Ultimate Blow to Motorists, Yet to Come...
-
Instead of keep implementing ERP and ERP hike, the govt nvr thought of increasing the number of lanes on the roads. And worse, they use ERP to limit people using the wider roads and cause jam to smaller roads. What a smart way to solve traffic problem.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Which is why our public transport system is still not sufficiently efficient right now. You should take a trip to Europe and see. Visiting a less developed country makes one thankful for what one have now, and visiting a more developed country will make one realise that Singapore is still far from being among the top.
The sad thing that happens to all developed countries with a market economy: the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. "No Singaporeans will be left behind" was a promise made to us... How much of this promise was fulfilled? Sigh....
And so the world-class transport infrastructures in European countries have never been through phases of price hikes on public transport to become today's sufficiently efficient? The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer is a global, and not just a home-based phenomena.
-
i rode motorcycles for 15 years in sg, never own a car before.
now here, im planning to buy my next car, toyota rav4. going to upgrade from my toyota starlet. sorry man, i cant contain my joy. only a poor man like me can afford so little.
-
Building more roads is only a temporary measure. It will not take long before the roads get congested again and it only serves to encourage more cars on the road, generating more pollution. It is right for the LTA to discourage car ownership and usage. They should go even further:
- Double or triple the cost of COE by severely limiting the number of new vehicles. ERP will only modify car usage patterns, only the COE will solve the road congestion problem
- Raise taxes on ordinary cars to subsidize hybrid cars that are more friendly for the environment. We need to build more recharging stations for electric cars...tax petrol to pay for them
- More funding for public transport (buses, MRT trains) and force SMRT and SBS to raise capacity
- Impose a green tax and raise car park charges to further discourage car ownership
-
Originally posted by fiberz:
And so the world-class transport infrastructures in European countries have never been through phases of price hikes on public transport to become today's sufficiently efficient? The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer is a global, and not just a home-based phenomena.
Let's just say... for the amount of distance travelled, a German staying in Germany will pay less transport fees (either by numerical value or by percentage of average salary) as compared to Singapore. How is that information to you?
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Building more roads is only a temporary measure. It will not take long before the roads get congested again and it only serves to encourage more cars on the road, generating more pollution. It is right for the LTA to discourage car ownership and usage. They should go even further:
- Double or triple the cost of COE by severely limiting the number of new vehicles. ERP will only modify car usage patterns, only the COE will solve the road congestion problem
- Raise taxes on ordinary cars to subsidize hybrid cars that are more friendly for the environment. We need to build more recharging stations for electric cars...tax petrol to pay for them
- More funding for public transport (buses, MRT trains) and force SMRT and SBS to raise capacity
- Impose a green tax and raise car park charges to further discourage car ownership
I don't own a car and never intend to get one. But I am concern about the effect of the cost of the ERP on people who drive for their livelihood, like taxi driver, deliveries, etc. And will they pass the cost to us?
Ironically, the govt is currently encouraging car ownership by decreasing price of COE.
-
Analysis of PTC’s news release on fare increase
Posted by theonlinecitizen on September 12, 2007By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the Public Transport Council’s (PTC) News release on 11 September, on the increase in bus fares from 1 October.
I would like to comment on the following:-
“PTC considered Singapore’s economic outlook and the affordability of public transport. The economic outlook has been positive with the latest GDP gowth forecast for 2007 revised upwards to 7 to 8% and the unemployment rate for June 2007 at 2.4%, the lowest in 5 years.”
Will the positive economic outlook reverse the trend of declining nominal wages (before inflation-adjustment) for about the bottom 30 percentile of workers?Unemployment has actually increased
Although overall unemployment was the lowest in 5 years, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) 2nd quarter report on employment, “among the resident (Singaporean and permanent resident) labour force, the non-adjusted unemployment rate was 4.2%… higher than (the) 3.4% in March 2007″
The estimated 79,600 unemployed residents, was higher than the estimated 66,000 last quarter.
So, the resident unemployment rate went up, and the number of resident unemployed has increased!
Return on Total Assets
“ROTA (Return on Total Assets) in 2006 of SBST (Bus and Rail) and SMRT (Bus and Rail) was 7.9 and 11.4% respectively.
These are higher than the 6.5 and 9.1% respectively in 2005.
The Ministry of Transport has said that these 6.5 and 9.1% ROTA “returns are healthy but not excessive, compared to companies with similar industry structures and risk profiles”.
Since ROTA has increased by 22% (7.9 divided by 6.5) and 25% (11.4 divided by 9.1) over the last year, how can a fare increase be justified on the basis of ROTA?
Why do we always seem to be comparing with countries and companies with high ROTAs?
Why don’t we compare with public transport companies in countries with lower ROTA?
Comparing with other countries – use a fairer approach
Why do we always seem to be comparing average fares with cities like Hong Kong, London and New York City, which have higher fares than Singapore?
Why don’t we compare with other lower fare cities and countries as well?
As cities like London and New York City have multi-modal bus passes, an average fares comparison may not be very appropriate.
Don’t we realise that the median wage in these cities are much higher than Singapore’s (about $2,050) ?
With the Residential Feeder Services Aircon Adult fare increasing from 65 to 67 cents, has the PTC done any analysis on the percentage rate increase of fares for feeder services over the last 8 years?
In this connection, a local university study found that about 15% of commuters walked a straight-line distance of more than one kilometre, despite the availability of feeder services. Has the high rate of increase in feeder service fares deterred people from using them because of affordability?
Transport vouchers – to cover only one year’s increase?
As to the $30 transport vouchers to be given out to needy commuters, has the PTC reconciled the number of transport vouchers (total funding amount divided by $30) with the number of people who live in households with monthly income below $1,500?
Is it not obvious that giving $30 or $20 whenever fares are increased does not take into account that it only covers one year’s increase? Shouldn’t transport vouchers be given to reflect 7 years’ increases over the last 8 years?
The PTC report makes no mention of the ever increasing record profits of the transport operators, or the possible effects of the GST hike.
Flaws in the Fare Adjustment formula
As there are more than 500,000 cars in Singapore, how can the Fare Adjustment Formula be based on average Wage Increase?
Shouldn’t it be the median wage increase to reflect the fact that it is the lower-income who take public transport?
As the CPI (inflation) for the lower-income is much higher than the higher income, shouldn’t the formula be based on the CPI of those who take public transport rather than the average CPI?
Why is the Public Transport Affordability Index (PTAI)* on a downtrend since 2003, when as I understand it, the MEPT has been increasing due to yearly fare increases and declining wages for the bottom 30 percentile of workers?
As to “the average wage growth was 5.5% for the 1st quarter of 2007″, I understand that the median wage has hardly moved in real terms (after adjusting for inflation) over the last few years.
$30 per year vouchers for the poor. Adequate?
According to the Straits Times report, “100,000 needy families to get $30 transport vouchers”,Straits Times, 12 September, it says:
“Among commuters who have to make one transfer to another trunk
bus, they will see a fare increase of at most 4 cents.
For example: A bus journey from Ang Mo Kio to Alexandra Road with a
transfer at MacRitchie Reservoir currently costs $1.583. From 1st October,
the commuter will see an increase of 3 cents to $1.61 (a 2-cent increase
for the 1st leg and a 1- cent increase for the 2nd leg). This is an increase of
6 cents per day or about $1.32 per month.”
If “they will see a fare increase of at most 4 cents”, why is the example one which shows a 3 cent increase per trip of 6 cents per day?
Based on just 2 trips a day, 30 days a month, an increase of 6 and 8 cents a day, works out to $21.60 and $28.80 a year, respectively.
So, does it make sense that the “Transport Ministry spokesman estimated that, typically, a single voucher ($30) could defray a poor family’s fare increase cost for one year”
$30 a year for a typical poor family of 3 to 4 persons can cover $21.60 or $28.80 fares increase per person?Do more Singaporeans generally take buses more often and spend more on buses than trains?
*(Monthly Expenditure on Public transport (MEPT) divided by Monthly Household Income (MHI) -
Very well said.. Spoke the minds for many Singaporeans.
-
If this GPS system does come into play, from what i know a GPS system can even tell what speed you are travelling at, which means you can be charged for speeding any time any place ? another way to suck money.
Secondly, for those who say stop buying cars, have you ever taken into consideration of people who NEED cars rather than WANT cars ? example sales executives who do not have the luxury of travelling time inbetween meetings and appointments.
How will this system affect Taxi's who drive around looking for customers ? will the cost be brought forward to them ? If Yes isn't it LPPL cause even if i take a cab i pay for it, so what's the difference with owning a car ? thirdly, if what everyone predicts of public transport increasing and stuff, wouldn't it be more economical for a family to get a small car rather than all 4 - 5 members (presumably) paying for the fares which could amount to a very high price.
-
hmmmm...GPS, wouldn't its use be an invasion of privacy???? imagine someone who knows u working in the organisation that tracks cars using the GPS (supposedly for ERP or pay-as-u-use) billings. who's to ensure such info will not be used for other purposes (be it personal or otherwise)????
scary...... !!!
-
GPS too scary lah....
-
GPS = Big Brother is Watching
They can track your every movement
-
i thot ultimate blow is "Pls park ur car in JB or Batam"
