Raymond Lim Siang Keat
Singapore
“Mr Chairman, Sir, we launched a slew of measures over the past three years to effect a major transformation to our land transport system. These cover not just big projects like our $60 billion investment to double our rail network but also smaller and equally important things like bus route information at every bus stop and parking guidan…”
“I think the better approach to help Singaporeans cope with the cost-of-living pressures is that which has been outlined by the Finance Minister. That is, instead of trying to bring specific costs down, it is better to give help on the income front.”
“From the experiences of these ongoing public education initiatives, CFC is in the midst of developing a set of guidelines on proper cycling behaviour on dedicated cycling paths. Apart from these efforts, TP has been giving customised talks in schools and at community-level events to provide tips on safe cycling.”
“Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. I have four supplementary questions. Since the announcement of the NSE, I have been receiving overwhelming feedback from my residents from three condominium developments.”
“The Member's second question refers to the noise mitigation measures. LTA actually has considerable experience in doing these. This is not the first time that LTA, because of the compact nature of Singapore, has had to build a major road in close proximity to residential areas.”
“Yes, on a weekly basis. The second question is how much have been claimed to date. We started this on 18th December 2010. As at the end of last year 28th December, we have a total of about 169,000 transactions. We have refunded about $46,000. There was $300,000 overcharged and $46,000 refunded.”
The complete record
Every one of 704 lines we hold for Raymond Lim Siang Keat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 15.
“Since 1st January 1973, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has made it a requirement for small vehicles such as cars, taxis and light commercial vehicles, which include small lorries, vans and twin-cabin goods vehicles, to have seat belts for the driver’s and front passengers’ seats before they can be registered. LTA has also made it a requirement since 1st January 1993, for cars, taxis and twin-cabin goods vehicles to have seat belts for rear passengers’ seats before they can be registered. As announced by the Minister for Transport on 17th May 2008, LTA will mandate that all new small buses must be installed with seat belts. LTA is currently working with the relevant stakeholders in the industry and will announce the details soon. As for existing buses, LTA is currently working with safety experts and industry stakeholders to study how best to implement this. The law today stipulates that, in general, when a seat belt is available, the passenger, be it in the car, taxi or commercial vehicle, has to put it on. LTA will work closely with the Traffic Police on ensuring that passengers put on the seat belts if there is one. Seat belts are there to enhance the safety of the driver and passengers. Hence I would like to urge everyone to take personal responsibility to look after their own safety, to put it on if there is one. ENLISTMENT ACT (Amendment to allow for deferment for examinations) 33.”
“My answer to Dr Lam's question is actually the same as the one I had given to Mr Lim. ERP rates are a function of the demand for driving. If, like he said, the high fuel prices have affected driving behaviour and therefore, traffic speeds have improved, this would be reflected in the ERP rates. Depending on the extent in which traffic speeds improved, the rates stay as they are or they may actually come down. NEW INCENTIVES FOR MARRIED COUPLES TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN 6. Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad asked the Prime Minister (a) how many married women between the ages of 30 and 45 years are childless; and (b) whether he will consider having new incentives to encourage mature married couples to have more children as more couples are marrying late. 7. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Prime Minister what lessons can be learnt from countries such as Denmark that have both a high female labour force participation rate as well as a credible birth rate so that our women can continue to work but at the same time also have more babies.”
“How do high fuel prices and public transport improvements impact on the ERP system? Now, the ERP system is a dynamic system. It is not a static system. The ERP rate is a function of the demand for driving on congested roads during peak hours. If the demand for driving falls materially, because of high fuel prices or public transport improvements or both factors, then the ERP rates will either stay as they are or actually go down. A good example of this would be the April 7th gantries. When LTA announced this in January this year, it was based on speed data in December 2007. But after the January announcements, there were significant changes in driving behaviour. So, if you look at the actual half-hour slots that LTA announced for April 7th, it was less than half compared to what was originally anticipated in January. It is a dynamic situation. It is a function of the demand for driving.”
“Sir, the purpose of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is to manage congestion on our roads. ERP is imposed or its rates raised only when traffic demand increases to cause the speed on the road to fall below the optimal speed threshold. For expressways, this is 45 kph, and for arterial roads, it is 20 kph. Many people assume that if we do not make changes to the ERP system, our roads will continue to remain smooth flowing. This is not true. If we freeze ERP charges, the congestion does not go away but simply builds up on our roads. Nor is it true that if we freeze ERP charges, there are no costs incurred by motorists. The costs are there except that it is hidden in the form of time lost and extra fuel consumed being stuck in traffic. At a time of economic stress, it is important that we ensure that our economy remains vibrant and productive. One critical way to ensure this is to act decisively to prevent our roads from being gridlocked. There have also been concerns on the impact of the ERP changes on the cost of living. In conjunction with the changes in the ERP system, the Government has reduced road taxes by 15%. The increase in ERP revenue is estimated at $70 million against $110 million from the road tax reduction. This means that drivers as a whole are not worse off despite the higher ERP charges. Indeed, only 24% of drivers incur ERP charges daily, and the majority who do not pay ERP would be better off as a result of the 15% road tax reduction. LTA will continue to monitor the road traffic conditions closely. If, as Dr Lam said, drivers choose to drive less, whether due to high fuel prices or public transport improvements and the traffic speeds improve, the Government will be happy to collect less ERP revenue.”
“Sir, may I take Question Nos. 4 and 5 together because they are related?”
“I beg to differ too. I think it is high-end. I explained that when I met the taxi associations, they told me that this is a chauffeur-driven service and that it must be appropriately priced.”
“It really depends on the congestion levels and you therefore need a dynamic system. It keeps on changing, and you cannot say that you are going to fix it this way. However, one of the constraints is that the vehicle population growth rate in the longer term cannot grow faster than the rate in which our roads are growing. He mentioned that this is nothing more than a revenue measure. I have explained to him that it is not, if you look at the figures, say, in 1998 when we introduced and shifted down the ownership costs, $1.2 billion foregone every year – ARF excise duty, road tax. He had earlier mentioned another figure, the net revenue, and asked how come it goes up. You have got to take the net revenue figure over time because it changes by the number of car de-registration as it affects the PARF. If the net de-registration goes down for a particular year, it will affect that net revenue figure. If you take the net revenue figure from, say, before we introduced ERP in 1997, it is in the order of about $3.4 billion. By 2006, I think it is about $1.7 billion. So the net revenue figure has actually come down over time. The other issue is contestability of bus services. His point is whether there is real contestability or it is just only for GLCs. I am not sure how he came to this conclusion that it was just meant for GLCs. We will make the market contestable and it depends on the players - whether or not they wish to compete in that particular market. Whether it is GLC or non-GLC is really not the issue. The issue is to ensure that when we design the tender package, it is a level playing field and that different operators can participate in the tender.”
“Let me take Ms Eunice Olsen's clarifications first. I agree with Ms Olsen that it is not just reporting errant taxi drivers but that taxi drivers who perform well should be commended. Actually, if you read the Straits Times, they do have that. They have a small column where they say "Bouquets", and they run that every now and then. On the issue of cross-subsidy, it is not so much the numbers. You can have this number but it keeps on changing over time. It is really the policy intent behind it - should the State come and subvent it so that the concessions are funded by the State. And I have said that we should not go down this road because if you look at other countries that have done so, this subsidy keeps on growing and it does not get smaller. I mentioned the example of the Seoul bus reform and one of the reforms they did was to shift the revenue risk to the State so that the State could offer low fares, lower than they should have been. Within a short period of time, the deficit was US$400 million, and I mentioned Professor Kim, who is in the advisory panel, who said that this is something we have to be careful about. So I think it is the policy intent that is important. The figure itself is not static, as it could change over time. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked many clarifications. Let me start with the incentives for the motorists. I mentioned earlier what we have really done is to have a balance, that whenever we make system changes to the ERP, we try to reduce ownership costs. If we take the latest exercise that we have, we estimate ERP to go up by about $70 million but the road tax reduction comes up to about $110 million on an annual basis. He asked if there is an optimum mix, in terms of the ERP and COE.”
“A very energetic chap, I must say. In terms of the announcement, all these things are really a matter of judgment. We now have multi-lingual signs in the stations. If you go to the key maps, you have them as well. What about the announcements? We have been looking at all these feedback and already the complaint sometimes is that the announcement in English is a bit long. So can you imagine, if we have it in four languages, by the time they finished announcing all four, you might have shot past the station.”
“Two questions here. One is that, going forward, with LTA as central planner, when they look at how best to optimise the network, will they allow Scheme B operators? As I said, when they design the route packages and open it for tender, I do not think there is any preclusion. It is up to the particular company whether they would like to tender for that package. The key thing is to meet the requirements in the tender. There will be certain requirements on frequencies and service obligations. The second question is on the formula. The GPC had already deliberated on this three years ago and came out with a report and said this is the way to go. So I do not think that we want to re-open this whole thing again about the formula. We want some certainty. But the GPC report said that after three years, we should look at the weights in the formula. That is what the PTC is now doing. Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I have two clarifications. First, to the Minister. Will the Ministry consider having the announcement in the trains, especially the name of the next stop in four languages instead of just English? The next question is to the Minister of State. Just now, the Minister of State mentioned that it is expensive to install a lift in the Khatib MRT overhead bridge. I would like to know how much it would cost and just now, she mentioned that for the elderly, they just have to walk 32 metres to the nearest traffic light. I asked my guy to quickly run there with the measuring tape. He told me that it is 156 metres to the traffic light, crossed six lanes, 22.2 metres, and walked back, a total 310 metres.”
“I do not think by lining up 36,000 cars, we will line up the whole island; the island is not that small. But as I explained, the reason why we are doing this is because we are making big changes. All these things are a matter of judgment. We have to balance these things. My preference is that when we are making big changes, let us do it in a gradual way if we can because it impacts people's lives. This is the basis of the decision. So we are doing it from 3% to 1.5% for three years, and after that, we will review it again.”
“I think just now in the Member's cut, he mentioned about the distance-based fare and whether or not we are going to keep the same fare formula. The answer is yes. We will still use the existing fare formula , where the two elements are the CPI and the national wage number, and then subtract out the productivity component. As I mentioned earlier, the Public Transport Council is now reviewing it, because after three years, they have been asked to review what are the appropriate weights and what the productivity component should be. On the distance-based fare, the fare formula will remain the same. The other question is on the advisory notice in the CBD where it says that for errant taxi drivers, there is a phone number to call. This is based on commuter feedback, foreign visitors as well as our own locals, who said that in case there is an errant taxi driver, they do not have a number to call. We are responding to commuter feedback. Will it give the impression that our taxi drivers are all errant taxi drivers? I do not think it is necessarily so. We do have signs in Singapore, as you know, saying "Don't Litter", "Don't Smoke", "Don't Spit" and it does not mean that we are a nation of litterbugs, inconsiderate smokers or a nation of spit artists. We are not. In fact, what it shows is, to us as a society, this is what is the acceptable standard and anything beyond that is an exceptional behaviour that we frown upon. So, I think that is the context in which we are doing this and we are trying to further the reputation of the taxi industry. But I take Mr Seng Han Thong's feedback seriously. He asked whether LTA could look at the wordings and he has made a suggestion. We will look into it.”
“I thank the Member for the clarification. As I mentioned just now, there is no perfect model here. That is why LTA has to study what best suits our local circumstances. The Member has posited two different possibilities. One, the State takes the revenue risk and the other one, the public transport operator takes the revenue risk. And his argument towards the latter was that, if they take the revenue risk, then their pricing might not be as competitive. He also said that the quality might be affected . But these are early days, we have to study it, and we cannot really just look at one particular model, say, the London model, and say that we should apply this to Singapore. Adelaide, for instance, has a model where both the revenue and the cost risks are taken by the PTO and it works quite well.”
“What is important is for the taxi companies and taxi associations to see how they can help them do better in this new operating environment. I understand from the taxi associations that they are ready to advise their members how best to operate in this new environment. Mr Ang Mong Seng suggested that we reduce the statutory costs for taxis by reducing the ERP charges and the road and diesel taxes. Dr Lam Pin Min suggested that we waive ERP for taxis. As I have explained, ERP is imposed based on the road space you occupy. As long as you contribute to the congestion, you should pay for it. Taxis are in fact no different from private cars. They are one of the biggest consumers of road space. On average, there are about 1.5 persons in a taxi, like a private car. They take up 30 times more road space per travelling person, compared to a bus. So it is right that when we charge ERP for taxis, we charge them like private cars. As for diesel and road taxes, taxis are already enjoying concessionary rates. Taxis pay a diesel tax of $5,100. If we were to charge them the equivalent for a petrol-driven private car, it should be $6,150. This is already a concession. The road tax they pay is $1,200 regardless of capacity. Most of the taxis are about 3,000 cc and if we take that as a figure, it should be actually $2,800. And like cars, the road tax for taxis will also be cut by 15% from July this year. Mr Seng Han Thong gave some suggestions given the changing landscape and operating environment for taxis. He said that there are issues that we should work closely with LTA to see how best to move forward. I agree with him, and we will take up his offer. Sir, I think I have taken most of the key issues. Barrier-free Accessibility and the Elderly”
“They provide a personalised service to the commuters. Taxi association members have told me that this is a chauffeur driven service, so it has to be priced accordingly and people would have to decide whether they want to take it or not. I think the Government should not be involved in this. The Government's role here is to facilitate the workings of the market, rather than to say whether you should take it or not. Mr Seah Kian Peng is quite right that we should not just rely simply on anecdotal evidence on the impact of the recent taxi fares revision on taxi drivers. Do we have some hard facts or evidence on what has been the impact? Last month, I told the House that we have preliminary data from ComfortDelgro, the largest operator, and their preliminary data showed that earnings had improved for the taxi drivers. LTA's scan also showed that waiting time at the taxi stands has come down quite significantly. It is also easier to get a cab through the phone. Now, we have more data on taxi drivers' earnings. For the month of January 2008, based on 3,700 taxis – these are not just from ComfortDelgro, but from the different companies – gross earnings for one shift and two shifts have improved, compared to November 2007, by 4.8% for one shift to $216, and slightly by about 0.6% for two shifts to $308. Recently, I met the taxi association leaders and Mr Seng Han Thong, who is the advisor, just to get a feel on the ground. They confirmed that the majority of taxi drivers have seen an improvement in earnings and lower operating costs. The reason for lower operating cost is that they do not have to make as many trips as before, so they do not have to burn so much fuel. But I am sure that there are also some taxi drivers who are not doing so well.”
“If we were to change them, then we might need to adjust the concessions also. It is a matter of balance. I think right now, the balance is about right. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and you just look at the numbers. In 2003, new OPC registrations were about 1,000. It has gone up 11 times now. In 2007, we have 11,180 new registrations; 2003 was 1,032. So, it has gone up in popularity. Mrs Josephine Teo made a suggestion that we should encourage more Park and Ride. I agree with her because we should indeed facilitate inter-modal transfer – whether it be taking a car or a bicycle to an MRT station and then change the mode. She also made the point that, when we were talking about promoting public transport, it should not be "either or": either all-car or public transport. That is not our intent. What we really want is an integrated multi-modal system, not a uni-modal system. The existing Park and Ride package is actually quite attractive. You pay $70 a month, $30 for the parking, and $40 for the ez-link card that you can use. However, there are some issues we are looking at. One is that there has been abuse. Some people are not doing inter-modal transfer but are using it as a cheap office carpark. For some of the popular carparks near the MRT or bus stations, we need to balance the needs of visitors and the residents. To build new carparks near the MRT stations, we have to balance land use needs. Should the land be for commercial or residential uses? It is important for us to make sure that all the incentives are properly aligned and not abused. We will weigh all these different considerations and review it. 2.15 pm Ms Jessica Tan asked what is the role of taxis in our land transport system. Taxis are at the high-end of the land transport system.”
“That is why we have come up with all these measures, like what Mdm Cynthia Phua says "a total journey" experience, where season cards and travel cards can be used across modes. So, it is really not an issue of rail versus bus but really how do we optimise the system as a whole. Buses play a very important role – we have a hub-and-spoke system – because they feed into the rail system. And, again, as Mdm Phua said, we have to ensure that the feed-in is optimal when you get into the bus interchanges and the MRT stations. And that is what we will do. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether we will set up a dedicated radio channel for traffic information during peak hours. He brought up this point last year. I think Dr Lam Pin Min also mentioned it last year. This is something that LTA is looking into. Mr Lim Biow Chuan's suggestion is that we have frequent traffic information during the peak hours. Can we do that over the radio? The answer is, yes, but what is the best way to do this? We will not set up our own radio station because LTA is not in the business of running a radio station. So we will probably outsource it, work with a local broadcaster and see how best to get this done. We hope to get it done by the third quarter of this year. Mr Cedric Foo asked whether MOT would allow for more liberal conversion to off-peak cars (OPC). We have no plans now to liberalise further. It is very easy for existing car owners to convert to OPC. You pay a $100 administrative fee, change the colour of your licence plate and you enjoy tax rebates similar in quantum to someone who has bought a new OPC upfront. He asked: why not ease the restrictions, it might help make it more popular? But these restrictions have been carefully calibrated because we give tax concessions.”
“Recently, I visited the Toa Payoh and Ang Mo Kio stations and found trains to be more frequent during the morning peak. The key is not just whether everybody can get into the trains, but how long you need to wait for the next train. It is about two to three minutes now. We have increased the frequency and the trains are less crowded. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if the long-term rail infrastructural projects announced can be completed faster, especially the Eastern Region Line and the Thomson Line. These large-scale infrastructural projects require a series of detailed engineering studies and planning, before the actual construction can take place. The indicative completion date for these new lines that I have announced in January is LTA’s best estimate of what is possible. Certainly, if it is possible to move faster, we will, but it is premature to indicate otherwise at this point. As for the Circle Line, again, if we could open the entire line, we would. But, as you know, we have done this in stages. The reason why we could bring forward Circle Line 3 was because it was least affected by the Nicoll Highway collapse. As for the other stages, there is still considerable work to be done. So the schedule will be 2009 for Circle Line 3 and the rest of it, from 2010 onwards. Mr Cedric Foo, in his speech earlier, talked about optimal mix of rail and bus services, and his preference is weighted more to rail. He cited some figures and asked about the ratio. I think we need to look at this not as an issue of between bus and rail, but as public transport as a whole. I think our starting point is that, going forward, when a commuter has to make a choice between making a car trip or a public transport trip, he would look at public transport as a whole.”
“He lives in Woodlands and, thanks to the evening ERP, he now can get home earlier and spend more quality time with his family. The next issue is one which Ms Jessica Tan brought up. She said that we should make sure that, before we phase in all these ERP changes, we have good public transport alternatives in place. I agree with her. This is critical. This is why LTA will effect immediate public transport improvements before the ERP changes are phased in. Let me just mention what we will do before July 2008. For basic bus services, we will reduce the headway from 15 minutes to 12 minutes in corridors affected by the ERP changes. The outcome will be shorter waiting times and less crowded buses. Second, we will allow basic bus services to run parallel along sections of the North-South and East-West lines, so as to give people more choice and less crowded trains. We will also introduce more premium buses in the affected areas. We have added 12 new services since January, so there are now 54 premium bus services. We will have at least 72 by the end of June 2008. We will also start to provide evening premium bus services on high demand routes. Many motorists find that these premium bus services are a good alternative to driving. Let me just give Members an example. Mr Loo Chiew Hooi, quoted in the Straits Times last year, has a Toyota Corolla and has now opted to take the premium bus services. This is what he said: "The premium bus service is like having a chauffeur. You can catch up on the news or read a book. You don't have to be stressed about driving." The fourth thing we would do is to increase train trips. SMRT and SBST have already added 93 train trips in the peak hours since February 2008.”
“Ms Lee Bee Wah suggested that we abolish the evening ERP to be pro-family. If we were to abolish it, would it be pro-family? Absolutely not, it would be the exact opposite. The CTE would be jammed very quickly, with drivers all wanting to take the shortest route home at the same time in the evening. If you take away ERP, the road space does not expand. If you leave the traffic unregulated, you will get a huge jam. The shortest route will take the longest of time. And I assure you that there is no joy in driving home in the evening – you get stuck in a jam and you may never be sure what time you get home. You are not sure how bad the traffic will be. The result is that everyone suffers: People who drive and also people who take buses, because they get caught in the same gridlock. So what is uniquely Singapore? It is not what Ms Lee Bee Wah said "because motorists pay ERP in the evening". But rather that for such a compact and densely populated city state, when people drive home in the evening, they do not get caught in a traffic jam. That is uniquely Singapore. This is what many people who have been here from overseas and travelled on our roads say. Congestion hurts families. ERP is not the problem, but part of the solution. It is not true that people do not mind a slow drive home in the evening. Mr Inderjit Singh mentioned to me that his wife finds it such a huge improvement, ever since we put in the gantry at the CTE. She picks up their son every evening to bring him home and she is appreciative of it. Minister of State for Transport Lim Hwee Hua tells me that this additional gantry has cut down her travelling time by half, when she visits her ward. Members of the public have sent us emails. Let me quote just one to Members. Mr Neo Aik Chuan wrote to the LTA.”
“We installed a gantry in November 2007, and it took off about 10% of the traffic volume. The traffic volume was about 7,700. After we installed the gantry, 700 vehicles did not go in there. This 10% shift was enough to improve speeds. It went up to 50 kph, a 50% increase in terms of traffic speed. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether we will review the ERP rate for the CTE, PIE and ECP after the KPE is fully open in September 2008. LTA monitors the speed on all our expressways and arterial roads to ensure that the road capacity is optimised. Depending on the traffic flow on these expressways – CTE, PIE and ECP – if there is indeed significant improvement after we open the KPE, then of course the LTA will adjust the rates downwards. That is how the system works. Some Members, in particular Mr Siew Kum Hong, said that he understands the reason for the ERP. But he asked that equity considerations be taken into account. It is not possible to tailor the ERP based on individual needs and circumstances, as this then involves making a value judgement. Let me give you some examples. For instance, is a housewife who drives her children to school more meritorious than her neighbour who commutes to work? If we say, yes, and it is also meritorious that you visit your grandparents or bring your sick pet to the vet, and therefore need not pay ERP, soon we will find many meritorious drivers in Singapore. So, once you start to make value judgements as to what trips are more meritorious than others, you end up with a poor solution to your original problem, which is to fight congestion. From a traffic perspective, everyone who drives on a congested road contributes to the congestion, and should pay accordingly. This is not just efficient but also fair, because you pay as you use.”
“One of the arguments that we hear is that once a person buys a car, he will drive it regardless of the ERP charges. This is an over-statement. Yes, for some people, they will continue to drive regardless of the price, but not all will do so. If this was so, all ERP-priced roads today will still be congested. And if the ERP system was a failure, other cities would not be following us or want to learn from us. London has gone this way, and also Milan. New York City has just approved it from the 60th Street onwards in Manhattan. Just this week, on Monday, the Danish Transport Minister was here with their Parliamentary Committee for Transport. They wanted to study our ERP system because they have a congestion problem in Copenhagen. They wanted to see how it works, and if they could introduce the system in Copenhagen. Let me stress that the purpose of the ERP is not to stop everyone from driving. This is absolutely counter-productive, as the roads would then be sub-optimised after we have invested so much into our road network. On a congested road, the idea of ERP is that we try to discourage the people at the margin. A 5% to 10% shift is enough to relieve pressure on that particularly heavily used road. Let me give Members an example – CTE. In October 2007, in the evening between 6 pm and 7 pm, traffic was very slow. Mr Chiam is not here today, but I remember he brought up this point to me in the House. He said, "If you look at the evening ERP, you have a gantry after the PIE exit but you do not have a gantry before PIE, from Bukit Timah to PIE." He said, "That also adds to traffic, because they come in and they swing off into the PIE." Traffic was very slow – 34 kilometres per hour (kph).”
“Today, we have made it easier to own cars. The argument then became, "Why do you make it easy for me to own cars, and now I have to pay to use the car?" So it is a matter of balance, and this balance changes over time. We have consulted widely, and we have decided on halving the vehicle population growth rate from 3% a year to 1.5% for the next three years. After that, we will review the figure. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked whether there is an optimal figure that we are looking at. It is not possible in the longer term for us to have a vehicle population growth rate that is faster than the projected road growth. I think a few Members have mentioned this, including Mr Cedric Foo and Mr Seah Kian Peng, that we cannot sustain the growth rate going forward. For Quota Year (QY) 2008, when the growth rate is still at 3%, LTA will be issuing a total COE quota of 115,946. After this, it will go down to 1.5% in QY2009 for three years. After these three years, we will review it to see whether we need to make a further reduction. I am not in favour of a more drastic approach, although some like Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Seah Kian Peng have argued for it. We could do a "shock and awe" approach, cutting it down to 1% or zero, all at one go. But the problem with "shock and awe" is that the morning after is often going to be quite awful. My own preference is that when we are doing big changes, we give people time to adjust because it impacts on people's lives. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked whether we could have a differential tax rate for the first or second car owners. But congestion is a function of both total vehicle population and the intensity of usage. Once supply is determined, how costs are shifted would not change the supply. Several Members have questioned the effectiveness of the ERP.”
“There is no single measure to solve road congestion. We need a suite of measures, not just vehicle control measures, but also ERP, build roads and improve public transport – a holistic approach. Even if we were to cut the vehicle population growth rate to zero, we will still need the recent ERP changes to deal with the existing congestion from the 850,000 vehicles. Mr Seah Kian Peng made a good point. He says maybe we should have a sense of perspective on how we got to today’s situation. Members who have long memories will recall that, in 1994, when COE prices went above $100,000 there was great public unhappiness. Many Singaporeans felt we should not just rely on one single measure – the vehicle control measure – but that we should rely on usage measures as well. They said, "Let us have a balance. Don't just put everything on vehicle control measures – very high ownership taxes. Let us have a balance." The Government agreed that it is better to have a balance and introduced the ERP in 1998. The trade off was clear – lower vehicle ownership costs but higher usage charges. The vehicle ownership costs have fallen quite significantly. Let us take an example. For a new 1.6 litre Toyota Corolla, in 1997, it cost about $122,000. In 2007, it cost just $61,000. The tax component had also dropped from $40,000 to $20,000. So Members can see how much had come off, just to give you a feel of it. So that is the background. Previously, there was great unhappiness when car prices were high, and Singaporeans' aspirations to own cars were not met. They said, "Why don't you make it easier for us to own cars?" So we adjusted the system by lowering the ownership costs, so that we pay as we use. It is a fair system.”
“To further drive home this point, I have asked LTA to display the ERP charges on top of all ERP gantries. Now, we have the display of the ERP charges at the side for some of our gantries. But at the side, it is too small to be seen as we drive past. So I have asked LTA to put it up prominently on top of the gantries. There will be a car icon and it will show how much the charge is for the particular half hour, and another icon for the other categories of vehicles. So when one drives in, he can see how much it costs. I suggest the first time when we install these signs, when Members drive in, please do not brake suddenly as it will cause an accident. When the signs are up, motorists would know how much it costs to drive through. This will help motorists make a considered decision the next time they need to drive through. If motorists drive less, the Government is happy to collect less ERP revenue. We will put all these signs on top of the gantries by the end of this year. Of course, when we do this, I will make sure that they consult Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Mr Baey Yam Keng on creative inputs on how to install the signs on the ERP gantries. I am glad that Members understand the need to manage road usage, and I am encouraged by it. Mr Cedric Foo, GPC Chairman, explained why he supports it, and he is quite right on why we have instituted the ERP. Some members of the public have emailed me, saying that they see the congestion that has been building up over the past few years, and ERP is therefore the way forward. Let me now address some key issues which Members have raised. Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Hri Kumar's principal argument is that we should cut the vehicle growth rate more drastically. I have said this before, but I think it is best to repeat this point.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the ERP is a very hot topic, and a very important topic. Mr Cedric Foo is absolutely right when he said that we should ask ourselves the fundamental question, "Why ERP?" The popular answer, like Mr Low Thia Khiang said, is to collect revenue – just put up a gantry on the road and collect money. It is a popular answer, but it flies against the facts. Since 1998, every time we adjusted the ERP system and relied more on usage charges, we have brought down vehicle ownership taxes quite significantly, as some Members have noted. The annual revenue forgone for the Government from the combined vehicle ownership tax cuts – ARF, excise duty and road taxes – came up to more than $1.2 billion every year on a permanent basis. ERP revenue currently only comes up to about $100 million per year. So it is not a revenue measure but a congestion measure. Mr Low asked why it was that the Prime Minister's Ang Mo Kio ward was not affected, when Toa Payoh has ERP. I am disappointed with what Mr Low is insinuating as he knows that this is not the way we do things. ERP is a congestion measure, and if indeed there are roads there which are congested, ERP will have to be effected. As Ms Lee Bee Wah said correctly, in Ang Mo Kio GRC, the key access roads to the city have ERP. Moreover, it is not like Toa Payoh which just has the morning ERP. Ang Mo Kio residents are also affected in the evening, on the way home. So what is the purpose of ERP? I have said that it is a congestion measure, to help us ensure that we have a liveable city. So that even as the economy and population grow, we need ERP to ensure that we are a city in a garden, and not a city in a car park.”
“Nevertheless, the operators have taken in feedback and have been extending the concession hours for senior citizens over the years. Last October, SMRT extended the concession hours for their buses to also cover the evening peak period. I think they will take into account what Members have said today and review this as part of their business plans in future. I would like to close off here with what Ms Lee Bee Wah said in her speech. Public transport improvements have to do with all of us. It is not just a matter for the Government or the public transport operators, but also the commuters. She gave some examples, and those of you who have taken public transport will know. I have observed similar situations when I checked out our public transport services. If you take a bus, it is true that there is this tendency for commuters not to move to the rear. On the train, commuters tend to crowd round the cabin doors. The public transport operators have tried to come up with different campaigns to get people to move in. SBS Transit came out with 'Move to the Rear' which sparked off a lot of fun on the Internet . We have also put riddles and puzzles at the rear of buses, hoping to entice you to move in when you get in. But it has to be a community effort. Everybody has to play their part: the Government, the public transport operators and commuters. It is an ongoing effort. Managing Road Usage”
“Our approach is a targeted one, and one of "many helping hands". The Community Development Councils (CDCs), the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), the PTOs and the Government have all chipped in. In 2007, the Government committed $10 million to a Public Transport Fund over the next three years to provide additional help for the needy. Public transport fares are just one of the overall cost of living issues that low-income families face. As the Finance Minister said in his Budget speech, the Government had sought to help needy families directly, through a substantial package of benefits in this Budget. As he pointed out, a 2-room HDB household comprising a retired elderly couple will get benefits that are more than four times their increase in cost of living. Ms Lee Bee Wah, Dr Lam Pin Min and Ms Eunice Olsen have argued for extension of concessions for the elderly, the low-income and the young. As I mentioned earlier, the principle for providing assistance is that it should be targeted and provided to those who need help, not according to age. This is because there are rich senior citizens and needy senior citizens, just as there are needy young people. In Singapore's case, public transport concessions are provided by the public transport operators based on their commercial considerations. Any concession that the PTOs grant, such as for senior citizens, is a form of cross-subsidy from other full-paying adults. The only way to get round this, if we say let us not do it this way, is that the state comes in directly and subvents across the board. I do not think this is advisable. When the state comes in, it should be targeted to those who really need help.”
“In other cities where public transport fares are kept lower than what it costs to operate, the result is over-consumption by all, including the rich. The costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers. So our system is better. Our operators have the incentive to be efficient; there is a shared understanding that the Government, the public transport operators as well as the commuters all chip in to pay for what they get. Any help needed for the lower income will be targeted to them. 1.15 pm Mdm Cynthia Phua suggested, "No more cost increase when it comes to public transport.". This is not possible. Our approach is small and regular increases, rather than a big bang. The PTC, in their deliberations, will have to strike a balance between the different interests, making sure that fares are kept affordable and ensuring that the public transport operators find it viable to continue to operate. Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned this to me recently that every time when we come to the annual fare review exercise, people will tell the PTC, "Please don't increase." But he said this is to ignore that a large part of the increase goes into paying the public transport operators' costs, of which over 40% are manpower costs. He said that the bus captains and bus company employees have families to feed too. They also face cost of living pressures. A bus driver has to wake up at 3 to 4 o'clock in the morning to get to the bus depot because the first bus is out before 5 o'clock in the morning. So let us have a care. The next time when we argue, let us freeze this, let us not have it, there are implications for others. This relates to the point which I think Mdm Cynthia Phua, Ms Lee Bee Wah, Ms Eunice Olsen and a few others made in terms of the affordability of public transport for the low income.”
“In fact, the public transport operators may be spurred on by the competition, to improve their productivity. The Public Transport Council (PTC) also monitors the affordability of public transport closely to ensure that fares remain affordable for the majority of households over time. It is this price cap formula that protects commuters and guards against public transport operators raising their fares as they wish. It incentivises the PTOs to rein in their costs. It has been three years since the fare adjustment formula was put in place. The weights in the formula are up for review to ensure their continued relevance. This is something that the Public Transport Council is already doing and I understand the PTC expects to complete the review by the middle of the year. Every now and then, you hear this argument that, because public transport services are public services, they should therefore be run by non-profit making entities with fares kept cheap by subsidies. You hear echoes of this in the Chamber every now and then. But ultimately we need to understand that there is no free lunch. If you look at past examples where transport services are run by state entities, the lack of a profit motive results in higher, not lower, costs. With no incentive to reduce cost or maximise revenue, it is not surprising that the efficiency of such entities is very low. Let us take an example. In Jakarta, with the same fare tariffs, one set of public transport operators are run by the state; another set by private operators. And the one run by the state is always asking for subsidy and losing money. But the one run by the private operators keep their costs low and they make a return. The reason is that they have the financial discipline. Operating subsidies are also not an answer.”
“The statutory lifespan of buses has been extended through the years, from 12 years to 17 years. Bus companies are charged a nominal rent for the bus interchanges, and they are allowed to keep the commercial rental revenue which comes to $2 million to $3 million a year. Through the years, we have also reduced road tax; the savings are about $13 million every year. Members like Mr Wee Siew Kim, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Dr Lam Pin Min are concerned about the costs of all these changes, and how they will impact the commuters. Mr Wee brought up the point that the costs of public transport services should be made transparent and asked how we can incentivise PTOs to rein in their costs. Dr Lam asked whether the costs would be passed on directly to commuters. On the issue of transparency, this is already the case today. Public transport operators are listed companies, so this information on costs is readily available. More importantly, the fare formula we have today is not a cost-plus formula. Instead, it is a price cap that is tied to macroeconomic factors like inflation and wage increases. This means that if the public transport operators do not manage their costs well and they shoot up, they will not get a larger fare increase because of that. The fare cap is fixed each year, based on these macroeconomic factors and the public transport operators are not left to raise fares as they wish. In addition, any productivity gains that the PTOs enjoy will ultimately be shared with commuters through the clawback mechanism, that is the sharing of productivity gains. Hence, I would like to assure Dr Lam that the additional costs of the public transport improvements will not be directly passed on to commuters.”
“They are valid concerns on how all these changes will impact public transport workers. The National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) sent a submission to me on the Land Transport Review recently. One of the key points they made is that more competition may well enhance their employment prospects. Indeed, the signs actually point towards a larger public transport pie over time as more people take public transport and service levels go up. Daily public transport trips are expected to double the next 12 years, from the current 5 million to 10 million by 2020. At the end of the day, whether we have two public transport operators or more, we will still need bus captains and other service staff to keep our system up and running, and good staff will always be in demand. Mr Seng suggested that specific employment conditions could be imposed on the public transport operators. We need to have a care here. The public transport operators should be subject to the same national employment and labour laws as any other economic entity in Singapore. Beyond that, it is best not to introduce labour market distortions by prescribing special employment terms to which public transport operators must adhere. Public transport workers should be subject to the same competitive dynamics as workers in other industries. The best way to help them is not protection but rather to find ways to increase their productivity and hence employability. Mr Seng also suggested that one way to help workers is to waive ERP for buses, to boost the earnings for bus companies. Our position is that as long as a vehicle occupies road space, it should be charged ERP. And buses do occupy road space. The more important issue here is that the Government has taken steps to help bus companies. Buses are exempt from COEs.”
“In Singapore, the operating costs of the public transport system are covered by the operating revenues. We must keep it this way so that our PTOs continue to operate efficiently. If we lose this discipline, it is the taxpayer who would ultimately pay for it. This is why it is important to emphasise the point that LTA taking the central planner role does not mean that the profitability of routes is no longer a consideration. Once we shift away from this financial discipline, we will soon be running many routes that are under-utilised and paid for by the public purse. LTA will see how best to package routes, profitable and less profitable routes, to ensure the package as a whole is commercially viable. (ii) The second principle is to ensure a performance-based element that is tied to the operating rights. This way, operators are incentivised, even during the term of service, to provide a high level of service. For example, London introduced Quality Incentive Contracts (QIC) in 2001 as part of their bus contracts which ran for three to seven years. Under these contracts, bus operators have to fulfil key service requirements such as reliability and frequency of bus services and even bus drivers' attitudes and driving standards. This, together with other measures, has led to higher operating efficiencies, higher service standards and an increase in bus ridership. For the rail industry, competitive tendering is not new. When we awarded the Circle Line (CCL), it was through a tender. What is new is that we will shorten the duration of the future operating licences from the current 30-40 years to 10-15 years to enhance contestability. Next, let me turn to some of the concerns that Mr Seng Han Thong raised.”
“When I was in Hong Kong, I met up with their transport officials. They told me about their problem with head-on competition, with buses competing to see who gets to the bus stop first. It caused a lot of safety problems. The transport officials are in fact planning to phase out the red mini-buses which are such a danger to the public. They drive like FI drivers, and it is a big problem for them. Mr Cedric Foo raised the issue of tender design. He suggested that one possibility is that the revenue risk be taken by the Government and the cost risk by the public transport operators, as is done in London. This would be a big departure from our present system. In London, this has translated into an ever-growing state subsidy for the bus system. If the Government takes on the revenue risk, then the PTO has no incentive to increase patronage. Mr Kua Hong Pak, CEO of ComfortDelGro, which operates buses in London, said that the state subsidies are increasing year by year. He said that you get this phenomenon in London of running "ghost buses". Few people were taking the bus, but the operators still ran those buses because the State was paying them for it. There is no incentive to increase ridership. But I think the point to make is that there is really no perfect model here and we will need to study all these and see what is best, given our circumstances, for Singapore. There are, however, two operating principles that we will adhere to. (i) We will retain the current financial discipline that PTOs must be self-sustaining. Our consultants highlighted that this is one of the key positive features of our system that most other cities (except Hong Kong and Tokyo) have not managed to do.”
“However, the larger point is that the LTA, as central planner, constantly needs to monitor changing commuter demands to introduce services that best meet their needs. Mr Low asked whether we could have some perspective of what it means to introduce greater contestability into the bus and rail sector. Some people argue that our market is too small for competition. This is an empirical question, not a question for debate. There are reams of studies that when it comes to buses, the economies of scale tail off after about 500 buses. We have 3,700 buses today in Singapore, so we can support more than two operators. If we look at the Adelaide bus market in Australia, which is not much bigger than ours, they have successfully introduced bus competition. Another aspect of the argument is to say that it is only contestable if there are many players in it. That is not necessarily so. Competition is not purely a numbers game. You can have just a few firms, and they can provide very effective competition. Just think of, say, Boeing and Airbus. The key is to ensure that the market is indeed contestable, that people can indeed come in and bid for the bus route packages. Mr Cedric Foo and others have asked how exactly do we intend to introduce competition in the bus market. As he mentioned, we are introducing competition "for" the market. This is important as a starting principle. Operators will compete to provide a package of routes designed by LTA. They will seek to operate this package efficiently and innovate to increase ridership within their respective packages. This is different from competition "in" the market which is head to head competition. That is often detrimental to an integrated public transport system because it duplicates resources and reduces commuters' welfare.”
“While it is premature to go into implementation details, the benefits are clear. First, LTA will be able to plan the entire transport network - rail, bus, including the roads - holistically, as one integrated system. Second, LTA will be in a better position to adopt a commuter-centric approach. Third, LTA will be able to look at the "whole-journey" experience of commuters. One of the key targets is to shorten public transport journey times. 1.00 pm LTA has set a target that 80% of door-to-door journeys on public transport during the morning peak should be within an hour by 2015. This would be up from 71% today. This measures the total travel time, including waiting for transfers, as suggested by Mdm Phua. Mdm Phua would also be pleased to know that public transport services to key employment centres, such as the industrial estates in Tuas and Jurong, will be a key priority for LTA, in order to achieve this 80% target. Mr Lim Biow Chuan made a point whether LTA, as central bus planner, would help address the problem of circuitous feeder services. Yes, LTA will seek to make feeder services more direct and frequent. As for the Scheme B buses which he mentioned, they dwindled because of falling demand. They were introduced in the mid-70s to supplement basic bus services which were not so developed then. But since then, we have built up our MRT and basic bus frequencies have gone up. Demand for Scheme B services started to fall. It is not so much that the PTOs were planning for it, it is just that the demand fell and they did not think there was sufficient justification for them to continue running. This is a market outcome and LTA even as a central planner should not intervene.”
“I will now address some of the key issues and comments on our public transport initiatives and I will deal with those relating to managing road usage later. There has been a lot of interest in how we are going to implement these major public transport changes. Our foremost consideration is to ensure a smooth transition with minimal disruption to commuters. Most of us make our daily commute in an "auto-pilot" mode. Imagine the stress if we wake up tomorrow morning, and find that our usual bus service has been re-routed. Multiply this confusion across the three million bus trips each day in Singapore, and we get a sense of the confusion that Seoul woke up to on 1st July 2004. On 1st July 2004, Seoul kicked in their bus reform plans. The Seoul government had decided that they would take a "big bang" approach. They made an overnight switch, changing the numbers of 8,000 buses and adjusting 400 bus routes. The result was huge confusion for commuters and also the bus drivers. Prof. Kim Kwang Sik, Chairman of the Bus Reform Citizens Committee in Seoul, and who is a member of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) International Advisory Panel, advised us against following Seoul's footsteps. This is good advice and we will take it. Over the next year or so, LTA will work closely with consultants on how best to achieve a smooth transition. LTA will build up its capabilities for route planning and bus route tendering, and roll out these changes in phases with an extensive public communications exercise. This is not because we do not want to move quickly, as some people have urged us, but we want to do this in a commuter-friendly way. Several Members have asked how LTA will go about its central planning role for buses.”
“In working out our various policy initiatives to achieve this, we did two things throughout the whole process. We decided that we need to look at the system as a whole rather than on a piecemeal basis, and that we should pursue not just a top-down approach but also a bottom-up one as well, involving other Government agencies and members of the public. So I can assure Mr Siew Kum Hong that we worked closely, on an ongoing basis, with a whole range of other Government agencies – such as URA, HDB, MEWR and NParks. This is de rigueur. The reason being precisely, as he said, that we need to take a holistic approach to land transport planning. This is an integral part of our objective of ensuring that we have a liveable city. For example, LTA uses planning parameters from various agencies to work out transport plans, such as the population growth, distribution of population, where the employment centres are, where the residential centres are, and tourist arrival numbers. In answer to Mr Siew Kum Hong, on whether we take the future population in 2020 into account when we were planning, the answer is yes, it has all been factored in. We also take into account socio-economic and environmental considera tions that go into the planning of a liveable city. What is clear is that in a densely-populated city-state like Singapore, the only way that we can ensure a high-quality urban living environment is to make a decisive shift towards public transport. Hence, our strategic thrust, as I said, is to make public transport a viable alternative to the car. We need to do this by a combination of both pull and push factors. The pull factor is to improve our public transport system, and the push factor is to curb excessive car use.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank Members for their comments and suggestions. As Mdm Cynthia Phua, Mr Siew Kum Hong and several other Members have said, by and large, people are supportive of the land transport review measures that are being put in place. Mr Low Thia Khiang mentioned this too. Like what Mdm Cynthia Phua said, not everybody mentions my name with affection, but that goes with the job. Sir, we are making significant changes to our land transport system. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked when the land transport masterplan and the consultancy report were going to come out. It will be out later this month. We have said that once the full report is done, the consultancy report will be part of it and will be issued. After we announced the Land Transport Review, we went down for community engagements to explain what these measures are all about. Recently, towards the end of a dialogue session, someone put up his hand. I said, "Okay, last question." He asked, "Could you summarise the whole Land Transport Review in one sentence?" I think that is actually a useful exercise, because it forces us to crystallise our thoughts. My answer was, "to ensure that we have a liveable city". This is our overriding goal and forms the basis for our land transport policies. We are deeply conscious and aware that transport plays a pivotal role, as it impacts significantly on the character and life of a city. Then, one more hand went up. He said, "Supplementary question." I think he watched too much TV – "Highlights of Parliament". "How do you intend to achieve this goal?" My answer was, "to make public transport your other car". In a nutshell, this is what we are trying to do – to ensure that we have a liveable city and to achieve that by making public transport your other car.”
“The LTA has completed its review on requiring an automatic levelling feature on vehicles fitted with High Intensity Discharge (HID) headlamps. In its review, LTA has consulted the motor industry. LTA will require all vehicles fitted with HID headlamps that are registered from 1st January 2010 to be equipped with the automatic levelling feature. This new requirement will not be applied retrospectively to in-use vehicles with HID headlamps as it would require extensive modifications to the vehicle's headlamp system. APPENDICES Section Name: BUDGET Title: ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Filename : Annexes to Annual Budget Statement MP Name: Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam Section Name: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Title: GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT Filename : Charts (Figures 1 and 2) - Written Answer to Q3 MP Name: Mr Lim Hng Kiang”
“The outcome of the trial and the feedback gathered will also help us to determine how best to meet the needs of cyclists and pedestrians within our land constraints. Column No : 421 MIXED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL ZONING IN GEYLANG AREA (Review) 23. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there are plans to review the mixed residential/commercial zoning in the Geylang area, in particular Lorongs 22 to 44; (b) whether there are concrete strategies to help ring-fence Geylang Lorongs 22 to 44 which are mainly residential areas; and (c) what are the KPIs and results that we can expect to see in a concerted multi-agency effort in the area.”
“We recognise that there is a growing interest in cycling, with more people cycling for recreation, or to get around the neighbourhood. Hence cycling was very much a part of the Land Transport Review. In the review, we recognise that cycling is a transport option that can link commuters to major transport nodes such as our train stations and bus interchanges, making it easier for people to take public transport. Hence LTA will provide more and better bicycle parking facilities around MRT stations and bus interchanges in the housing estates. This initiative will be progressively implemented, starting with towns where demand for bicycle parking facilities outstrips supply. LTA will carry out a one-year pilot in 2009 in Pasir Ris, Tampines and Yishun, to gather feedback and better understand the needs of the cyclists, before extending it to other MRT stations/bus interchanges. From March 2008, cyclists will also be allowed to carry their foldable bicycles on-board our buses and trains on a trial basis during off-peak periods. LTA will impose size restrictions and other conditions to ensure that the safety and comfort of other commuters are not compromised. Given our land constraints, we will not be able to provide a comprehensive network of dedicated cycling tracks. Instead, we will leverage upon NParks' nation-wide Park Connectors Network to bring cyclists to transport nodes. Where there are short gaps between the park connectors and transport nodes, LTA will work with the other agencies to close these gaps. In May 2007, the Traffic Police and LTA, together with the Tampines Grassroot Organisations, started a one-year trial to allow cycling on pedestrian footways in Tampines.”
“Whether it is buses, LRT or a combination of both, LTA will select the most suitable local transport system to support the town, taking into the consideration the land use and ridership in the area. Column No : 419 USE OF BICYCLE (Integration into urban transport planning) 22. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Transport in view that more people are cycling for transport as well as for leisure in Singapore, what are the Ministry's plans to integrate the use of bicycles into urban transport planning as part of the land transport policy review.”
“The LRT system is intended to provide commuters with an alternative feeder service from major transport nodes such as MRT stations and bus interchanges to their estates. Compared to buses, the LRT is a more efficient form of transport in densely populated towns or areas with high activity levels. The train is also more reliable in its time schedules, and unlike buses, is not subject to delays from congestion on the road. Currently, we have three LRT systems each serving Bukit Panjang, Sengkang and Punggol, with a service availability of more than 99.5%. The Bukit Panjang LRT was put in place in a built-up HDB town as a feeder system to the MRT network. As for the relatively newer Sengkang and Punggol LRTs, they are integrated with the developments of the towns to enhance their convenience and accessibility to the residents. One feedback on the LRT is that the stations are spaced relatively further apart than bus stops. In determining where LRT stations are located, LTA takes into consideration the need to maximise accessibility and connectivity for residents in the estates while making sure that the entire system operates optimally and resources are used efficiently. To maximise catchment and accessibility to residents, LRT stations are located at activity centres such as neighbourhood centres where possible. An LRT system with stations too close to each other will compromise the operational speed of the system, thereby reducing its efficiency and the benefits of its services to passengers. A careful balance therefore has to be struck for each LRT system. The LRT remains a possible transport option in densely populated towns or areas with high activity levels. LTA will continue to keep all options open when it plans the public transport network of any town.”
“Seoul did a similar review of their bus system a few years ago. One of the changes they made was to take this financial discipline away. I met a Professor who was involved in this. He is part of our international advisory panel. He said that once they took that away, the deficit shot up. Because once we say that it is quite all right that the bundle does not have to be financially viable, that we can run a deficit on it, then we lose the discipline and the deficit starts to grow. So financial discipline will still be in place. What LTA will do is that when they look at the bundle, they will see how best to optimise the whole bus network from the viewpoint of the commuters, which is quite different from the present situation where the bus planning is done by the public transport operators. They have a different viewpoint. That is the key difference. Column No : 358 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 16. To ask the Minister for Education (a) what is the importance of early childhood education; (b) whether his Ministry can pour in the equivalent effort to build a stronger infrastructure system for early childhood education that is comparable to other educational levels; and (c) in light of many different private schools offering diploma and degree courses in pre-school education, who is responsible to ensure quality control over their curricula.”
“Sir, I have been to Bukit Panjang because I get all this feedback. On the quality of service standards and basic bus services for the whole day, no basic bus service can run beyond a 30 minutes headway unless the PTC gives an exemption. Mr Liang Eng Hwa says there is a service in Bukit Panjang that is running at intervals of more than 30 minutes. That is because for that particular service 922, it is to complement the Bukit Panjang LRT. I think Dr Teo Ho Pin knows that. We already have the LRT system there and it runs at a frequency of 4-5 minutes. There was a request and I think SMRT said, "Well, we will see what we can do about it", and they put in a feeder bus. That is the background to the matter. For all basic bus services, it should not be more than 30 minutes. If Members know of any bus service that is more than 30 minutes, they should make a representation to the Public Transport Council and say that there is now a breach of quality of service standard 5.4, and cite that provision to them. The Member's other question is on how do we do this bundling, going forward. Let us be clear on what we are doing. The LTA, as central planner, is not going to dispense with this fundamental principle that we have in our transport planning, which is that it must still be financially viable. So, when they bundle the routes - some are unprofitable and some are profitable - the package as a whole must be financially viable. This is important. When we had our consultants looking into this, they said that we are one of the few cities - Hong Kong is the other one - that have this financial discipline in the system. And if we take away this discipline, it would be at a cost to the country as a whole. Other countries have done this sort of big public transport reviews.”
“Sir, I will answer the second question first. She asked what will happen to the fares with all these changes. Because of all these changes, will there be an increase in public transport fares? The way our system works is that we have a fare cap formula. This formula prevents the bus and rail operators' costs to be passed through directly to the commuters. That is how the commuters' interests are being safeguarded. With all these changes, the onus is really on the public transport operators to increase their efficiency and productivity to meet these changes. On her first question whether the fares will be consistent across all the bus operators in terms of coordination, this is something that we are going to look at. Besides the coordination of fares, LTA is also working on a season pass, which we do not have now. The season pass would cut across operators and across modes. If we want to promote public transport, it is important to have such a pass. Her third question is whether or not there is going to be any incentive for car drivers. Well, there is a $40 billion incentive. That is how much we are spending on public transport. It is a lot of money. And $14 billion on road improvements. If we put the whole lot together, it is more than $50 billion. It is $4 billion a year up to 2020. That is $4 billion a year incentive for car drivers.”
“Sir, may I clarify that the PTC sets standards not just for peak hours. They also do so for non-peak hours. In terms of bus routes, I have set out the time table on how we are going to do this. LTA needs to study this carefully. This is something that is new to them. I think the primary concern here is really commuter convenience. We do not want to do it such that it is disruptive to them. For 2008, we need to study how best to do this. They are going to hire consultants to help. We need to work very closely with the bus operators. When we did our study trips to various cities, in most major cities that have a first-class public transport system, there is always a central planner looking at both the rail and bus systems to see how they are integrated and coordinated. One advice they gave us is that when we do this, we should do it in a graduated manner and work closely with the existing public transport operators, because we do not want a disruption in routes. That is the reason why we have rolled it out this way; study how to do it and build up the capabilities in 2008. In 2009, they will start the central planning of bus routes. And 2010 onwards, open it up to competition. This does not mean that during this whole period, there are no on-going changes. There will be a continual process that takes place. The PTC continues to have oversight over the bus routes.”
“With the former, the number of bus services on the roads will be specified by LTA and not left to competing bus operators to flood the roads with their bus services, causing a deterioration in traffic conditions.”
“Mdm Ho, Mdm Phua and Mr Liang have asked about the changes to the basic bus services that were announced recently in the Land Transport Review. First, let me address concerns about the frequency of feeder bus services. Feeder bus services are important in our hub and spoke system, for they provide the connectivity to the MRT and bus interchanges. More than 80% of our feeder bus services currently run at frequencies of 15 minutes or less during peak hours. However, this can be improved. The Public Transport Council (PTC) has already set stringent Quality of Service (QoS) standards where the basic bus service operators must have at least 80% of all their services (ie, trunk and feeder) running at peak hour headways of 10 minutes or less, by August 2009. Recognising the importance of feeder bus services, the PTC and the LTA are now looking at setting a higher QoS standard specifically for feeder bus services. This will be finalised by June 2008, in consultation with the bus operators. Next, the opening up of the basic bus service market for more competition will be implemented gradually and carefully to minimise any inconvenience and disruption to commuters. LTA will take a year or so to complete its study of how our existing bus network can be better optimised to meet commuters' needs. In 2009, LTA will take on the centralised planning of the bus network and it will gradually open up the bus market to more competition after that. Mdm Ho is concerned that because of greater bus competition, there would be more buses on our roads and, as a result, congestion would worsen. I would like to clarify that what LTA will be introducing is competition for the market and not competition in the market.”