Min Raymond Lim's Bus and MRT plans only partial solutions
-
I look forward to a new enlightened leadership for LTA from Mr Raymond Lim.
Minister Raymond Lim as a minister can adopt a 3-tier traffic master plan for long-term free flow of traffic for citizens i.e. (1) Tier-1 Expressways for inter-estate fast traffic (2) Tier-2 Major roads linking the expressways to local roads (3) Tier-3 for access to major buildings and estates and institutions and business hubs.
He should let expressways be subjected to ERP and try as far as possible to treat all other tiers as alternate routes to serve the competitiveness of the whole country.
From such a master plan being presented to the parliament he could authoritatively recommend and decide with convincing logic what proportion of the total amount of tax revenues from Vehicles should be allocated for achieving the balance of objectives between expressway versus major roads and access roads:
Excise Duty (110% of OMV at this moment),
COE,
ERP,
licence registration fees road taxes etc received by LTA,
Capital gains from MRT lands etc
If our minister Raymond Lim has such a master plan put up and consistently implemented by his permanent secretary and top civil servants in LTA there is no reason we cannot solve our present problems at all the expressways and ERP roads.
Now there is a lack of clarity in such traffic planning.
Over the next 6 months he should be able to decide (1) building or improving suitable alternate routes on one-to-one volume rato to offer alternative routes to expressways
(2) needs for overpasses and underpasses at serious congestion junctions
(3) linking of existing networks of expressways, major roads and access road to shorten journeys and maintain the balancing of objectives related to expressways and others.
The emphasis should not be to leave the situation alone and use people's congestion woes to increase more ERPs which at the end do not solve problems based on objectives.
The solutions foreseen for buses and MRTs targeted at commuters are only partial solutions and may not give the overall balance needed to solve our problems at this moment.
He will be missing the solutions again if he still keeps solving the symptoms. -
I find this essay full of logic.
I think part of the problem lies with the lack of co-ordination between city planning and the transport ministry.
It looks like transport is playing catch up. -
my consipracy theory is tt the gahmen has no choice. the residents of spore is burgeoning at a fast rate. they hve no choice but to overhaul or sinkapore will sink in a gridlock if a status quo is maintained. if it is a revamp, then i think the improvement is minimal.
my take is the gahmen will continue to allow a generous pte car population to exists. it cannot cope with more ppl switching to public transport when it is ill prepared for now.
the gahmen need to work on other aspects as well. it needs to continue to diverge it's industries locale so it is more spread out. the travel pattern, flow has to be regulated with this as well.
this is a tough challenge. presently, i think it is doing a good job. i take the public transport to work once a week as an alternative to driving. travel time doubles to an hour but it is still relatively seamless. i can catch up on the papers or a book i have yet to complete, so it is pretty good for me at least.
-
It's funny that you mention that. I take public transport or taxis. I use public transport time to read, think about things and I tend to chit chat with the taxi drivers. I always thought driving was a little like wasting time. Also I can't afford it.
-
There is a simple solution that will solve most of our problems but it is not politically palatable. Limit domestic vehicle ownership by limiting COEs and pour more resources into public transport. The proposed changes represent a step in the right direction, but it would go further if COEs are halved and vehicles are taken off the roads.
Alas! Most Singaporeans want their cars even if public transport is cheap and convenient. I guess they can't make out in the MRT trainl
-
Small correction.Originally posted by robertteh:Excise Duty (110% of OMV at this moment),
Excise duty is 20% of CIF price. The resulting price after payment of excise and gst is the OMV.
The 110% on top of that is the ARF paid to LTA. -
Some vehicles are used to conduct business. Gathering the information to manage it may be viewed with suspicion.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a simple solution that will solve most of our problems but it is not politically palatable. Limit domestic vehicle ownership by limiting COEs and pour more resources into public transport. The proposed changes represent a step in the right direction, but it would go further if COEs are halved and vehicles are taken off the roads.
Alas! Most Singaporeans want their cars even if public transport is cheap and convenient. I guess they can't make out in the MRT trainl -
Carpooling, for example...
http://imall.ntu.edu.sg/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=10406&categoryName=Transportation -
Being able to drive a car is more of a matter of convenience, a form of transport as and when you need it.
Public transport is acceptable only if you have the time to spare. But for my upcoming workplace, it is just a few MRT stops away, so I don't see any necessity to get a car to drive to work after I start working for a while. -
sg is super tiny.
there is no reason why going from point A to point B should not be excellent.
excellent service is the least of the least of my expectations.
if need my help to improve, call me.
to me, its not difficult. -
For the first time I agree with u. If we have an excellent public transport, why do we still need a car?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a simple solution that will solve most of our problems but it is not politically palatable. Limit domestic vehicle ownership by limiting COEs and pour more resources into public transport. The proposed changes represent a step in the right direction, but it would go further if COEs are halved and vehicles are taken off the roads.
Alas! Most Singaporeans want their cars even if public transport is cheap and convenient. I guess they can't make out in the MRT trainl
Hopefully the government will come up with something to improve the public transport. Heard the frequency of the train is getting from bad to worse. And for overcrowding of cars in the city is a very common thing. So far I have yet to see a system that really controlled very well and not hurting the pocket for the citizens. I may be wrong, but this is so far what I have seen.
-
Actually it is very easy to remove congestion from the CBD.
Just remove the parking lots in the CBD.
-
As said, its not difficult at all.Originally posted by onlooker123:Actually it is very easy to remove congestion from the CBD.
Just remove the parking lots in the CBD. -
Limiting it may cause problems like "COE blackmarket".Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a simple solution that will solve most of our problems but it is not politically palatable. Limit domestic vehicle ownership by limiting COEs and pour more resources into public transport. The proposed changes represent a step in the right direction, but it would go further if COEs are halved and vehicles are taken off the roads.
Alas! Most Singaporeans want their cars even if public transport is cheap and convenient. I guess they can't make out in the MRT trainl
needs lots of studies before this suggestion is ever taken into consideration. -
The main cause of our transportation problem is the involvement of the government in an area they know / knew nothing about!
Firstly, they got rid of the many bus companies and merged all these companies forcibly.
into one and later to 2. Now, it’s going to be expanded again to more than 2. Raymond and his team must offload the LTA’s burden of running transportation. LTA is too big and is incompetent in the management of our transportation system with all these “piecemeal” plans. The expressways are still congested; passengers have to wait too long for most bus services, the MRT and taxi services are going from bad too worse - The MRT trains are overcrowded due to the long waiting time for each train and the taxi services are expensive and yet not easily accessible unless we do phone booking.
Its time Raymond retire, honourably. -
IMHO..... the Govt made the wrong decision when they allowed public transportion company to list in the stock market.... and no longer under Govt's control. Like all others companies in the World..... a listed company's 1st objective is to earn money..... not to serve the 'Users', but the 'Shares Holders'.
Before SMRT was listed in the early 2000...... they made $100 million profits on most years. That is $100 millions after deduction......
But PM Goh had the idea of SMRT going aboard to expand their Rail business. Knowing how foregin countries view foregin GLC in control of their public asset, the Govt decided that SMRT will be listed as a 'Normal' company without link to the Govt.
Problem arise when SMRT is now more intrested in making money for the shares holder than to providing an alternate mode of transportion to replace private cars.....
We all knows that S'pore is a small country with limited rooms for roads..... Shouldn't priority be to make the public transportion sector cheaper & better thans private cars.. As long as such companies are making profits to cover their yearly cost...... that should be good enough Without 'Shares Holder', there isn't a need to have increase profit year after year...... that would also means lower fares for all
Let SMRT keep half of the profit..... let them use it to upgrade or buy new trains. The other half of the profit could be channel back into a fund that helps the poor or sickly S'poreans. -
Raymond Lim... hmmm. is that the same idiot who deduced that since number of cars increase after implementation of ERP, hence ERP help Singaporeans own car?!?!
My son grows taller every year. I allow my son to drink cocacola from time to time, hence cocacola makes my son grow taller!! hahaha
I only have 1 word to describe this: IDIOT!! -
car ownership doesn't necessarily increase road congestion. usage does. tt's the rationale given by the policy makers. i only agree partially. why on earth wld 1 own a car and not use it. a piece of furniture.
controlling coe is not a full solution either. there will always be a strata of ppl who will be able to afford the coe, regardless of what is the price. remember the $100k coe? and ppl who r pissed off for not being able to afford a car may take it out on the gahmen for making it so out-of-reach.
hence, my earlier point abt tt there is no easy solution. i think topmost on the agenda wld be to improve/overhaul the public transport system. tt will draw the ppl to take the train/bus. in fact, if we can reach the intended destination faster or at about the same time when taking the mrt as with driving, that will convert the skeptics. this can happen. look at japan. chances are, if u take the train, u probably reach your destination earlier than someone who drives. I wld argue the same situation in HK as well.
here, it is not happening yet. -
Originally posted by Ramsey:
Hey, maybe next time they will tell you ERP revenue is to help the poor.
Raymond Lim... hmmm. is that the same idiot who deduced that since number of cars increase after implementation of ERP, hence ERP help Singaporeans own car?!?!
My son grows taller every year. I allow my son to drink cocacola from time to time, hence cocacola makes my son grow taller!! hahaha
I only have 1 word to describe this:[b] IDIOT!![/b] -
On the topic of COE. I read a report on newspaper last week which reported that despite limiting new car registration to 3% per year, there is still a 5% raise in number of cars on the road. I was like, WHAT?! Could you run that by me again?!?! Got illegal car on our road huh? WTF?!?!Originally posted by weiqimun:car ownership doesn't necessarily increase road congestion. usage does. tt's the rationale given by the policy makers. i only agree partially. why on earth wld 1 own a car and not use it. a piece of furniture.
controlling coe is not a full solution either. there will always be a strata of ppl who will be able to afford the coe, regardless of what is the price. remember the $100k coe? and ppl who r pissed off for not being able to afford a car may take it out on the gahmen for making it so out-of-reach.
hence, my earlier point abt tt there is no easy solution. i think topmost on the agenda wld be to improve/overhaul the public transport system. tt will draw the ppl to take the train/bus. in fact, if we can reach the intended destination faster or at about the same time when taking the mrt as with driving, that will convert the skeptics. this can happen. look at japan. chances are, if u take the train, u probably reach your destination earlier than someone who drives. I wld argue the same situation in HK as well.
here, it is not happening yet.
Anyway, back to the topic of Singapore Transport problem. The fact is, our public transport system is far from being world class. MRT & buses is indeed just part of the solution. Affordable and good taxi service is the rest of the equation. Our taxi services sucks!!
Lets face it, it's the fare system. Like everything else related to LTA, them seem to think increasing the amount they charge will solve any problem under the sun. So naturally, when people complain of availability of taxi, what do they do? increase fare and surcharges. So the rationale is if price goes up, demand reduce and less people will take cab. Is that solving a problem?!?! If I bring this type of solution to my work, I would have surely lose my job. "Hey boss, customer order is too high, production don't have capacity to turn products out. We need to increase price so that customer will order less." I can imagine my boss' face if I ever bring this solution to him to solve production capacity issues. But somehow, our million dollors scholars/elites are turning out exactly this type of solution.
I say the solution is simple. Scrap all surcharges except ERP. Raise the starting fee to S$4.00. You will never have taxi drivers hiding. I mean look at HK or even Shanghai. I never have taxi problems when I was stationed in those places.
Still, despite many people writing in to suggest this solution, the authority refused to consider it. Its the herd mentality in civil service, I tell you. Who would be brave enough to recommend radical changes? God forbid, if it doesn't work, it will be their million dollar rice bowls.
I was so disappointed with the public transport system in Singapore, 3 weeks after a came back from Shanghai, I decided I am better off owning my own car. -
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/09/11/public-transport-uniquely-singapore-f1-or-f9/
Posted by theonlinecitizen on September 11, 2007
In light of the just-announced increase in transport fares (again), theonlinecitizen has decided to publish this series of letters which our writer Leong Sze Hian had sent to the press over the last few years.
This is to allow the public to see for themselves if the problems/questions regarding our transport system have been addressed and if such almost-annual increase in transport fares is justified.
Read also our earlier article: Fare hike for public transport in October?
September 2007: More Congestion = More Revenue?
According to Christopher Tan, the editor of Torque Magazine (Sep 2006), “Each year, motorists collectively cough up over $ 3 billion in taxes, duties and levies …. (not including) electronic road-pricing (ERP) and parking charges. Yet, annual transport related expenditure is sometimes only a quarter of the transport taxes collected”.
So, why do we still have to raise public transport fares, practically every year, to keep making record profits ?
The Land Transport Authority may need to try to think about creative new ways to address our transport problems.
In a way, there may be little incentive, because worsening traffic jams, may mean even more revenue, as ERP is raised, almost relentlessly.
Despite ever increasing ERP rates, traffic woes seem to continue to worsen, like on the Central Expressway (CTE).
Perhaps we could consider some measures along the lines of penalties and fines for public transport operators who do not meet standards, like arriving within 10 minute intervals during peak hours. How about penalising LTA, if traffic jams worsen, by transferring some of their revenue to subsidise public transport fares ?
Now, that may really get them cracking - to try to think out of the box !
The Ministry of Transport has said that “SBS Transit earned $32 million but has $500 million of assets, so its return on assets (ROA) was 6.5 per cent; SMRT earned $100 million but has $1.1 billion of assets yielding a return of 9.1 per cent. These returns are healthy but not excessive, compared to companies with similar industry structures and risk profiles”.
The ROA should not be the only, or a very appropriate measure, because in the case of the Singapore transport operators, a fair share of the assets were built-up from the retained earnings of ever increasing profits over the years.
Thus, in a sense, it was a self-perpetuating system under which the people of Singapore, in a way, paid for the bulk of the accumulated assets.
Other measures, like the transport operators’ ever increasing profits and dividend yield relative to other listed companies, could also be used in determining whether “returns are healthy but not excessive”.
TRANSPORT VOUCHERS: According to the PTC, “among commuters who have to make a transfer (1 in 4 commuters), most require one transfer, say from a bus to the MRT or to another trunk bus. The majority of such journeys will see a fare increase of 3 to 4 cents”.
If one makes two such journeys a day, the increase per year is $21.90 to $29.20. If the average commuter affected by the fare hikes pays five cents more a day, assuming 2 bus/MRT transfer trips a day, the increase per year is $ 18.25. This is based on a conservative assumption that one only makes two trips a day, that is, travelling from home to only one destination, without going anywhere else.
The present system of giving $20 transport vouchers is flawed because the amount is only enough to offset one yearÂ’s fare increase. What about the fare increases of the previous years? The needy whose incomes are declining should be given transport vouchers as a matter of course and not only when fares go up.
In 2005, the $4 million Public Transport Fund set up and funded by SMRT, SBS, Comcare Fund, the 5 CDCs, SLF and NTUC, received more than 92,000 applications for 80,000 vouchers worth $50 each. The funding organisations pitched in with the $600,000 needed to pay for the extra vouchers.
The total of $4.6 million divided by $20 means that about 230,000 people received about $20 each to help pay for the transport fares increase in 2005.
Even if we assume that all the about 104,900 households in the 0 to 10th decile with no income from work are retirees and others who can afford the fares increase, we are still missing about 147,640. Does this mean that they did not apply for transport vouchers?
January 2003 TAXI FARES more or less?:
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has announced that taxi operators will have to pay a new monthly licence fee of $25 per vehicle. With almost 19,000 cabs here, thatÂ’s $470,000 a month.
It was reported in the media that LTA charges SBS Transit and Tibs only $10,400 a year to monitor service levels of buses.
Why does it cost 540 times more to monitor taxis? Is it possible for the LTA to give a more detailed breakdown of how it costs $5.6 million a year to monitor taxis?
Also, what is the annual surplus (profits) of the LTA? May I suggest that some of the surplus be used to reduce the new $25 ‘taxi monitoring fee’?
The LTA said ‘the fee is less than $1 a day a taxi, so we don’t think it will affect fares’.
If the LTA is wrong, and fares are increased, I would like to suggest that the new fee be adjusted to offset any fare increase, so that the consumer does not end up having to pay more.
Under the new monitoring system, errant taxi operators could be fined up to $100,000 for each contravention. If fares are increased, is it possible for the LTA to use any fines received to reduce the $25 fee too, so that the impact on consumers is lightened?
In my opinion, there is also another issue. If, whenever the public complains about the poor service of an essential product or service, and the solution is for the relevant authority to charge a new fee to monitor the service in order to improve it, the costs of living and doing business in Singapore may continue to rise. Perhaps, Singaporeans should not complain too much if the result is having to pay more.
F5.March 2003 NORTH-EAST LINE pay more?:
Commuters will find out how much more they will have to pay for trips on the North-East MRT line (NEL) in a few weeksÂ’ time, when SBS Transit submits its proposals to the Public Transport Council.
In the Budget debate, MPs asked why it was not possible to have uniform fares across all lines, and the Transport Minister said: “The other MRT commuters, especially those who do not use the NEL, may object to having to pay more to cover the higher cost of the NEL.”
Singaporeans living along the NEL have in a sense been at a disadvantage without the MRT for many years. They may now face further disadvantages in having to pay more.
If this principle is applied to future MRT extensions, then new MRT line users may have to keep paying relatively more, as it is likely that costs may be higher due to inflation, state of the art technology, etc.
I would like to suggest that a poll be conducted to find out from Singaporeans what they prefer. I think one of the benefits of getting more Singaporeans involved is to help dispel the notion that issues are decided without taking into account their feedback.
I think most Singaporeans may apply the principle of non sibi (not for oneself), if asked to choose in a poll. Perhaps, Singaporeans could be more involved in the decision-making process on such similar issues in the future.
F6.March 2005 NAMING MRT STATIONS?:
In Kuala Lumpur, the Monorail stations have names like Bukit Bintang Coca Cola and Titiwangsa Telecom because companies pay a lot of money, which I believe is in the millions, to have their names associated with a station.
I would like to suggest that we explore the possibility of having a similar scheme in Singapore to allow companies to bid on an annual or periodic basis for their names to be announced whenever a train stops at a station.
With tens of thousands of commuters seeing daily the stationÂ’s name with the companyÂ’s name, it may generate revenue which may be used as a cushion against future MRT fare increases, or may even reduce current fares.
I think the sky is the limit in view of the novelty and impact of the advertising value potential.
For example, I understand that a company is paying the Land Transport Authority (LTA) more than $200 million over 15 years or so for the right to build and manage the advertising panels at some bus and taxi shelters.
If some of this money is given back to bus operators, it may also act as a cushion against future bus fare increases, or even lead to a reduction in current fares. After all, in a sense, this money is derived from bus operations in Singapore.
F7.May 2005 RAISING FARES again?:
SBS Transit has reported net earnings of $13m, and its pre-tax profit was 3 per cent higher at $16.3 million for the first quarter ended March 31, compared to the corresponding quarter last year.
Rail losses in the first three months were merely $1.6 million, 67.3 per cent lower than in the same period last year, and if things continue to improve at the same rate, losses for the full year are expected to be less than half that of last year.
At this rate, the rail business could start turning a profit next year. Non-transport income rose by 8.8 per cent to $5.3 million, total assets rose by 2 per cent to $542.1 million, while total liabilities shrank by 2.7 per cent to $245.7 million, and net asset value per share is 99 cents, up from 94 cents previously.
In view of the above statistics indicating rising overall profits, declining rail operations losses, increasing non-transport income, higher assets and lower liabilities, and an increase in net asset value, how can SBS Transit apply for a fare increase from July 1?
By almost any financial measure, the fare-increase application should not stand on the merits of its application based on financial data prior to the release of its March 31 first-quarter results.
Why is it that the deadline for a fare increase application is just before the release of the first quarter results?
I would suggest that future fare increase deadlines be adjusted to ensure that the most current financial results are reported, and also that the Public Transport Council evaluates the current application using the latest results.
SBS Transit should be asked to re-submit its application to incorporate the latest results.
Putting aside the one-off effect of Sars in 2003, SBS TransitÂ’s net profit rose 158 per cent last year. SMRTÂ’s full-year net profit jumped 42 per cent to $127 million, compared with $89.5 million a year ago.
In 2002, when SMRT raised fares, its profit increased 27 per cent. In 2003, its profit increased 24 per cent.
If the new formula and criteria were applied in 2002, would the quantum of the last fare hike be justified? As profits seem to keep rising every year since the last fare increase, does it make you wonder whether the fare increase was justified in the first place?
F8.August 2006 PROFITS, PROFITS, PROFITS?:
SBS TransitÂ’s announcement that its first-half earnings rose 6 per cent to $26 million has comed just 10 days after its application to increase bus and MRT fares. Once again, its profits have increased, as was the case after the last two fare increases.
I would suggest that the Public Transport Council (PTC) takes the above into consideration in deciding whether to approve its application.
F9.November 2006 FARE CAP only affect less than 1%?:
SMRT has said that “less than one per cent of passengers pays a fare of $1.90 or more. Therefore, having a fare cap would benefit only a small proportion of passengers, while transferring the cost to others.”
“SMRT’s reason for not having a fare cap as in other countries is somewhat illogical because the fact that less than one per cent pays more than $1.90 means that a fare cap would have very little impact on the other 99-plus per cent who may have to share transferring the cost to others”.
It goes against the basic principle of public transport, which is the sharing of costs, so that a minority will not be penalised, since public transport is a necessity for those who cannot afford private transportation.
The main reason why there is normally a fare cap in other countries is to protect the small number of needy, who may be affected most if there is no fare cap.
If we ask the other 99-plus per cent of Singaporeans, I believe they would not mind sharing the cost for the benefit of the needy among the “less than one per cent”. Why not conduct a poll of Singaporeans?
In the “Report of the Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism” last year, it noted that average fares in Singapore were lower than in New York, London, and Hong Kong . However, all these cities have fare caps and monthly passes, which Singapore does not have.
The monthly pass recently introduced by SBS Transit is only for travel on SBS buses, and the price is high relative to other cities of the developed countries.
Monthly passes in other cities are typically multi-modal or multi-operator, if there is more than one operator.
The reports also cited the Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 2003 data that the lowest 20 per cent and second quintile group of household income had average monthly household income of $1,279 and $2,651 respectively.
However, the Department of Statistics (DOS) puts the two statistics at $795 and $2,059. Why do the reportÂ’s statistics differ from the DOSÂ’s?
How has this discrepancy impacted on the computations on the affordability of transport fares? -
The "raise the price and everything will be solved" is always the solution for those scholars at the top.Originally posted by Ramsey:On the topic of COE. I read a report on newspaper last week which reported that despite limiting new car registration to 3% per year, there is still a 5% raise in number of cars on the road. I was like, WHAT?! Could you run that by me again?!?! Got illegal car on our road huh? WTF?!?!
Anyway, back to the topic of Singapore Transport problem. The fact is, our public transport system is far from being world class. MRT & buses is indeed just part of the solution. Affordable and good taxi service is the rest of the equation. Our taxi services sucks!!
Lets face it, it's the fare system. Like everything else related to LTA, them seem to think increasing the amount they charge will solve any problem under the sun. So naturally, when people complain of availability of taxi, what do they do? increase fare and surcharges. So the rationale is if price goes up, demand reduce and less people will take cab. Is that solving a problem?!?! If I bring this type of solution to my work, I would have surely lose my job. "Hey boss, customer order is too high, production don't have capacity to turn products out. We need to increase price so that customer will order less." I can imagine my boss' face if I ever bring this solution to him to solve production capacity issues. But somehow, our million dollors scholars/elites are turning out exactly this type of solution.
I say the solution is simple. Scrap all surcharges except ERP. Raise the starting fee to S$4.00. You will never have taxi drivers hiding. I mean look at HK or even Shanghai. I never have taxi problems when I was stationed in those places.
Still, despite many people writing in to suggest this solution, the authority refused to consider it. Its the herd mentality in civil service, I tell you. Who would be brave enough to recommend radical changes? God forbid, if it doesn't work, it will be their million dollar rice bowls.
I was so disappointed with the public transport system in Singapore, 3 weeks after a came back from Shanghai, I decided I am better off owning my own car.
I reckon all of them have taken the basic economics 101 course on demand and supply and think that the theories they have learnt can be applied wholesale onto real life.
As with most sciences, economic theory will work well ceteris paribus.
These scholars apparently think that in real life, they can hold other factors constant and just raise the price to affect the demand/supply curve.
Alas, that is the way the country is run.
Money first.
Welfare, well being, health care etc. Who gives a damn. -
by the way... i am curious. Does LTA use computer simulations when designing road system? It seems to me that many of our roads do not have optima design for smooth traffic flow.Originally posted by robertteh:I look forward to a new enlightened leadership for LTA from Mr Raymond Lim.
Minister Raymond Lim as a minister can adopt a 3-tier traffic master plan for long-term free flow of traffic for citizens i.e. (1) Tier-1 Expressways for inter-estate fast traffic (2) Tier-2 Major roads linking the expressways to local roads (3) Tier-3 for access to major buildings and estates and institutions and business hubs.
He should let expressways be subjected to ERP and try as far as possible to treat all other tiers as alternate routes to serve the competitiveness of the whole country.
From such a master plan being presented to the parliament he could authoritatively recommend and decide with convincing logic what proportion of the total amount of tax revenues from Vehicles should be allocated for achieving the balance of objectives between expressway versus major roads and access roads:
Excise Duty (110% of OMV at this moment),
COE,
ERP,
licence registration fees road taxes etc received by LTA,
Capital gains from MRT lands etc
If our minister Raymond Lim has such a master plan put up and consistently implemented by his permanent secretary and top civil servants in LTA there is no reason we cannot solve our present problems at all the expressways and ERP roads.
Now there is a lack of clarity in such traffic planning.
Over the next 6 months he should be able to decide (1) building or improving suitable alternate routes on one-to-one volume rato to offer alternative routes to expressways
(2) needs for overpasses and underpasses at serious congestion junctions
(3) linking of existing networks of expressways, major roads and access road to shorten journeys and maintain the balancing of objectives related to expressways and others.
The emphasis should not be to leave the situation alone and use people's congestion woes to increase more ERPs which at the end do not solve problems based on objectives.
The solutions foreseen for buses and MRTs targeted at commuters are only partial solutions and may not give the overall balance needed to solve our problems at this moment.
He will be missing the solutions again if he still keeps solving the symptoms.
Some of the road designs down right doesn't make sense. -
After implementation of ERP, there seems to be more higher capacity cars on the road. So ERP increases car's engine capacity.Originally posted by charlize:Hey, maybe next time they will tell you ERP revenue is to help the poor.
After Implementation of ERP, cars on the road has cleaner emission. Hence ERP is a environmental friendly (well, actually that is not far from the truth)
I know... this one sure correct one!! After implementation of ERP, Ministers pay are higher . . .so . . .
-
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/Owners/Buying%2BGuide/Story/A1Story20080121-45869.html
