Online views of LTA - millions spent with little in return
-
Besides ft, LTA is also another of our 'favourite'.
Public transport
'Wasteful and we also destroy history'
Online views of LTA, and the millions spent with little in return.
Aug 27, 2006, littlespeck.com
By Heng-Cheong Leong
LTA - Land Transport Authority - is probably the agency that wasted the most taxpayers' money.
From failed projects such as the GPS system on buses, to aborted projects such as the headquarter-over-canal, to stupid projects such as the we-estimate-time-and-you-guess-whether-got-congestion-on-expression display panels, LTA has probably wasted millions and millions of money paid by taxpayers.
Now, we discover things get worse. LTA also destroys our history. Without permission from anyone, LTA destroyed part of a 100-year-old structure that is supposed to be protected under the Preservation of Monuments Act.
Of course, destroying history is not something new. Remember the National Library that was destroyed because LTA want to build a tunnel?
Remember the National Theatre that was destroyed because... er... for no good reason at all?
And, of course, all the homes and families that had been forced to move and abandon memories, in the name of progress (read: roads and rails)?
Along the line of the "new NKF", I guess it's time we tear down the current LTA, rethink what we really want in terms of land transport management, and redo a new LTA. - Heng-Cheong Leong
Meanwhile in Funkygrad.com, reader Egoz posted similar views:-
But you must look deeper than economics. You see, economics is just more than demand and supply and equilibrium. It involves value judgment, something which JC students aren't taught.
It involves an analysis whether such a policy would actually be socially beneficial or socially adverseÂ…
..They (the bus companies) implemented the EZ-Link system and charge the bill to the public.
They introduced air-conditioned bus interchange for amusing and unbelieving reasons and charge the commuters for these extras.
(Littlespeck.com: Another wasteful costly item: Installing TV sets on buses whose shows passengers hardly - if ever - watch.)
And again, they introduced the GPS system on the buses and make the public users pay for their hoo-haa. I didn't ask them to 'invest' into such areas. I am sure many other users didn't either.
I don't need a GPS system to tell me if my bus is coming in 5 minutes because even if it is coming in 15 minutes, I will still have to take that darn bus.
Neither do knowing these real-time information at the last minute leave me with other alternatives of reaching my destination, if the entire street is experiencing a traffic slowdown.
And looking on the other side of the coin, instead of profit maximisation, there is an alternative for cost-minimisation too. There is more than one specific path to take to reach an objective.
Besides, they are private firms producing semi-public goods, which bears social benefits above social costs.
The government has a part to play in this fee hike.
According to a minister that SM LKY had praised in front of the Potong Pasir crowd as being a straight 'A's student, this minister, when asked why should public bus service providers pay ERP charges, his learned reply was, 'without ERP, the flow of buses will increase in the CDB area'.
What a 'duh' answer! Bus companies have a schedule to follow, regardless with or without ERP.
What sort of nonsense is that? Then again, it's a 'honest mistake', and we are working towards a 'world-class' transport system.
Aug 27, 2006 -
Sorry but LTA headed by who ah?
-
To me, the biggest mistake LTA made was tendering out the NEL operations to SBS(T). It led to the demise of Tibs Holdings and screwed up the public transport system quite a bit.
-
who cares? any different? they are still ALL dumb....Originally posted by charlize:Sorry but LTA headed by who ah?
-
LTA should take the charge to rein in the taxi co. PTC has no bite.
-
When I heard about that, I shook my head sadly.Originally posted by iveco:To me, the biggest mistake LTA made was tendering out the NEL operations to SBS(T). It led to the demise of Tibs Holdings and screwed up the public transport system quite a bit.
Any freakin' A Level student with a B grade in Economics would be able to tell that a public rail system is a natural monopoly. In other words, you should have only one service provider to allow for full maximisation of economies of scale.
LTA's reasoning that it would lead to greater competition is unsound. Exactly what is the NEL competing with? Does SMRT have its own north-east line? Nope. Is it competing with bus services to the north-east then? Oh wait... but aren't those provided by SBS Transit as well?
And as a result, to avoid competing against its own bus services, it pulled out several bus services. And what happens? We have commuters who are actually inconvenienced by having to switch over to the MRT. -
Originally posted by fudgester:When I heard about that, I shook my head sadly.
Any freakin' A Level student with a B grade in Economics would be able to tell that a public rail system is a natural monopoly. In other words, you should have only one service provider to allow for full maximisation of economies of scale.
LTA's reasoning that it would lead to greater competition is unsound. Exactly what is the NEL competing with? Does SMRT have its own north-east line? Nope. Is it competing with bus services to the north-east then? Oh wait... but aren't those provided by SBS Transit as well?
And as a result, to avoid competing against its own bus services, it pulled out several bus services. And what happens? We have commuters who are actually inconvenienced by having to switch over to the MRT.
Those cheap! -
Hey we should never question the logic and reasoning of the scholars who run these stat boards.
They are scholars you know.
People of great knowledge and wisdom. -
I am sure things would have been better if SMRT had the subway monopoly and Tibs got control of HGN (but had to return BPJ back to SBS).Originally posted by fudgester:When I heard about that, I shook my head sadly.
Any freakin' A Level student with a B grade in Economics would be able to tell that a public rail system is a natural monopoly. In other words, you should have only one service provider to allow for full maximisation of economies of scale.
LTA's reasoning that it would lead to greater competition is unsound. Exactly what is the NEL competing with? Does SMRT have its own north-east line? Nope. Is it competing with bus services to the north-east then? Oh wait... but aren't those provided by SBS Transit as well?
And as a result, to avoid competing against its own bus services, it pulled out several bus services. And what happens? We have commuters who are actually inconvenienced by having to switch over to the MRT. -
hardy ha ha.Originally posted by charlize:Hey we should never question the logic and reasoning of the scholars who run these stat boards.
They are scholars you know.
People of great knowledge and wisdom. -
Looks like the same can't be said of their A Level econs, eh?Originally posted by charlize:Hey we should never question the logic and reasoning of the scholars who run these stat boards.
They are scholars you know.
People of great knowledge and wisdom. -
world class transport charges.
the only thing they know to do is ask for price hike. -
You know how it works up there.Originally posted by fudgester:Looks like the same can't be said of their A Level econs, eh?
You get to head something which you have never had any experience in running nor studied anything remotely similar to what you are about to manage.
Like army regulars who spend 10, 20 years planning army related crap and then suddenly heading say a GIC which invests billions of dollars in financial instruments.
You get my drift. -
A lot of thought was put into that before the decision was made.Originally posted by dragg:world class transport charges.
the only thing they know to do is ask for price hike.
Feedback from the public, feedback from the transport companies, feedback from the relevant authorities etc etc.
Just like the casino decision. -
Originally posted by charlize:A lot of thought was put into that before the decision was made.
Feedback from the public, feedback from the transport companies, feedback from the relevant authorities etc etc.
Just like the casino decision. -
This question has been bugging me for a long time : "Who is managing the policies that LTA is making that affects Singaporeans ? "
Case 1:
When the 'Third Brake' Light was first introduced into Singapore, it was banned - as LTA claimed that it was 'CONFUSING' Singaporean Drivers
Surprisingly, millions of drivers in Europe, Japan, UK - including across the Causeway - have no difficulty in understanding the difference of a 'Third Brake' light from the usual rear night lights of a car coming to a halt.
It took a while for LTA to realise the significance of their decision.
Case 2:
LTA tested a 'count down timer' to operate with the usual traffic lights, so as to inform impatient drivers, the balance time remaining before the light changes.
It was surprising that LTA did not differentiate the use of Red colored digital display linked to a Red Stop Light; and Green colored digital display linked to a Green Traffic Light.
LTA used the RED Digital Count Down Display for both Red and Green Lights - and later claimed that it was useless to have these countdown display as it confuses Singaporean drivers
Now, are we seeing the brilliance in the workings of LTA
LTA should be ashamed as even the Traffic Authorities in Malaysia, Myanmar, and Vietnam - supposedly Third World countries - know better than LTA in the use of 'different colored digital countdown display' to correspond with the correct traffic light condition.
Case 3:
LTA seems to have an axe to grind with car owners fitting extra-Fog Lamps that are not original equipment from the car manufacturer, and will insist that the non-standard Fog Lamps will require a opaque cover to shield the entire lamp when driving on Singapore roads.
Somehow, those extra-non-standard Fog Lamps that can fit neatly into the hollow of bumpers, are considered as Manufacturer approved lamps, and do not require any opaque covers when driving on Singapore roads.
These fog lamps are also allowed to be switched on when driving at night on the brightly litted Singapore roads - regardless of the brilliant intensity of the light bulbs in blinding the vision of on-coming vehicles.
Such skewered logic baffles Singaporean road users, as the latest models of headlamps fitted onto cars and motor-bikes seem to feature the glaringly intense brilliance of pure white light.
Case 4:
The recent incident of Toyota 'Wish' series of passenger cars were recalled due to a safety issue concerning the steering column.
This model was not imported by the Main Authorised Distributor for Toyota - as they were aware that this Toyota series had not passed 'Export Test' certification, and were produced for the domestic market only.
Somehow, LTA had approved the importing of this series of cars by 'parallel importers' - and had 'certified these vehicles as being fit for Singapore roads'.
On what basis did LTA depend on in certifying that these vehicles are fit for Singapore roads ? What testing criteria did LTA used ?
As events had developed, this Toyata 'Wish' series had to be recalled, and retrofitting works had to be done; and the 'parallel importers' were in no position to perform the rectification works.
Finally - it seems - that LTA had to 'subsidized' for the rectification works to be executed by the Main Authorised Dealer, and the car owners paying a portion of the costs.
Is LTA managed by Professional Engineers - who are familiar with motor engineering, and able to perform independent R & D works - that can be sued to formulate our own Vehicle and Traffic Safety Engineering Standards, or is our LTA simply plagiarists of the works done by Foreign National Safety Transport Authorities.
Singapore Civil Servants acting as the guardian and regulators of Singapore are world reknown for learning and drawing from the experiences of others.
As a result, more often than not, Singaporeans needing to comply with the detailed Singapore regulations will find it near impossible to comply - when the Singapore rules and regulations are extracts from the most stringent guidelines taken from the Best of the Best regulations of several countries. -
they received feedback and acknowledged receipt. but decisions were made solely on the needs of the transport companies.Originally posted by charlize:A lot of thought was put into that before the decision was made.
Feedback from the public, feedback from the transport companies, feedback from the relevant authorities etc etc.
Just like the casino decision. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
These trail and error were usually commented by some big a s s holes. Once, if the big a s s holes didn't like it...wow they tear down or terminate it like no tomorrow.
This question has been bugging me for a long time : [b]"Who is managing the policies that LTA is making that affects Singaporeans ? "
Case 1:
When the 'Third Brake' Light was first introduced into Singapore, it was banned - as LTA claimed that it was 'CONFUSING' Singaporean Drivers
Surprisingly, millions of drivers in Europe, Japan, UK - including across the Causeway - have no difficulty in understanding the difference of a 'Third Brake' light from the usual rear night lights of a car coming to a halt.
It took a while for LTA to realise the significance of their decision.
Case 2:
LTA tested a 'count down timer' to operate with the usual traffic lights, so as to inform impatient drivers, the balance time remaining before the light changes.
It was surprising that LTA did not differentiate the use of Red colored digital display linked to a Red Stop Light; and Green colored digital display linked to a Green Traffic Light.
LTA used the RED Digital Count Down Display for both Red and Green Lights - and later claimed that it was useless to have these countdown display as it confuses Singaporean drivers
Now, are we seeing the brilliance in the workings of LTA
LTA should be ashamed as even the Traffic Authorities in Malaysia, Myanmar, and Vietnam - supposedly Third World countries - know better than LTA in the use of 'different colored digital countdown display' to correspond with the correct traffic light condition.
Case 3:
LTA seems to have an axe to grind with car owners fitting extra-Fog Lamps that are not original equipment from the car manufacturer, and will insist that the non-standard Fog Lamps will require a opaque cover to shield the entire lamp when driving on Singapore roads.
Somehow, those extra-non-standard Fog Lamps that can fit neatly into the hollow of bumpers, are considered as Manufacturer approved lamps, and do not require any opaque covers when driving on Singapore roads.
These fog lamps are also allowed to be switched on when driving at night on the brightly litted Singapore roads - regardless of the brilliant intensity of the light bulbs in blinding the vision of on-coming vehicles.
Such skewered logic baffles Singaporean road users, as the latest models of headlamps fitted onto cars and motor-bikes seem to feature the glaringly intense brilliance of pure white light.
Case 4:
The recent incident of Toyota 'Wish' series of passenger cars were recalled due to a safety issue concerning the steering column.
This model was not imported by the Main Authorised Distributor for Toyota - as they were aware that this Toyota series had not passed 'Export Test' certification, and were produced for the domestic market only.
Somehow, LTA had approved the importing of this series of cars by 'parallel importers' - and had 'certified these vehicles as being fit for Singapore roads'.
On what basis did LTA depend on in certifying that these vehicles are fit for Singapore roads ? What testing criteria did LTA used ?
As events had developed, this Toyata 'Wish' series had to be recalled, and retrofitting works had to be done; and the 'parallel importers' were in no position to perform the rectification works.
Finally - it seems - that LTA had to 'subsidized' for the rectification works to be executed by the Main Authorised Dealer, and the car owners paying a portion of the costs.
Is LTA managed by Professional Engineers - who are familiar with motor engineering, and able to perform independent R & D works - that can be sued to formulate our own Vehicle and Traffic Safety Engineering Standards, or is our LTA simply plagiarists of the works done by Foreign National Safety Transport Authorities.
Singapore Civil Servants acting as the guardian and regulators of Singapore are world reknown for learning and drawing from the experiences of others.
As a result, more often than not, Singaporeans needing to comply with the detailed Singapore regulations will find it near impossible to comply - when the Singapore rules and regulations are extracts from the most stringent guidelines taken from the Best of the Best regulations of several countries.
[/b]
Until today, I still believe that they doing it just to please the big a s s sitting up there but not us the peasants. -
Perhaps the LTA planners simply lack expertise and experience, or perhaps they are just plain incompetent. In any case, this seems to call for more foreign talent!
-
Seriously what is LTA doing??
-
You asking me?Originally posted by Urroh:Seriously what is LTA doing??