I spoke to someone, who is familiar with the motor trade. He made the following points:
a. The recent change resulted in a drop of 40% in COE allocation. This caused COE prices to shoot up due to the cut and also to increased demand generated by fear of further price increases. It is better to have a more stable market, rather than fluctuating prices to drive consumer behavior.
b. Taxis are now in the same category as private cars. They should be kept in a spearate category as the owners of taxis are driven by commercial consideration.
c. There is need to improve the feeder services, so that more people will take the train and buses at the interchanges.
d. Taxis should be considered as public transport. They are more efficient than cars and do not require parking spaces. The taxi fares should be simplified into a flat rate structure. Taxi drivers should be allowed to own a taxi licence and build a taxi business, rather than be renters of taxis.
I agree with these points and will bring them up at the TV program tonight. I will also raise them in other occasions in my blog.
Tan Kin Lian
Mr. Tan
ReplyDeleteCould you also consider bringing up the current system used by public transport is feasible? The people who sit in the panel/board controlling the outcome of the system are qualified and have heart to work for the public, i.e. have basic understanding of public transport by taking it regularly themselves?
Public transport is about bringing a passenger from a point to another safely, efficently for a affordable price. Any other gimmick, such as mobile TV, newspaper, public phone and etc are a waste of money which does not contribute to the basic principal for public transport, especially our public transport is far from satisfactory when car ownership cost keeping most people out of reach.
Basic requirements that our public transport is lacking:
1. No duplicate route - passenger has only one bus service to choose from most of the time, especially at far away from city heartland. Once the service has interruption, no alternative is available. Emergency plan by bus company will be too remote to solve the problem which can happen every day.
2. Long distance service route - Bus service has been very inefficient due to long travelling time. Long distance service route subjects to road condition which makes overall planning of trip schedule difficult and impossible, to be practical and consistent. When bus service loops into heartland, passenger has his time and money wasted. It defeats the basic principal of public transport which has to be efficient and affordable. The fare stage system is a fault which only benefits the bus company and short distance passenger.
3. Fare stage system - a major fault in the bus system because it invites abuse by passenger, incur extra cost to employ extra conductor, cost of administration for false reading and reduce efficiency of broading and alighting. It should be only one fare stage to lighten the duty of the bus driver if bus route is kept short and efficient. An adjustable lower fare can be introduced when the bus is nearer to the terminal to provide passenger more routes to choose from. This fare stage machine is not reliable and charges different fares in different bus, a well known problem among frequent travellers.
Bus company encourages inefficient bus service - bus service route no. 93 and 196 (for examples) have bus drivers purposely slow the bus down in order not to reach bus terminal too early. The schedule has forced the bus on the road the longest possible time at the expense of the passenger. Bus drivers always opt to stop at every bus stop and traffic light which endanger all other road users for such abnormal driving behaviour. Passenger for such routes have to prepare for delay and inconsistent bus ride at the mercy of the bus driver and bus company.
These are just some of the basic faults of our bus service. More can be discussed such as integration of the MRT is added to the consideration. To the public, bus company performs worse than the inefficient MRT network and requires immediate overhaul.
Loh
Mr. Tan
ReplyDeleteAllow me to add one more point in case bus company insists that many passengers prefer long distance service route becuase it is more comfortable without the hassle to transfer to other bus or MRT.
This is exactly why long distance express bus and taxi have to be integrated in the public transport system to serve respective groups of passenger. Comfort factor is welcome but it should not compromise the overall efficiency of the system. We must always follow the basic principles - safe, efficent and affordable for public transport.
Loh
Thanks for your feedback.
ReplyDeleteThe producer of the Singapore Talking show asked that the show focus on the alternative to cars, i.e. public transport. He did not wish to have discussion about the COE system and how it has escalated in price.
We will continue that discusion on COE system in this blog.
Mr. Tan
ReplyDeleteI watched the whole show last night.
As usual, the producer of such show in Spore will not try to get the best from the guests interviewed but just drawing awareness from the audience without an in-depth report of the issue.
Thank you for your reply.
Loh
Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteWhen one pays for a taxi service, one expects to be seated throughout the journey.
Can one expect the same when paying for a bus or an MRT trip? If ALL the time, one has to stand, and the fact that more and more seats are removed from busses and MRTs, shouldn't one be paying a lower fare based on the fact that the chances of one getting a seat is almost zero, during peak periods?
For transport companies to remove seats so that more passengers can be cramped in, yet paying the same price, does this not amount to a scam somewhat? Paying the same price for a much lower standard of service...... where are our consumers' rights?
I don't think the Govt will adopt your suggestions. I see 3 major barriers :
ReplyDelete1) The biggest taxi operator is NTUC. Taxi leasing is a major source of revenue and profit. The labor movement is an important partner to the govt. There's too much vested interest here to break their rice bowl. Besides, the govt always has a pro-business slant - they loath to change the rules especially given that all taxi companies have invested in a large infrastructure (taxis, calling services etc) around it.
2) Virtually all the key decision makers regarding the transport industry do not themselves take taxis, MRT or bus. Its easy to be idealistic and say that long bus journeys should be shortened based on analysis of data. Its also easy to say that compared to the rest of the world, our MRT is not as crowded. But spend 1 week taking public transport and you'll come to a different feel of the ground.
3) Transport companies are publicly listed entities. Too bad, too late. They're now answerable to shareholders and creating shareholder value is utmost priority. Even if it means packed trains, infrequent buses.
We can complain all we want but I don't think the govt will make such drastic changes.
Best rgds.
The TV producer has very clearly dodged a bullet since escalating COE prices have "political implications."
ReplyDeleteNo big surprise. That's how Singapore really talks anyway. We gloss over or deflect the really important issues.
On the positive side, the rapidly escalating COE prices further anchors the growing casino-like environment here in Singapore. That adds appropriate background ambience to our integrated resorts.
I watched the program and was disappointed by the wishy washy discussion directed by the host. I didn't feel that I learned anything new other than that Today's Editor doesn't own a car non does he seem to think that anyone needs one either. He looked proud when he said that he doesn't even have a driving licence. My grandmother doesn't use a computer and she doesn't think that anyone needs one either!
ReplyDeleteTaxis has always been considered as public transport. There are no reasons why they should cost more than taking a bus or train.
ReplyDeleteMr Tan Kin Lian:
ReplyDeleteWould You agree that the most effective and fairest method is to ballot(draw) the COEs ? Me likes to add that a reasonable administrative fee be levied.
Me feels that other methods of vehicle population controls have not been fully looked into. Many ways have been suggested, as such there is no need for elaboration.
When the STATED SOLE MOTIVE AND PURPOSE of COEs has been DECLARED to be for vehicle population control. IS THERE A NEED FOR PRICE BIDDING FOR ITS DISTRIBUTION? May i ask for your take on this.
Yours truly: patriot
d. Taxis should be considered as public transport. They are more efficient than cars and do not require parking spaces. The taxi fares should be simplified into a flat rate structure. Taxi drivers should be allowed to own a taxi licence and build a taxi business, rather than be renters of taxis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points, except for the ones in bold. Taxis take up parking spaces too, when the drivers are not driving them.
I wish to suggest that we should have one central phone booking line, and abolish current phone booking charges. This will make taxi trade more efficient, than to have the drivers driving around looking for fares.
The transport authority should consider to allow private bus operator to service the feeder bus route since it is mostly a loop service within an HDB estate. Bus company can then freed those bus fleet and drivers to ply the main route and improve on the frequency. Nowadays, the major bus interchange is mostly jammed with long queue of people waiting for feeder services after they got off the MRT. What's the point of increasing MRT schedule when commuters are stuck at interchange waiting for another form of public transport (feeder service). During off peak hrs, the feeder svc is quite infrequent & the journey can be easily 30 mins including waiting time to the bus terminal.
ReplyDeleteI hope something can be improved (with some competition from pte sector), also the cost of feeder service is quite high since it could be only 3 or 4 stops but not quite within walking distance.
Reference Patriot, 19 April, 12.30pm
ReplyDeleteCOEs are another source of revenue for the government.
If you really want to be fair and equitable, just allocate one COE to every household in Singapore. Charge $1 for the COE.
And no family to be allowed more than one COE. And the COEs are NOT transferable.
But of course, this will be very unfair to the rich. So this is not going to ever happen.
For those who love cars, we should set up garage in Malaysia and our beautiful cars are kept safe in this huge garage. We will pay a fee for the maintenance of this garage and our cars. Every weekends, we can drive happily in NS highway, around in Malaysia. No COE, no ERP, and we can keep our cars forever.
ReplyDeleteMy Malaysian friend has a 19 yrs old proton. No worry about COE. The cars belong to us.
Can someone start this garage for the car lovers? No need to own cars in Singapore. Driving around Malaysia is fun.
Dear Anon 11:36;
ReplyDeletethank You for the interaction.
Point takened, it has been revenue all the way for our most competent leaders.
Me merely asking for sincerities from them. For lack of sincerity could lead to questions of integrities.
patriot
there are many costs when it comes to owning a car. if you use a calculator like this >> http://www.investmentmoats.com/CarOwnershipCalculator/
ReplyDeleteto calculate you will realise that owning a car goes up to more than 1000. that take a bite from your disposable income.