Straits Times 4 Apr 08;
Transport Minister Raymond Lim explains the recent changes in transport policy. Their goal is to ensure 'Singaporeans will continue to enjoy a city in a garden, rather than a city in a carpark'.
LAND transport plays a pivotal role in ensuring that ours is a liveable city. This means making a decisive shift to public transport, and making it a choice mode rather than one of last resort.
Public transport cannot compete on the car's door-to-door mobility, as that would be expensive and wasteful. But it can be more comparable on speed, convenience and flexibility. This is what we set out to do through our latest initiatives.
To improve speed, we need to have more segregated rights of way for buses so that they are not delayed by other traffic. The expansion of our rail network will also mean speedier travel.
For example, with the opening next year of stage 3 of the Circle Line, the peak- hour commute on public transport from Serangoon to Orchard will be almost as fast as travelling by car - it will take 20 minutes.
By June, the network of normal bus lanes will be extended by 25 per cent to 150km, and full-day bus lanes will treble from 7km to 23km. This will increase bus speeds by as much as 30 per cent to 25kmh.
For convenience and flexibility, we are doubling our rail network by 2020. There will be new extensions or new lines opening almost every other year until 2020. This means that people who live and work in the city will be only 400m or a five-minute walk from an MRT station. Many more areas such as Sin Ming, Marine Parade and Tuas will have fast access to the city.
The LTA (Land Transport Authority) will take on centralised planning of the bus network, introduce an integrated season travel pass that will work across modes and operators, as well as distance-based through fares. It will also build more integrated public transport interchanges and offer real-time travel information.
Increasing the coverage and density of our rail network and integrating it with our bus network will enhance the convenience and flexibility of public transport. It will make it easier for people to reach many destinations without needing to drive there and find a car park at each point.
Push and pull
SOME have argued that investing in a high-quality public transport system is sufficient to ensure a liveable city; there is no need for restraints on cars.
Unfortunately, experience has proved otherwise. Tokyo and Seoul have first-class public transport systems but are plagued by horrific morning peak-hour traffic jams.
When I was in Zurich last year, their transport officials told me that even though they have what many consider the gold standard for public transport, they have to take active steps to discourage car usage, such as reducing road capacity in the city and having high parking charges.
This is because the pull of a better public transport system has led to higher travel speeds on the roads, encouraging more commuters to drive.
Similarly, it is not possible to build ourselves out of congestion. Widening roads to deal with congestion is like dealing with obesity by loosening the belt. The increased capacity leads to increased traffic, so the problem recurs but on a much bigger scale.
Other cities such as London, Stockholm and New York have come to the same conclusion: Push and pull measures are needed to ensure a quality urban living environment.
Pull measures such as a high-quality public transport system will provide people an attractive alternative to cars; push measures such as congestion charging will curb excessive use of cars.
Others have argued that ERP is ineffective, as once a person buys a car, he will drive it regardless of what the ERP charges are. This is true to some extent, but not totally. If it was, all the roads with ERP charges would be congested, which is not the case.
But we need to be clear on the intent of Electronic Road Pricing: It is to curb excessive use of cars, not discourage all car use. Some will consider the benefits of being able to drive on a smooth-flowing road greater than the cost of the ERP charges and still choose to drive. Others will decide not to.
This marginal shift in behaviour is sufficient to improve traffic flow on congested roads. For example, when the LTA installed an additional gantry last November at the CTE before the PIE turn-off, traffic volume fell 10 per cent and traffic speeds rose 50 per cent to 50kmh.
In fact, if we do not regulate the use of busy roads during peak hours, the ensuing gridlock will defeat the very purpose of having a car - high mobility.
A reader whose letter was published in The New Paper understood the ERP system well. He pointed out that when motorists pay a hefty upfront charge, such as road taxes and Additional Registration Fee (ARF), and do not pay further for driving more, this can lead to a buffet mentality - you tend to over-consume.
Indeed, the experiences of motoring-oriented cities like Los Angeles has shown that too many buffets can clog road arteries.
ERP is like ordering a la carte: You pay only for what you eat, not subsidise the bigger appetites of others.
This is why as we rely more on usage charges, we have lowered ownership costs. The latest changes are no exception: Road tax has been cut by 15 per cent, ARF has been reduced from 110 per cent to 100 per cent of open market value. The revenue foregone to the government will amount to $310 million every year against an expected increase in annual ERP revenue of $70 million.
We will also need to continue to control the growth in our vehicle population. The current 3 per cent growth rate is not sustainable with a base of 850,000 vehicles, and with road growth at 0.5 per cent. Thus, the annual vehicle growth rate has been set at 1.5 per cent for the next three years, at which point it will be reviewed.
It is tempting to leave politically unpopular decisions to another day, but it would be the wrong thing to do. In the United States, motorists spend more than 4.2 billion hours annually stuck in jams, enough time to fill 65 million iPod Nanos with music and consume enough extra fuel to fill 58 supertankers!
The US' 'congestion invoice' stands at US$78 billion (S$108 billion) each year. Congestion costs in European countries such as France are estimated to be about 1 per cent of their gross domestic product. We have avoided this by taking difficult decisions to deal with congestion. We must continue to do so.
Goal: City in a garden
OUR goal is to have a sustainable transport system that supports continued population and economic growth, and the higher expectations that come with being a First World city.
Building a better public transport system is a critical part of this, as the majority of us will rely on public transport. Refining the ERP system and lowering vehicle growth are important steps to help keep our traffic free-flowing.
Together, they ensure Singaporeans will continue to enjoy a city in a garden, rather than a city in a car park.
A version of this article appeared in the March/April issue of Petir, a publication of the People's Action Party.
