SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment

[tutormum]

The main issue here is \"public\". We are talking about public transport. It is for the masses. Over 80% of the masses stays in HDB flats and earn a median salary of less than $2000 a month. A 1% of fare increase will work out to less than 1 cents, we may argue. However, the increase is frequent. Too frequent for comfort and that is the main grouse of the masses. Take, for example, a commuter spending $1, the minimum fare to commute to and from work every day for 5 days a week, averaging 22 days a month. That amounts to $44 a month, which is 44/2000 X 100 = 2.2% of his monthly salary. This is the minimum amount (best scenario, mind you). However, if he has a family of 4 with 2 schoolgoing children, each spending $0.45 per trip = $0.45 x 2 x 2 = $1.80 per day, $42.20. Presuming his DW is SAHM, total transport = $86.20, almost 5% of his income. This does not include any outings the family may have during the month. Personally, I spend at least $60 on transport myself. DS2 takes the train and transfer to bus = $45 monthly train concession and $20 bus = $65. DS3 takes bus with transfer = $0.55 per trip, $1.10 per day, $24.20. DS1 spends more cos though he works 12 hour shifts and commute less to work, he goes for night classes everyday. His transport about $100. DH drives and takes the bus or train occasionally. Of course, include outings etc, the amount is much higher. Guess putting forth my own family would reduce unnecessary dispute.

Is not the masses' fault that there is overcrowding. I know this open another can of worms. Is this what the masses have to put for economic progress, higher standard of living etc.
JMHO

[sall]

amcon:

sall:

limlim, don't belittle a 13 yo student. If I didn't say snowman is 13 yo in an earlier post, will you attack his comments so vehemently?

On the contrary, I think limlim is arguing based on facts. If snowman does not agree to people using his \"age\", then in the first place, please do not state it out loud.

I must also say that I am \"impress\" how a 13yr old can know so much about the transport company, including the industry jargon. Or perhaps, stating the age could be a smokescreen to shield any attacks, and made the posts more credible.

Snowman did not state his age. I happen to read his posts in another thread, that's why I know he's 13 yo. I mentioned his age, not him.

[snowman.022851697]

Just an honest opinion from a fellow transport enthusiast - Singaporeans take public transport for granted. We expect buses to be at the foot of our blocks and trains to operate flawlessly. But buses and trains are machines and brake down. When there are flaws, everyone cries.


I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.

it is pure poor planning. no excuse.

May I have a solution as to how overcrowding can be solved? I'm not ridiculing you, I just want your opinion

[3Boys]

Of course it is public transport, it serves the public at large.


However, just because it is a public service, it does not mean that it can best serve its aim by being publicly OWNED (aka, nationalised, aka owned by gahmen).

There is cost of operating these services, agreed? And when the public expectations rise with regards to standards as pertains to frequency, comfort etc., the costs incurred will be even higher, yes?

So, the question I have here, to tax-paying Singaporeans (and foreigners, as the case may be), is whether or not the cost of operating these services be borne by the folk who use them (80+% of Singaporeans), OR, the tax-payers at large, with lesser accountability for costs as the tab is picked up by ah kong?

I do not mind if SMRT is non-profit, but there must be an effort for the consumers of a service to be bearing the cost of operating that service, and not pass the buck to someone else. With a daily ridership of > 1.5M per day, even if SMRT returned all of the profits ($200M/year, ca. $0.54M/day), it comes down to $0.36 per person per day. That’s $44 per month for a family of 4, that’s what you are paying for SMRT’s ‘profits’. I don’t think this is unreasonable. The large majority of commuters can afford this, and this is the fair and responsible way for this service to be costed and operated.

Of course, there are the poor who will find this sum difficult to manage. In which case, there should be public assistance schemes to provide grants and subsidies to THESE group of people, and not provide public subsidy for 80%+ of the population. When you do that, effectively everyone ends up paying anyway, so you may as well make it transparent with direct charges rather than hidden subsidies.

[Daddy D]

To snowman.697,

This is a open forum… if u post something, u will get a response.

- Stop using BOLD and !!!.. it is rude when used in typing.
- "not like on Facebook where all of them gang up on me"… U have to do some self-reflection
- "there is no point arguing with these people"… U need to work on your EQ
- If u r Ong You Yuan (just google)… seriously u r just a kid. I’m talking about rising living costs here, what do you know about rising living costs if you are still taking allowance from your parents?
- What is a "transport enthusiast"? SMRT, SBS pay their consultants, engineers $$ to do all these analysis… they don’t need you.
- Where will you be in 10 years time? What is your acheivement? (And I’m not referring to taking photo of the MRT with graffiti that led to the arrest of the Swiss guy)
- Either you excel in your studies, or you learn a skill, or be an entrepreneur. If you think you are good with transportation, work on it to make it your career. But SBS/SMRT is not likely to employ you if you do not have the paper qualifications.
- I think you are more mis-guided than impressive. Our real life does not evolve on forum rules.
- STOP wasting your time and start planning your life.

This is a PARENT talking to a KID.

[corneyAmber]

tankee:

I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.


it is pure poor planning. no excuse.

I support you, Tankee!!!

[3Boys]

snowman,

quite often in internet forums, if one cannot dismantle your argument, then one tends to resort to dismantling the person. Don’t concern yourself with the character assassination, its par for the course when one takes an unpopular position, and this forum is already more civil than many.

Even if your research is merely google-based (i’m not saying it is), there is at least curiosity to look beyond the obvious, an attempt to research and understand the issues as opposed to knee-jerk response to a stated $200 million profit without even understanding the scale or lack thereof. That type of attitude will serve you well going into the future and don’t be discouraged by all this "I eat more rice than you" opinion.

[tankee]

snowman.697:

Just an honest opinion from a fellow transport enthusiast - Singaporeans take public transport for granted. We expect buses to be at the foot of our blocks and trains to operate flawlessly. But buses and trains are machines and brake down. When there are flaws, everyone cries.


I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.

it is pure poor planning. no excuse.

May I have a solution as to how overcrowding can be solved? I'm not ridiculing you, I just want your opinion

go google \"Capacity Planning\". this is a fundamental subject in resource management.

[tankee]

ksi:

tankee:

I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.


it is pure poor planning. no excuse.

I support you, Tankee!!!

:hi5:

[Chenonceau]

snowman.697:

Overcrowding will NEVER be solved!!

snowman.697:

May I have a solution as to how overcrowding can be solved?

Maybe we could look to the solutions in other countries (e.g., Hong Kong)...
http://openkitchenconcept.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-07-14T22%3A02%3A00%2B08%3A00
The lady who writes this blog is very widely travelled. She has experienced the public transport system on every continent. And she points us in a direction where one might find a solution.

It might be premature to conclude that there is no solution to a problem without having brought more effort to bear on finding a solution. After all, mankind has found innovative solutions to so many things.

One could just as well as have said...
- \"There is no solution to the problem of having to wait 3 months to get a letter from England\"
- \"There is no cure for cancer\"

In Queen Victoria's Britain, some aristocrats said
- \"There is no solution to the problem of overcrowding in poor tenements. That is how poor people have lived for centuries.\"

Once one concludes that there is no solution, one stops searching. For sure then, the problem will not be solved. I'm a little surprised that you are 13... because your thinking seems to be very old. Usually, it is old people who are closed to possibilities... who do not keep an open mind to what is possible... and cannot envisage change because they know the status quo and cannot see beyond it.

I am quite concerned that you are not the only young person that I have come across who believes that Singapore has problems that cannot be solved. One young man in a top class in a top JC (with stellar grades) commented that even if our education system has problems he sees no solution, then there must be no solution. I discerned some arrogance there. If I (top grader in top class in top JC) sees no solution, then there must be none. I too was challenged to propose a solution at that time. I couldn't propose any at that time because I had had no access to data, to successful case studies, to historical events in the development of the current system. But I refused to accept that just because he couldn't find a solution and I had no solution - then there must be no solution.

No solutions to the problem of overcrowding? Why so easily accept intellectual defeat? Have we become a nation of physical AND intellectual weaklings? Physically, we have soldiers who ask maids to carry their backpacks. Intellectually, we have talented students in top schools who have been so crammed with knowledge that they fail to see beyond the knowledge we feed them, to possibilities that don't yet exist.

Surely this is not your fault. What have the elders of this nation done to age a nation's youth beyond their time? In youth mental processes and blood veins/arteries are flexible. Arteriosclerosis sets in only after middle age unless the body has been much abused. Have we so much abused our talented youth so much that they have developed arteriosclerosis of the mind?