4 years after my original post calling for an urgent overhaul to the flawed transport system, the latest to add to the call for privatisation comes from none other than Professor Kishore Mahbubani, the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, who said Singapore’s public transport woes are a result of privatising bus, train and taxi networks. Singapore should not “remain a prisoner of old economic ideas”, said Prof Mahbubani, who was speaking on Thursday (Oct 29) at the Singapore Economic Policy Forum organised by the Economics Society of Singapore.
More: Government should run Singapore’s public transport system: Kishore Mahbubani
“In Hong Kong, there is greater duplication of services between the MTR and the buses than in Singapore because the authorities there believe that this competition will benefit commuters, resulting in better service and more affordable fares.” – Han Fook Kwang
“Former NTUC Income CEO Tan Kin Lian yesterday publicly called on Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to “take urgent steps to revamp the public transport system in Singapore by increasing the capacity and encouraging more effective competition among the public transport operators”. – Source: Todayonline 23 Jul 2011.
“The transport operators have had less time to do inspections and maintenance due to higher train frequencies for a growing population. One would assume that with increased usage, maintenance frequency has to be increased to ensure tip-top performance. On the contrary, SMRT Corporation did not do so.” – Source: Todayoline 21 Dec 2011.
My personal view of the root cause of the flawed transportation in Singapore – Privatisation.
A good blog article by Lucky Tan also give a good rebuttal to Lui Tuck Yew’s flawed and self-serving argument.
Another article by Andrew Tan that appears in Yahoo! News also opined that no matter how we tweak the system, at the end of the day it is about numbers, human traffic. According to the 2010 Census, Singapore’s population stood at 5.076 million. Also in 2010, Singapore saw a total of 11.6 million tourists visiting the tiny island — about 967,000 per month. So, on average, at any given month, there are supposedly more than 6 million people on the island. Is it any wonder then that our transport system is straining?
If Lui is not going to think out of the box and tackle the problem fast, he will risk going down in history in the rank of MBT as one of the most hated ministers and the end to his political career.
[Updated Dec 25, 2011: In today’s Straits Times editorial “Like buses on water“, the idea of using water taxi as a viable alternative for transport is rasied again. It is time the LTA and MOT give the idea a serious look rather than keep building more roads.]
[Updated 23 Apr 2012: Askmelah and many other critics have mentioned that the transport system urgently need to be overhauled and the transport ministry needs to go beyond infrastructure. It is thus puzzling to see Lui Tuck Yui only summoned SMRT chairman Koh Yong Guan and chief executive officer Tan Ek Kia after a spate of frequent train breakdowns in the space of a week, when the responsibility falls squarely on him to overhaul the transport system.]
[Updated 18Jul2015]: 3 years since Askmelah last edited this article, transport system has improved marginally and then bang! A worst MRT breakdown at peak hours. The lack of decisive overhaul in the transport time bomb is waiting to explode anytime until the useless transport minister doing something drastic. Depsite wasting at least 3 billion dollars over the last three years, the transport woes are still there as evident in todays article: The Big Read: Despite push for public transport, a love for cars endures
Original post dated 7 Jul 2011
Related articles:
- Putting joy back in bus rides, The Straits Times, Mar 10 2012, “Govt’s $1.1b susidy is not enough; overhaul of bus system is needed” – by Christopher Tan
- “Should transport system go the HK way?”, The Straits Times 7 Oct 2012
Overhauling Singapore’s public transport model: Giam
Source: Asiaone.com 19 Jul 2011
By Gerald Giam
Editor’s preface: We first reproduced Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew’s Facebook rebuttal to Workers’ Party’s proposal to nationalise public transport. Since then, Workers’ Party has replied. We reproduce it in full here.
Mr Lui claimed that WP’s proposal had “serious downsides, chief amongst which commuters and taxpayers (yes, even those who don’t take public transport) are likely to end up paying more, and possibly, for a poorer level of service over time”.
He added that “it is the profit incentive of commercial enterprises that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements”.
MARKET FAILURES IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
These are simplistic and tired old arguments about the virtues of private enterprises which fail to fully appreciate the economic reality of the public transport industry in Singapore.
Firstly, taxpayers who do not take public transport already contribute to the provision of public transport in the form of taxes that pay for the construction of roads, the development of rail lines and the purchase of the first set of trains on every new MRT line.
Secondly, public transport is an industry rife with market failures which the Minister seems to ignore. The current regime where SMRT Corporation (SMRT) and SBS Transit (SBST) each provide both rail and bus services provides an illusion of competition.
The reality is that SMRT and SBST have clearly delineated areas of responsibility with no route overlaps. This makes each of them a de facto monopoly provider in their own particular areas.
Commuters do not have the freedom to switch between providers whenever they choose to, nor do we see public transport operators (PTOs) fighting to acquire and retain customers like airlines do with promotions, discounts and loyalty programmes.
The monopoly status is also reflected in the consistent high returns these companies earn. Freed from the discipline of genuine market competition, they have few incentives to raise service standards and keep prices low.
To say that shareholder discipline will create such incentives is naive at best, and wrong at worst. Shareholders seek higher profits, not better or more affordable services. The government must examine whether a public utility should be owned and operated by what are effectively private monopolists earning monopoly rents.
Mr Lui claims that the current regulatory regime is a “robust” one that does not allow operators to benefit at the expense of commuters. This is a remarkable assertion once we consider the profits of PTO’s—$215.4 million last year alone. The fines imposed for not meeting service standards pale in comparison to these profits.
SMRT and SBST have consistently enjoyed high returns on equity (ROE) of above 15 per cent. For SMRT, it has been above 20 per cent in most years. In contrast, the median ROE for a Singapore listed company is about 9.5 per cent.
A company that provides a public good should not earn such excessively high returns, as these invariably come at the expense service quality and benefits to commuters. The overcrowded trains and buses show how companies which do not face genuine competition can increase profits and raise shareholder returns at the expense of the commuting public.
As a result of such profit-oriented behaviour, the two PTOs’ high returns have been enjoyed by their shareholders. For example, SMRT has paid out close to 80 per cent of its net income in recent years. These generous dividends could instead have been used to provide better services or reduced fares. However, it is not possible for publicly-listed firms to do this, as their obligations are to their shareholders.
Public transport as a public good
Mr Lui mentions the “serious” downsides of a nationalised public transport system, while ignoring workable examples—even locally—where the government heavily subsidises public services or even provides services directly to the public.
Schools, for example, are mostly government run. Public hospitals and clinics are heavily subsidised. Even public housing is subsidised by public money.
Yet when it comes to public transport—an essential service for the majority of Singaporeans—the government advocates its provision by listed corporations, whose first priorities are to their shareholders.
Public transport is a public good that serves a national purpose, in the same way as healthcare, education or public housing. Thus running it on a cost-recovery basis will create positive externalities if it benefits the overall economy, for example, by getting people to work on time and in comfort.
In the face of the pressing need to provide this public good, it is clear that the present public transport model needs to be overhauled.
WP’s NATIONAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION PROPOSAL
WP has, since 2006, called for the MRT and public buses servicing major trunk routes to be brought under a National Transport Corporation (NTC), which will oversee and provide universal transport services.
NTC should aim to provide safe, affordable, accessible, efficient and reliable universal public transportation services, on the basis of cost and depreciation recovery. As a not-for-profit corporation owned by the government, NTC will serve the needs of the public and not that of listed company shareholders.
WP’s proposal recognises public transport in Singapore as an inherent monopoly and as a public good. A well-managed NTC can provide superior outcomes compared to the present profit-oriented monopolies. We would expect no less from NTC, in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, compared to the way any other statutory board is managed by the government.
To achieve these outcomes, the government should set stringent key performance indicators (KPIs) for the NTC. These KPIs could include:
- Affordability of fares to ordinary Singaporeans
- Containment of costs;
- On-time bus and train performance;
- Customer satisfaction ratings (through independent surveys);
- Percentage of public transport ridership;
- Productivity improvements and innovation.
To incentivise their performance, the bonuses and pay increases of NTC executives should be pegged to the achievement of such KPIs, and there could be negative consequences for not meeting them. This will be more effective in ensuring service standards compared to the present regulatory regime, where the fines imposed on the companies for failure are a pittance compared to their profits.
CONCLUSION
RELATED STORIES Nationalised public transport won’t run well: Lui |
The current model of provision of public transport has produced many undesirable outcomes, as evidenced by the “crush loads” experienced by commuters every day and the public outcry each time fares are increased.
It would do Singaporeans no good if the government sticks dogmatically to its narrow philosophy of the virtues of privatisation and the profit motive, without considering the true economic reality of the public transport industry in Singapore.
The writer is a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament and chair of the Workers’ Party media team.
‘Nationalised public transport won’t run well’
Source: AsiaOne.com 14 Jul 2011
By Lui Tuck Yew
Editor’s preface: We reproduce in full here Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew’s Facebook response on the issue of nationalisation of transport.
Both SBS Transit and SMRT have submitted their proposals to the Public Transport Council (PTC) to raise fares. This has generated some responses, including a suggestion for our public transport system to be nationalised.
While this might seem like a very attractive idea, in reality, it has serious downsides, chief amongst which commuters and taxpayers (yes, even those who don’t take public transport) are likely to end up paying more, and possibly, for a poorer level of service over time.
A nationalised public transport operator that depends on government funding and which operates on a cost recovery basis would have little incentive to keep costs down. Cost increases will be passed on to commuters.
Over time, this will lead to higher costs for the same level of service, which means commuters pay higher, and not lower fares. Not only would people have to pay more, nationalising the operators could result in a stagnation of service quality or efficiency over time.
On the other hand, it is the profit incentive of commercial enterprises that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements. This is the reason why many cities around the world have moved or are moving towards having commercial enterprises provide public transport services.
Some people have said that the public transport operators (PTOs) should not be making so much profit, although we should also recognise that as public-listed companies, it is not unreasonable for the PTOs to earn fair returns from the sizeable capital investments required to sustain their operations and to invest in future public transport needs.
What is important is to ensure that commuters’ interests are safeguarded even as we have commercial enterprises run the public transport services.
Let me highlight the key aspects.
First, we have a robust framework to regulate bus and rail service levels through service quality and operating performance standards so that PTOs do not pursue profit at the expense of commuters. LTA will also continue to work with the PTOs to deliver improvements to the public transport system.
Second, the PTC regulates fares based on a fare adjustment formula (0.5 CPI + 0.5 WI -1.5%) that takes into account macro-economic factors, namely the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and average national wage increases, while delivering a productivity dividend to commuters. The fare adjustment formula protects commuters by capping fare increases – PTOs are not free to simply pass on their cost increases to commuters.
As in previous years, the PTC will have to deliberate on the PTOs’ fare revision proposals bearing in mind the interests of commuters and the sustainability of our public transport system. In fact, there have been some years when the PTC approved fare increases that have been less than what the PTOs proposed but we should let the PTC deliberate on this properly and make its decision.
These two elements have enabled us to put in place an efficient, cost-effective and financially sustainable public transport system. Certainly, there are areas for further improvement so we can deliver a high quality public transport system, and I welcome your inputs and feedback.
Finally, the Government has invested heavily in our public transport infrastructure and we will continue to do so. On the rail network alone, we have invested about $20 billion in the existing rail network infrastructure and will be investing another $60 billion in new rail lines by the end of the decade.
Government funding of public transport infrastructure is a key reason why public transport fares continue to be affordable.
Integrate land use with transport planning and don’t forget about buses
AN OVERLY cautious investment strategy, failure to integrate transport planning better with land use, and a sudden spike in population.
Academics said these are the main reasons for many of Singapore’s transport woes today. And while they acknowledge the effort being made to boost infrastructure to meet demand for public transport, they said there is a need to go beyond hardware to look at some policy issues.
Can underground tunnel provide flood relief?
I WAS very excited when my friend forwarded a video clip about a storm water management and road tunnel project in Kuala Lumpur to me. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W4xHweJRc0).
My friend mentioned that “Singapore should build a similar underground tunnel along the railway track land to resolve the flooding and the north-south traffic problems. There is no need to acquire private properties to build another CTE. As there are no buildings above the railway track land, the tunnel could be built with cut-and-fill method which is very much cheaper than tunnelling.
“The tunnel should have three tiers, similar to the KL tunnel. The lowest tier being the storm reservoir. The upper two tiers are for the expressways which can be shut to form another two more storm reservoirs temporarily. You could also have four tiers and the top tier could be an MRT track, never to be flooded if you want it running all the time.
“The KL tunnel serves to channel water away from flood prone areas when the need arises and functions as expressway normally. If need be, we could connect the end of the tunnel to a huge underground reservoir, similar to that in Tokyo.”
Since the railway track runs parallel to the three major reservoirs, pipes could be build to run the water to the existing reservoirs if they are not filled to capacity. Hence, water in any flood-prone areas in Singapore can be quickly channelled to the railway tunnel since it is located in the centre of Singapore.
Hence, we could have a permanent to-and-fro marathon track without affecting traffic every time we have a marathon or running event. The two roads below could serve as an emergency road to ferry emergency cases from any running event to the hospital.
Alternatively, we could link the railway track to a branch park connector to have a one-way 42km track marathon. It will really be a win-win scenario for everyone, besides building up a healthy society.
On a similar matter, two-tier expressways should always be considered since this saves land and provides shelter from the sun and the rain for the lower tier expressway.
If we can have a three-tier expressway, the lower tier can be turned into a sheltered running and bicycle track and for shops, too, if the human traffic becomes heavy.
Treat them as monopolies
Souce: The Straits Times 23 Jul 2011
WHILE Minister of State for Transport Josephine Teo (‘Public transport model not key issue’; yesterday) focused on how public transport operators are forced by the profit motive and the free market to maximise efficiency, she did not address how service standards are similarly upheld in the current circumstances.
The public transport sector currently comprises monopoly providers for routes in a given sector; there is no duplication of services.
While the operators do not enjoy monopoly rent in terms of pricing because of Public Transport Council (PTC) oversight, they enjoy monopoly rent by being insulated from having to compete on routes. The route advantage allows the two operators to pack their buses and trains to enjoy the maximum bang for their buck, because there are no other services for the route. Transport operators have no incentive to improve service quality.
Improving service quality is likely to incur higher costs for the operators, but these costs can be recovered only through higher fares, which are subject to PTC approval. If operators do not improve their service quality, commuters have no choice either because there is currently no route competition for public transport services. The operators are not in danger of losing commuters if they do not uphold service standards. In addition, the fines imposed on operators for transport disruptions have also been a fraction of their profits. On the whole, there have been minimal disincentives for public transport operators when they provide poor service.
Mrs Teo focused on the efficiency of Singapore’s public transport system. But we also need a system that is affordable to the masses, and that does not penalise those who cannot afford private transport, such as forcing them to suffer poor service because they must commute by bus or train.
Public transport in Singapore may be privatised, but it is organised as a duopoly with only the profit motive encouraging operators to be efficient, without correspondingly strict and effective measures to ensure efficient and quality service standards.
We should regulate our current private operators as we would monopoly operators, and empower the PTC with a larger mandate to monitor and enforce service standards strictly, including the levying of punitive financial disincentives that will add more bite.
Tan Jiaqi
Multiple transport operators could see commuters paying more, says Lui
In response to the National Solidarity Party’s (NSP) call for greater competition in public transport – including opening up bus services to small private operators – Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew has warned that this could hurt the interests of commuters in the long run.
Speaking at the Choa Chu Kang LRT Station – where he also announced improvements to the LRT system – Mr Lui reiterated that the “cherry-picking” of lucrative routes by multiple operators could end up with commuters paying more.
Mr Lui noted that the two public transport operators – SBS Transit and SMRT – run a mix of profitable and loss-making routes which they are obliged to do so under their universal service obligations.
The minister added: “There is a certain amount of cross subsidy that is taking place from the profitable routes to the non-profitable routes … if you allow cherry-picking to the profitable routes – and certainly everybody who wants to run one or two buses will want to ply on those routes – then the challenge is what happens to the non-profitable routes? And in the end, would commuters end up having to pay more overall?”
Mr Lui noted that the contestability of bus routes “is a very complicated issue”, and its implication on fares has to be studied.
On Wednesday, the NSP suggested multiple smaller bus operators who will propose their own routes and respond faster to changes in demand.
NSP secretary-general Hazel Poa also suggested tenders for trains to be awarded based on service and cost – which Mr Lui pointed out yesterday is being done “and nothing really new”.
…..
Expressing concern over the delays and disruptions, Mr Lui noted a number were “technical in nature” and that the system has been running for the past dozen years. “What we need to do really is to sit together with SMRT to make sure they are making the right investments and to do their utmost to improve the reliability of the system,” he added.
New flats and developments – such as the Institute of Technical Education College West campus – in Bukit Panjang have resulted in increased LRT ridership in the last few years. Average daily ridership on the LRT has grown from 43,700 two years ago to about 51,000 currently. Read more.
Recent train disruptions
| Date | Affected line | Where | What happened |
| Jan 19, 2014 | Bukit Panjang LRT Line | Fajar and Bangkit | A power fault occurred between the two stations at 9.19am, causing a train to stop. Another train was sent to push the stricken train to Bangkit LRT station, where the affected passengers got off. Normal services resumed at 10.05am. |
| Jan 11, 2014 | North-South MRT Line | Kranji and Yew Tee | Train services along the line were disrupted for about 1½ hours, following a power outage likely caused by a cable fault, said SMRT. At least one train stalled between the two stations, forcing commuters to disembark and walk on the tracks to Kranji. Train service resumed at about 2.05pm. |
| Dec 27, 2013 | Downtown MRT Line | Not specified | Service was disrupted by a power trip at night. SBS Transit said service was down at about 9pm due to a power fault. Fifty passengers on one train were made to alight at Bayfront station. Full service resumed at 10.10pm. |
| Dec 22, 2013 | Downtown MRT Line | Bayfront | A train fault disrupted service for 15 minutes on the line’s opening day at around noon, as thousands of people took the line for the first time. Services between Bugis and Chinatown were delayed. |
| Dec 18, 2013 | Circle MRT Line | one-north | A damaged cable at one-north station caused a power failure at 11.21pm that disrupted services at 23 of the 28 Circle Line stations and affected about 2,900 commuters. About 300 passengers from three trains had to disembark and walk along the tracks to the nearest stations, Caldecott and Tai Seng. Power resumed only at 4am, several hours after train services ended at 12.30am. |
Source: Straits Times reports
Compiled by Lin Zhaowei
Credit: SGAG (Apr 2016)
The Big Read: Despite push for public transport, a love for cars endures
SINGAPORE — Marketing consultant Walter Lim, 44, scrapped his Nissan Sunny less than three weeks ago. For the first time in about 16 years, he is without his own set of wheels, and he now takes public transport with his wife and 11-year-old son.
His reason for the change in lifestyle? The marginal utility derived from owning a car no longer matched the price he was paying, said Mr Lim matter-of-factly. He was forking out S$4,700 a year as his car neared the end of its 10-year Certificate of Entitlement (COE) cycle.
While he relishes the health benefits — apart from leading a less sedentary lifestyle, it also means no more stress on the roads, he said — he concedes that he and his family have had to make adjustments. Destinations for weekend family outings have to be thought through carefully “to ensure that the time getting there is worth it”, he said. Spur-of-the-moment supper hunts to far-flung corners of the island are also becoming a thing of the past.
As a result, the family now typically spends time together at places near their home, such as Labrador Park and VivoCity. “It’s a trade-off,” he said.
Like Mr Lim, more people here have been giving up their cars in recent years. Based on the latest statistics from the Land Transport Authority, as of last month, the number of cars on the road was 589,615 — down from 604,633 a year ago and the peak of 607,292 in 2013 — and the lowest since the end of 2010, when the figure was 584,399.
Meanwhile, public transport ridership has been growing steadily. It went up last year by 4.6 per cent to hit a record 6.65 million trips per day, and its mode share grew to 66 per cent, up from 64 per cent in 2013.
The Government has invested huge amounts of money to improve public transport as it seeks to wean Singaporeans off their cars. There will be 99 new trains by 2019, and 450 new buses by 2017 — on top of the 550 already added in recent years. By 2030, there will be new rail lines, more covered walkways, and a 700km cycling network.
But as the unprecedented simultaneous breakdown of two major MRT lines earlier this month showed, much remains to be done even as policymakers taste success in getting motorists to switch to public transport.
Ms Cindy Dermawan, 39, owns a car but she takes the bus and MRT to work on weekdays — even though this means her travelling time more than doubles.
To get from her home in Bishan to her workplace at Changi Business Park, she takes a bus to Bishan MRT Station, where she hops on a train towards City Hall Station. There, she switches to the East-West line and takes a train towards Expo Station. She completes the 75-minute journey by walking to her office.
It would take her only 30 minutes to drive to work. “Public transport takes a longer time, but it’s fine because I can leave (work) earlier and still get home within the time that I want,” she said, adding that her workplace offers flexible hours. “It’s also ‘me’ time … sitting on public transport every morning is something I enjoy, I get to do my own thing, listen to music. Going home, it also means an additional 45 mins to one hour working on my Blackberry. If I drive, I can’t do that.”
The mother of two, who is head of talent and learning management, diversity and inclusion at Citi Singapore, said she and her children — aged six and 11 — take public transport during weekend family outings as well, to places such as Orchard Road, the Botanic Gardens or Novena Square.
She estimates that she uses her car only about one-third of the time, when she takes her children to tuition classes, for example.
A big part of her choice to drive less stems from the money she could save by taking public transport. Parking in Orchard Road for example is expensive, on top of the Electronic Road Pricing costs, she pointed out. She used to spend more than S$100 a week on fuel and S$12 a day on parking when she drove to work every day.
Non-constituency Member of Parliament Gerald Giam, 38, in a Facebook post last month said that he had given up his car. He told TODAY that he did so after the COE for his second-hand 2005 Toyota Corolla Altis expired.
With the duration of his journeys now two to three times longer compared to when he drove, Mr Giam said that advance planning is essential before he and his family leave home. For instance, he has to take into account what items to take along on block visits, he said. While he used to leave boxes of materials in his car boot, he now carries just enough printed materials to distribute to residents during the visits.
To save travelling time, he makes use of mobile apps such as Google Maps and MyTransport.SG to plan his journey and gauge bus arrival times. His children, aged five and seven, like taking the bus and train, he said. Like Ms Dermawan, he also relishes the fact that he can make better use of time which would have been spent behind the wheel. “I enjoy being able to catch up on my reading while riding (on buses and trains), instead of being rather unproductive while driving,” he said.
For some, a lifestyle without a car has brought about even greater health benefits when they incorporate exercise into the travelling experience.
Mr Francis Chu, 55, traded in his four-year-old Opel Zafira a decade ago for a bicycle, after he felt his fitness deteriorate because of a lack of physical activity.
The business owner, who is a permanent resident here, used to cycle regularly when he lived in the Netherlands. After he moved to Singapore in 1996, he started to drive. But dizzy spells in 2002 prompted him to exercise more, and he turned to cycling — using not one, but two bicycles — and public transport to get to work. Then, he cycled from his home at Yishun Street 81 to Khatib MRT Station, parked his bicycle there and took a train to Toa Payoh MRT Station, where he would use another bicycle to reach his workplace at Toa Payoh Lorong 1. In 2004, he ditched his car for good. He currently uses a foldable bicycle to shuttle between his Geylang East home and his office in Ubi. For longer journeys, he cycles to MRT stations and takes his bicycle onto the trains. “I feel so liberated without a car. I don’t have to worry about whether there’s easy parking. Now wherever I want to go, I can just go,” he said.
Mr Chu, the co-founder of cycling group Love Cycling Singapore, noted the improvements across the island — such as the park connectors — that have benefited cyclists such as himself. But safety is still a consideration, he said. The authorities should create dedicated bicycle lanes on the roads without reducing the number of car lanes if they narrow some of the wider lanes, he suggested.
COE SYSTEM KEEPS DEMAND FOR CARS HIGH: ANALYST
But people like Mr Lim, Ms Dermawan, Mr Giam and Mr Chu are the exception, not the norm. Transport analysts noted that Singaporeans’ soft spot for automobiles is tough to eradicate.
Car owners gripe that it is a nightmare manoeuvring around the public transport system with strollers, toddlers or elderly parents, the analysts added.
Overcrowding is also a deterrent, as well as the fact that the density of the MRT network is still not ideal, said Nanyang Technological University’s Assistant Professor Walter Theseira.
The analysts reiterated that there are still weaknesses in the public transportation system. Also, policies in this area are not fully aligned, and some may even appear contradictory or tentative, they said. Asst Prof Theseira pointed out that under policies such as the COE system, cars become cheaper if demand for them drops. “If people really start giving up their cars, then (COE) prices will fall, thereby stimulating demand. So actually, it’s very hard to really make a big dent in car demand because of basic economics,” he said.
He added that major commercial developments, for example, large format stores such as IKEA and entertainment enclaves including Dempsey Hill, cater largely to motorists. As a result, people will continue to consider cars as very important to meeting their lifestyle aspirations, he said.
In land-scarce Singapore, roads take up about 12 per cent of the land. Dr Alexander Erath, a transport researcher at the Singapore-ETH Future Cities Laboratory, felt that decision-makers in Singapore “have so far been reluctant to take away space” from motorists and give it to pedestrians and cyclists. “If you do so, there will be moaning by the motorists … But experience shows that people will adapt (their) behaviour, car traffic will evaporate and streets that not only serve the needs of motorists but also pedestrians, cyclists and public transport will ultimately lead to a much more livaeble city,” he said.
Agreeing, Mr Philippe Crist, an economist at the International Transport Forum under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, said the greatest factor in the high demand for cars here “may be the fact that those in charge of making decisions simply do not believe that there is an alternative to having a high reliance on car travel for the city to function”. He noted that such a sentiment is not unique to Singapore. “However, dynamic and visionary leadership by the mayors of London, New York, Paris and Munich, just to name a few, revealed that well-conceived and well-implemented policies that sought to deliver better balanced transport options in those cities were met with unexpectedly strong support from citizens,” he said.
BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORT NECESSARY, BUT OTHER MEASURES NEEDED
The Government had previously announced that over the next three years, the annual vehicle growth rate will be lowered from the current 0.5 per cent to 0.25 per cent. The rate would probably go down to zero in future, the authorities have indicated.
One way to wean people here off cars would be to make the driving experience less ideal, the analysts said. People in many cities do not drive because it is a “very painful experience”, said Asst Prof Theseira.
Dr Erath added that compared to cities such as London, Paris or New York, driving in Singapore is attractive as it is much faster and more convenient than public transport, and parking is relatively cheap. He suggested that the authorities relook the allocation of road space, such as implementing more car-free pedestrian zones on major roads, as well as incorporating trams — which have bigger capacities than buses — in the public transportation system.
UniSIM adjunct professor Park Byung Joon noted that in Seoul, for instance, parking is expensive and scarce. Thirty minutes of parking there could set a motorist back by the equivalent of S$6, he said. He added that thanks to comprehensive MRT lines, a well-structured bus service, and the rapid growth of car-pooling clubs, many people in Seoul do not drive to the city.
Mr Crist said the idea is to make public transport so good that it becomes the “obvious, natural and convenient choice”. Not only do alternatives to driving have to actually deliver better service, they must be perceived by commuters to be doing so, he said. “This may be easy to do when car traffic is congested, when car ownership and operating costs are high, and when alternatives are seamless and straightforward,” he added.
Dr Erath noted that Singapore lags behind in walkability. “Pedestrians still need to wait for too long in the tropical heat at traffic lights, have too few options to safely cross the road, are too often forced to use overpasses and seldom are the walkways settled in a context that makes walking a joyful experience,” he said.
Another hurdle the authorities here need to cross is the strong aspirational component attached to car ownership. Pointing out that this is a culture unique to Singapore, Dr Park said: “I think (the aspiration to own a car) is something we should grow out of.”
Ultimately, cars still have a place in cities, said Asst Prof Theseira. But to get more on board public transport, the authorities need to “keep working on the issues that make public transport too ‘costly’ to use, in terms of time and convenience”. “Until the time-cost differentials are addressed, it’s going to be hard to convince more people to use public transport,” he said.
Other related links:
Recent Comments