Showing posts with label Transport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transport. Show all posts

Monday, April 4, 2016

Education versus Regulating in Social Norms


A young boy was travelling on the Hong Kong MTR with his mother. The train was crowded and when 2 seats near the boy were vacated, he quickly climbed onto the seats. 

An elderly couple was standing nearby and the grey-haired old lady wanted to occupy one of the vacated seats. However, the young boy quickly stretched out his arms to stop her from sitting down. His mother was aghast at his behaviour and immediately asked him to give one seat to the old lady. He refused. The boy reasoned that elderly folks have privilege over seats marked Priority Seats but not those that are unmarked. Despite his mother's attempts to cajole him into giving up at least one seat, he remained adamant.  His mother then decided to take the boy down from the seats and to offer them to the elderly couple who expressed thanks for her act of kindness.

Human behaviour is the product of both nature and nurture. From a societal perspective, certain behaviours are less desired for their selfish overtures whilst selfless behaviours are deemed to be fundamental and crucial for social cohesion. Self-centred behaviours in group dynamics are deemed not to augur well for the development of strong team spirit and collegiality. Consequently, behavioural instructions are dispensed to mould desired behaviours and to change behaviours that are incompatible with the communal ethos of the society that we live in.

History has demonstrated that social norms are created through conquest, regulation and education but sustained through the latter two methods. When a new order comes into being, new social norms need to be put in place. By regulating through laws and rules, society becomes conditioned to behave in a manner desired to avoid the unpleasant consequences that follow with non-compliance. For instance, by legislating the indiscriminate disposal of waste in public as an offence punishable by law, people refrain from littering to avoid being fined. Over time, "not littering" behaviour becomes conditioned in the society where the anti-littering laws are applied and enforced. 

The problem with regulating behaviour is that people continue to behave in that manner because "the law says so." And they will behave strictly according to the letter. The place is kept free from litter to comply with the regulation. In the MTR incident, the young boy did not do anything wrong in refusing to give up his seat to the old couple as far as regulations go. Even adult commuters have displayed a similar behaviour and we have seen it here in our own trains and buses. Elderly commuters and those in need are seen to have a right over seats expressly reserved for them. For unreserved seats, they have no such right. 

By regulating behaviour with laws and rules, giving up a seat to someone who needs it more becomes a matter of rights. For those who are imbued with a strong sense of values, they will most definitely feel that something is clearly not right here. Unlike the use of education to inculcate desired behaviours by means of reasoning and persuasion, the use of laws and rules to regulate behaviour may often achieve an opposite effect. It's impact is further limited in time and space. Have we not often lamented the fact that many Singaporeans litter outside Singapore but do not do so when they return to our "fine" city? 

If we desire to create a more caring, gracious and harmonious society, which is essentially one that is endowed with a strong, deep sense of values, should we not rely less on regulating behaviours according to rights but more on educating people to behave based on the values of compassion and kindness? The difference in their impacts are apparent in the long run and we are already seeing them every day.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

THEME: Transport - Making the COE and ERP systems more equitable

The costs of owning a car in Singapore are the highest in the world because of COEs or Certificates of Entitlement. To buy a motor vehicle, including motorcycles, taxis, buses and goods vehicles, one must first bid for a COE.


The COE bidding system is the means by which the state seeks to control vehicle population and the ERP system is for controlling traffic flow. Looking at the congested roads everyday even on ERP roads, many have come to see both COEs and ERPs as revenue churners rather than truly effective vehicular control mechanisms.

Any good policy to control vehicle  population and traffic flow must be equitable both in principle and in implementation. The COE works on a bidding system that has led to spiraling COE prices. Bidders include car dealers who drive up the bids in order to clear their stocks. High COE prices increase the costs of transport and lead to higher inflation, which in turn contributes to high costs of living. The ERP charges, which are now collected at all expressways and major roads leading into and out of the central business district, have exacerbated the situation and adversely affected businesses during the ERP operating hours. Orchard Road, for instance, sees motorists paying to drive in and drive out even on Saturdays.


It is time to review the roles of the COE and ERP systems, especially when our MRT system has become more unreliable. There is a social injustice in a situation where people are left with a Hodson's choice - forking out huge sums of money to have one's own means of transport or taking public transport which are hard to get on or often disrupted.

Until a better system is devised, the current systems can be improved upon to be more equitable. Instead of being conducted monthly, COE biddings can be carried out quarterly and the COE premium should be fixed for every quarter. This fixed quarterly COE premium will provide some certainty for prospective buyers working on their budgets and to plan their expenditure accordingly. 


Only car buyers should be allowed to bid for COEs and they should pay for what they bid subject to a non-transfer-ability period to prevent profiteering. The there could be a restriction on number of times that a person may bid within a fixed period so as to allow others a chance to bid, COEs should also last longer instead of the current 10 year period as cars are made to last much longer. This is also more ecologically friendly and helps reduce wastage of limited resources.

Motorcycles, or at least those of lower capacities, should be exempted from the COE system. They are the means of transport for many dispatch riders and lower income workers. Taxis and buses, which are a means of public transport, should also be considered for exemption from the COE system. Commercial vehicles should also be considered for exemption in the interest of lowering transport costs for businesses, thereby reducing the prices of goods and services.


ERPs should operate only on major roads leading into the central business districts and only during the peak office hours. Saturdays should be free from ERP and the collection of ERP for vehicles leaving Orchard Road should stop. Whilst there may be a case to collect an administrative fee non-payment of ERP charges and a penalty for further default despite reminders, inadequate payment due to insufficient stored value in cash cards should not attract any such fees or penalty. The ERP system should deduct whatever is available in the card and allow the motorist to pay the shortfall within a prescribed period.

Traffic congestion can be substantially reduced construction works are not carried out so intensively.  Heavy trucks and construction vehicles add to the traffic volume and and certain arterial roads could be designated off-limits to construction vehicles during peak hours. More traffic policeman should be deployed on patrols and traffic lights could be better synchronized to smoothen traffic flow. 

State policies should be imbued with pro-people sensitivities to promote trust and respect for the systems that are suppose to operate for their benefit. We can certainly do more in this respect.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Thoughts From A Concerned Singaporean

A fellow Singaporean sent me a message and I thought of sharing it with you.

The writer's message (as it is) is as follows:

"We have a large and brain tank in public service. Sometimes I wonder


(1) Why we react to public needs of reducing migrant workers before increasing workforce in service industry. Strategies to overcome shortages should be in place first. For example, increase the culture and empathy for people in the service sector. Initiatives can take many forms, such as requiring Students to do ECA or internship in service sector, and increasing minimum wage of service staff. 


(2) Pilots are paid well. Taxi drivers can earn >$3k a month. Bus drivers, also shuttle many lives around. Many of them are not locals. Can you imagine bus drivers cannot convey information on bus routes during mrt breakdowns? 


(3) We link ministers' salary to link the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singaporean citizens, with a 40 per cent discount to reflect the ethos of political service. Couldn't the public service, under this group of leaders also re-look at the half baked solution of implementing tray return policy at hawker centers. After years of implementation, is it really working or shall we discontinue this good objective but a major implementation breakdown with ill creativity?


(4) LTA hopes to create a people centered land. Does LTA knows that aunties and uncles do not use wifi. Shouldn't visual aids on bus arrival time be indicated at every bus stops? As we age, shouldn't all bus stops have seats instead and take priority over narrow sliding benches that aims to prevent people be sleeping over it?


(5) Surely LTA has done numerous study trips overseas before implementing MRT in Singapore. LED signs in trains are often faculty or blocked in crowded trains. Announcements are muffled by rattling sounds of the train. As Riders may lose track of the approaching station after a tired day, has LTA observed that the London Underground has images of the approaching station's name along the tunnel much before the train arrival ? After all, gadgets like LED and announcements failed to delivery."

What are your thoughts?

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

THEME: Transport Fare hikes


Fares that go up when oil prices come down. Higher and higher COEs, recurring train service disruptions, bus delays and hard-to-get taxis, proliferation of ERP gantries, transport fare hikes, traffic jams and over-packed trains and buses. These issues continue to surface at the elections and the voices are getting louder each time. Let's take a look at fare hikes.


Fare hikes for buses and trains are subject to approval by the Public Transport Council ("PTC") which has a review mechanism that recently won an international award at the 61st UITP World Congrezz & Exhibition in Milan for providing a fair and transparent fare formula to cap the quantum of fare adjustment. This mechanism is meant to ensure that commercial operators cannot simply pass on their costs increases to commuters.  Whilst this ought to provide some assurance that every fare hike approved by the PTC was carefully reviewed before being approved, it does little to calm negative public sentiments. And the problem seems to be a matter of faith.


There are many who do not see the PTC as an impartial body because its council members are appointed by the government and the government is seen as the ultimate owner of the bus and train operators which are earning huge profits each year. This belief was reinforced recently when a fare hike was approved on the basis or rising operating costs in the midst of falling oil prices and the CEO of SMRT appointed by the government in 2012 was paid millions in his remuneration package despite continuing disruptions in train services.


How can we restore the public's faith in the PTC? Perhaps, members of the PTC could be appointed by an independent commission and members of the PTC should include substantial representation from VWOs and commuters. At the same time, any application for fare hikes should not be allowed if the non-technical costs exceed a certain percentage of the total operating costs incurred in the provision of transport services. This idea is somewhat akin to the concept behind the existing 30/70 efficiency ratio in fund raising by charities and institutions of public character in order to qualify for tax exemption on their funds raised.


Efforts directed at maintaining the public's faith in a fair and equitable system for allowing and determining price hikes are necessary. Afterall, there is a strong social element in the provision of public transport services unlike other businesses. The paramount interest of the public transport operators must not be to maximise profits but to provide public transportation at what the public accepts as reasonable and affordable.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

THEME: From SMRT & SBS Transit to MRT Commuters: Perfecting Attitudes

In my last blog on our MRT System, I stopped at the COI report on the train disruptions in December 2011.


The COI report was delivered on 3 July 2012 and the essence of it was simply this. Both the regulator (LTA) and the operator (SMRT) had not paid enough attention to the maintenance of the ageing NSEWL, resulting in recurring disruptions train services. In conclusion, the Committee expressed that "With the various recommendations implemented, the COI is confident that future incidents, should they recur, will be much better managed."

Since the release of the COI report, steps have been taken by LTA and SMRT to address most of the problems in line with the recommendations of the Committee. On 11 March 2014, LTA even released news of its "Rail Network Enhancements" on expanded capacity, shorter waits and more travel options. There were plans to add more trains, upgrade signalling system for NSEWL and new rail lines for faster and more connections. However, the latest incident on 7 July 2015 suggests that some basic problems have yet to fully addressed. This was also the perception given when the promise for better train services reliability was qualified by SMRT at their subsequent press briefing co-chaired with LTA (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/smrt-chief-desmond-kuek-apologises-for-train-disruption-promises-better-train).


The breakdown of our MRT system is not just a matter of our rail network failing. The latest incident has further revealed that our overall public transport system is ill-equipped to cope with the fallout of a major train service disruption (http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/mrt-disruption-puts-strain-buses-taxis). It is therefore imperative for us to deepen our analysis of the entire situation, including how to address public frustration. For a start, the people are not convinced that another CEO appointed to SMRT in October 2012. who does not have the relevant technical skills or experience in running a train operator. was the right move. And for LTA to repeatedly impose a fine on SMRT for delays hardly solves any problem.

The cause of the frequent breakdowns and disruptions are technical in nature. The long-term solution is for both LTA and SMRT to appoint an independent 3rd party technical expert in the field of urban-rail operations to fully investigate and recommend all the measures to be taken to effectively address the problems once and for all. Both LTA and SMRT can then look into implementing the recommendations, which may eventually require a lot of understanding and patience from the public. I believe that the public would understand and be able to withstand the periods of disruptions necessitated in carrying out these recommendations to prevent recurring train disruptions that cause so much more inconvenience to everyone.


Meanwhile, improvements can be made in the communication of train disruptions and the provision of alternative transport for affected commuters. One measure is to ensure that clear and immediate dissemination of information of disruptions are further made at all transport waiting points, including bus stops and taxi stands. There should also be deployment of ground staff to guide train commuters to the location of supporting bus services and to provide bus information. Ad-hoc taxi stands can be set up for those who wish to take taxis and support staff can help in calling/hailing taxis. In addition, motorists who are en-route could be roped in to help ferry commuters and help alleviate the heavy load on buses and taxis.

We do not live in a perfect world. What is important is that we learn how to perfect our attitudes towards every difficulty that comes our way. Only then can we become a great nation.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

THEME - Transport: From MRTC to SMRT & SBS Transit

Yesterday's disruption of the NS and EW train services was unprecedented. Never has it happened before that two major train lines would be disrupted at the same time. Has the worst yet to come? What will it be? Are we ready for it?

I will be writing a series of blogs to reflect my thinking on a couple of topical issues. I have chosen the acronym, THEME, to represent the 5 major topics. 

The letter "T" stands for Transport and with the massive train disruption yesterday, it is timely for me to start with our Mass Rapid Transport ("MRT") system. To get a better grasp of the topic, it's always good to put things in perspective.

From MRTC to SMRT & SBS Transit 

Our rail-based urban transport system or MRT was once the toast of our people, praised for its comfort and speed. But in recent memory, it has been the cause of much unhappiness in a nation where most people commute by train.


When our MRT system was built, the regulator of train services was also the operator. It was known as the Mass Rapid Transport Corporation ("MRTC"). Formed in 1983, MRTC took over the role of the provisional Mass Raid Transit Authority ("MRTA") to oversee all roles and responsibilities of the train network. It would later be combined with the Registry of Vehicles and Roads & Transportation Division to form the new Land Transport Authority ("LTA") in 1995. 

The initial cost of building the MRT was S$ 5 billion and on 7 November 1987, the first line (NSL from Yio Chu Kang to Toa Payoh) was launched. On 6 March 2000, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transport Corporation was formed and it became the operator of the MRT lines. It was set up as a public-listed company to be a multi-modal public transport operator, providing rail transport services, taxis, engineering and commercial services. 

On 20 June 2003, when the NEL was completed at a cost of S$ 4.6 billion, SBS Transit Ltd (previously known as Singapore Bus Services Ltd) was appointed by LTA as the second train operator to foster competition with SMRT. Currently, SBS Transit Ltd runs the NEL and DL ("Downtown LIne") whilst SMRT runs the NSL, EWL and CL ("Circle Line").

Train disruptions

Prior to 7 July 2015, there has been a number of disruptions in train services. The NSL and EWL broke down due to power traction failure. As many as 250,000 commuters were affected and this was not the first time a major disruption has occurred. 


In December 2011, 2 major disruptions in the NSL led to the formation of a Committee of Inquiry ("COI") to investigate the causes of a series of disruptions that had occurred over a period of time. If you wish to appreciate the severity of the problems that plague our MRT system, the COI report provides a good start. Here's the link http://www.mot.gov.sg/news/COI%20report%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf


(To be continued).

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

NE & EW Train Service Disruptions on 7 July 2015


Train disruptions have truly become a regular feature in one of the finest transport system in the world. We are not talking about anywhere else but our own MRT system.


The NE and EW lines were disrupted this evening at about 9.15 pm due to "traction power fault". The incident brought back memories of the two major train disruptions in December 2011 which led to the formation of a Committee of Inquiry. Thousands of commuters, including myself, were caught in the melee tonight


I was already in a train and had just reached Eunos station when I heard an announcement from outside the train.The announcement was in Mandarin and was repeated in the same language. It was not clear to me if I should leave the train. Finally, I heard the English announcement from the train PA system about the major disruption and that free bus rides are available for train commuters. Everyone then disembarked and left the station.


The bus stop outside the station was crowded with train commuters. I saw Bus Service Number 30 and queued to board, not knowing if this was one of the free buses. The bus driver spoke only in Mandarin and many non-Mandarin speaking commuters had a hard time getting clarifications from him. It took some 5 minutes for the bus to move out of the bus bay because of the communication issue. The bus arrived a the depot in Bedok and was emptied quickly. I was heading further east and wanted to take a taxi home but there was a long, snaking queue at the taxi stand and only two taxis were in sight. 


I decided I had to trouble my wife to pick me up. By the time I reached home, one hour had passed after I alighted from the train. Sadly, this is not the first or second time that major train disruptions have happened. Train disruptions have become too common and we were told to accept breakdowns as a regular feature. This cannot be. Our trains have become the main transport carrier in our transport system. Any disruption will cause grave inconvenience to hundreds and even thousands of commuters who commute by train daily. Are the people who oversee and operate our train system not capable of solving the problems that are recurring all too often? What has gone wrong?