Minister Raymond Lim was stumped by residents' query on ERP.
-
got any on youtube? I also missed it. ERP does not eliminate the traffic jams. Period. This is one of the toughest questions I can think of also. Why have it when it does not solve the problem? Is there other more nobel reasons for having ERP? Like save the planet?Originally posted by robertteh:Sure it will be watch for repeat over TV perhaps Channel 5 tonight.
I like to see his face and expression when answering the resident's question.
He look so smart and educated and handsome lor. So elite IQ. -
The following appeared on Channelnews Asia website on 7 October 2007 - and will be archived within the next 24 hours.
Transport grievances one hot issue at dialogue session
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia
Posted: 07 October 2007 2003 hrs
SINGAPORE: Transport grievances were one of the main issues dominating a dialogue session held after Transport Minister Raymond Lim's community visit to the Thomson Division.
"We don't mind, as vehicle owners, to pay increased ERP (fees). But we are frustrated when we pay the ERP (fees), we don't see any ease of traffic flow on the CTE," complained a resident.
The answer? It may be frustrating, however there is no one magic solution but a range of measures adjusted over time as the situation changes.
Mr Lim explained: "As a first step, we will do what we call traffic engineering solutions. So if you look at the Central Expressway, we have widened it through the years and only recently we did it again.
"What's the problem here? Let's say we widen the road. When we first widened the road, the traffic might improve. When it improves, what happens? People who previously didn't drive on that road, the Central Expressway, will now drive on it.
"So, some say, 'build more roads'. Yes, build more roads, that will help. Some say, 'better public transport'. Yes, better public transport will also help. But at the end of the day, you also still need this traffic management, which involves not just the ERP, but as you know in our system, we also have COE."
But it wasn't just about the ERP. A whole range of transport issues came up during the dialogue session.
There were suggestions ranging from having premium bus services to 24-hour senior citizen concession passes.
There was also a suggestion to have the Public Transport Council (PTC) review public transport fares only every four years, just before the elections.
But, Mr Lim said: "If we freeze the whole thing for four years - no fare increase - the pressure will say, 'why not extend another four years?' The experience of other countries is that the minute you allow the fare increase to be politicised, that over time, the service of your bus standards goes down. If they can't get these returns to renew the bus fleet, the bus fleet will start to shrink and as the bus fleet starts to shrink because they don't replace it, there will be more and more overcrowding. So the situation gets worse and people will complain." - CNA/ir
Was the CTE ever widened since it was opened for use in the mid-1980s, and widened again recently - as stated by Raymond Lim, or was he attempting to bluff his way out of a tight spot ?
The only widening works that were ever carried out was at the PIE-exit slip road into the CTE along Jalan Toa Payoh; and the CTE-Braddell Road intersection.
The entire stretch of the CTE remained as narrow as it was since its opening, as the CTE is sandwiched by residential estates on both sides of the CTE.
How did Raymond Lim dreamed that the CTE could still be widened ? Did he consider that there is little space beyond the road shoulder for any expansion to be made ?
The CTE could easily allow a higher flow of traffic, at a higher and safer speed -then the present peak hour crawl of 60 kmh - by simply removing the useless speed camera - that is of no use as both sides of the CTE, which is constantly jammed by vehicles that will suddenly go slow before the speed camera, and causing another huge log jams.
If Raymond Lim had shown his brilliance - as the Million Dollar Elites are supposed to have - perhaps other solutions could have been considered. -
More accidental will happen if speed camera is removed. From the way,Singapore drives. Speeding and inconsiderate driving is common..Originally posted by Atobe:The following appeared on Channelnews Asia website on 7 October 2007 - and will be archived within the next 24 hours.
Was the CTE ever widened since it was opened for use in the mid-1980s, and widened again recently - as stated by Raymond Lim, or was he attempting to bluff his way out of a tight spot ?
The only widening works that were ever carried out was at the PIE-exit slip road into the CTE along Jalan Toa Payoh; and the CTE-Braddell Road intersection.
The entire stretch of the CTE remained as narrow as it was since its opening, as the CTE is sandwiched by residential estates on both sides of the CTE.
How did Raymond Lim dreamed that the CTE could still be widened ? Did he consider that there is little space beyond the road shoulder for any expansion to be made ?
The CTE could easily allow a higher flow of traffic, at a higher and safer speed -then the present peak hour crawl of 60 kmh - by simply removing the useless speed camera - that is of no use as both sides of the CTE, which is constantly jammed by vehicles that will suddenly go slow before the speed camera, and causing another huge log jams.
If Raymond Lim had shown his brilliance - as the Million Dollar Elites are supposed to have - perhaps other solutions could have been considered.
Up ERP rate to $20 is a good idea. One present reason for huge number of cars on road is becos of cheap price. Making it more expensive for people to maintain a car or buy one will be good. Limit car loan to only 5 years! -
when they implement the ERP, the ministers mind was only money money and more money. Anything that can bring them money, they will there to implement something to collect money from it. becos only this way, their salary will then increase ermm.. to help the poor?
Have they ever ask themselves this?
why prevent more people from using bigger lanes by using the ERP and causing a traffic jam somewhere in a smaller lane road?
Most probably NO. cos they only think of making money.
This is only our elites scholars can think of. -
More accident without the speed camera ?Originally posted by zenden9:More accidental will happen if speed camera is removed. From the way,Singapore drives. Speeding and inconsiderate driving is common..
Up ERP rate to $20 is a good idea. One present reason for huge number of cars on road is becos of cheap price. Making it more expensive for people to maintain a car or buy one will be good. Limit car loan to only 5 years!
How often have you seen multiple collission occurring during the Peak Hour Period, when traffic move at a snail pace, bumper-to-bumper speed ?
Expressways are supposed to carry a high volume of traffic, and move people along at an ''express speed'' that is commensurate with the traffic density condition.
People should learn to use the expressways correctly, that is to respect the speed for each lanes on the expressways.
How often have you seen slow moving trucks on Lane 2, and 3, while Lane 4 is less occupied; leaving passenger cars locked up on Lane 1 ?
This is a common sight in the morning and evening traffic flow along the ECP, PIE, AYE, CTE, and SLE.
Somehow, these trucks and other slow moving vehicles will not keep to Lane 3 and 4; and will take up even Lane 2.
Drivers who are tired and will lose concentration when driving at slow speed, but with adrenalin pumping - they are usually more alert at higher speeds. -
gov dun care u poor or rich all they want is pocket got money as long u pay they get paid.thats the gov is doing to us.
btw the people always complain this n that the gov is doing but when polling day they still vote gov wat so why care PAP always rules...i wonder when opp party will win
-
okay.. all that being said, what do you guys suggest then?
-
wat to do u go gathering to oppose gov loh haben do it police catch liao
but i dun understand ang moh can we cannot why huh -
that's the purpose!! so ended ERP everywhereOriginally posted by FireIce:they jam the pipe here, the water will find somewhere else to flow
then they will try block the pipe again, and the water will still go through another channel......
( always wif the same reason ). soonest will become pay as u use!!! -
Allow the expressways to function as an expressway.Originally posted by the Bear:okay.. all that being said, what do you guys suggest then?
The Traffic Police should not be speeding down expressways and randomly nabbing supposedly errant goods vehicles for minor infractions, but should instead ensure the proper lane and speed discipline - {i.e. : ensuring road hoggers move aside}.
Any device - that unnecessarily strike psychological reaction to affect drivers to suddenly change speeds on the highways - should be removed.
How often have we seen vehicles slowing down to 70-80kmh before a speed-camera on a 90kmh expressways, only to speed off again at 90+kmh after a safe distance of 300 meters past the camera ?
Every day and night, most cars are already doing 100kmh along all expressways, with some even going higher at 110kmh on clear roads with minimal traffic at different times of the day or night.
The speed limits should be variable at different times of the day and night.
As matters stand, it is ridiculous to post a 90kmh speed limit during peak hours, when traffic load is so dense on the expressways that restrict speed to a snail paced 60-70kmh bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Expressways should have slip road exits designed in a logical way, to allow vehicles to slow down prior to exit on the LEFT.
At the PIE exit into Jalan Anak Bukit towards Clementi and BeautyWorld, the exit from PIE is on the RIGHT - which require slow traffic to criss-cross with through traffic moving at a higher speed towards Jurong and Tuas.
The crown of the roads on most of our Expressways do not help drivers to negotiate the curves and bends along the expressways even at 90kmh.
When moving towards Jurong-Tuas, there are several sections of the PIE that are dangerous for vehicles taking the long left curving bend - even at 90kmh, as the road surface is ''sloping downwards'' towards the right - which accentuate the center-of-gravity push towards the right as the vehicle negotiate the long left curving bend.
The first section of the PIE with this poor road design is the long left-curving bend when travelling towards Jurong-Tuas, and this is after the ''PIE exit to BKE'', with this long curve stretching for at least 500 meters.
The other section of the PIE with this similar poor design feature is at the PIE fly-over that is adjacent to the Bukit Timah Shopping Mall, when the road surface is similarly banked towards the wrong side of the curve.
Surprisingly, the long curve along the Benjamin Sheares Bridge - in both direction - is superbly designed to allow cars to negotiate the long curving bend at speeds of 110 kmh, as the road surface has been designed to compensate the center-of-gravity push in the opposite direction of the vehicle taking the long curving bend.
LTA has consistently deny that road bends are poorly designed to handle such center-of-gravity issues, but the fact remains glaringly exposed if one compare the road bends along these two sections of the PIE to that provided along the Benjamin Sheares Bridge - the difference is remarkable.
The Singapore Traffic Police should not be obssessed with speed restriction, but should instead encourage the use of safe higher speed limits to move traffic off the roads quickly.
They should adopt the philosophy that the longer vehicles stay on the roads or on the expressways, the chance of accident always exist.
Vehicles today are designed for higher speed, and it is ridiculous for the Traffic Police to expect cars to travel at a speed of 50kmh that is arbitrarily blanketted over all roads in Singapore unless otherwise stated.
Moving at 50kmh will require a vehicle to travel on 3rd gear all the way.
Singapore Drivers - new ones especially - should be taught that driving vehicles with auto-transmission still require them to make decision to change gear manually if certain conditions require them to do so.
I have witnessed at least one spectacular accident in which a BMW driven by an inpatient young kid taking a short curving bend at a high speed. Did he think that the vehicle will automatically shift down to 3rd or 2nd to handle the curve at a more manageable speed ?
In a manual transmission car, an experienced driver will manually shift to a lower 3rd gear when taking on a bend - but an auto-transmission car will not do so and will need the manual input of the driver.
Unfortunately, this fact is not in the minds of new drivers, who should be sent to a higher level of learning that include such defensive driving skills so as to make Singapore roads safer.
Many accidents that have happened along road bends are a result of misjudgement that is due to simple ignorance of basic car handling.
Road sense and presence of mind is essential not only with road users, but also with road designers.
At times, I wonder if the road designers are drivers at all. -
fantastic.
There was also a suggestion to have the Public Transport Council (PTC) review public transport fares only every four years, just before the elections.
But, Mr Lim said: "If we freeze the whole thing for four years - no fare increase - the pressure will say, 'why not extend another four years?' The experience of other countries is that the minute you allow the fare increase to be politicised, that over time, the service of your bus standards goes down. If they can't get these returns to renew the bus fleet, the bus fleet will start to shrink and as the bus fleet starts to shrink because they don't replace it, there will be more and more overcrowding. So the situation gets worse and people will complain." - CNA
Since when was the increase in fare price going to the renewal of the bus fleet? It was meant to increase the profitability of the transport companies so that they can answer to their shareholders (where Temasek's the biggest shareholder)
Like I said, privatizing PUBLIC transport is a total paradox. Privatization requires companies to improve their profitability, while the purpose of the Public transport is to keep transport costs affordable for the general people. These 2 objectives run opposite against each other. -
Private helicopter lor!Originally posted by Icemoon:don't understand. they don't use the same roads then how they travel? -
These are just some instruments used to squeeze the peasants. On one hand they released more COEs, on the other hand they increase ERP rates citing congestions. Isn't it obvious? They gave all kinds of rubbish excuses.
-
but erp does help REDUCE traffic congestion.
even the european countries agrees and has taken up the idea. -
Thomson residents' query : "We don't mind to pay the ERP
We? Sorry. He speaks for himself and himself only. I do bloody mind. Turnip. -
easy on the beer buddy....lol.......Originally posted by LordIcarus:but erp does help REDUCE traffic congestion.
even the european countries agrees and has taken up the idea. -
abolish COE, enforce a quota on number of personal vehicles own on a per household rate. Maybe say, a limit of 2 cars per household. Families who decide not to own cars, can transfer/sell their entitlement (10 years maybe?). At least the cash flows within the populace and not back to line the pockets of the government.
As far as government rationale goes, the COE was to limit car buying in the first place, and not to cover some cost. Why did they implement COE and then removed the need for 30% down-payment? Trying to limit car growth and yet making buying cars more accessible at the same time? -
-
..nahh...Originally posted by Jontst78:abolish COE, enforce a quota on number of personal vehicles own on a per household rate. Maybe say, a limit of 2 cars per household. Families who decide not to own cars, can transfer/sell their entitlement (10 years maybe?). At least the cash flows within the populace and not back to line the pockets of the government.
As far as government rationale goes, the COE was to limit car buying in the first place, and not to cover some cost. Why did they implement COE and then removed the need for 30% down-payment? Trying to limit car growth and yet making buying cars more accessible at the same time?
I think abolish PAP altogeher... solves EVERY problem they created...!! -
The introduction of OPC, yes it helps lower income family to own a vehicles, but on weekends, you can cry when u look at the traffic jam with quite a number of OPC cars on the road.Originally posted by Jontst78:abolish COE, enforce a quota on number of personal vehicles own on a per household rate. Maybe say, a limit of 2 cars per household. Families who decide not to own cars, can transfer/sell their entitlement (10 years maybe?). At least the cash flows within the populace and not back to line the pockets of the government.
As far as government rationale goes, the COE was to limit car buying in the first place, and not to cover some cost. Why did they implement COE and then removed the need for 30% down-payment? Trying to limit car growth and yet making buying cars more accessible at the same time? -
Commonly, I noted that MOST OPC motorists lack experience & yet they show 'attitudes' on the road..!!Originally posted by sLeEpWaLkErInG:The introduction of OPC, yes it helps lower income family to own a vehicles, but on weekends, you can cry when u look at the traffic jam with quite a number of OPC cars on the road.
1 - no manners
2 - does not signal
3 - switches lanes dangerously while speeding
4 - hogging the center lane or the overtaking lane
5 - you can grow a beard just waiting for an OPC motorist to park if you happen to be behind them
Comparatively, I think muscle-car drivers (Evos & WRXs) show more standards than these... OPCs... -
It is different, European countries are big, Singapore is a tiny island, The minister collects million dollar salary, and cant solve traffic problem, then better cut his payOriginally posted by LordIcarus:but erp does help REDUCE traffic congestion.
even the european countries agrees and has taken up the idea. -
Not only OPC, normal car also like that, very rude, not like Australians, they dont horn at pplOriginally posted by HyperFocal:Commonly, I noted that MOST OPC motorists lack experience & yet they show 'attitudes' on the road..!!
1 - no manners
2 - does not signal
3 - switches lanes dangerously while speeding
4 - hogging the center lane or the overtaking lane
5 - you can grow a beard just waiting for an OPC motorist to park if you happen to be behind them
Comparatively, I think muscle-car drivers (Evos & WRXs) show more standards than these... OPCs... -
AgreedOriginally posted by Atobe:Allow the expressways to function as an expressway.
....
.......
Road sense and presence of mind is essential not only with road users, but also with road designers.
At times, I wonder if the road designers are drivers at all. -
The ISLANDWIDE ERP is obviously ineffective and yet this minister of ours is still implementing and approving the increase. I am sure he has the statistics to see what happens when ERP are increased but yet when a poorly made decision is made, it cannot be reverted. For all we drivers know, the recent ERP rates increase does nothing effective but confuses.
From here, we can see a drawback of having highly paid ministers and running it like a private company
1) They are afraid to admit to mistake
2) Some will continue with the mistake to hide the facade
3) They will continue to boast the success to other countries
4) They are only interested in getting more profits so that their already big pay pockets are even fatter.
Going back to the ERP system, it is obviously nothing more than just an extremely effective money collecting system. Worst the cashless process makes it difficult for many drivers to feel the actual cost.
I remember when ERP was first implemented for the CDB. It was indeed very effective as one of the bottlenecks in CDB was the payment collection. We also can easily identify that CDB is a costly place and avoided driving there as best we can.
Come the islandwide ERP, what has first worked clearly began to fail. Everywhere we drive now is ERP and complicates the cost involved. Instead of 1 ERP, we now pass through multiple ERP. Drivers are already preoccupied with driving safety, road to take and to add further and now ERP wants us to calculate the cost of driving! Most of us are not mathematician here you know and wouldn't want spend so much energy to such complex computation!
For goodness sake, minister please wake up to reality. THE ERP is FAILING !!! The statistics are there, the drivers tell u and it is also not difficult to realise that the ERP has grown into an overly sophisticated solution which many drivers cannot feel !!!
After driving for some many years, I still don't know the ERP rates for the different timing and I can least remember where are the ERP gantries because there are so many!!!
To send a clearer signal, I think we all drivers should tell u to wake up the transport minister to wake up your F*CKING idea!