Want better transport? Pay for it

Quote:Even if the Government steps in to finance the upgrade, the cost is ultimately borne by the community. "Government money is the people's money. And tax money collected is finite. It's used for education, health care, defence, transport. The more it goes into one sector, the less we have for another."

Tax money collected is finite. But govt don't get any tax if with people staying at home. They need to travel to work to all the businesses the SG govt brought in. Gov needs us to work and we need to travel to work. We are not put in this position by choice.

Quote:What about opening the market to more competition, which the Government has just announced it will do with public buses?

Last Wednesday, the Land Transport Authority announced that it will bundle bus routes in 12 packages, which will be put up for competitive bidding from later this year. It envisages the reformed market to have up to five operators.

Mr Ee said: "Both SMRT and SBS Transit are public companies. If I were a shareholder, I might well tell them, 'Hey, look, the returns (on buses) in Singapore are so miserable; don't even bother to tender for it. Focus on Australia or wherever the returns are much better.'"

And even if new players come in, things may not change.

"If they don't make it, they close shop, and we re-tender, and another (player) comes in. Meanwhile, the commuter will suffer. That's a possible scenario."

So there is a potential flaw with the model. LTA back to drawing board please before any further cocks up.

Quote:When it is pointed out that the contracts model - where operators bid for rights to operate selected routes - seems to work well in places such as London and Sydney, Mr Ee said commuter expectations are different there.

"I go to London three times a year," he said. "You may have to walk four, five bus stops before finding one where the service you want stops.

"But people there accept it. As for rail breakdowns, you don't know until you get to the station. But people take it in their stride."

Ok someone already mentioned about the differences in climate. But another thing to point out is that the mindset of the employers over there are also very different from those in SG. Are they ok for workers to be late.

Quote:And nationalisation is not necessarily a superior model either, said Mr Ee.

"The Government takes the hit when it adjusts fares," he explained. "Still there won't be happiness, because the expectation is for a very high level of service at minimum fares."

Mr Ee revisited the issue of high expectations frequently during this interview, blaming it for the unhappiness Singaporeans have over public transport.

I am not asking for three seats to myself. I am not even asking for one seat to myself. I am only asking to be able to get into the train and not to be packed like sardine. Does that equate to high level of service? I should really count my blessing.

Quote:"At the end of the day, buses and trains are about transporting a lot of people from Point A to B as affordably as possible," he said. "So by that very nature, they are going to be crowded. They're not designed for comfort.

I can agree that "At the end of the day, buses and trains are about transporting a lot of people from Point A to B as affordably as possible," he said." but totally disagree that "So by that very nature, they are going to be crowded. They're not designed for comfort.". Simply removing all the seats in buses and MRTs you get the capacity increased overnight. Problem solve. No-brainer. Comfort not an issue here.

Quote:"If you treasure your time and treasure your comfort, you pay a premium - there are premium bus services. If you value your time and comfort even more, buy a car. And then ultimately, get a chauffeur. You have to decide for yourself what it is you want."

Need I say more?

Quote:While he acknowledged that commuter satisfaction has been slipping, he also lamented how people forget too easily about the improvements that have been made.

Like how it used to take almost an hour to get from Bishan to Kembangan. Now, it is less than 30 minutes since the Circle Line opened four years ago.

"We forget about that great improvement, but complain that we have to wait for one train to pass before we can get on."

Great example but I travel from Jurong to City to work. That used to be quite pleasant but now is frustrating. On a daily basis some more thank you. My grandma don't even live in Kembangan and I don't live in Bishan. I may even only use this route once or twice in my life. Everybody should find a house in Bishan and a job in Kembangan to enjoy this great improvement.

Quote:An occasional public transport user himself, Mr Ee said things are not as bad as they seem.

"Nothing is ever perfect. But in the context of this imperfection, actually things are not so bad.

Fine all commuters are spoilt brats.

Quote:"Of course they can always be improved, but what degree of perfection are you aiming for, because there is a cost involved? Are you willing to pay higher fares to achieve it?"

Are we really asking for perfection here? This has been mentioned a few times.

Quote:Reiterating what the Government and the public transport operators have been saying, Mr Ee said planned improvements - such as the new MRT lines - will take some time to materialise.

In the meantime, people can either adapt to the current situation or "keep grumbling".

So if I don't grumble I have to shut up right??? Or I can don't grumble and don't shut up at the same time. I don't know how to do this. Also how to adapt? Ask my employer for a car and a chauffeur?

Quote:Mr Ee is told that nearly two decades ago, the Government actually had a far more ambitious rail expansion plan than today's. Critics believe that if that programme were on course, commuters would not be facing many of the current issues.

Oh another cock-up in the gov planning has been revealed.

Quote:In response, Mr Ee again brought up the issue of trade-offs.

"In the early years, we tended to roll out new lines when there was an economic downturn, to get the best price and to create employment," he said. "The downside is that you may not keep pace with pattern of demand.

"To keep pace with demand, you would have to build even though it's expensive, like now. So, again, it's a balance."

On the other hand, if a line was built ahead of demand, "you get a situation like in Sengkang... where those who moved in early get irritated because they can see the stations but can't use them".

He was referring to the Sengkang-Punggol LRT system, which was completed in 2003, but has yet to open fully.

Stop reminding us all the cocks up. We know there are a lot already.

Quote:"It also comes back to that one fixed pot of money. Every year, we have the Budget debate on how to slice it up.

"So do we use the money for building a new MRT line or, at that time, the new Terminal 3 (at Changi Airport), which will bring more tourists to Singapore and benefit the economy?"

He said another way would be to increase taxes, but that would "drive away all the richer people who actually create industry and bring all the jobs here".

Are our tax high in comparison to others? This dilemma is faced by most govt in other countries. If these rich people wants to move because of this, they know very well that this issue exists anywhere they go.

Quote:It would help "if more people understood what Singapore is faced with... and how the country has to constantly juggle when it comes to allocation of resources", said the trained accountant.

As for where the key to public transport satisfaction lay, Mr Ee did not mince his words.

"Commuters changing their attitudes," he said.

Vice versa!

For someone who doesn't face the daily commuting woes to say something like this is really annoying.

(25-05-2014, 11:39 PM)liphuang Wrote: I think here is a investment forum that with a group of people who has a sense of capitalism.

If you can lie down on the MRT seat, the business model doesn't make sense economically. If a service provider try to satisfy your standard, it will soon being punished by the market, regardless of if it is listed company or not.

Actually doing only things make sense economically is the key factor behind the victory of capitalism against communist.

Fully believe on capitalism is the basic behind Singapore's success but today there are many people are trying to deviate from it to delight the demanding voters. It is a risky path to go.

Have you ever wondered why the woodstock for capitalists Buffett supports death tax, donations, equal opportunities and philanthropies?

I'm guessing you are probably young to have the mindset that "capitalism is the basic behind Singapore's success" We were social capitalist in the first 25 years of our independence. So much so that China came to study our model. There are many LKY, Goh Keng Swee books around that you can read up and understand more before jumping to conclusion.

So what is listed stock exchange SGX model? Why do people bother to gripe and complain when OPMI are marginalised? Isn't that how capitalism of survival of the fittest supposed to work? SGX's mission is to maximise trading value and economical sense for their shareholders... no? Or is SGX different for what reason?

I think maybe Mr Ee is telling the govt:

The people has paid already given the govt/ ministers higher pay, pls provide better governance!

(25-05-2014, 09:47 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: The same logic for a man illegally park his motorbike in condo, and saying he was entitled for it, since he paid the management fee.

From public bus/train to private car, there are many choices in between, depending how much you are willing to pay.
- Premium bus if available and suitable
- Flag-down Taxi, or even pre-book taxi service, or private arrangement with taxi driver for regular service
- carpooling? I didn't try it before, may be a viable choice too.

Mr. Ee is right but a bit too blunt, IMO

Moderator: minorly edited for clarity

if the base goes, everything will go. And how much can the smarter keeps on taking from the less smart?

Ppl who do nt take public transport will nt understand. Leaders shld lead by example n take public transport at least once a week before they make their comments

(26-05-2014, 01:04 PM)funman168 Wrote: Ppl who do nt take public transport will nt understand. Leaders shld lead by example n take public transport at least once a week before they make their comments

Ya. Eat their own cooking. Ministers and senior civil servants and PTC members too.

Take public tpt to and fro work. Not just from Raffles Place go City Hall/Bugis for lunch makan. Which many people do..

(26-05-2014, 01:14 PM)opmi Wrote:

(26-05-2014, 01:04 PM)funman168 Wrote: Ppl who do nt take public transport will nt understand. Leaders shld lead by example n take public transport at least once a week before they make their comments

Ya. Eat their own cooking. Ministers and senior civil servants and PTC members too.

Take public tpt to and fro work. Not just from Raffles Place go City Hall/Bugis for lunch makan. Which many people do..

I am a civil servant and I take public transport to and fro work.

I am willing to pay more for quality transport.

Well I do complain a lots on public transportation especially when rushing, but when my mind is clear, I will start asking myself a question: what else I want? I would proclaim that Singapore has one of the most comprehensive public transport system in the world, but lack of efficiency probably due to population congestion, if you compare with some very best countries you find Singapore lousy, but you should probably still agree that it is still one of the best in the world. In fact the public transport in Singapore is still between cheap-affordable range, just calculate how much we spent on public transport versus how much we earn, it is definitely cheaper than in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and probably other neighbour countries.

Living in such an expensive city, poor people like myself should forget about owning a car nowadays. I always envied people who drive cars, and I felt so pressurised when my MIL, who don't lives in Singapore, questioned me on when I wanna buy a car, but yet when I think deeper, I found myself very fortunate comparing to many others.

There is no perfection in this world, so 知足长乐

The government will never take over the operator ship of public transport system as it does not grant it any benefit but troubles. The government knows very well that it can't operate the public transport system either cheaper or better or both. If the government takes over the operator ship, it means either all the existing employees of the operators become civil servants or they continue to be employed by a private company wholly owned by the government. But neither will be cheaper. As a government company, the employment will lean more towards the locals, that is, the government will not have the liberty to hire as many foreigners as the private transport service providers. Higher cost, but not necessarily better service. Plus, every breakdown becomes the government's headache. SMRT has taken fair amount of public blames for the government. In a way, the private transport service providers give the government so called plausible deniability. When the Sh** hits the fan, the government can always come out and blame the private transport service providers. Removing that, every blame will go straight to the government. How would the government like it?

I dont expect seats........i just expect something for me to hold =(

Japan's train maybe packed, but I been there.........lots of handles for you.........Sg trains pretty horrible in this aspect

Even buses, when its totally packed, I was in the front a couple of times.........I was near the bus captain, and I was sharing/holding with another person, the thing where you drops coins into ='( (its painful)

I mean.......it doesnt take a genius to figure out that there is nothing to hold at the front for some bus designs..........I am appalled