings could be achieved without too much cost. Right now, ERP charge collections are being used for what? Expensive digital info displays which proved useful to nobody because you are all too often on the expressways already in a traffic snarl and stuck when you see them.
Hi cyclopath,
Cycling to the MRT station and then loading the bike to the train will be even better. That is why I am happy LTA is starting a pilot about allowing bikes (? fordable) onto trains/buses ( albeit only off peak hours now).
The bike lobby should seek out LTA to offer to cooperate with LTA to do the pilot trial with a view to extending it to normal hours.
We should not always be negative about every initiative from the govt.
Once the marketplace realises that there is opportunity to make money from bikes going into the city, business involving “bike lockers” / Shower rooms etc will spring up.
Once people realise that bike is viable and safe, it may reach a tipping point and hopefully we can become like a European city like Amsterdam.
great forum! wished i could share my views too..
anyways, can the transportation minister please advise SMRT n SBS Transit on being more fair about the fares for full-time tertiary students? you know, the tertiary kids (years down the road) might buy their shares to boost their share prices in return! win-win!
HI Lulu,
Join us! Look out for notices on YouthQuake 3 and come on down to share with us your views
In response to Robert Ho’s comment on using bicycles (or greener modes of transport to work):
I agree that there is no unsolvable problem, but the methods that have been proposed are not exactly very pragmatic a choice.
(i) Installing sanitary facilities to cater to the people who need to freshen up after their cycling.
Most of us usually bathe before arriving for work/school. To even leave the house requires some semblance of personal grooming in order not to be a nuisance to the public, thus by washing up (after a night of sleep) and then dressing up to go to work, and ending up dirty again is not a very attractive proposition to look at.
Not only that, where are we going to iron our clothes? What if there are plenty of people who wish to use said facilities at the same time?
(ii) A lot of time and resources would be wasted. In the theorized event where abovementioned facilities are built, the office has to bear the cost of increased water, electricity and other miscellaneous sanitary costs on top of the initial building and development costs.
I’d rather the government spend the money to improve the public transport system this way:
(a) Reassess the current public transportation system plan.
It’s ridiculous that I can reach Changi Business Park by car from Punggol in 15 minutes (taxi meter shows $10 bucks -shrugs-) while I have to spend approximately an hour or more using PT.
Compared to me coming to Singapore from Malaysia, where the MRT ride takes approximately 1 hour 30 minutes from Kranji MRT to Singapore Expo MRT.
The difference is ridiculous. Punggol is in the North East and definitely nearer to Changi, yet I can reach work only 30 minutes faster -___-”
And you say we have to be greener… I’m more interested in getting to work on time than saving the Earth (let’s not be hypocritical here, aite)
(b) Use of bicycles as a form of transport for those who live further from MRT/Bus interchanges.
I am actually receptive to the notion of using a bicycle (that is, if I can ever learn it, if not I’ll just use a kick scooter :x) to the nearest MRT, provided it’s not as far as more than 2 kilometers away. Okay lah, maybe if I use a bicycle I would actually enjoy the ride if the distance was longer as compared to a kick scooter, but oh wells.
Thus I like the idea of using money to improve the infrastructure of bicycle parks, instead of building more carparks…
Oh, I also like the idea of cyclist-only lanes. Alas, what would happen in our hypothetical cyclist-nation plan if there are cycling congestions?!
As for MAKING cycling a viable alternative in the business district, we first have to take into account what exactly it’s all about-
Time is money, and those in the CBD (or in a similar position) will not want to waste time.
People commute to and fro to do all sorts of things- buying stuff, meeting friends, meeting business associates, interviews, etc.
I believe the most important would be to reach the place of their business dealings in as pristine an clean a condition as they can be. Thus would they actually want to risk cycling along Shenton Way in their jacket, coat and tie on a hot Sunny Singapore day at say, 3pm to meet business clients from Switzerland?
I know I wouldn’t. I’ll be making Singapore a laughingstock of the SEA region =\
I know I previously answered a question by Alex on whether Singapore could be car free- I still believe we CAN be car-free, but whether we are ABLE to is a different question.
There are just too many things that we aren’t able to do without a car:
monthly grocery shopping at hypermarkets
taking our elderly folks out on outings
transport/deliver bulky items
dig our nos- oops
Teehee, last one joking only ah.
And I KNOW that there are taxis in Singapore, but there are people who do it on a daily and frequent basis.
UNLESS of course the government can come up with a comprehensive, at your doorstep super-convenient plan to get us from point A to B with Z conditions at no compromise whatsoever, then I think would be the day we could do without cars.
Until then, it’s a long shot becuase our own PT system is FAR from convenient.
And still very expensive =\