Straits Times Forum 15 Jun 09
I REFER to last Saturday's letter by the Singapore Environment Council (SEC), 'Taxis a green option, like car-sharing'. It quoted statistics showing the much smaller population of taxis compared to that of private cars.
The usage patterns of private cars and taxis are totally different.� Since car owners usually drive from point to point, private cars sit in carparks most of the time. However, the monetary incentive for taxi drivers is to drive passengers 24/7.
Taxis contribute to traffic volume (and environmental impact) at a level disproportionate to their population. �Even while queuing at taxi stands, cabbies usually leave their engines running. So I am surprised the SEC sees taxis as a green option.
It also misses the point on objections to the Land Transport Authority spending $1 million to boost taxi ridership.� Most of us agree that taxis are a necessary complement to public transport. The issue is whether public money should be used to promote taxi ridership.
Bryan Tan
Taxis a green option, like car-sharing
Straits Times Forum 13 Jun 09;
I REFER to Monday's letter by Mr Bryan Tan, 'Don't use public funds to up taxi ridership'. He states that 'promoting taxi ridership goes against the pro-environment campaign'.
While mass public transport is comparatively less pollutive, it would be simplistic to say that taxis are not pro-environment. It may also appear that taxis 'form a significant portion of traffic volume' when they converge on popular places to pick up passengers. However, statistics on the Land Transport Authority's website indicate otherwise. The number of taxis in 2007 was about 25,000. In comparison, the number of private cars was 450,000.
A good public transport system caters to the needs of every commuter. The taxi industry forms an important part of the system. Buses and trains do not run for 24 hours nor do they ply every road.
For many reasons and in different circumstances, it may not be possible for individuals to take the bus or train. Taxis fill the gaps for Singaporeans who would otherwise have decided it was necessary to buy a car and add to daily traffic congestion. Hiring taxis to get around can be viewed in the same way as public car-sharing or car-pooling. Taxis do provide a public service.
Therefore, arguments against funding increasing taxi usage should not write off the taxi as bad for the environment or a means of transport only for the better-off.
Esther Tan May Lynn (Ms)
Projects Manager
Singapore Environment Council
Don't use public funds to up taxi ridership
Straits Times Forum 8 Jun 09;
LAST Saturday's report, 'Fewer people taking taxis', mentioned that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will provide $1 million to help promote taxi ridership. The money - slated to be matched by the taxi companies - will be used to hold promotions such as discounts and tie-ups with shopping centres and tourist attractions.
Taxpayers' money should not be used for such a purpose. Promoting taxi ridership goes against the pro-environment campaign to encourage more to switch to mass transport. Doing so also aggravates road congestion as taxis form a significant portion of traffic volume.
While I empathise with the predicament of taxi drivers during this time of economic downturn, almost all industries are affected by it. It is unfair to use public money to directly support any particular industry.
Instead, the law of supply and demand should be allowed to work itself out. The issue of lower income for cabbies is not surprising in an industry fraught with high supply - too many taxis - and low demand.�
The taxi companies must solve the problem at its source. Artificially propping up demand, especially with public funds, is neither prudent nor sustainable.
The LTA must justify this expenditure.�
Bryan Tan
Cars and taxis as different as apples and oranges
Straits Times Forum 16 Jun 09;
I REFER to last Saturday's letters by Ms Esther Tan of the Singapore Environment Council, 'Taxi is green option, like car-sharing', and Mr Poh Soon Leong, 'Boosting ridership a right move'.
Just because there are fewer taxis than private cars does not mean taxis are pro-environment. The average taxi clocks much more mileage than the average private car. At a rough guess of 400km a day for the average taxi and 60km a day for the average private car, one can see why taxis account for more congestion and emission than their number suggests. Moreover, taxis clock their mileage primarily downtown and in major town centres.
A fraction of taxi mileage is also expended cruising for passengers and when a taxi picks up a fare, chances are it is a single passenger. Unless passengers share taxis, taking a taxi is not the same as car-pooling.
Taxis are owned and operated like any other commercial undertaking. They survive by providing good service at competitive prices. The Land Transport Authority is charged with implementing transport policies, regulating transport rules and standards, and providing infrastructure such as bus stops and taxi stands, but it is not meant to promote taxi ridership. Yes, taxis pay road tax and Electronic Road Pricing charges but these are charged to passengers in the fare.
There is no fear of the taxi industry collapsing as no operator has given up its licence yet. In fact, more have entered the business.
Henry Tan
Taxis are a green alternative compared to private cars
Straits Times Forum 18 Jun 09;
ALLOW me to rebut Mr Bryan Tan's letter on Monday, 'Taxis a green option? Think again'.
According to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) website, as of last month, the motor vehicle population of private cars, buses, goods vehicles and motorcycles was about 900,000.
Assuming that each of these vehicles makes an average of two trips a day, to work and home, this makes a total of 1.8 million trips, though the buses and goods vehicles may travel more.
In comparison, taxis have a relatively small population of about 25,000. If each taxi makes an average of 50 trips a day, the total of 1.25 million is much smaller than that of other types of vehicles.
Today, most taxis have the Euro 4 engine, which helps to control the level of black smoke emitted. Many also run on compressed natural gas.
The LTA has a responsibility to ensure the survival of the public transport industry, whether buses, trains or taxis. The $1 million it provided to the taxi industry to promote ridership is only a fraction of the taxes paid by the industry in the form of road tax and diesel tax, apart from Electronic Road Pricing.
Therefore, the argument that public money is being used to promote taxi ridership is misguided.
Poh Soon Leong
LTA REPLIES: 3 aims of $1m fund
Straits Times Forum 20 Jun 09;
I REFER to the recent letters expressing concern over the use of public funds to promote taxi ridership, with some questioning if it was right for public funds to be used to subsidise taxi fares. We would like to clarify the objectives of the $1 million fund and put the issues in perspective.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA), in consultation with the taxi companies and the Taxi Operators Association (TOA), decided to set up a fund as a temporary measure to provide some help to the taxi industry and to serve the following three objectives:
# First, it aims to improve the service levels of taxi drivers, so as to enhance the overall delivery of service to commuters, by co-funding initiatives such as programmes on good service behaviours.
# Second, it encourages the industry to do more to stimulate demand, by co-funding initiatives from the taxi companies for up to one-third of the cost of the promotional activities, but this will expressly exclude any direct subsidy of taxi fares.
# Third, it serves to improve demand through improving convenience and accessibility for taxi commuters during major events like the Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix and the Singapore River Hongbao, by supporting additional infrastructure facilities such as temporary taxi stands.
Such efforts will, on the whole, help the taxi industry better match the current taxi supply with demand, while continuing to improve service levels for the benefit of commuters.
Our objective is not just to help the industry cope with the downturn, but to also position the industry for the economic recovery and to better meet the additional demand expected when major projects like the integrated resorts open later this year.
Disbursements from the fund are by application only, and only proposals that meet the stipulated requirements will be approved. While a $1 million budget has been set aside, actual utilisation will depend on the merits of the proposals we receive.
Jeremy Yap
Group Director
Vehicle & Transit Licensing
Land Transport Authority
Promote use of MRT, not taxis, to protect environment
Straits Times Forum 20 Jun 09;
I REFER to the letter from the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) on Wednesday, "Taxis an alternative to car ownership".
Taxis provide a necessary and critical service for the handicapped, the aged, tourists and in times of emergency. They also cover the gap where access to public transport is difficult.
The debate about whether taxis are greener than private cars is irrelevant. Both are not green. Already there are disincentives against car ownership (ERP, COE, parking costs, and so on). The argument that car owners, having invested in the car, would like to maximise its use, is flawed.
There should not be a subsidy to promote taxi ridership. The industry should compete on its own merit. Any short-term decline due to the financial downturn can be addressed by adjusting taxi fare structures to attract more users. For starters, a simplified one-price structure irrespective of location or time will remove uncertainties and attract more riders. It will also deter abuse by cabbies.
To discourage car owners from driving, SEC should promote the park-and-ride scheme. Make parking at MRT stations more affordable. For example, parking gantries could be equipped with software to give rebates to drivers who ride on trains within a given time frame. The park-and-ride scheme failed to take off before because of the limited MRT network, cheaper gas prices and cheaper ERP levies.
The bottom line is that SEC should discourage taxi ridership and promote mass transit ridership if it really wants to serve its purpose of protecting the environment.
Jack Chew
Cabs are not a better green alternative to private cars
Straits Times Forum 5 Aug 09;
MR POH Soon Leong in his Forum Online letter recently, "Taxis are a green alternative compared to private cars", is wrong in his assumption that cabs are a more environment-friendly alternative. His sums do not add up.
It is simplistic to lump the emissions of Singapore's vehicle population of 895,000 vehicles with 1.8 million daily trips. There are marked contrasts in emissions among vehicles.
For instance, the emission of a bus is at least six times greater than that of a taxi. Therefore, the equivalent daily trips of 15,000 buses alone are more than 4.5 million, excluding 143,000 goods and other vehicles.
The right comparison should be based on emission facts between taxis and private cars. There are 550,000 private cars (22 times more than taxis). About half of that number are on the roads at the same time. Based on two trips a day, the total daily trips is only 550,000.
About 24,300 taxis roam the streets each day on business. Using 50 daily trips as the basic emission unit, the total daily trips for taxis work out to be 1.21 million - 2.2 times more than private cars.
Emissions of taxis are 48 times more than that of private cars, even though both are not green.
Finally, all taxis should be converted to gas-fired engines soon to reduce emissions and the public should be encouraged to take buses or trains.
Paul Chan
Read more!