Head W – Ministry of Transport

The Chairman: Mr Cedric Foo, you have three cuts, you can take them together.

Commuter Experience with Public Transport

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Thank you, Mdm Chair. I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

Madam, my first cut is on commuter experience with public transport. I would like to address this topic in three areas, namely, (1) reliability; (2) capacity; and (3) commuter needs.

Firstly, reliability. For public transport to be a choice mode for commuters, a basic requirement is reliability. Punctuality of our bus services have improved with various measures like bus priority lanes and more and newer buses under the Bus Services Enhancement Plan or BSEP.

The same cannot be said about trains, unfortunately. The recent numerous train disruptions – five of them over a span of eight days between 23 February and 3 March had greatly inconvenienced many commuters. And then to make matters worse, we have the Bukit Panjang LRT shutdown just this Monday.

Public Transport mode share has been increasing from 59% of trips during the morning and evening peak hours in 2008 to 66% in 2014. This is good news since extensive use of public transport is the only sustainable way forward for a small city state like Singapore. We want to achieve this high mode share because public transport is cost-effective, reliable and comfortable.

We want a road transport network befitting of the efficiency hallmark often associated with Singapore. It would be very disconcerting if the mode share increased only because commuters have no other choice but to take to a below-par public transport. A world-class land transport network is not just about commuter comfort, it brings with it many positive externalities. It makes Singapore attractive to foreign investments and increases productivity all round. I know that MOT and LTA recognise this and has been working hard to bring this about. That is why the recent spate of train disruptions must be very disappointing for all stakeholders – commuters, regulators and operators, alike.

Over the last few years the Government has introduced various measures, including tightening regulatory standards and the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) have made additional investments in repair and maintenance. The LTA and the PTOs have also moved from a "find and fix" approach to a "predict and prevent" approach in terms of maintenance. This approach seeks to predict problems even before they occur and to take pre-emptive measures to avoid failures.

Why then do the recent disruptions still occur and with such regularity? I would like the Minister to help us understand this issue better. First, by providing progress updates on the implementation of the COI recommendations which were issued as far back as 2012, following the disruption in December 2011. Secondly, his assessment on the effectiveness of this new maintenance approach, "predict and prevent". And thirdly, whether or not the existing penalty system imposed on PTOs is effective as a deterrent.

Ultimately, it would be good for the commuting public to hear from the Minister when he sees a return of stability to our train network in terms of reliability.

Secondly, on capacity. Bus capacity is generally recognised to have improved through the BSEP. I think the public is better for it. Train capacity though has seen some improvements with waiting times declining and crowdedness somewhat better than in previous years as new trains are being delivered. However crowdedness on trains during peak hours remains a key gripe from commuters.

Would the Minister provide an update on the delivery of new trains for the network and also the re-signalling initiatives which would go a long way to increase headways and how these measures would improve rail capacity as well as rail service? Would the Minister also provide an update on the BSEP and whether or not there are plans beyond the 1,000 buses that were announced previously?

My third point is on commuter needs. Beyond the basics of reliability and capacity, the commuter experience also depends on other related infrastructure such as covered linkways to train stations and bus stops and accessibility for commuters with special needs. Can the Minister update this House on the progress of improving the first and last mile commuter experience between homes and transport hubs and vice versa? How is the progress for the construction of covered linkways to achieve that first and last mile experience?

The LTA's announcement of free Wifi access for a total of 32 stations by the end of this year is a positive step in understanding commuter needs and trying to meet them. Beyond Wifi access in train stations, would the Government also consider introducing Wifi access in train cars themselves to meet commuter needs for uninterrupted wireless connectivity?

Public Transport Mode Share

Mdm Chair, my second cut is on the public transport mode share, specifically, an update on the progress versus the objectives that were spelt out in the Land Transport Master Plan or LTMP in 2013. Even as we try to solve the reliability and capacity issues today, I think the MOT's focus on the long-term plans of the transport network is a very important undertaking.

As we know, public transport has been increasing as a commuting mode from 59%, as I said earlier, in 2008 to 63% in 2012 and 66% in 2014, so almost improving one percentage point each year. The target is to achieve 75% by 2030. Since we have achieved 66% last year, logically, if we take a projection, we should be able to achieve 75% probably in the next nine years and that would be in the mid-20s. But the objective, as stated in LTMP, is to reach this level of public transport share only in 2030. So, my question is: whether the Minister sees fit and confident enough to bring forward the target date to achieve this 75% mode share?

The other area that is particularly important in land-scarce Singapore is vehicle growth. We have seen this problem emerging in some cities. And when urban planners fail to anticipate and control car population, all sorts of issues arise.

For example, I know of a certain city in Asia which only allows even number plate cars on even days of the week, like Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday; and odd number plate cars on odd number days of the week, like Monday, Wednesday, Friday. So, you may own a car but you can only use it on alternate days. And I am told that some car owners buy two cars, one with an odd number plate, one with an even number plate. And there are even others desperate enough to buy ambulances because they have the right of way, and sometimes police cars.

These examples highlight the wisdom of anticipating future problems and though COEs are unpopular and vehicle growth is something that commuters would like to see more of but, really, the problems are real and the issues are very stark as we can see in many cities around us.

The LTMP highlighted several areas of focus. More connections, that is one, which is expanding networks – making walking and cycling to transport hubs more attractive. Better service, that is, improving frequencies, shortening waiting times, reduce crowding and tightening taxi availability standards.

And lastly, the third point, "liveable and inclusive community", for public transport to be more user-friendly to a diverse commuter base, including elderly, persons with disabilities and also the impact on common living spaces. I would like the Minister to provide us an update and progress of these objectives, whether or not we are tracking them well and, if so, are we sufficiently confident to realise these goals even earlier.

Government Contracting Model for Bus Services

Madam, my next cut is on the Government bus contracting model. The Government bus contracting model seeks to introduce competition as opposed to concessions which is the state of play today in order to discover what is the ‘market clearing price' for a specified set of bus services. This objective can only be realised if there are sufficient competing bids.

The Bulim package has been introduced recently. I understand that bids have been received and I would like the Minister to update this House on the number of bids that are received and whether or not these bidders include foreign operators and whether our local operators have also participated in the bids and when will the bidding bid be announced.

Also, whether or not the procurement costs from the Government's standpoint for the Bulim Package would be reduced as a result of the bidding and how this will impact bus fares and services when the winning bidder commence operations. Also, it would be interesting to learn from the Minister whether there are lessons learned from this particular bidding package for Bulim and how this will inform future packages.

Transport Policy Matters

Dr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Chair, I would first like to commend MOT on the many improvements made so far on public transport. Latest "customer satisfaction" survey showed satisfaction levels for bus and train services have both turned around and improved from last year despite train disruptions. I am sure MOT will continue to make even further improvements. Could Minister elaborate on what further improvements are planned for our land transport, especially on MRT and buses for the coming years?

A new record of passenger traffic was registered at Changi Airport last year although the growth was slower compared to previous years. My concern is on the capacity of our two runways. May I ask the Minister whether these two runaways will be compromised anytime soon with increasing traffic? Are plans for the construction of a third runway in the pipeline? If so, when will the third runway be operational? In the meantime, what can be done to improve and increase the use of the two runways productively?

Could Minister give an update on the project progress of Jewel Changi Airport since the ground-breaking last year? Madam, this Jewel Changi Airport will be the pride of Singapore and many Singaporeans were excited about it when it was first announced and its perspectives were shown by Prime Minister Lee.

Many Singaporeans are indeed looking forward to its completion. Could MOT involve the public in the building of this project; right from the beginning, from the early stages? Could there be more public consultations and more inputs from citizens? Would it not be nice if MOT could turn this project into a truly Singaporeans-centric one, one that many Singaporeans can say they have had a hand in it when it was being built?

1.30 pm

Our MRT trains during peak hours are no different from those in major cities such as Tokyo or Hong Kong. Commuters may have to be "packed" into the trains at peak hours. Female commuters will frequently experience a more uncomfortable journey to their destinations and this situation could be worse when trains are packed to their fullest at peak hours. The threats to their modesty with possibilities of sexual harassment are always imminent. Many countries have implemented "ladies only" cars for their trains. I have written to Minister of State Josephine Teo to suggest similar "ladies only" train cars in Singapore in June 2013 and I now ask Minister if any plans to implement this "ladies only" train cars in Singapore is coming on line soon. I feel that allowing our female commuters this facility is only fair and wise.

Singaporeans welcome the plan to increase our rail capacity. Many welcome the setting up of new MRT stations at their doorsteps. But during the construction time, this will also mean inevitable inconveniences for residents, which can last for four to five years at their doorsteps. I know that MOT had tried to engage local residents affected to mitigate those inconveniences. Can there be better public consultation at earlier stages of planning, in order to get better buy in from local residents, as some of their feedback can still be taken into for considerations at the planning stages. Issues of contention can be on repositioning of bus stops, routes, paths and setting of foreign workers dormitories at their precincts.

During the transition to the contracting model for bus operators, apart from the usual specifications for safety and reliability of bus services, could we ensure that there are specifications to ensure the employability of local Singaporeans? There should also be consideration for the "pleasant travel index" for commuters. Bad drivers and inconsiderate drivers with their bad driving habits can often make journeys very unpleasant for commuters. Perhaps we should allow commuters to judge our bus service standards through feedback from their journey experience.

I would also like to raise some issues over taxi transportation. The average taxi utilisation rate is at 68% as of 2014. May I ask the Minister whether there can be further steps to increase the utilisation rate of registered taxis? Many taxi drivers also complain that they have to pay high rental for renting their taxi to earn their living. What kind of costs and profitability are the taxi companies facing? Is there any better way to ensure better equitability between taxi fares to consumers and rental rates to taxi drivers?

Madam, as what I have said in the debate on the Budget Statement, let us move towards further improving the quality of our public engagement as a Government in meeting the higher public expectations so as to strengthen trust, support and confidence of the public.

Train Improvement

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Madam, so far this year, we have been hit by a spate of train disruptions, the most recent one just last week. All lines seem to have been affected by one problem or the other. A number of such incidents were during peak hours, causing massive jams and delays. Understandably, commuters were frustrated and disappointed. On the other hand; commuters also noted the improvements in our train system over the past few years though it is still not entirely satisfactory.

I would like to ask the Minister why we continue to be plagued by MRT disruptions and what have been done to minimise such incidents. How can we ensure that we can achieve an optimal balance between efficiency and safety as headway between train during peak hours is minimised. In addition, what improvements have been made to our trains for the past few years and going forward, to make our system economical, relevant, reliable, efficient and convenient?

Building Noise Barriers for MRT Tracks

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mdm Chair, with the coming of age of our MRT tracks and lines, the noise emitted when our MRT trains run on overhead tracks are becoming especially loud and accentuated. As such, residents in Nee Soon GRC, particularly those in Nee Soon East living within close proximity of these MRT tracks have been sharing with me when I meet them during my regular house visits that the noise has become louder through the years. Can I therefore urge MOT to look into reducing the noise by constructing effective noise barriers to reduce significantly the noise along the entire route along the GRC? And if Ministry of Transport is supportive and already looking into this suggestion, I hope to know when it can be started and completed.

Public Transport by MRT

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Social and Family Development (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mdm Chair, in its 2013 Transport Masterplan, LTA aimed to have eight in 10 homes within a 10-minute walk of a train station by 2030. This is almost achievable for Hillview and Hume residents in Bukit Gombak constituency.

Unfortunately, they are so close to having an MRT station and yet, so far. This is because they are unable to unlock the station box that is built in Hume on the Downtown Line. At this juncture, Mdm Chair, can I seek your kind permission to display a slide on the LED screen, please?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

Ms Low Yen Ling: As Members can see, this is a picture with Hume Park I, Hume Park 2 condos, just a stone's throw away from the location of the Hume Box. So, despite many appeals since 2011, MOT and LTA have rejected our request for an MRT station in Hume although there is a box that is constructed.

The main reason given was insufficient residential population density. However, the resident populations of Hillview and Hume have increased over the years to about 20,000 residents today and it will increase further with more developments adding to the over 30 condos in Hillview. So, I sincerely appeal to MOT and LTA to review and please reconsider its decision on Hume MRT station since the box is already constructed. In fact, Prime Minister Lee announced in 2013 that the Government is committed to cater for infrastructure needs and build ahead of demand.

So, on that note, I seek to know: first, what is the minimum size and density of residential population that is needed for MOT to build Hume Station? Secondly, in the case of Buangkok, Woodleigh and Haw Par Villa MRT stations, what was the population density or factors that resulted in their construction?

My residents tell me over the years repeatedly at various platforms that the demand for Hume station is very strong because Hillview and Hume residents have no viable source of transport. In fact, they are caught between a long span of 2.6 kilometres between the upcoming Hillview Station and the upcoming Beauty World MRT station. It is 2.6 kilometres – this is more than doubled the average length of 1.41 kilometres distance between stations. It suggests that the passenger load and catchment areas served by these upcoming stations – Hillview and Beauty Word – will likely be higher than average, thereby possibly leading to the chance of increased commuter congestion and compromise service. LTA's plan of a liveable and inclusive community is really but a dream for many Hume residents.

If they choose to go to the city via the upcoming Hillview Station, they will have to head north instead of south, effectively backtracking and loading crowded bus services on Hillview Avenue during the peak hours. And, for those of you who have been to Hillview, you will know that it is also upslope climb to Hillview Station because Hillview Station is built on a hilly ground. And for residents who choose to get to the city via Beauty World, a long bus wait awaits them. Most buses plying Upper Bukit Timah Road and full by the time they reach Bukit Gombak. And many residents have to wait for more than 15 minutes before getting onto the bus. So, really, their first and last mile experience is little to look forward to.

On the other hand, opening the Hume MRT station will support LTA's aim to make public transport a choice mode of travel. It also aligns well with Prime Minister Lee's vision of an eco-friendly and car-light future as part of a sustainable Singapore blueprint. The car-light vision is indeed achievable because the 653 Service that was introduced in Bukit Gombak last year has received very good feedback from residents so much so that they left their cars at home during the weekday. So, as you can see, people's committing behaviour can change if given a compelling public transport option that makes better sense in terms of time, money and value.

I really want to recap the few reasons that I think Hume MRT station should be opened. First, we need to build ahead of demand to meet our infrastructure needs. Hume MRT station will give our commuters a compelling option to make public transport their choice mode of travel thereby reducing road travel and traffic. Finally, Hume MRT station is really part of the answer to realising the vision of a car-light and sustainable future.

Last but not least, my concluding question to MOT, what does it take for MOT and LTA to open Hume MRT station in time for the Downtown Line launch? This answer is urgent as people and activities at Hillview and Hume have grown to an extent that it would impact traffic, quality of life and environment should the Hume MRT station be withheld any longer.

Women's Cabin on MRT

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, there is a growing trend of molestation on public transport. In 2014, there were 164 reports of molestation; whereas in 2011, there were only 114 reports. This is a 44% increase in three years.

Although the numbers seem small, I believe the reports are only the tip of the iceberg, as it is very embarrassing for many women to cry out in a crowded train and claim she was molested in front of everyone. Molesters get away with their crime most easily when trains are packed during peak hours, with people standing very close to each other.

I doubt the current attempts at public education are working. The National Crime Prevention Council's posters in public transport showing a male attempting to molest a woman from behind and asking women to protect themselves may be backfiring. Internationally, such anti-crime campaigns and posters have been criticised for putting the onus on women to prevent the crime and promoting a culture of blaming the victim for the crime.

I urge the Minister to mandate the MRT service providers to have prominent signs on the floor and the doors, and within the cabins, to designate specific cabin as for women only.

Many train stations now have wardens on duty to guide peak hour traffic. The wardens could tell the men to move to other cabins. Japan and Taiwan have implemented women only cabin with success. Although not all women will choose to take these cabins, but at least, those who feel vulnerable or have had bad experiences will have the option of travelling to work and back home to their families with peace of mind.

I believe that men will automatically respect the women only cabin by refraining from entering the cabin during the peak hour. This is a sign of a mature society respecting the rights of women.

Public Transport Security

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, the spate of vandals breaking onto trains at Bishan Depot causes much concern. From May 2010, there have been four incidents of such break-ins detected at MRT depots, the latest in November last year. This was despite various security measures being employed by SMRT and re-assurances given in this House since 2010 about the comprehensive security review being undertaken by the Public Transport Security Committee to address security gaps in our entire transport system. Are these measures working? Just last month, on 27 February, train services were stopped briefly in the evening as a result of a man walking on the viaduct between Bukit Gombak and Choa Chu Kang stations.

Madam, we have been extremely lucky that the security breaches so far involve graffiti artists rather than terrorists. We were told in Parliament in 2010 that the current security framework was that PTOs where the primary responsibility for day-to-day operational security and are placed to decide which measures are the most feasible. We were also told that the Government sets security standards and also does security audits. It is thus worrying that despite the specific concern about depot security being flagged out in 2010, it seems that certain vulnerabilities of Bishan Depot were only attended to in 2014 after two intrusions there. Why was this not picked up earlier?

The Minister has announced that the LTA will introduce new security-related standards within the operating performance standards for PTOs. Failure to comply will attract penalties up to $1 million or 10% of the licensee's annual fare revenue of the affected rail system whichever is higher. The next breach may not be by a graffiti artist but by a terrorist and a fine of $1 million then will be too little and too late compared to the grave consequences of a terrorist attack. Is it time for the Government to be more proactive in assisting the PTOs to enhance security?

1.45 pm

The Chairman: Mr Seng Han Thong, you have two cuts, please take them together.

Train Reliability and Security

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Yes, Madam. Last year, at the COS of MOT, I mentioned, "Train services have been disrupted quite frequently due to different factors. Such incidents have impacted on the reliability of the public transport and, at the same time, confidence of the commuters in general."

I am repeating the same view in view of the latest spate of disruptions on SMRT's rail network.

SMRT has apologised and pledged to analyse each incident thoroughly. LTA called the spate of disruptions "unacceptable".

Local MP Liang Eng Hwa expressed his disappointment and called for LTA and SMRT to get their act together to really bring up the reliability of the system and bring back the public's confidence. And to the 40,000 commuters who were affected by these disruptions, they were very frustrated by the lack of reliability of the system.

On top of this, there are also high profile vandalism cases at Bishan MRT depot that put the trains' safety and security standards in the spotlight.

Apart from public apology and promise to increase manpower from the operator, and public reprimand from the regulator, what else we need to do to restore commuters' confidence in our train service?

May I ask the Minister to give the House an update on the preventive and pre-emptive actions announced last year?

Has the Government ensured that the operators provide the necessary manpower capabilities and financial resources to fully comply with the "Predict and Prevent" whole-life maintenance approach to the train service assets?

To adequately address those questions in the minds of the commuters, could the Minister share if LTA has a comprehensive plan or strategy as the regulator to ensure that its appointed operators and their employees would deliver the expected level of reliability and security in our train services?

On train reliability and security, the questions in the minds of the commuters are:

(1) How can these outsiders enter the protected area of the train depot so easily?

(2) How can these people remain undetected while they went on vandalising the trains?

(3) How to ensure that every train leaving the station and depot is secured and safe?

(4) How can we cut short the response time when there is a disruption?

(5) How can we minimise human errors leading to train service disruption?

(6) How can we make sure that our equipment are fit to serve, in tip-top condition, every day before the trains leave the depot to serve the public commuters?

(7) Why am I paying higher fare to contribute to the profits of the operators and not to the higher maintenance and security standards of the train services?

Sustainable Improvement on Bus Services

My next cut – Sustainable improvement on bus services. Bus average daily ridership has hit 3.8 million. We have seen improvements in the public bus services, especially in bus waiting time and frequency. How can we sustain these improvements so that bus commuters could continue to experience better and affordable public bus services?

There are two frameworks. One, financing framework. With the bus contracting model, the Government takes the unprecedented step to build and own the operating assets of the public bus service, in particular, the bus monitoring and deployment system and the purchase of buses.

The contracted operators are paid by the Government to operate these assets while the Government collect the fare revenue. Through open tender, we now see real market competition in terms of management solutions and fees charged by the competing companies to operate the bundles of public bus routes.

As the public transport infrastructure and operating assets are long-term capital investments, could the Minister share with us on what would be the long-term financing framework for public bus service? How the public bus fare would be set under the bus contracting model?

Two, operating framework. We used to have multi-model public transport operators who operate both the public bus and train services. Bus and train services are designed to complement each other and not competing against each other. Currently, when the train service is disrupted, public buses belonging to the same PTO –

The Chairman: Mr Seng, your time has ended, please conclude.

Mr Seng Han Thong: – could be activated to provide free connecting service. What would happen if it is under the bus contracting service?.

Bus Services

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Chairperson, I still receive regular complaints from residents that bus services do not come regularly according to their published headway. There are also occasions when buses that arrive are already packed with commuters such that other commuters cannot board the bus.

For residents who rely on these buses to bring them to work on time every day, buses that fail to adhere to schedule or are so crowded that commuters are unable to board is a main source of frustration. The average bus commuter simply wants a bus service that is reliable and can bring them to the next destination in a reasonably comfortable manner.

Can the Minister explain what else can be done to improve the services of the bus companies? Has the Bus Service Enhancement Programme really improved the service standards of bus companies and the regularity of bus services?

Next, I wish to appeal for better last mile connectivity. In my constituency, I have three MRT stations. Yet, there are so few feeder buses that will bring residents from the private estates along Meyer Road, Amber Road and Haig Road to these MRT stations. If we can have mini buses, similar to those buses in Hong Kong, transport residents to the nearest MRT station, Singaporeans will see the benefit of using public transport instead of driving to work. Will LTA consider opening up such services to foreign operators for tender as well so that there is more competition?

Bus Connectivity

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Social and Family Development (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mdm Chair, in the last few years, LTA and MOT have worked closely with my community leaders and have improved the commuting experience and accessibility for Bukit Gombak residents, and for that we are very appreciative for the introduction of City Direct bus service, 653, in January 2014. In fact, it has eased commuting to and from the CBD during peak hours for residents staying at Hillview and Hume areas. Many of these residents who use this bus service have told me at various platforms and occasions that because of the convenience and comfortable ride in bus number 653, they now leave their cars at home on weekdays. We want to encourage more of such commuter behaviour, is it not? However, we face a continual challenge of bus connectivity within the Bukit Gombak constituency. One example is our residents do not have a direct bus service that brings them from the eastern part to the western part of the constituency and vice versa.

Let me explain. For instance, a Hillview or Hume resident cannot get to the western side of Bukit Gombak directly by bus, and the western side is where the Bukit Gombak neighbourhood centre of more than 100 shops, seven coffeeshops, two supermarkets, as well as the Bukit Gombak MRT station and the sports stadium are located. And, likewise, residents staying near the Bukit Gombak MRT station do not have a direct bus bringing them to the eastern part of the estate like the Hillview area, and Hillview area is where the upcoming Bukit Gombak Community Club will be built. So, this state of affairs that divides our constituency into two distinct areas due to lack of direct connection is really puzzling.

The residents from Hillview, Hume and Pavilion estates especially need ease of access to key transport nodes and community facilities. So to address this situation, in the last four years, we have put up several requests to the MOT, to the LTA, to seriously review bus connectivity in Bukit Gombak. However, this has not improved. Today, some 20,000 residents from Hillview, Hume and Pavilion estates still have no direct access to the MRT station in their constituency, which is Bukit Gombak MRT station. Presently, it takes them more than 45 minutes to get to the Bukit Gombak MRT station either by a single bus transfer or by foot – I have tried that before, so it really is about 45 minutes.

Residents who rely on buses to get to the city are really not much better off. From my several site observations of peak hour commuting, I noticed that most of the buses, service number 176, service number 177, service number 963, service number 970, were full by the time they reach Hillview Avenue. This means a long wait for many of my Bukit Gombak residents who can only board upon the arrival – if they are lucky – of the second bus or the third bus. So to overcome this problem, we really need halfway on-service buses to meet the transport demand, ease the waiting time and improve bus access to the city. And we also hope MOT and LTA can reinstate the old route of bus number 989 – I repeat, bus number 989 – to serve the residents of Woodville Gardens, Pavilion Estate as well as the students and staff of ITE College West. The will enable the 7,000-plus HDB residents from Woodville Gardens, many of whom are elderly residents relying on public transport to get to the Bukit Gombak MRT station. Together, our residents and the ITE population form a sizeable mass for a direct bus service to the MRT station and the Bukit Gombak neighbourhood centre.

So we sincerely appeal to the MOT and LTA to please look forward and be more forward looking in their consideration in injecting buses where they are needed.

I recap that the Government announced its intention two years ago that it will commit resources and build ahead of demand. In addition, in unveiling the Sustainable Singapore blueprint in November last year, Prime Minister Lee spelled out the goal to foster an eco-friendly environment and make Singapore a car-light nation. In view of all these aspirations, we hope the MOT can provide clarity in its response to our request, and here are my questions. We would like to know if MOT would introduce: (1) new buses linking up the eastern and the western flanks of Bukit Gombak to improve localised routes and provide residents direct bus access to Bukit Gombak MRT station; (2) consider reinstating bus number 989; (3) release halfway on-service buses to improve frequency of bus numbers 176, 177, 963 and 970 during peak hours in the morning and evening. This will, indeed, be a step forward for bus connectivity in Bukit Gombak.

City Direct Services

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Chair, currently, there are 10 City Direct bus services serving Jurong West, Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Batok, Hillview, Sengkang, West Coast, Sembawang, Jurong East, Eunos, Bedok and Hougang. As I also overheard very positive feedback from Members, may I ask how successful have these services been to others also? What is the feedback so far and will the services be sustainable in the long term?

I understand that five more City Direct bus services will be available to serve parts of Marsiling, Woodlands, Pasir Ris, Tampines East, Simei, Yew Tee and Yishun from the next quarter. Are there plans to increase such services in Sengkang, Buangkok MRT and Punggol area?

Transport Subsidy for Caregivers

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Chairperson, as it currently stands, full-time caregivers do not qualify for specific transport subsidy under the various LTA and TransitLink managed concession schemes. They do not qualify for the Workfare Transport concession as they are not deemed to be part of the workforce. However, they do need to travel to accompany their spouses or family members who can be persons with disabilities or mental illnesses and should be considered for a special subsidy or be allowed to apply as a supplementary applicant for the person with disability concession card, for example.

I understand the Social Service Office under MSF does provide a transport subsidy to Singaporeans in the appropriate case, especially for those who qualify for financial assistance. However, my understanding from resident caregivers who request for such a subsidy is that they do not qualify for it as a matter of course. In fairness, they may qualify for other subsidies like S&CC and utilities subsidies.

The prevailing wisdom seems to be that as they are caregivers and are likely to be at home looking after their loved ones, they do not need to travel much. This is not correct. In some cases, transport costs can be quite high. I hope the Ministry, in cooperation with TransitLink and MSF, can look to better assist caregivers holistically, and even more so if there is little or no family help to support the caregiver.

Fare Review Formula

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Mdm Chair, my next cut is on the fare review formula.

The fare review formula is based on four components: core CPI, the average wage increase, the energy index and the productivity index. These four components of the fare formula are reasonable, in my view. However, my concern is with the significant time lag between the data that were used and the actual fare adjustment date. For instance, in computing the 2014 fare adjustment, the energy index was based on 2013 data, whereas the actual fare adjustment will only be effective from April this year. So as you can see, this long lag of 15 months is in contrast to the quarterly economic indicators and statistics that are available from MTI.

I would like to request the Ministry to consider applying more current data for fare review so that the actual fare adjustment is reflective of prevailing market conditions. Commuters can then better relate fare revisions with prevailing realities.

2.00 pm

The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Mdm Chairperson, first, let me thank Members of the House for their thoughtful views, questions and feedback on public transport. I have no doubt that a number of them, like me, would have had to write, rewrite and yet again rewrite our cuts and speeches in recent days. But let me start off, first of all, with an assessment of the latest spate of MRT and LRT disruptions.

These recent disruptions, including the most recent one at Bukit Panjang LRT due to an electrical fire, show the range of problems we continue to face and how much more we need to improve in terms of rail reliability. This comes about despite the intensive efforts that LTA and the rail operators have put in over the last few years. While I can accept the occasional breakdown, and I can even tolerate a more severe disruption if it occurs very rarely, I am most upset with the current situation in the last few weeks. The incidents have inconvenienced many commuters, disrupted their routines and schedules, and, once again, undermined confidence in the transport network and the progress that we have made.

The recent spate of disruptions, coming against a trend of general improvement in rail reliability, is something that really pains me. As Dr Lily Neo pointed out, prior to this, the public perception of the public transport system seems to have improved. We track this via the Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey (PTCSS), which is something that I share on an annual basis at the start of every COS. This is something that UniSIM conducts every year. With your permission, Mdm Chair, may I ask the Clerks to distribute some handouts and also to display some slides on the screen so that Members can refer to them during my speech?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: The latest survey results indicate that Singaporeans' overall satisfaction with public transport had increased from 88.5% to 91.3% in 2014. Satisfaction with rail improved by about four percentage points, from 88.9% to 92.8%, and this reversed a four-year decline. For buses, the satisfaction level had risen for a second consecutive year. I must add though that the survey was conducted in October last year, as it is done in October of every year, and I think it reflected the prevailing sentiments then that commuters were starting to feel the effect of the improvements and investments that we have made in our buses and trains over the last few years.

And if I may point out for the MRT, we look at the range of attributes from waiting time to reliability to comfort and so on, and the attribute that had scored the highest for at least the past two years was on safety and security. I will refer to those later on in my response, because of the cuts that were filed by Members on these issues.

We track commuters' satisfaction with public transport closely in part because it also helps us to understand whether my Ministry is on track to attain the long-term objective of making public transport the choice mode for Singaporeans. As Mr Cedric Foo has noted, we had identified three areas of focus and set ourselves ambitious targets for 2030 in the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) – a 70% peak-hour public transport mode share by 2020, rising to 75% by 2030. Last year, public transport mode share grew to 66%, up from 64% in 2013.

Other 2030 goals that we had set ourselves in the LTMP include eight in 10 households living within a 10-minute walk from a train station; and 85% of public journeys less than 20 kilometres completed within 60 minutes. Here, we have also made some progress. In 2014, close to six in 10 households live within a 10-minute walk of a train station; and about 77% of public transport journeys of less than 20 kilometres were completed within 60 minutes. These goals were only revised and announced in 2013, so, it is useful for us to look at the data for a number of years before we revise them further.

Let me now address the three key issues of reliability, capacity and affordability. I will first talk about train reliability because a number of Members had spoken on this. Mr Foo, in particular, asked for an update on the implementation of the Committee of Inquiry's (COI)'s recommendations. We set up Joint Teams – LTA with the operators – and we have gradually tightened the regulatory framework after the COI, and it has been what I would say a long and difficult journey to claw our way back to a position where we can say that reliability has improved somewhat. For most of 2014, the Public Transport Operators (PTOs), through the change in their maintenance approach and also in particular through the hard work of their staff, had made significant inroads in improving reliability.

This is a slide I had shown in previous years and this is something we had updated with the data in 2014. For the North-South and East-West Lines, we halved the number of unscheduled train withdrawals, bringing it down to 1.1 per 100,000 train-kilometres, compared to 2.2 in 2013 and about 3.3 in 2012. I am loathe to provide a concrete target to what Mr Foo asked about, but I feel that we can certainly still do better in the coming years as this improved rate is still double what we see for the North-East Line and the Circle Line, even though the 1.1 withdrawals per 100,000 train-kilometres had brought us back to the level where we were at in about 2007. But there is still some way to go.

Normalised service delays lasting more than five minutes have also improved on the North-South and East-West Lines, going down to 1.3 in 2014 compared to about 1.6 in 2012, an improvement of close to about 20%.

For the LRT network, there has also been some improvement. The withdrawal rate for the Bukit Panjang LRT had come down to 4.5 per 100,000 car-kilometres compared to about to 6.1 in 2012. For the Sengkang-Punggol LRT, the order of magnitude is also better. It improved to about 0.7 per 100,000 car-kilometres from 1.5 in 2012. Delays in both LRT systems, too, have been reduced, and we certainly expect to have more improvements when we start the mid-life upgrade of the Bukit Panjang LRT train-cars later in the year.

But while the statistics may show some improvement, I think the recent incidents are stark reminders that we still have quite some way to go. Mr Gan asked what we can do to further minimise incidents. Well, I think the operators must persevere and re-double their efforts to do better. They need to intensify their maintenance regime, undertake additional preventive and detection measures, as well as further improve their processes to enable prompt and effective response to maintenance issues. We will work with them to continue with track renewal and also to make mid-life upgrades of their trains.

The LTA, on its part, will augment SMRT with additional engineering expertise where required, and will also step up audits of SMRT's maintenance procedures and resources. In the event of a disruption, like what we saw in the Bukit Panjang LRT incident, we will require SMRT to respond better, as well as to deploy more service ambassadors to better assist commuters. I would like to assure Members that we will spare no effort to find out the causes of this recent spate of breakdowns, and also to take the necessary measures to stem these problems.

Another important aspect of public transport is capacity, again something that Mr Foo had asked about. We are addressing this through new rail lines and by adding capacity to existing lines. But we are also trying to encourage more commuters, especially those who are able to travel outside of the peak hours. Indeed, there has been a number of initiatives, including the introduction of Off-Peak Monthly Travel Passes later in the year.

By this time next year, Stage 2 of the Downtown Line (DTL2) will open and it will increase the peak capacity for travel from the west to the city by about 50%. Residents in Bukit Panjang and Bukit Timah will have a more direct and convenient route to the city compared to today. The full Downtown Line will be completed when Stage 3 opens sometime in 2017, while the Thomson-East Coast Line, which we have begun construction, will open from 2019 onwards.

We are constructing these new lines at a pace that is unprecedented in Singapore's history. By 2030, our rail network will be almost as dense as what you see in New York and London today, and we would have achieved this in less than 50 years, compared to the more than 100 years that it took both cities to do so. I know that in doing so, there will be some inconveniences, like those that Dr Neo's residents have shared with her. LTA and their contractors have been actively engaging the community before and during the construction. We will continue to try our best to reach out to residents early and to mitigate the inconveniences, such as through installing protective hoarding to minimise noise and dust. But we need to try and get the understanding and support of residents, so that projects can be completed in a timely manner and that all Singaporeans, including themselves, can begin to enjoy the benefits of the new rail lines.

But new rail lines will take 10 to 12 years to construct. In the meantime, we have also been adding new trains to the system. We added 13 new trains to the North-South and East-West lines last year and I have no doubt that they have helped us improve in our scores for waiting times because that was the attribute that saw one of the biggest improvements in the recent satisfaction survey. But we will not stop there because we intend to add another 57 new trains from 2016 to 2019, which is about a 40% increase of the fleet that we have today.

The first of 18 new North-East Line trains and 24 Circle Line trains will be deployed by the middle of this year. In total, with all the trains that are coming in – 99 of them – entering service over the next five years, the overall train fleet will increase by almost 50%, and we can expect that peak period wait times will come down by about 25% on average across all three rail lines.

For our LRT systems, six of the 13 new train-cars for the Bukit Panjang LRT have been deployed as of end-February. We intend to deploy the remaining seven by the end of this year, although I think it is useful for us to be able to pinpoint exactly what were the causes of the Bukit Panjang LRT incidents because a number of these were actually power trips and we want to make sure that the running of these additional trains would not be imposing a load that is beyond what the system can bear. I think it is something that we will only know much clearer when we are able to diagnose fully the causes of the LRT incidents.

Residents in Sengkang and Punggol can also look forward to 16 new train-cars in 2016. We will also convert some of the train-cars to two-car operations as this will add further capacity to the system.

Dr Neo and Mr Low Thia Khiang suggested having women-only cabins on the MRT during peak hours. This is a suggestion that had been raised and looked at carefully before. There are practical difficulties and challenges, such as how to, and also how strictly to enforce the rule, and also how this could sub-optimise the capacity of our trains. From the experience that we have garnered from other systems, the women-only cabins are often utilised less, meaning that more commuters will have to crowd into the remaining cabins or they will simply have to wait for the next train.

Let me move on to buses because we have also expanded the capacity of our bus network. We have completed the addition of the 550 Government-funded buses under the original Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), two years ahead of the original schedule.

We will further expand the BSEP to add another 450 buses by 2017. Together with the buses injected by the Public Transport Operators themselves and the use of private bus operators to provide additional capacity through the City Direct Services and the Peak Period Short Services, for instance, we would then have increased the bus fleet by about 35% since the start of the BSEP in late 2012. By 2017 also, we will see all bus services running at shorter intervals, and the intervals specifically for feeder services will be no more than six to eight minutes during the peak period.

2.15 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked how bus service standards have improved. We track the number of hotspots, which show areas with average loading that is higher than 80% in the morning peak. I have a slide to show you the situation of what it was like in July 2012, prior to the start of the BSEP programme.

In January of this year, which is what the next slide will show, we have been able to significantly reduce the number of hotspots, although this is a situation that is quite dynamic, and it is something that we have to keep responding to. We use this as a way in part to identify the services across the network that require more buses to be added. But as Mr Lim also noted, the timeliness of bus arrivals is equally important. To this end, LTA introduced a two-year Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF) trial for 22 bus services last year, which is an incentive cum penalty scheme to encourage bus operators to improve the regularity of bus arrivals. I am happy to report that the BSRF trial results have been encouraging so far and LTA will provide detailed information in time. I have also asked LTA to expand the trial to include more bus services. Eventually when we moved to the Government contracting model, which that is something that I will speak about next, we intend to make this a feature of the new contracts and negotiations.

More fundamentally, the Government is transiting the bus industry to this contracting model that I have just talked about, to inject more competition into the industry and also to be able to respond more quickly to the needs of commuters.

Mr Cedric Foo asked about the status of the first package. Eleven bids were received – four were from local bus operators, six were from overseas, and one was a joint bid. We have not completed the evaluation yet. We expect to do so in the next quarter. The bid prices will be published in due course, and we will use the experience of the first bid to improve future exercises.

I would also like to update Mr Foo that the second bus contract for services operating out of the Loyang depot will be put out for tender in the second quarter of this year. We expect to complete all evaluation before the end of the year. I expect to see similar strong interest in the Loyang package, which will comprise about 25 bus services, starting with about 400 buses.

Let me assure Dr Neo that under the Government Contracting Model, we have placed strong emphasis on the tenderer's plans for local recruitment and retention, and equally so we agree with her that customer service is pivotal to the commuter's experience. This is also why we are monitoring commuters' satisfaction levels closely through satisfaction surveys that we conduct on an annual basis.

More infrastructure will be needed to support the extended bus network and fleet. Already, we are building new bus interchanges and terminals in Sengkang, Changi and Tampines, as well as expanding existing ones. Some of these upgrades will include new and improved facilities for our bus drivers such as staff lounges and canteens. Bedok Integrated Transport Hub (ITH) is a good example of what we can achieve as we renew, upgrade and build new hubs.

Indeed, the welfare of our bus drivers is something that is really important to us. The Public Transport Tripartite Committee that is chaired by Mrs Josephine Teo was set up precisely for stakeholders, including bus employees and union representatives, to work together on such issues. In September last year, the Committee announced a set of guidelines on Good Employment Practices in the Public Bus Industry. I would like to thank the Committee, especially the National Transport Workers' Union, for their efforts in engaging bus employees. I hope that they will continue to support this transition as we move to a new bus industry model.

Let me at this point sum up the major improvements to our bus and rail services that Singaporeans can look forward to in the next 12 to 15 months. We will complete the sleeper replacement programme on the North-South Line and we will lift the temporary speed restrictions before the middle of the year. What it means is that commuters can then expect journey times similar to what they first experienced when we operated the MRT system back in the 1980s and 1990s.

We also expect to complete the upgrade of the signalling system for the North-South Line by mid-2016. The operators will need a couple of months to adjust their deployment schedules for trains but by the time this is done, commuters can expect up to six trains, instead of the current maximum of five trains every 10 minutes, meaning a capacity increase by about 20%.

For the North East Line and Circle Line, I have mentioned 42 trains earlier; 33 of them will arrive by the end of this year. They will be deployed progressively, starting from the middle of this year until the first quarter of next year. So, in about 12 months or so, we will see the addition of 33 new trains into the North East Line and Circle Line.

Of course, another impactful development will be the opening of Downtown Line 2 by the first quarter of 2016. We will also initiate mid-life upgrades of the older trains as well as the replacement of the third rail system to further enhance rail reliability.

On bus services, we can expect further improvements in the next 12 to 15 months. We will add another 210 buses this year to improve frequencies of feeder services islandwide, and to introduce new services in areas such as Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Panjang, Punggol, Yishun, Sengkang, and the Jurong Lake District. In addition, 12 City Direct Services will be introduced from the second quarter of this year. Commuters and residents in the West can also look forward to the completion of Joo Koon ITH by the third quarter of this year.

The first issue was on reliability; the second was on capacity; and the third and I think most important aspect of public transport is affordability. A key tenet of the Public Transport Council (PTC)'s responsibility is to keep fares affordable, with particular attention to be paid to lower income commuters. The PTC thus monitors fare affordability for a typical household in the second quintile, or between the 21st to 40th percentile of the household income distribution.

The proportion of their household income that is spent on public transport has declined steadily, from 3.2% back in 2003 to 2.2% in 2013, in part because of rising wages and the fact that any increases over the intermitting period had lagged those wage increases. This shows that public transport affordability on average continues to improve, because what Members see on the chart is what they spend on public transport measured against household income.

We also look at another group, the second decile, which is a group from the 11th to 20th percentile. For them, the figures have come down from 4.6% to 3.1% over the same period.

That said, I am keenly aware that there are some segments of our population that may still require additional help to cope with the cost of commuting. Besides the Public Transport Vouchers, we have put in place a comprehensive system of targeted concession schemes. These include two new Government-funded concession schemes introduced in 2013 for lower-wage workers and for persons with disabilities.

Mr Pritam Singh has suggested some special scheme or transport subsidy for full-time caregivers. This idea was considered carefully by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee back in 2013 as part of their review of concession schemes, but it was not implemented as they felt it would be too complex to identify the caregivers and therefore difficult to administer. We know that caregivers' needs are varied and often extend beyond public transport, and so a more broad-based approach to lighten their burden may actually be more effective. The Ministry of Health offers a number of financial assistance schemes such as the Foreign Domestic Worker Grant and the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly that help defray costs on multiple fronts, including on transport.

Mr Foo suggested shortening the time lag so that the annual fare review exercise is reflective of prevailing market conditions. The fare adjustment quantum will always have some degree of time lag as fare review exercises are always based on the previous year's full-year indices, since the full-year figures in the year of review are not available when the review is being conducted.

The PTC had initiated the 2013 fare review exercise in November 2013, following the finalisation of the work by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC). Members may recall that we suspended the fare exercise in 2012, gave the FRMC time to do its work. It completed its work in 2013, and then the PTC initiated the 2013 exercise in November that year.

From there, the 2014 fare review exercise is carried out on the same annual cycle based on the same timeline. In about November last year, it initiated the latest fare exercise. As some time is needed for system adjustments, the fare changes approved by the Council can only be implemented in a number of months, and therefore April of the following year. In April of this year, we will have the 2014 adjustment.

I accept that it is confusing with all these time lags. But if I may say so, from a commuter's perspective, because these are fare increases, a certain degree of inefficiency is not necessarily a bad thing. Now that we have completed that 6.6% increase, including the carry-over of the 3.4% into the 2014 fare exercises, as I said in Parliament previously, we do expect that this year's fare exercise, 2015 fare exercise later in the year, could result in a fare reduction. I promise you that I will certainly be more efficient in carrying out this coming fare exercise.

The safety and security of our commuters are also important and I want to assure Mr Seng and Ms Sylvia Lim that we are committed to ensuring the security of our public transport system. Under our existing framework, the public transport operators (PTOs), being the domain owners and ground operators, are primarily responsible for ensuring the security of their facilities as they are best placed to decide on what those measures ought to be with the recommendations of the Public Transport Security Committee.

Beyond the Government's role that Ms Lim had briefly highlighted, I would also like to share that the Government, through this Public Transport Security Committee, had also reviewed the security measures in the public transport system twice in 2011 and 2013. All those recommendations from the two reviews, including enhancements in physical security measures and formalisation of security standards for public transport facilities, will be implemented fully by 2017.

In addition, the Government has, and continues to assist the operators in enhancing public transport security. For instance, the Government has put in place enhanced security measures such as CCTVs. We also deploy regular police patrols on the MRT trains, and conduct regular exercises with the operators to identify areas for further improvement.

I agree, however, that we can and must do better. The recent intrusions at the Bishan Depot and onto the North South Line show that determined intruders will probe for the slightest weakness in our system. They will exploit the smallest of gaps. Thus, we have added multiple layers of security, so that if one layer fails, hopefully the next layer will prevent the intrusion or at least mitigate the consequences.

For instance, the train depots have perimeter and CCTV security, supplemented by security patrols. Because it is a large area, if an intruder still manages to slip through, their actions should be detected when operators conduct rigorous pre-operation checks on both the interior and exterior of the trains prior to their launch for service every morning.

2.30 pm

Beyond the physical measures, beyond the security patrols, the last line of defence is to make sure that the Captains who are responsible for the trains, conduct a physical check on the inside and on the exterior of the trains. This is a requirement that we ask them to do every morning. This is how the Train Captains discovered the graffiti in the last two incidents at Bishan Depot. If there are suspicious packages that are left inside the train, I certainly expect the Train captains to be able to pick them up, prior to the deployment of the trains for service in the morning.

Finally, let me quickly address some of the local concerns that Members have raised. Mr Patrick Tay spoke about the noise from the MRT that his Nee Soon residents had told him about. We have already begun Phase 1 of installing some 14 kilometres of railway noise barriers at 25 locations. I understand that one of the locations is between the Simpang Kiri Park Connector and Yishun Avenue 5. This stretch will be completed next year. We will be announcing Phase 2 of this programme later this year.

Ms Low Yen Ling spoke at length about a Hume station on Downtown Line 2 and having more bus services for her residents in Bukit Gombak. This is something that she had brought up on a number of times and I really respect and admire her perseverance. On the Downtown Line, she is referring to the basic structural provisions that we had made for a possible future station between Hillview and Beauty World stations. Let me repeat that – it is basic structural provisions. We have not even begun the process of constructing an actual station and we will not be able to do so for a while yet as I will explain. We made these provisions for what are called box stations, as part of our advanced network planning to allow us to add a new station to an underground line in future, given URA's long-term development plans, without the need to do additional excavation when we pull the trigger. To transform these provisions into a full-fledged station and to run the station, however, are different things, and it will still incur substantial costs and can only be justified if there is sufficient ridership. As I understand it, from the numbers that she mentioned in her cut, there are only about 1,500 dwelling units within a walking distance of 600 metres from the Hume box station. I know also that URA has no plans to develop the immediate areas around the Hume box station in the short to medium term. And until they do so, we really do not have sufficient ridership to justify for that station. In the meantime, residents along Hillview and Hume Roads are served by direct bus services to DTL2 at Hillview and Beauty World stations.

I also hear Ms Low's appeal for more bus services, and I am glad that at least her residents have found the new City Direct Service 653 something that is convenient for them.

I note too that residents in Bukit Gombak constituency are already served by a total of 22 services which link them to existing stations and, in time to come, to future stations, as well as to amenities, such as West Mall and surrounding towns, including Woodlands, Jurong East, Boon Lay, Clementi, as well as Orchard. LTA has regularly engaged Ms Low to understand her concerns and we will improve bus services where possible, although I must add that it is not always possible to have direct connections between all parts of a constituency.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether there are plans to enhance bus services for his constituency. Mr Lim's constituency is currently served by 21 bus services, and all his residents staying along Haig Road, Meyer Road and Amber Road have access to bus stops within 400 metres of their homes, with bus services that connect them to the Circle Line and/or the East-West Line, such as Dakota, Mountbatten, Paya Lebar and Kallang MRT stations. It is not always possible to deploy public buses within these private estates due to road constraints and insufficient ridership. But even if we were to consider using mini-buses in such low demand areas like Mr Lim has suggested, we would still need to ensure there is sufficient ridership to cover the cost of operating the mini-buses, which actually is not much lower than the normal buses. Here, I am talking about operating cost, not the acquisition cost, because a large component of operating cost for buses actually comes from manpower. Whether you drive a double-decker, a single-decker or mini-bus, you still need a driver and therefore that large part of the operating cost does not change very much, regardless of the type of buses that we use.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the success of the City Direct Services (CDSs). Ridership has been increasing steadily since launch. In fact, we have increased the number of trips on six of the 10 existing services to cater to the demand. This included one additional morning trip for CDS 654 in Mr Gan's neighbouring constituency for Sengkang residents in July 2014. There are plans to introduce 12 more CDSs, and I assure Ms Low, Mr Lim and Mr Gan that we will continue to monitor bus connectivity across the island on an on-going basis in order to better serve our commuters.

Finally, let me just touch very briefly on how we will use technology to enhance the public transport experience. Today, technology is already empowering commuters by giving them more information and choices over their commuting modes. I have thus encouraged LTA to continue experimenting with new ideas and initiatives on this front. As the transport agency, LTA is uniquely placed in terms of data, resources and capabilities to leverage technology to provide more accurate and timely information for commuters to better plan their journeys. For instance, commuters can soon use the enhanced "Bus Arrival" function to check the estimated time of arrival for the next bus as well as its level of crowdedness. The accuracy of arrival times has been recently improved with the installation of new equipment on board the buses and the level of crowdedness is estimated through the use of farecard data. The enhanced function will be released for use at the end of this month, and I think this is something that actually gives commuters more choices because they will have a better idea in terms of the arrival of the next bus that they are waiting for, as well as how crowded it is, and the choice to make alternative plans whether to walk, or to take another service, or to change their travel plans a little if it suits them.

This is work-in-progress and like all experiments, not all of them will be equally useful or perfect. But I think it is important that LTA continues to experiment now and then, and if the experiments do not work well, to either continue to improve, or actually to fail quickly and just move on.

I have also requested that LTA do more to facilitate co-creation with the private sector by releasing more transport data to third-party app developers through its DataMall. And this DataMall actually hosts about 80 datasets currently. Subscribers to the DataMall include the developers for mobile applications, such as SGBuses, gothere.sg, and Traffic@SG, which I am sure that a good number of Singaporeans are familiar with. And I hope to see even more collaborations with the release of additional datasets.

Mdm Chairperson, I hope that I have managed to give Members a better appreciation of the resources that we are putting in, particularly for public transport and what more we will do to invest in the reliability and capacity issues that have come up in recent years. As I emphasised earlier, even though we have made some progress, much remains to be done. Commuters have certainly been inconvenienced through the recent spate of disruptions and it has undermined their confidence in the public transport system. We need to do a lot more in order to regain their confidence. But I believe that just as have been able to do so after December 2011 and after spates of disruptions that we have encountered from time to time over the years, we will be able to do so. We will be able to regain their confidence in time to come, through redoubling the efforts of the operators, as well as LTA, to make sure that we systematically identify the root causes of these problems and we devote all the resources and all the energy necessary to bring about the improvements that are expected. As we get more new trains coming in, with the completion of more new lines, there will also be additional avenues for commuters, stations that are nearer to their home, as well as a greater resilience in the network, so that if there is a disruption, there are more opportunities to bypass these disrupted areas because there will be more interchange stations and more alternative ways of getting to their destinations.

We are doing this to make public transport the choice commuting mode for all Singaporeans. At 66% now, we still have some way to go to achieve our target of 75% peak-hour public transport mode share by 2030, but it is something that is definitely doable. In the instances where public transport is not adequate – and these instances should be few, we want to give commuters access to alternative transport options, without necessarily owning a car. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will talk more about our efforts on this front. Parliamentary Secretary Faishal will also elaborate on how we have to significantly improve the first- and last-mile experience, especially through active mobility, such as walking and cycling, so that overall, that does not pose a deterrent to the use of public transport. And if we implement all these three parts well, we will be able to ensure a sustainable, a very high quality public-centric transportation system that fulfils the needs of Singapore commuters. Thank you very much.

Taxi Industry Review

Mr Seng Han Thong: Madam, it has been 12 years since the deregulation of the taxi industry in 2003.

In this aspect, may I propose that LTA conduct a Taxi Industry Review that will nurture taxi industry developments in the next four to eight years so that the different interests of all the stakeholders, from taxi passengers, taxi drivers to taxi companies are taken into consideration.

The review should cover the following key areas. One, taxi fare structure. As we know, taxi fare structure comprises flag-down charge, distance meter charge, time meter charge, peak-hour surcharge, location surcharge and taxi call booking fee, hourly charging rate, flat fee transfer and, on top of all these, the ERP.

In recent years, we even see different prices for the same category of taxi services and for the same vehicles of different registration periods.

We should frame a set of rules for compliance when taxi companies go about setting their respective taxi fare structures. For example, one taxi company should not set two different prices for the same category of taxi service.

Two, taxi fleet growth. From August 2012 to December 2013, taxi fleet growth was capped at 2% for all taxi companies without conditions. From January 2014, taxi fleet growth for individual taxi companies, still capped at 2%, is subject to the company having met the required taxi availability or TA standards. As the regulatory framework for the TA standards is established, LTA would need to review if the cap for taxi fleet size growth is still justifiable.

Three, taxi COEs. Can the Minister explain if the policy to disallow taxi companies to bid for COE has served its intended purpose? LTA should allow market forces to determine the price of COEs and, more importantly, the actual fleet size of each taxi company. We need to take a long-term view on taxi COE policy. This will help the taxi operators plan their fleet size and the corresponding capital investment which is long term in nature.

Four, taxi service and private chauffeured car service regulations. LTA has announced that it will regulate the third-party taxi service booking smartphone application operators. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the same smartphone application is also used to book private-chauffeured car service at the same time.

Five, taxi diesel tax. Petrol duty has increased by more than 33% following this year's Budget announcement and immediately implemented. To those taxi drivers who are driving non-diesel powered taxis, they, too, would be paying higher fuel tax.

LTA should review the approach we go about equalising the statutory cost of buying a private car and that of providing a taxi service. In the meantime, I would like to appeal to the Government not to increase the annual taxi diesel tax or special tax just to equate the increase in the petrol duty.

2.45 pm

Protecting the Lot of Taxi Drivers

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Chair, several members have already reiterated on other occasions the importance of taxi drivers as a key group of public transport service workers. I would like to join in the call for improvements in the welfare of taxi drivers. I would also like to point out that taxi drivers need support in order to serve the public efficiently, especially in managing the difficulties they face in terms of health and safety.

Beyond their critical role in the transport industry, taxi drivers are an important part of our society. I am sure many of us are personally familiar with taxi drivers who work hard, drive long hours and successfully support and raise their families.

I have growing concerns about the way our taxi drivers are being treated as a group of service providers. They are increasingly being exposed to unnecessary discomfort and even danger, especially when on late-night shifts. If this continues, a long-standing source of stable employment in our society will be compromised. Driving a taxi involves significant challenges, and some of these were highlighted by Straits Times journalist Toh Yong Chuan, in his article of 1 December last year. Taxi drivers probably span the entire range of personalities, and it is difficult not to see individual drivers from extreme ends of the behavioural spectrum stand out. Mr Toh's article reminds us that they do a job few would consider easy. More should be done to provide a safer and better work environment for them.

We hear of taxi drivers whose services are terminated as a result of customer complaints. My first question, therefore, is what recourse do taxi drivers have in such a situation? Do taxi companies have a non-punitive system of counselling for taxi drivers to help them make improvements in response to commuter complaints of poor service?

My second question: Can more be done by LTA, in concert with taxi companies, to help taxi drivers benefit from the wide range of third-party booking apps that are increasingly becoming available?

Finally, taxis serving entertainment spots into the early hours of the morning play a very important role in the service industry. For patrons who drink, taxis are vital in ensuring the journey home is safe for themselves as well as other road users, while we hear of the difficulties of serving such a segment of commuters, especially relating to drunken patrons. My final question, therefore, is whether more can be done to ensure the welfare of taxi drivers is protected in such situations. Thank you.

Certificates of Entitlement (COEs)

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Madam, in February 2014, we changed the COE classification system by including the car's engine power in addition to engine capacity. These determine whether a car falls into Category A or Category B. The stated purpose of this change was to promote social equity by serving mass-market car buyers.

One year on, how has this policy fared? Overall, COE premiums have fallen. The latest results show that the Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP) was $63,865 for Category A cars for March 2015. This is a drop of nearly $10,000 from the same period last year. But this is not solely or even mainly on account of the change because the price has dipped for Category B cars as well.

The lower COE premiums are more likely a result of an increased supply of COEs as more cars reach the 10-year mark and the cooling measures introduced in 2013 on car financing. What is more significant is that the difference between Category A and Category B COE premiums remains narrow.

So, has the change worked? I would submit, no. Ultimately, differentiating cars by engine capacity and power serves no cause. COE prices have less to do with engine capacity or engine power, but more with market forces – meaning demand and supply.

So, if the intent is to have a real difference in the COE prices of small and large cars, then let us do something which is more likely to work. And the only effective way to do this is to increase the number of COEs for small cars. The way to do this is to use the quota reserved for the Open Category or Category E.

While an Open Category COE can ostensibly be used for any kind of vehicle, there is no doubt that they are being used for bigger cars. LTA has announced that beginning February 2015, the contribution rate of deregistered cars to the Open Category will be reduced from the current 15% to 10%. But why not just scrap the Open Category entirely and transfer its quota entirely to Category A?

Alternatively, as I have previously suggested, because we cannot satisfy everyone, let us use the COE system to promote a sensible and viable cause. Category E or Open Category, can be allocated for green or more specifically, electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are uniquely suited for Singapore's size and urban environment. For example, even after accounting for taxes and rebates under the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme, a Nissan Leaf electric car costs about $200,000, while its non-electric equivalent, a Nissan Sylphy, will cost $110,000. So, it is a no-brainer where the consumer is concerned. They are more likely to go for non-electric vehicles. So, it does not promote the use of electric cars.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the current COE system and, if not, whether he is proposing to make any further changes.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): According to the LTA website, the COE represents a right to vehicle ownership and the use of the limited road space for 10 years. Thus, there are two aspects to the COE – the right to own the vehicle, as well as the right to road usage.

Since road usage is part of the rationale, there is a case for making the system fairer for those who currently have vehicles that are under-utilised and are seeking to extend their COEs for the same vehicle. I have in mind retirees who use their cars only to send disabled spouses to medical checkups or to ferry their grandchildren to and from school. As these vehicle owners are no longer earning an income, they are now faced with giving up their vehicles when their COEs expire due to the high COE prices. This decision is painful as it would mean that they can no longer contribute to the family lives the way they used to.

I would like to ask MOT to look into the possibility of giving vehicle owners, who are renewing their COEs for the same vehicle, a rebate or concession if their usage of the vehicle in the first 10 years is below a threshold, and the COE renewed is not transferable.

There would also be a corresponding need to regulate auto-meter reading and have inspections for tampering, which would, at the same time, be a good safeguard for consumers buying used cars.

Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Madam, in the first three months in 2015, COE for Category D hit a historic high of $5,800 at the second tender in February 2015. At least 70% of 140,000 motorcycles are those not exceeding 200cc, corresponding to Class 2B riding licence. I believe these high COE prices are being pulled up by bidding for more expensive and luxury motorcycles requiring Class 2A and Class 2 riding licences. Motorcycle is a necessary tool for many low-wage workers. Some of them hold jobs like despatch riders for courier companies or delivery riders for fast-food companies.

We could consider splitting Category D into D1 for motorcycles not exceeding 200cc, and D2 exceeding. As 65% of motorcycles registered in 2013 and 2014 are not exceeding 200cc, it can be estimated that the D1 category will have a quota of 1,111 total COEs for the months of February to April 2015. This is equivalent to Category C for goods vehicles and the open Category E, so we should not see price volatility for Class 2B riders and the riders can be protected from higher bids by Class 2 riders.

Alternatively, would it be possible for motorcycle owners to pay the COE by instalment, so as to lighten their financial burden? In Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : At least 70% of 140,000 motorcycles on our roads are those not exceeding 200cc, and they are necessary means of living for many low wage earners. COE for category D (for motorcycles) hit a historic high of over $5,000 in 2015, which caused grave concern among low-income workers.

I suggest that we divide Category D into D1 and D2. D1 is for smaller motorcycles under 200cc, and D2 is for those exceeding 200cc. This way, low-income earners do not have to compete with owners of larger and more expensive motorcycles for a COE. If we cannot split Category D, may I suggest that we allow the successful COE bidders to pay by instalment to alleviate their burden?

Supply of COE

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, over the years, the LTA has tweaked the COE system to try to manage supply-demand mismatches and price fluctuations. The LTA has moved from linking COE quotas to deregistrations in the past 12 months, then to forecasting of deregistrations in the current year, and then to deregistrations in the past six months and, currently, to deregistrations in the past three months.

However, the problems of feast-and-famine patterns of supply and wild price fluctuations are still persisting. There are now renewed calls for the LTA to make COE supply smooth by keeping COEs during bumper years in reserve for release in future dry spells. The LTA said it was studying the proposal in August 2013 and the Minister himself acknowledged it is a good idea worthy of consideration earlier that year.

I would like to know what is the status of the study and whether the LTA is seriously considering implementing a new formula to temper the supply and price fluctuations? If so, when is the LTA going to implement it? What will the new formula be and over what time period? How many COEs will be reserved and when will they be released? How will the new system ensure the market mechanism of allocating COEs is preserved?

If the LTA is not considering implementation of such a system, then I would like to ask what are the reasons for not doing so and what other measures would be taken to temper the supply and price fluctuations of COE?

Rising Cost of Motorcycle Ownership

Mr Mohd Ismail Hussein (Nominated Member): Mdm Chair, I echo the concern raised by hon Member Ms Lee Li Lian on the rising cost of Category D Category. Category D COE for motorcycles has almost tripled lately, from $1,989 in January 2014 to $5,500 this month. In contrast, the price of Category D COE hovered mostly between $1,500 to $2,500 in the three years before that, from January 2011 to January 2014.

For the longest time, motorbikes are a popular choice for students, first-time employees, the elderly and blue-collar workers. They are affordable, convenient and mobile. And although it has a reputation for being unsafe, with good driving habits, a biker can generally avoid getting into serious accidents.

This group of bikers tend to be of modest income. There is also the affluent group who go for pricier bikes like Harley Davidson, Ducati, KTM and BMWs, and who bid for the same Category D COEs. More recently, I understand that there is a trend for middle-income earners, who are put-off by the stratospheric prices of cars, to switch to motorbikes.

But the group which will be hit hardest by the rising Category D COE prices will be those whose job requires frequent travel, such as messengers and despatch riders. Should current price trend continue, motorcycles may no longer be affordable for this segment and, for them, it is a threat to their livelihood.

I spoke to an elderly despatch rider who has worked for more than 30 years in the same company. He shared that other than reimbursements for parking and petrol, he had to bear all other costs, such as the cost of motorbikes, maintenance cost, road-tax, insurance and even the occasional parking fines. He shared that although petrol prices have gone up, he is still stuck with the same reimbursable petrol mileage rate set more than 10 years ago. Although he had requested for an increase in the reimbursement rate, he did not make a fuss when the company retained the same rate. His biggest fear, he says, is if the company chose to switch to courier services if he is deemed to be too costly. When asked what he would do if motorbike COE prices continue to rise and he had to buy a new bike, he said that he may need to stop working if he cannot afford a motorbike.

Madam, we should spare a thought for those whose livelihood may be affected by the rise in cost of motorbikes. Can the Ministry, therefore, look into how motorbike costs can remain affordable for those with modest income?

Additionally, can the Ministry provide their insight into the cause for the spike in Category D COE prices, and whether this spike is likely to be temporary or permanent? Thank you.

ERP on Saturday

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Chairperson, in 2007, after a review of the effectiveness of bus lanes, it was decided to cease bus lane operations on Saturday.

I wish to make an appeal for a similar review of the effectiveness of ERP on Saturdays. ERP is meant to manage road congestion. However, many offices do not operate on Saturdays anymore and there is less traffic along Shenton Way and the Raffles Place area. For the shopping belt, I have received feedback from some shops in the Orchard Road area that there is less traffic because many consumers have moved to the suburban shopping areas like Gem, Nex and Tampines.

Where the road is not congested on Saturdays, like at Nicoll Highway, which is relatively clear all the way to Shenton Way, LTA should consider removing the ERP gantry. LTA should also review the relevance of ERP for the Orchard Road area since it is clear that they are struggling to remain relevant as a shopping destination for Singaporeans. Some congestion along the roads on Saturdays will not hurt the economy.

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mdm Chairperson, I thank Members for their questions on car ownership and taxis. Land scarcity is very much a factor shaping the overall vision of transport for Singapore. There is a role for private transport as a complement to public transport, which must remain the main mode of transport for the daily commute. Our policies on car ownership and taxis are shaped by these considerations.

3.00 pm

Unlike countries that are far less land-constrained, there is a real limit to how many cars we can accommodate on our roads. Even then, Singapore is not alone in having to manage traffic congestion caused by heavy car usage, a point which Mr Cedric Foo also highlighted. Where we are different is that we introduced car ownership and usage controls before the problems became severe, through the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) systems.

Over time, the car population has grown, and so has usage. Some observers may feel that road congestion happens more often these days, but it has largely been kept in check.

The COE system must therefore continue to be about controlling the size of the vehicle population, and complementing the ERP system, which regulates usage. It is not about targeting any COE price level or price gap as Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Hri Kumar seem to suggest. The market mechanism determines COE prices, as the system was designed to function.

Having determined the vehicle population, tinkering with the COE allocation framework is unfortunately a zero-sum game. If we adjust the system to benefit some categories of buyers, it will inevitably compromise the interests of some other group. There will always be trade-offs. With that in mind, let me take each Member's suggestions in turn.

Last year, we re-categorised Categories A and B by adding a new engine power criterion. The objective was not to moderate COE prices or to widen the price gap between the two categories. In fact, the aim of the re-categorisation was to keep Category A more for mass-market car buyers. Indeed, as Mr Hri Kumar noted, Category A was created for social equity reasons. In this regard, the re-categorisation has been a useful exercise.

As the Land Transport Authority updated last week, the median Open Market Value (OMV) of Category A cars has fallen by 30%. Cars with OMV at or below $20,000 now form 70% of Category A registrations, compared to about 25% before re-categorisation. The more affordable, mass-market cars now dominate Category A, unlike before re-categorisation.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak suggested categorising COEs according to carbon emissions – he brought this up during the Budget debate. Unfortunately, carbon emissions are not a very good proxy for the value of a car, and this could disadvantage mass-market models. We therefore prefer to promote green private transport through the Carbon Emissions Vehicle Scheme (CEVS), which I will speak about later.

Mr Hri Kumar also pointed out the imbalance in the use of Category E and whether it should be removed altogether. Members may recall that the purpose of Category E is to provide a degree of responsiveness to changes in buyers' preferences, without which the COE system could face another problem of being overly rigid. In any case, to address the imbalance, we have lowered the Category E contribution rate from 25% to 15% in February 2013, and further to 10% in February 2015. We will continue to review this from time to time.

Ms Sylvia Lim suggested giving rebates on COE renewals to car owners who have used their cars less. The proposal sounds fair enough, but the outcome must be that some existing car owners will find it easier to continue owning cars, since the rebates could be used to offset the cost of their COE renewal. Fewer vehicles will be de-registered, and there will correspondingly be fewer new COEs for new car buyers, many of whom are first-time buyers with equally compelling reasons for owning a car.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak's suggestion to provide COE rebates to families with children and the elderly is a well-intentioned one. However, other groups would soon ask for rebates too and where would this leave us?

Mr Low Thia Khiang also spoke about the possibility of reserving some COEs today for release in the future, in order to make the COE supply less variable. We have been studying the idea over the last year. Implementation will not be straightforward.

Given that the overall vehicle population growth is constrained, a surge in COE supply comes mainly from increased de-registrations. But this will also be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of car owners looking to replace their cars. The big unknown is how many will want to replace, and how long can they wait.

If we reserve too few COEs, there will be no meaningful impact on supply smoothening; too many, and we risk having a shortfall of COEs to meet replacement demand, and may inadvertently introduce even more volatility into premiums. The upshot is that this is not a straightforward exercise, and we have no immediate plans to implement it.

I thank Mr Mohd Ismail and Ms Lee Li Lian for sharing their views on COEs for motorcycles. The current COE system sets aside Category D as a separate category for motorcycle buyers so that they need not compete with other vehicle buyers when bidding for a COE. This is firstly a structural concession that we have made. In other words, motorcycles are not treated the same as cars for COE bidding.

Some commentators have suggested that we split Category D further for smaller and larger motorcycles, similar to what we do for cars. We have considered this and must caution that it would result in much smaller category sizes, which in turn would lead to more volatility in quotas and prices.

The reduction in Category E contribution rates has mitigated the supply situation somewhat in Category D, but as observers will remind us, the price movements also tell us something about demand. We are therefore continuing to keep a close watch.

Let me now respond briefly to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question on the relevance of ERP on Saturdays. Firstly, there are actually no ERP charges for the Shenton Way-Chinatown cordon on Saturdays. Secondly, we had updated Parliament at last year's Committee of Supply (COS) debate that the Nicoll Highway gantry is part of the Bugis-Marina Centre cordon to manage traffic on key routes within this area. Relocating this gantry or removing charges on Saturdays will cause traffic to gravitate towards Nicoll Highway and generate more localised congestion, which we should avoid. For Orchard Road, ERP remains necessary as traffic speeds are still at the lower end of the optimal speed range of between 20 km to 30 km per hour, even on Saturdays.

Mdm Chairperson, I will move on to taxis. May I have your permission to display some slides on the screen?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Last year, at COS, I shared the results of our first ever Taxi Customer Satisfaction Survey. The survey covers eight areas, including safety of taxi services, customer service provided by taxi drivers, ease of taxi booking and waiting time. This year's survey found that 96.2% of respondents were satisfied with their most recent taxi journey, which is a slight improvement from 2013.

All eight attributes registered higher satisfaction levels in 2014. The attributes that saw the largest improvements were ease of taxi booking, information on taxi services, and taxi stand accessibility. The area with which commuters were least satisfied was waiting time. But as Members can see, even for this attribute, the satisfaction level is quite high at 86.2%.

Mr Seng Han Thong asked if we will review the 2% per annum growth cap on taxi companies. Members may recall that taxis were taken out of the COE bidding process from August 2012, as there was strong suspicion about the influence of taxi companies' bidding on COE prices. Our sense is that this suspicion has largely proven to be unfounded. But rather than reintroduce taxis into COE bidding, we will continue to allow taxi companies to pay the prevailing quota premium (PQP) of Category A when they renew or procure new COEs. This is a concession to recognise taxis' public transport role, as many taxis would otherwise have required Categories B or E COEs. Taxi companies can therefore expand their fleet up to the growth cap, provided they meet the Taxi Availability (TA) standards.

This cap was implemented only two years ago and as Members know, our taxi-to-population ratio is already one of the highest in the world at 5.3 taxis per 1,000 people. It is twice that of Hong Kong, whose taxi services have been found to be quite good by many visiting Singaporeans.

In fact, from 2003 to 2012, since the taxi industry was liberalised, Singapore's taxi population was growing twice as quickly as taxi ridership. So, we liberalised the taxi industry in 2003, and from then untl 2012, the taxi population grew twice as quickly as ridership. To put it another way, a fair bit of capacity had been building up in the taxi fleet over several years.

Rather than expanding the fleet much more, the focus should be on improving the efficiency of our existing taxi fleet. This is achieved through the TA measures. Despite initial scepticism, the measures have had some effect.

For instance, there are now more taxis plying the roads – 87% of all taxis during peak hours, a five percentage-point increase over just two years. This means over 1,500 more taxis available to commuters during these hours.

As Dr Lily Neo pointed out, the daily taxi utilisation rate, which is the proportion of total taxi mileage hired by passengers, is now 68%. This is in fact a three percentage-point increase in just one year, and means that there is less empty cruising than before even though there are more taxis on the road. In other words, the TA standards have led to each taxi being driven more, and drivers are also earning more. In 2014, the average income of drivers went up by about 6% from a year ago.

This has been held by the growth of third-party taxi booking applications, which have facilitated more efficient matching of taxis with commuters. We will be proposing a basic regulatory framework to safeguard commuter interests. This will include how third-party services should clearly differentiate between taxi-booking services and chauffeured services, so that commuters can make informed choices. This is the request of Mr Seng Han Thong – which we agree with. We will have the opportunity to discuss these issues further when the Bill is tabled in Parliament in the coming months.

3.15 pm

I can well understand the concerns shared by Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and other Members, whether the improvements in taxi services and utilisation have come at the expense of drivers' health, which also impacts safety. A large part of the improvements has actually been due to the increase in two-shift operations. In fact, the steady decline of two-shift operations began to reverse not long after the TA standards took effect. In other words, if you look back at the proportion of two-shift taxis over the years, there was a period at which this was declining. It was really only when the TA standards were introduced that the decline was arrested and in fact, the proportion of two-shift taxis is now above the levels in the mid-2000s. Today, about two in three taxis run on two shifts.

Two-shift taxis help us to meet rising commuter expectations in a safer and more sustainable way. The number of taxi drivers registered with taxi companies is twice the taxi population today – that is two drivers who could potentially be tapped for every taxi in the fleet. There is therefore scope to further increase the share of two-shift operations, which is how cities like New York are able to meet taxi demand with a relatively small fleet. If you recall, in the earlier slide that I showed indicated that in New York, for every 1,000 persons, there are only 1.6 taxis – which is actually less than one-third of what we have.

The Government is also working closely with the National Taxi Association and taxi companies to enhance the welfare of taxi drivers. For instance, the Health Promotion Board provides convenient health screenings for taxi drivers when they are waiting for their vehicles to be serviced. Sport Singapore is giving free admission to taxi drivers to all ActiveSG gyms and swimming pools. The National Taxi Association has introduced the Drive and Save Scheme, where taxi drivers who contribute at least $15 a month to their Medisave accounts receive a co-contribution of $15 from their companies.

Specifically on safety, LTA has worked with other agencies to include taxi drivers in the Protection from Harassment Act enacted last year, which provides civil and criminal recourse when they face indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. Taxi companies have also installed distress buttons and GPS tracking systems in their taxis.

As for disputes with taxi companies, LTA has been piloting a mediation scheme since June 2014 to provide a channel for taxi drivers to settle their disputes amicably with their taxi companies.

In addition, the Police works closely with taxi companies and the National Taxi Association to issue regular updates on crimes targeting taxi drivers, as well as advisories on crime prevention measures. More recently, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and the National Taxi Association announced a $2.5 million training fund to equip taxi drivers with service skills and safe driving habits.

Madam, besides taxi availability, the other issue that concerns commuters is the complexity of the taxi fare structure. The taxi fare structure today has four broad components – the flag-down fare; unit fares (which is how much more one pays for additional distance travelled and time taken); the third broad category is surcharges; and the fourth is booking fees.

Today, most of the variability in fares occurs in the flag-down component, which ranges from $3.20 to $5.00. However, looking at just standard taxis which comprise 95% of the taxi population, the range is much narrower, from $3.20 to $3.90. Moreover, about six in 10 standard taxis have the lowest flag-down fare of $3.20.

As Mr Seng Han Thong and Dr Lily Neo noted, there are two sides to this issue: commuter interests and taxi drivers' income. These came up clearly in the focus group discussions LTA held with commuters, drivers and taxi companies.

The commuters did not want, in any fare harmonisation, for fares to be levelled upwards. Drivers, on the other hand, wanted them levelled up, and taxi companies, too, have informed us that if we were to mandate fare harmonisation, flag-down fares across their own fleet would be harmonised upwards.

It is not possible to resolve such competing dynamics to the satisfaction of all. Therefore, we may have to take a balanced approach, which focuses instead on preventing the fare situation from getting even more complicated for commuters in the future.

Given the conflicting interests over flag-down fares, we may leave them be, for now. Taxi companies may harmonise them naturally over time within their own fleet, for example, when their costs of buying and hiring out taxis stabilise, or in response to changing market conditions. But that is their decision to take, given that taxi fares in Singapore have been deregulated since 1998.

The other components of taxi fares, namely surcharges, unit fares and booking fees, do not vary much as it is. We will see whether the Government should step in to mandate standardisation of their structure. For instance, we can look into whether each taxi company should be allowed to have only one set of unit fares for its own standard taxis – which Mr Seng suggested – rather than allow them to vary over time like the flag-down fares.

A standardised structure will enable commuters to compare rates across taxi companies more easily. It will also prevent a situation in the future where there is a variation of other components of taxi fares even within the same taxi company, like what has happened for flag-down fares today. LTA plans to announce the details in due course.

Taking a step back on this issue, the fare landscape is part and parcel of a competitive industry landscape. We liberalised the taxi industry in 2003, which resulted in new players on the scene and fleet expansion. With six taxi companies around today, there is considerable competition for drivers. Coupled with a tight labour market offering alternative employment to drivers, that keeps the companies on their toes.

The rental rates, fare structures and other terms of lease may differ, but it is in each company's interest to ensure they are attractive to drivers overall, and continue to draw sufficient passengers. While the fare structures may not be as simple as some may like, taxi fares are generally competitive – they are comparable to Hong Kong and lower than other leading cities. This should be what matters most.

Madam, as we move towards a car-lite environment, we should also strike to make the car population greener than it is today. The Government has introduced schemes to lower emissions from our vehicle fleet and encourage the replacement of older, more pollutive vehicles.

The Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) was introduced in January 2013 to encourage the purchase of vehicles with low carbon emissions through its "feebate" structure. The take-up rate has been very encouraging, with 68% of cars registered in 2014 qualifying for rebates, up from 55% in 2013. The percentage of cars falling within surcharge bands has also dropped from 11% to 6%. We have seen an even larger improvement for taxis, with the percentage of taxis in rebate bands reaching 98%. In other words, virtually every single taxi registered last year qualified for a rebate. This means that there has been a significant shift in vehicle registrations from higher-emission to lower-emission ones.

As announced by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman during Budget 2015 debate, the CEVS will be revised from July 2015. The rebate and surcharge quantum for the lowest and highest emissions bands will be increased from $20,000 to $30,000 for cars and from $30,000 to $45,000 for taxis. At the same time, the bandings will be tightened to account for improvements in vehicle technology in the market.

Let me also touch on the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) which was implemented in April 2013 to encourage the early replacement of older and more pollutive Pre-Euro and Euro I vehicles.

We will expand the ETS to include Euro II and Euro III vehicles from August 2015. There will be additional incentives if the replacement vehicle is a Euro VI-compliant vehicle, instead of the Euro V diesel standard and Euro IV petrol standard currently mandated by the National Environment Agency. More vehicles will be eligible for benefits under the expanded scheme, which could be beneficial for businesses, including small and medium enterprises. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan will share more details later.

With more vehicles eligible for the ETS, there would likely be more Category C vehicles which will be replaced directly, without needing to bid for a new COE. Both the demand for, and the supply of, Category C COEs are thus likely to decrease correspondingly. In short, the ETS is unlikely to impact Category C COE prices.

Finally, Madam, I would like to update Members that LTA has been monitoring the progress of electric vehicle (EV) technology, which offers some clear benefits in terms of environmental impact. But it is not entirely clear that current EV technologies are well suited for widespread adoption. For example, much research still needs to be done on battery technology. Cost is another issue, as noted by Mr Hri Kumar, though it should come down as the technologies mature and when production is sufficiently scaled up.

We will continue to watch developments closely. In the meantime, we are supporting the test-bedding of fleet-based operations, such as through the EV car-sharing scheme to be piloted in collaboration with the Economic Development Board.

To conclude, let me reiterate our goal of moving towards a car-lite society, where private car usage complements a public transport-centric transportation system. In land-scarce Singapore, this is the only sustainable way and the key challenge for our transport policy for the foreseeable future.

We have lowered the vehicle population growth rate from 0.5% per annum to 0.25% per annum and will likely need to lower this to zero per cent in the future. As long as incomes continue to grow, it is unlikely for private car ownership to be a low-cost transport option.

With the emergence of the sharing economy, many people, especially the younger generation, see the wisdom of renting or purchasing services when needed, rather than tying down funds for things they do not use all the time. They think it is smarter to be free of a car loan, and rely instead on a mix of transport options including buses, trains, walking, cycling, taxis or car-sharing services. I must qualify that while not everyone may share this view now, a good number do, and this is a growing number.

This shift is taking place even in the United States, which is as car-loving a society as one can find it.

This shift will not take place overnight, and will take time to adjust to. I seek the support of Members and Singaporeans alike, to take this journey together, so we can keep Singapore a green, liveable and car-lite home for all.

3.30 pm

Walk2Ride Accessibility

Ms Low Yen Ling: Mdm Chair, in about three years' time, LTA's Walk2Ride programme will significantly provide more than 200 kilometres of sheltered walkways to connect Singaporeans from their places of rest, work and play to key transport nodes. It will also be expanded to offer coverage to hubs like schools, public facilities, offices and residential developments within 400 metres of each MRT station. This is to provide the first- and last-mile experience for commuters.

I applaud this move and since LTA's announcement in 2013, Bukit Gombak and Hillview residents have been waiting in eager anticipation for more of these walkways because the area where they live in is hilly and winding.

Presently, about 4,600 residents live within 400 metres of the upcoming Hillview MRT station. The elderly would especially welcome the walkways. In fact, in a recent Lian He Zao Bao poll dated 1 March 2015, of the elderly on their transport needs, about 51% of them wanted covered walkways to MRT stations and bus stops. The demand will continue to grow as our older population increase. Because of Hillview's and Hume's hilly and undulating terrain, sheltered walkways will bring tremendous benefits and relief to our residents, especially the elderly, persons of disabilities and young children.

With this in mind, I would like to ask if MOT and LTA would consider extending to the constituency of Bukit Gombak, specifically to Hillview and Hume Avenue, sheltered walkways beyond the distance limit that is specified in the Walk2Ride programme.

At this juncture, Mdm Chair, can I seek your kind permission to display two slides on the LED screen, please?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

Ms Low Yen Ling: This slide indicates the current notional plan under LTA's Walk2Ride near the upcoming Hillview MRT station. As mentioned earlier, the upcoming sheltered walkways indicated by the red marker you see there on the top part of the slide, will benefit about 4,600 residents.

I would like to sincerely appeal to MOT and LTA to extend another 600 metres further down to Hillview Avenue, and another 400 metres of sheltered walkways along Hume Avenue, as you can see in this slide, because this would potentially benefit an additional 10,000 residents directly.

In addition, given the Minister for Transport's earlier reply to my queries, can I appeal, on behalf of the Hume residents who now have to wait indefinitely for an MRT station in Hume, can MOT and LTA consider providing them with at least a covered walkway to the upcoming Hillview MRT station? These are things that really matter to the residents staying there because these address the unique needs and the demand brought about by Hillview's physical environment.

We also hope that the Ministry would share their intended schedule for the installation of covered walkways in Bukit Gombak under the Walk2Ride programme and, in particular, for residents living near the upcoming Hillview MRT station. The convenience provided by sheltered walkways will make it more compelling and easier for residents to make public transport as their choice mode of travel. In fact, by facilitating the ease of walking and access to key transport nodes, we can certainly nurture and also encourage commuter habits that will make public transport the preferred mode of travel.

A successful Walk2Ride programme will contribute to the sustainable Singapore blueprint that Prime Minister Lee announced last year in November, where the goal is to foster an eco-friendly environment and make Singapore a car-lite nation, like what Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo has mentioned earlier. So, with this in mind, we wish to ask if MOT and LTA will consider opening an MRT tunnel exit along Hillview Avenue because this will facilitate and offer our residents access to the upcoming Hillview MRT station, a key point that will encourage them to take public transport, thereby reducing the road travel and heavy traffic in that area.

To sum up, the Walk2Ride programme has the power to potentially win over more residents who are currently using vehicles and switch them to public transport, thereby contributing further to an eco-friendly and sustainable Singapore. More importantly, it is an indication of the importance and desire to create an inclusive and liveable home for all Singaporeans.

Lifts for Pedestrian Overhead Bridges

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: For the past few years, I had asked LTA to consider constructing lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges. And this is because a high pedestrian overhead bridge is a major obstacle for persons with disability as well as for elderly residents who are unable to climb the many steps up the overhead bridge. Simply put, these persons struggle to cross the road on a daily basis since they are unable to climb a high Bridge. I have seen my elderly residents, many of them Pioneer Generation seniors, PG status, struggle step by step up the high stairs, one hand on the walking stick and sometimes carrying a heavy marketing produce.

I acknowledge that LTA had made some attempts to improve the situation by building ramps. However, the reality on the ground is that lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges are preferred by the elderly and persons with disability as they are clearly more convenient.

We have incurred huge expenditure to upgrade our many HDB blocks with lifts on every floor under the Lift Upgrading Programme. The rationale for lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges is the same rationale for having LUP, which is to provide better access and greater convenience for persons with disability as well as for elderly residents.

I would like to invite Minister and senior officials from LTA to visit my constituency which has a high proportion of elderly residents so that LTA is better aware of the daily struggles faced by each such elderly resident.

Public Transport for the Disabled

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mdm Chair, public transport accessibility is a key enabler for people with disabilities to commute for work and leisure, empowering them to be more independent, and enjoy more fulfilling lives and productive careers. This will more fully tap the potential of many Singaporeans.

Much progress has been made over the years to make our buildings and public transport system more accessible. I am of the view that Singapore should strive to become a world leader in public transport accessibility.

We should strive to provide accessibility from door-to-door, especially for wheelchair users and visually-impaired residents, including the "first and last mile" routes between bus stops and homes, which could be located anywhere on the island.

Currently, only 14% of the 6,000 signalised pedestrian crossings in Singapore are equipped with audible pedestrian signals. This means that visually-impaired pedestrians may still face difficulty crossing the remaining 86%.

Noise disturbance has been cited as a reason for not installing more APS or extending their operating hours. Can I suggest that tactile pedestrian signals be installed at all signalised crossings, as is common in cities like Geneva? These are little arrows located next to the crossings, which vibrate when the green man lights up.

Tactile announcements can also be used at all bus stops to inform visually-impaired commuters of the incoming bus service number, without disturbing nearby residents.

LTA says that about 50% of buses are currently wheelchair-accessible and it aims for 100% coverage by 2020 while SBS Transit is aiming for 2023. Can MOT push for a fully wheelchair-accessible fleet to be rolled out earlier, for the benefit of wheelchair users, which nowadays include an increasing number of elderly residents?

Safer Traffic Junctions

Mr Png Eng Huat: Madam, we have probably witnessed such incidents at signalised junctions where drivers turning right are caught in cross traffic because they have to make a sudden stop to allow pedestrians to cross. These drivers are putting themselves in harm's way at the same time because they are stuck in the middle of the traffic with vehicles having the right of way bearing down on them.

Such scenes are repeated every day on our roads but they can be prevented if our signalised traffic junctions are programmed with separate phases of timing for vehicles and pedestrians to pass safely.

I noticed some traffic junctions have been re-programmed to allow vehicles to turn only after the cross traffic and pedestrians have come to a complete stop. This change will certainly reduce the number of accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles at signalised junctions.

I would like to ask LTA if there are plans to roll out more of such changes in the future and would it be feasible to standardise all the signalised traffic junctions in this manner. We may end up spending a little more time on the road by re-programming our traffic junctions but I always believe that cultivating a little patience in the interest of safety is a necessary trade-off.

Cycling in Singapore

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mdm Chair, my next cut is on cycling, specifically on making pedestrian paths safer for both pedestrians and cyclists. Last year, I spoke about congested footpaths with the increase in bicycle usage and the need to provide clarity to both cyclists and pedestrians on the rules governing the use of such paths but, more importantly, also the enforcement of such rules. Unfortunately, over the past year, this clear set of rules and norms has yet to be well communicated and the issues on the ground have continued to persist. This requires, in my opinion, urgent attention.

Today, I would like to reiterate my views to make pedestrian paths safer for all users. The situation is getting worse as we see increased use of bicycles, conventional ones, electric bicycles, Segways, electric skate scooters and so forth.

Despite laws being in place against such vehicles on pedestrian footpaths, we continue to see errant cyclists who endanger pedestrian safety. I would like to call upon the Government to provide a clear set of cycling rules and enforcement of these rules. Perhaps, pedestrian pathways could also be broadened so as to be able to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians safely.

Safe Cycling

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mdm Chair, I echo hon Member Mr Cedric Foo's view on bicycles and the use of bicycles on pedestrian paths.

Electric and motorised bicycles are getting more popular in Singapore. As a result, I have two groups of residents who came to see me with regard to the use of motorised bicycles. The first group mentioned and complained about how motorised bicycles were used on the pedestrian walkways and endangered the pedestrians, especially the children and the elderly. The second group of residents approached me to appeal for waiver of summons issued to them for using their motorised vehicles along the pedestrian walkways when I requested the police to step up enforcements. Some residents who received summons include elderly residents and they reasoned that it was safer for them to use the motorised bicycle on pedestrian walkways.

I would like to ask if the Ministry of Transport know the number of authorised motorised bicycles in Singapore, that is, those which are authorised by the LTA, and how many of them have been summoned for using pedestrian walkways or park connectors and other offences for the past five years.

Given that the Government has plans to build a cycling network of more than 700 kilometres, more motorised bicycle users would be tempted to use the cycling paths and park connectors. Thus, I would like to ask if MOT would consider registering motorised bicycle users or owners for better control and enforcement.

Regulation of Motorised Bicycles

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mdm Chair, motorised bicycles are becoming a major hazard on our pavements and our roads. Despite the penalties, there is growing demand for such vehicles, including those modified illegally which can go up to 120 kilometres per hour.

What will the Ministry do to resolve this issue? May I suggest that we step up enforcement, make it easier for witnesses and victims to make reports, and implement riding tests, licensing, road tax and insurance requirements?

Many owners of motorised bikes do not realise that they are liable for civil suits in the event of an accident. If serious injuries or deaths result, they could be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Without the necessary insurance policies, both victims and riders will face much difficulty. I urge the Minister to take action urgently.

Innovative Forms of Last Mile Transport

Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Chair, the pace of technological development is high, with significant innovations and inventions being brought to the market for last-mile personal mobility solutions. It is especially driven by improvements in battery technology, allowing a fairly small device to transport an individual for reasonable distances, especially to and from a major public transport node. Examples include light- weight electric scooters and small electric self-balancing unicycles.

Each new device appears to come to the market ahead of regulatory consideration. So, often the first question upon receiving the device is: Is it LTA-approved? Sometimes, the LTA, on questioning, neither specifically approves nor bans the device, an example being the recent issue with electric scooters. This leads to a situation where a group of users is left uncertain about whether they can utilise the device as intended and, if an incident or accident occurs, how best to deal with it and where they should be using these devices.

These devices potentially offer excellent last-mile solutions because they are light and easily stowed on public transport. They are non-polluting, with no emissions as they are battery-powered, and they have the potential to allow a car driver to far more easily make the transition towards becoming a public transport commuter.

I would support their further development and use in appropriate situations. Rather than evaluating each technology or device long after it starts to become popular, can we develop a consensus framework about how to decide if a particular device for usage is acceptable or not so that, if and when a new device is made available, it is immediately and reasonably swiftly clear where it can and cannot be used and how it can be used. I hope that such a framework would lead to an increase use of such devices in an appropriate way and a decrease in the demand for cars.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take a break now.

Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.46 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair] [Mdm Speaker in the Chair]: ****

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Head W (cont.) -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mdm Chair, I appreciate Members' thoughtful questions and views on our transport policies.

In the 2013 Land Transport Master Plan, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) set out an ambitious goal that 80% of households in Singapore will be within a 10-minute walk from the nearest MRT station. We will achieve this when our rail network is expanded to eight lines and connected by about 280 train stations in 2030.

In this regard, the walk to and from the stations, often termed as "the first- and last-mile connection", is a key determinant of the commuter's overall experience. For some of us, it is an important consideration in choosing between taking public transport, or driving the car. Mdm Chair, if I may have your permission to show some slides.

The Chairman: Yes, please.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: A common feedback is that the Singapore weather makes walking to public transport uncomfortable and inconvenient. It is either too hot, or it rains. That is why LTA has implemented the Walk2Ride programme, which will provide some 200 kilometres of sheltered walkways between MRT stations, bus interchanges and popular amenities all over Singapore. Two hundred kilometres is a very substantial length of covered walkway, about four times the distance from Tuas to Changi. Construction will begin later this year and will be completed in four years. I thank Ms Low Yen Ling for her interest in the Walk2Ride programme, and we will study the suggestions further.

Sheltered walkways will make the walking journey more pleasant for the average commuter. Mr Cedric Foo will be happy to note that over the last year, as part of our Ministry's shift towards a more commuter-centric approach, we have also started investing resources to understand and address the diverse needs of different commuter groups. I would like to share with you some of our current and upcoming efforts. For instance, we are planning to make our transport system more senior-friendly as our population ages.

We recently met with a number of seniors and accompanied them on their public transport journeys to better understand their mobility needs and challenges. Some seniors shared where we could make walking routes less slippery and hazardous, and we became more conscious that sudden changes in gradient, such as at some pedestrian crossing junctions, are actually quite difficult for them to navigate. Others suggested installing seats along walking routes to provide resting points. All these are very good suggestions and we will study them to see what we can do.

One key area to work on is pedestrian overhead bridges. Pedestrian overhead bridges are generally built where there is heavy or fast vehicle traffic, as this gives pedestrians an exclusive, and therefore the safest means of crossing the road at their own time. However, these bridges can be very challenging for seniors and persons with disabilities to use. It was in response to this feedback that LTA started a programme in 2011 to retrofit lifts at six pedestrian overhead bridges. We subsequently expanded the programme to an additional 41 bridges.

I appreciate Mr Lim Biow Chuan's support for this programme, and many of my residents, especially the elderly, welcome it too. Hence, we are looking to expand the programme further, and the number of elderly residents is definitely one of the factors that we will consider when prioritising which bridges to retrofit. However, we seek Mr Lim's understanding that given the time and resources needed to retrofit each bridge, we should work towards ensuring that as many bridges as possible have some form of barrier-free access. This means that for bridges that are already equipped with ramps, we will likely consider retrofitting them with lifts only at a later date.

Another area we have been working on is to make the whole transport network wheelchair accessible; Mr Gerald Giam asked about this. Today, this is already largely so. Since 2011, all zebra crossings and signalised pedestrian crossings have been barrier-free. All MRT stations and bus interchanges, as well as 97% of all bus shelters, support barrier-free access. Our latest figure shows that four out of every five of our approximately 4,800 public buses are already wheelchair-accessible, and we target for the rest to be wheelchair accessible by 2020.

Members might also be pleased to know that LTA will be piloting a Priority Queue Initiative at the new Yishun Temporary Bus Interchange which will open this Saturday. It will feature a dedicated area for seniors and persons with disabilities to sit while they queue for their buses. If well received, we will extend this feature to other interchanges.

Today, 94% of all taxi stands registered with LTA are also barrier-free, and we are working with our stakeholders to close the remaining gaps. Unfortunately, the picture is less positive for non-registered taxi stands in private developments such as office buildings and shopping malls. Modifying taxi stands to be barrier-free requires only a small effort, but can make a big difference to the lives of the less mobile. I hope private development owners will respond positively when LTA calls on them.

We have also been making our transport system more accessible to the visually-impaired. Tactile guides are installed at the edges of road kerbs and overhead bridges, and on the floor in all MRT stations and bus interchanges. As Mr Gerald Giam mentioned, LTA has also worked with the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped to install audible pedestrian signals at over 800 signalised pedestrian crossings. I thank Mr Giam for his suggestion to install tactile signals at pedestrian crossings, and we will engage our stakeholders to explore this further. Other ideas such as equipping bus stops with audible or tactile announcements of buses require extensive system upgrades, and we will consider them for the future.

Another key concern amongst the elderly is road crossings. As part of my duties at the Ministry, I chair the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Committee. Members of the House would remember that I spoke extensively about the concept of Silver Zones last year, which are areas where we implement additional traffic calming measures such as lower speed limits and ramp-downs, to improve road safety for elderly residents. We have launched Silver Zones in Bukit Merah and Jurong West, with three more in Bedok, Marine Parade and Yishun in the works. The feedback on this has been immensely positive, and motorists are supportive too. We will therefore expand and improve upon the Silver Zone programme. If all goes well, we should be able to bring the total number of Silver Zones across Singapore to 35 by 2020.

Similarly, given the positive feedback, we will double the number of pedestrian crossings with Green Man Plus to 1,000 by 2018. Green Man Plus allows seniors and persons with disabilities to tap their transport concession cards at traffic lights to get more time to cross the road.

4.15 pm

Another road safety initiative that we have been working on since 2000 is School Zones. This time last year, I introduced a toolkit of safety initiatives for primary schools to complement the existing School Zones, one of which is to reduce the speed limit along roads fronting these schools to 40 kilometres per hour during school hours. We also helped schools implement a series of road safety initiatives, tailored to each school. So far, 10 primary schools have implemented the new school zone safety initiatives. They have worked well, and we will roll them out across 200 more in the next three years.

Mr Png Eng Huat would be glad to know that LTA and the Traffic Police have implemented additional measures to make our traffic junctions safer for all. For instance, LTA has installed blinking studs along pedestrian crossing lines to remind motorists turning right to give way to pedestrians crossing the road. The Traffic Police has also leveraged on technology by installing digital cameras to deter and detect motorists running red lights. Our efforts are bearing fruit. Our road safety record has generally been improving over the years. The rate of fatal and injury accidents per 10,000 vehicles has decreased by about 4% from 2012 to 2014. The number of fatal and injury accidents at traffic junctions has decreased by about 17% in the same period.

Let me now shift gear to talk about a faster form of active mobility – cycling and the use of personal mobility devices (PMDs). We believe that cycling and the use of PMDs can complement our public transport strategy and move us closer to a car-lite nation. To this end, we have extensive plans to expand the National Cycling Plan to support cycling as a mode of transport, particularly for first- and last-mile trips and for short trips within towns.

Last year, I shared that we would provide every HDB town with a cycling path network, and these will come together to form an islandwide off-road cycling path network reaching over 700 kilometres in length by 2030.

We have made good progress. Last month, we completed the third cycling path network in Pasir Ris. We will complete similar networks in Yishun, Changi-Simei and Taman Jurong this year. These intra-town networks have been very well received because they provide a safe, separate path for cyclists of all ages and competencies. Where possible, we would like to accelerate the completion of these cycling path networks in all other towns. We are also embarking on building inter-town cycling routes, starting with the link between Alexandra Canal Linear Park and Ulu Pandan Park Connector to provide a connection from the west to the city for cyclists.

In addition, we will experiment with fitting Ang Mo Kio with even better cycling infrastructure, such as weather-protected cycling paths and elevated paths for a smoother, faster, and more comfortable ride that bypasses road traffic. The pilot will provide useful insights and help us decide if more trials are needed on the alternatives.

Besides cycling paths, there must also be sufficient bicycle parking to encourage people to cycle to transport nodes and other amenities. This is why LTA has built some 12,000 bicycle parking lots across all MRT stations in Singapore, and plans to add another 11,000 lots at new stations on the Downtown, East-West and Thomson-East Coast Lines. LTA also plans to introduce new standards for bicycle parking provision in private developments. We will release more details in the coming months.

While some of us enjoy owning bicycles, many also appreciate the convenience of making one-way trips on bicycles or cycling for only a portion of their journeys. Last year, I shared our plans to introduce a bicycle-sharing pilot in Jurong Lake District and the Marina Bay city centre. I am happy to update that we will be extending the pilot to Tampines and Pasir Ris, subject to interest from potential service providers.

Building cycling infrastructure is only one half of the equation. The other half, and what I think should be the more immediate half, is to develop clear and consistent rules and norms to instill safe and responsible conduct amongst all road users. Many Members of Parliament, like Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh, have spoken passionately in the House today about the need to make it safer for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists when using shared space. I agree that the main issue is that these road users may behave in ways that cause inconvenience and danger to others and themselves, sometimes without being conscious of it.

To be sure, there are existing rules in the Road Traffic Act, NParks' regulations and some Town Councils' by-laws. Over the past five years, the Traffic Police issued around 3,500 summonses for cycling on footpaths for both conventional and motorised bicycles. In the same period, NParks issued 220 summonses against the use of motorised bicycles in parks and park connectors. However, despite these enforcement efforts, the rules may not be clear to the man on the street and may not be consistently applied today.

As Dr Janil Puthucheary pointed out, the rules are most unclear for PMDs. Examples of such devices include the electric scooters that Dr Puthucheary spoke about, or the motorised bicycles that Mr Gan and Mr Ang highlighted. Since the law is silent, a strict interpretation of the rules could suggest that they should not be allowed on both footpaths and shared paths. However, this is clearly not a sensible policy, since they are a convenient way to get around the neighbourhood and are increasingly common. Already, there are around 11,600 authorised motorised bicycles in Singapore.

Hence, we should establish and actively promote a clear and consistent set of rules and norms on the use of bicycles and PMDs. The challenge is, and Members will agree, there are wide differences in views on what these rules and norms should be. Hence, in the coming months, LTA will consult all stakeholders, to try to strike an appropriate balance between the different needs and views. One area of consultation could be on how cycling and the use of PMDs should be regulated to encourage the right behaviour, a concern that Mr Ang and Mr Gan have raised.

It may well be that we will have a set of rules and norms that govern cycling and PMD-use generally across Singapore, and a slightly different set for towns that are ready to embrace more progressive rules and norms, for example in allowing cyclists and users of non-motorised PMDs to also use footpaths. We need not have a one-size fits-all solution. Tampines is one example. Guided by a set of clearly defined rules and norms, and with education efforts supported by passionate grassroots leaders, residents in Tampines have been able to use footpaths for both walking and cycling in a safe manner.

Finally, we also need to better coordinate cycling initiatives across the whole of Government. Today, cycling is supported by a whole host of Government agencies such as LTA, the Traffic Police, NParks and URA. We have decided that LTA will henceforth be the lead agency for both walking- and cycling-related policies and programmes. LTA will be the central planner for walking and cycling routes, and ensure that our education efforts and enforcement of cycling rules and norms are coherent and coordinated. To do this, LTA is setting up a new Active Mobility Unit.

Madam, I hope that I have given Members of this House a better idea of how we will be encouraging and improving the walking and cycling experience in Singapore to encourage active mobility, and to complement the public transport-centric transportation system towards which we are working. If more people take up walking and cycling, our environment will become more liveable and sustainable, and we will all be healthier. As Health is my other portfolio, this solves two problems at the same time for me.

Changi Airport Terminal 5

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mdm Chair, my next cut is on Changi Airport and its expansion plans including T5.

In 2014, Changi Airport posted a new record of 54 million passenger movements – seems to be a good achievement – but the growth rate has actually slowed to less than 1% year-on-year, and this is lower than the 5% Changi Airport registered in 2013, compared to 2012. And when compared to other competing air hubs, Changi's lower growth rate is of concern. In 2014, both Dubai and Hong Kong saw growth of 6%, while Kuala Lumpur registered 7%. This is compared to Changi's 1%.

To boost Singapore's competitiveness as an air hub, the Government has recently announced the construction of Terminal 5 and a third runway. In preparation for that, S$3 billion was set aside. In sharp contrast, Dubai, the Al Maktoum Airport plans, has announced US$32 billion to construct a second very large airport. Of course, a large budget alone is not a guarantee for success.

That is why I am asking the Minister to share with us the strategic plans for Changi Airport over the next 10 years, and how would the new Terminal 5 and the new runway that are being planned help Singapore and Changi compete effectively? Would hardware alone – a glittering new terminal – suffice? Do we need to do more of the softer aspects like service differentiation where Changi still has the lead, and also in expanding our air services agreement and open skies?

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, Changi Airport Terminal 5 is a huge investment in aviation infrastructure. The initial injection of $3 billion for the Changi Airport Development Fund represents just a small fraction of the total cost upon completion. Already, a $1.1 billion contract has been awarded to clear the land and strengthen the soil before T5 and the third runway can be built. We need to ensure that the cost is managed well and does not become an unnecessary burden on our finances.

How did the Government come up with the figure of $3 billion as the initial injection? Does the Government have an estimated cost at completion of T5?

The Ministry of Finance has a gateway process where projects above $500 million are subject to staged approvals for concept, design and implementation. Will the gateway process be adopted for the development of T5?

I noted a media release by the Ministry of Transport on the formation of Changi 2036 Steering Committee, and it also outlined the conceptual layout of T5. The concept plan was expected to be finalised by 2014. I would like to know whether the Ministry has further update on the plan for T5.

It was also stated that T5 will have the capacity of handling 50 million passenger movements per annum and in total, Changi Airport will have the capacity to handle 135 million passengers per year.

I understand the Government aims to keep up with the competition in the region in terms of airport capacity, and to preserve Singapore's status as an international transport hub? Did the Government conduct comprehensive study to ensure that T5 will be commercially viable in the long term? What happens if the expected growth rates in air passenger traffic in the next decade is not realised?

Drones and Driverless Cars

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, new transport technologies like drones and self-driving cars have the potential to improve our quality of life, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth. It is important that regulation stays ahead of the curve, so as to provide a welcoming environment for these technologies, while addressing safety and security concerns.

Commercial aerial drones have seen an explosion of interest in recent years. There have found an eager marketplace among movie-makers, online retailers and security companies, just to name a few. Even NEA is reportedly planning to use drones to search for mosquitoes breeding grounds. Global spending on drones could be almost US$100 billion over the next decade.

4.30 pm

There are legitimate concerns about safety, security and privacy, but these can and should be addressed without stifling innovation. MOT has said that it has started reviewing the regulatory framework for drones. May I ask for an update, including when the public consultation will take place and when the review will be completed?

Self-driving cars will revolutionise the urban transport scene. There are potentially safer, can drastically reduce the car population, free up carpark space and cut down on emissions. Many countries are in the process of passing laws to allow driverless cars to be tested on public roads, including Sweden, Japan and several US states. Big technology companies and major carmakers, as well as local research institutions and companies are all racing to develop their own self-driving cars.

As with drones, I believe Singapore is in an excellent position to lead the world in the adoption of driverless cars but we must ensure that legislation promotes and does not inhibit the test-bedding and public use of these vehicles.

Government regulations in many countries lag behind technology. Singapore should strive to do things differently and be among the first to reap the social and economic benefits of these innovations.

Aviation Security and Safety

Mr Seng Han Thong: Madam, aviation security and safety. In view of the heightened international terrorist threat, what will be the measures taken by CAAS to enhance aviation security and safety at Changi Airport?

Changi Airport served a record 54.1 million passengers from around the world with 340,000 flight movements last year. Thus, will the initiative agreed upon at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to enhance flight tracking be implemented soon? Will all carriers based in Singapore as well as foreign carriers operating into Singapore be required to do so and what is the time frame set?

Unclaimed Baggage at Changi Airport

Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, for the last four years, there were 1,500 pieces of unclaimed baggage left at Changi Airport. The number of passengers that do not board their flights after checking in was fewer than 20 out of 117,000 to 195,000 passengers that the airport handles daily, according to the Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo, in a parliamentary reply. Some of the reasons include going to the wrong gate, arriving late at the gate hold room or being delayed by previous connecting flight.

According to standard operating procedure, every piece of luggage that has been checked in is subject to security screening before a passenger is issued a boarding pass. Passengers who have been issued a boarding pass and did not present himself for boarding, then whatever baggage that has been checked in and had already gone into the aircraft will have to be removed after a search have been made to identify the baggage and returned to ground-handling agents

I would like to make a suggestion in regard to safety concerns for checked-in passengers' baggage that have gone through security checks and who did not board the flight even though the number of errant passengers is small. These baggage should not be loaded onto the cargo cabin of the aircraft first, until all the passengers boarding passes have been tallied and accounted for before the aircraft takes off. This will help wean off potential danger of "tampered" luggage and also facilitate easy removal of the luggage left by "no show" passengers.

These "no show" passengers should be subjected to further questioning and their details scrutinised in regard to their history and background before releasing their baggage back to them. No stones should be left unturned to ensure a safe flight both for the passengers and flight crew.

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS)

Mr Charles Chong (Joo Chiat): Madam, Singapore Airworthiness Requirement 145 or SAR145 approvals are issued by Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to Maintenance and Repair Organisations (MROs) in Singapore to accomplish work on Singapore-registered aircraft or components intended to be fitted on Singapore-registered aircraft.

For the initial grant of an SAR145 approval, the applicant MRO must show the intention to work on a Singapore-registered aircraft or on components to be fitted on a Singapore aircraft. Singapore-based MROs that intend to work on aircraft not on the Singapore registry are therefore excluded from applying for the SAR145 maintenance approval.

These MROs are also not able to participate in the Technical Arrangement-Maintenance that CAAS has with Transport Canada, Hong Kong CAD or CASA of Australia by virtue of them not being able to apply for the SAR145 approval.

Madam, the number of aircraft on the Singapore register constitutes only a very small percentage of the total number of aircraft in service throughout the world. The restriction on the issue of the SAR145 approval by CAAS may limit the potential of Singapore-based MROs from maintaining foreign-registered aircraft even from countries that recognise the Singapore SAR145.

Other than Transport Canada, the major regulatory authorities such as the FAA of US, the EU's EASA and CASA of Australia do not appear to have the restriction that CAAS imposes on domestic MROs in obtaining a Maintenance Organisation Approval.

Would the Minister consider reviewing the conditions on the issue of the Singapore SAR145 to Singapore-based MROs in order that they may be more competitive on the global market?

Maritime Safety

Mr Seng Han Thong: Maritime safety. Madam, as our maritime strategy is to strengthen Singapore as a premier global hub port and develop Singapore as a leading international maritime centre, a strong maritime safety culture needs to be nurtured and developed to support the strategy. What are the work plans and programmes to further enhance maritime safety?

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Chair, I thank Members for their interest in the development plans for Changi Airport and our aviation sector.

Like them, Singaporeans are proud of Changi Airport and rightly so. The airport is our gateway to the world. It creates a good pool of jobs for Singaporeans. It is a key driver for our economy. Its efficiency and service standards set benchmarks within Singapore and around the world. As a result, Changi Airport has grown from strength to strength. Over the last decade, it grew at an average rate of 6% a year.

As Mr Foo pointed out, Changi saw slower growth in 2014. Passenger volumes grew by less than 1% to reach 54 million. While this was, yet, another historic high for Changi, the growth rate was significantly slower than the 5% growth in 2013 and the more than 10% growth in each of the preceding three years. Airfreight volumes also grew marginally by 0.3% to more than 1.84 million tonnes in 2014.

The moderation in passenger traffic growth is likely to be a temporary one. We expect growth to pick up to between 1% and 3% this year with recovery of traffic to and from markets like China and Thailand, which saw slowdowns in 2014, and also as airlines rebuild on top of the capacity rationalisation that took place in 2014.

Over the longer term, our prospects as an air hub remain good. Air traffic in the Asia Pacific is projected to double over the next two decades, driven by economic development and rising affluence. With our favourable position, extensive connectivity and Changi's renowned passenger experience, we are well-positioned to tap on this growth. Hence, we expect a long-term growth rate for passenger traffic at Changi of between 3% to 4% per year over the next two decades.

Our ambition is for Singapore to remain as Southeast Asia's foremost air hub and one of the major hubs in Asia and across the world. To do this, we must ensure that Changi is able to accommodate future growth.

The most important project to achieve this will be the new Terminal 5, which both Mr Cedric Foo and Mr Low Thia Khiang have asked about. Based on our projections, the capacity of our existing terminals and the upcoming Terminal 4 will be fully utilised by the mid-2020s. Hence, Terminal 5 is our major project to ensure that Changi Airport can meet Singapore's future needs. It will be built in phases. We currently plan for Terminal 5 to have an initial capacity of about 50 million passengers per annum and an eventual capacity almost equivalent to that of Terminals 1, 2 and 3 combined today. In the event that growth turns out to be different from what is currently projected, we can manage the pace of construction as we did with Terminal 3 following 9/11 and SARS.

At the same time, we will take the opportunity to further improve on the top-notch passenger experience and high efficiency for which Changi Airport is well known.

I had informed this House at last year's Committee of Supply debate that the Concept Plan for Terminal 5 and Changi East was being refined to take on board industry feedback. I am pleased to update that we have since finalised the Concept Plan. We are now starting to develop the Concept Plan for Terminal 5 into more detailed design plans and will subsequently be re-engaging the aviation community, as well as Singaporeans, on their suggestions for Terminal 5.

Terminal 5 represents a major commitment on the Government's part to secure Singapore's economic future and our place in the world. Hence, as the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had announced, a Changi Airport Development Fund will be set up with an initial capitalisation of $3 billion to support the expansion. More will be added as the Budget allows in the years to come. At the same time, I would like to assure Members that there will be robust cost control and project management over the construction of Terminal 5. And in reply to what Mr Low Thia Khiang asked for, we are not yet able to determine the detailed cost as the plans are not finalised yet.

Terminal 5 is not the only project to ensure that Changi continues to be an air hub of choice. Our other capacity expansion plans are also progressing well. Construction of Terminal 4 is well underway and on track for completion in two years' time.

Dr Lily Neo asked about Jewel Changi Airport, the mixed-use complex to be built in front of Terminal 1. Changi Airport Group broke ground for Jewel in December of last year and works have since commenced. When completed in 2018, Jewel will increase the capacity of Terminal 1 and introduce new aviation-related facilities such as early check-in facilities and a multi-modal transport lounge offering dedicated services for fly-cruise and fly-coach passengers. It will also offer exciting attractions and retail and dining options. As Dr Neo has suggested, we will continue to engage Singaporeans on the development of Jewel, by building on last year's IMAGINE project where the public's ideas were incorporated into the vision and design for Jewel.

I am also pleased to update Dr Neo that the works to operationalise a three-runway system at Changi are progressing well. The contract for land preparation works was awarded in October last year. The contractor has since commenced survey, services diversion and site clearance works. Soil improvement works to treat the very poor soil conditions will commence shortly. The tenders for drainage works, runway extension and new taxiways is expected to be called around the middle of this year.

We expect the three-runway system to be completed around the early 2020s. In the meantime, CAAS is working with its partners to implement various capacity optimisation measures to allow the existing two runways to accommodate growth until the three-runway system is ready.

As Mr Cedric Foo has said, a successful air hub requires more than just infrastructure. It also needs to be supported by a liberal air services regime. We will therefore keep up our pursuit of air services liberalisation to allow airlines to fly more frequently and to more points from Singapore. Singapore concluded Air Services Agreements with more than 130 states and territories, including more than 60 Open Skies Agreements. We also expect that ASEAN will meet the 2015 timeline to establish intra-ASEAN open skies. Intra-ASEAN open skies will boost Changi's connectivity to the fast-growing ASEAN region, while also better positioning ASEAN to negotiate for more liberal air rights regimes with third countries.

We also need to raise innovation and productivity of airport operations.

Therefore, in addition to the passenger self-service initiatives that this House had previously been told about, we are also exploring transformative improvements to other aspects of airport operations. For example, Changi currently employs more than 1,300 cleaning staff. We are conducting trials on the use of robotic cleaning equipment and motorised trolleys to improve these workers' productivity and to make their jobs easier, especially for our older workers. These, together with other innovations will lead to a 10% improvement in their productivity. They will be piloted at Terminal 4 before being rolled out to the other terminals.

4.45 pm

To facilitate innovation and the adoption of productivity-enhancing technologies and capabilities, CAAS has an Aviation Development Fund (ADF). This fund will be topped up to $160 million. Of this amount, $140 million will be earmarked for airport productivity-enhancing projects. This is an increase from the $100 million that is set aside for airport productivity just last year. Another $20 million will be set aside for other innovative projects with significant benefits to the aviation sector.

In line with the SkillsFuture initiative, the renewed ADF will also be used to attract talent to the aviation industry and to support continual learning. These initiatives will include intensified promotion of aviation careers to students, and partnerships with industry and NTUC to redesign jobs, deepen skills and to enhance career progression. CAAS will release more details on the renewed ADF separately.

Mdm Chairman, let me now address Mr Seng Han Thong's question on aviation safety and security. All of us will surely remember 2014 for its series of tragic aviation incidents.

I would like to assure this House that Singapore takes a rigorous approach towards aviation safety and security. First, on safety. CAAS regularly conducts thorough audits and inspections of Singapore-registered aircraft as well as foreign aircraft operating in Singapore. Pilot training and aircraft maintenance in Singapore are also subjected to a comprehensive licensing regime. Indeed, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has rated Singapore's safety oversight of the civil aviation system as one of the most robust globally.

But this is not a subject on which we can afford to be complacent. We will continue working with our partners to further raise safety standards. For example, we are working with ICAO to implement improvements to the tracking of aircraft as well as the exchange of information concerning conflict zones presenting risks to civilian aircraft. As these will take time to be implemented globally, CAAS has taken proactive steps such as mandating that from this year, all aircraft operated by Singapore carriers must be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (Out) (ADS-B (Out)) transmitters. This enables an aircraft's location to be broadcast more frequently, thereby increasing the tracking accuracy of its location, especially over areas beyond radar coverage.

Similarly, Singapore adopts a multi-layered approach to ensuring aviation security. Various measures have been put in place, including the thorough screening of all baggage and cargo and stringent control of access to restricted areas. Mrs Lina Chiam talked about checked-in baggage belonging to passengers who subsequently do not board the flight. We require the airlines to off-load all such baggage from the aircraft before they can take off.

The security agencies and CAG review all security measures regularly. Singapore's aviation security regime has also been audited by ICAO and found to be robust and in compliance with all of its aviation security standards. We are committed to make air travel for Singaporeans as safe as is practical.

Mr Charles Chong asked about facilitating the development of aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) operations in Singapore by being more liberal in the granting of SAR-145 certification to companies even if they do not work on Singapore-registered aircraft. CAAS already grants SAR-145 approval to such companies on a case-by-case basis. But his point is well made and CAAS will review its regulations to see whether we can be more facilitative of activity that will contribute to the growth of the MRO industry in Singapore.

Finally, let me address Mr Gerald Giam's query on drones and self-driving cars. As I have explained in response to similar Parliamentary Questions, we recognise that there are many possible new uses and significant commercial opportunities for such technology. However, we do need to balance the potential benefits against the risks to public safety and security. We are in the midst of reviews of the regulatory frameworks for drones and self-driving cars. For drones, we expect the review to be completed by 2016. In the context of this review, we plan to consult the industry and the public later this year. But we do not preclude the need to make amendments to the Air Navigation Act sometime this year if there is a need to do so in light of safety and security qualms.

In closing, while 2014 saw a cooling of growth from the breakneck pace witnessed in the preceding few years, we remain confident of Changi Airport's long-term prospects. We will continue to work closely with our partners to reinforce our competitive position.

Finally, Mdm Chairman, let me now move on to touch briefly on maritime issues. As Mr Seng Han Thong has noted, our aim is to develop Singapore as a premier global hub port and International Maritime Centre. Maritime Singapore is a key economic pillar for the country, contributing about 7% to our GDP and about 170,000 jobs and it provides connectivity that is important for our manufacturing and trading sectors.

The Singapore Port continues to do well. Container throughput in 2014 grew by about 4% to almost 34 million TEUs. Throughput is expected to continue to grow, in tandem with regional demand.

Therefore, we have accelerated our port development plans. Pasir Panjang Terminal Phases 3 and 4 will be fully operational by end of 2017, two years ahead of our original plan. This will add new handling capacity of about 15 million TEUs per annum, increasing our total capacity by some 40% to 50 million TEUs. PSA will invest some $3.5 billion in these new facilities, which will enable us to handle more of the largest container ships with lengths of some 400 metres. This expansion will provide sufficient capacity whilst development work on Tuas Port is underway.

Mr Seng's emphasis on safety is timely. Indeed, Singapore has done well on this front – the number of maritime incidents has decreased from 1.7 incidents per hundred thousand vessel movements in 2010 to 0.5 per hundred thousand movements last year.

Our good safety record is in large part due to a strong safety culture, which has been fostered through the close tripartite relations amongst the maritime community, unions and MPA. MPA's Safety@Sea campaign, which was launched last year, has reached out to more than 1,700 masters of vessels and 500 shipping companies. In addition, the MPA has stepped up efforts to improve emergency responsiveness and to ensure that we are well-prepared for contingencies. This included Exercise Blue Dolphin, the multi-agency exercise in 2014 which tested our readiness to respond to passenger vessel incidents in Singapore waters. And this is a priority area, because of the number of passengers that we have on board such vessels.

This year, we will be paying special focus to enhancing safety for small harbour and pleasure craft. The MPA will be funding the installation of new enhanced transponders on these vessels to improve their navigational situational awareness and to better identify safety threats. In an emergency, these transponders can also help to locate the distressed vessel and shorten the response time for rescue operations. Installation will start in the middle of the year and completed by December 2016.

Mdm Chairman, Maritime Singapore is much more than just our port. It is also one of the top international maritime centres in the world, home to a vibrant eco-system of maritime enterprises. As Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his Budget speech, the Government is extending the Maritime Sector Incentive schemes by five years to 2021. In addition, we have enhanced and expanded the scope of qualifying profits eligible under the schemes. For instance, qualifying profits remitted from approved foreign branches of local shipping entities can now enjoy tax exemption. These changes will help Singapore be even more attractive as an IMC.

State-of-the-art infrastructure and a conducive business environment are necessary enablers for the growth of Maritime Singapore. But what we also need to set us apart from our competitors is a well-skilled workforce. Maritime Singapore today provides a rich variety of rewarding careers for Singaporeans. And indeed, Singaporeans are in high demand in the sector.

We want to ensure that Singaporeans are ready to take advantage of the many exciting career opportunities in this field. The Maritime Cluster Fund for Manpower Development is a key programme co-funding maritime manpower training and development. Since 2007, almost 20,000 individuals have benefited from this.

I am encouraged by this development. MPA will inject another $65 million into the fund, bringing the total amount to $115 million. The top-up will go towards funding schemes to encourage more maritime businesses to up-skill and hire Singaporeans. This will allow more Singaporeans to benefit from the opportunities available in the maritime sector.

The enhanced fund will complement SkillsFuture to strengthen the Singaporean core for Maritime Singapore. The MPA will continue to co-fund overseas attachments and internships to enable individuals to gain exposure to the international market and is working with companies to develop management associate programmes to groom local talent for leadership positions. MPA is also partnering the industry to develop more structured career progression pathways.

So, we will create more opportunities for Singaporeans to take up seafaring careers. In doing so, we intend to commit another $6 million over the next five years to the Tripartite Maritime Scholarship to support more students to train to become captains and chief engineers of ocean-going merchant ships. With this experience on the seas, they will then be able to better exploit the range of maritime jobs on shore when they have concluded their stint at sea.

To conclude, the prospects for Maritime Singapore remain very bright. The Government will continue to ensure that our maritime sector is future-ready, so that Singapore and Singaporeans can take advantage of the many opportunities that this sector has to offer.

The Chairman: We have a bit of time for clarification. Anyone wants to seek clarification? Mr Cedric Foo.

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Madam, my question is for Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo. I would like to ask whether the Carbon Emission Vehicle scheme, that has been implemented so far, has been revenue neutral, deficit or surplus?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chairman, the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme has exceeded our expectations so the Government actually incurred more by way of rebates than what it collected in terms of the surcharges. The amount if I remember correctly is in the order of about $100 million. But we are refining this scheme and our expectation is that going forward it ought to be revenue neutral.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, on women-only cabins, the Minister said that women-only cabins usually is more under-utilised. How much inefficiency will result by having women-only cabins? And how does the inefficiency cost compared to protecting women from being molested? Is the Minister not concerned with the up-trend of the molestation on public transport? And lastly, that comes to a fundamental question, what is the trade-off between maximising the economic efficiency and commuter comfort and safety?

5.00 pm

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Chair, I think the Member has framed the question in the wrong way. It is not about maximising cost efficiency. It is about maximising the use of the capacity and space on board the trains. So, for commuters who today may have to wait for a second train before they board, I think their wish is to be able to board the first train as much as possible. And if we under-utilise the capacity especially during the peak hours, then it will exacerbate the crowding problem that we have.

As I mentioned very briefly in dealing with this subject earlier, the satisfaction survey covers a number of attributes and the attribute that scored the highest for at least the last two years that I know off is the attribute related to safety and security. This is for the MRT system. So, yes, about the incidents, they have gone up and I also agree that some may be under-reported or may not have been reported at all. I think the situation in Singapore is very different from a number of other countries that may have no choice but to institute such a measure even at the expense of the inefficiency in terms of utilising the capacity.

The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Madam, I understand that ERP is implemented when the speed of the motor vehicles falls below 40 km/h. I notice that along the MCE, during the peak hour in the morning and evening peak hours, vehicular speed along the stretch along where the gantry at the former ECP leading to the Fort Road is located, is more than 40 km/h. My question is: is there a need to continue to impose ERP there at the moment?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chair, the ERP rates are reviewed regularly. And, if indeed the speeds on the roads on which ERP is levied improve to a significant extent, then the rates will be adjusted. So, my response to the Member is, in good time.

The Chairman: Ms Lee Li Lian.

Ms Lee Li Lian: Thank you, Madam. One clarification for the Senior of State Josephine Teo. To help defray costs and lighten the financial burden, can the Ministry look into my suggestion of allowing motorcycle owners to pay by instalments of say, up to 10 years instead of the current repayment period of five years? But, if not, what else can be done to help this group of Singaporeans? Thank you.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Madam, may I seek a clarification from the Member? You were talking about the instalment plan for the loans or for COE per se?

Ms Lee Li Lian: COEs.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Madam, as far as I know, when a person purchases a vehicle, he can approach the financial institution for motor loans. And, if it is a new vehicle, then usually, the loan amount will also cover the COE that is payable. Now, whether the loan terms ought to be five years or seven years, that actually does not come within the purview of MOT. Whatever rules that have been put in place, it is within the purview of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). So, if you have a specific suggestion on that, I could refer it to the MAS. But I understand where you are coming from, and also Mr Mohd Ismail Hussein, who had earlier brought up his point on the livelihoods of couriers who need to rely on motorcycles.

Madam, with your indulgence, if I could take the opportunity to clarify. Earlier, I had said in response to Ms Lee's cut that one concern about splitting Category D COEs is that this could result in smaller numbers in the sub-categories, and that could increase volatility. Ms Lee had said that even if we split it, it would be the same numbers as Category C. One thing I want to point out is that, if you look at Category C COEs that are available for bidding now, it is probably fewer than before due to ETS. So, you must correct for that. That is the first thing.

The second thing I think is worthwhile highlighting is that today, for COE bidding, we already have five categories. And Category D was set aside for motorcycles; Category A for social equity reasons, to split the mass market models from the others. Apart from requests for Category D to be split further, there have also been requests for Category C to be split further for light goods vehicles and heavy goods vehicles. So, potentially, what we are looking at is really not five categories. It is potentially seven categories. My guess is that it will not stop at seven if we are prepared to go down the path of further splitting. The broader question we have to address is whether this is the right approach to address concerns by various groups when it comes to their need for vehicle purchase and ownership?

I would say there are two opportunities that I can see that perhaps is worthwhile pursuing. One is in relation to goods vehicles and Category C. Today, the business model in that sector is changing. More and more, we are seeing third-party specialised logistics companies offering the service and therefore taking the burden off small businesses who used to rely on their own vehicles to do goods deliveries. New business models will come up to meet the need. So, that is one.

The other that is more specific to couriers. I would say that the employers have to do a better job and really have to look at whether it is more feasible for them as the employer to be owning and maintaining the vehicles that their couriers need to use, instead of expecting that the couriers own and maintain their own vehicles.

The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Thank you, Mdm Chairperson. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State Josephine about ERP on Saturday. The Senior Minister of State has said that the speed range at the Orchard Road remains below optimal. So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the optimal speed range? How does LTA decide on that optimal speed range considering that this is a Saturday at the Orchard Road area? Is there a basis for coming to that speed range? And whether would LTA consider consulting businesses in the Orchard Road area because they are heavily impacted by having ERP in that cordon on a Saturday.

The other point that I wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State is that the Senior Minister of State said that the Shenton Way area has no ERP on Saturday but for my residents to get to Shenton Way area, they have to cut through Nicoll Highway and they have to pay ERP. It does impact them. So, would LTA consider shifting the gantry? If you really need to have ERP on a Saturday, whether would LTA consider shifting the ERP gantry to the Stamford Road area?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Madam. The speeds along Orchard Road, even on Saturdays, at best will go to maybe between 20 to 30 km/h – it is not very fast. You cannot speed through Orchard Road on a weekend. The standards have been set and it is not a new piece of information. We will continue to review this. At the present moment, we think it is still not good enough and so the ERP remains.

The Member's other suggestion to shift the ERP gantry, I am quite mindful of the fact that you shift it to another location, another group of residents will be a little bit unhappy. So, I do not know which Member is going to be affected by your proposed shift but I will be very careful not to annoy people unnecessarily.

The Chairman: Minister Lui Tuck Yew.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: There seems to be so much interest in ERP this year, so I will just add to what Mrs Josephine Teo has said.

On expressways, the speeds that we try to reach will be between 45 km/h to 65 km/h and this is also in reply to Mr Gan Thiam Poh's query. So, when it is above 65 km/h, and we monitor this over several quarters, then we are able to reduce or remove the ERP charges. And when it is consistently below 45 km/h, then we raise the charges for a particular time belt.

Lest we think that all these charges are merely about revenue generation, I may want to add that last year, the revenue collected was about $152 million; previous years, it was consistently about $160 million. This was in part because of the opening of the MCE. I think some Members may remember that after the MCE opened, we lowered ERP charges along the ECP on three consecutive quarters.

On arterial roads, we have a slightly different set of speed parameters, I believe it is between 20 km/h to 30 km/h. Again, if it is consistently above the upper threshold, we reduce; and likewise, we increase if it is consistently below.

On Orchard Road, in response to Mr Seah Kian Peng's and Mr Lim Biow Chuan's suggestions in recent years, we have delayed the start of the ERP charges on Saturdays. But we still feel that there is a need to have ERP on Saturday afternoons. For those who find the ERP charges a burden, then maybe the possibility is for them to shop on Sundays instead because it is entirely ERP-free on Sundays and the traffic speeds are actually a little bit better.

On Nicoll Highway, Members may recall that we shifted the gantry just two years ago. There is no intention to shift it somewhere else.

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Madam. I have got three clarifications for Minister on security on public transport because earlier on the Minister mentioned that one of the things that the Government did was to have a review of the security arrangements in 2011 and 2013. He mentioned that the recommendations will be fully implemented by 2017, if I heard him correctly. So, I would like to ask him: what is the reason for this long lead time to complete implementation of those recommendations and whether the budget of PTOs is one consideration why it is being stretched to two years from now. That is the first clarification.

The second clarification concerns the recent court case concluded about the intrusion into the Bishan Depot. From the court evidence, it emerges that the two intruders went into the Depot on consecutive days, I think, three consecutive days. I would like to ask whether it is the case that SMRT was not aware of the intrusions for all those three days, and if so, whether the enhanced measures that they have been taken up will plug this gap.

The last clarification concerns the Government role in security audits. I think it was mentioned by the Minister's predecessor that one of the things the Government does to help PTOs to conduct audits of their security arrangements. I would like to ask whether these audits, are they audits just of the plans themselves or does Government representatives go down to the premises to view the plans against the physical terrains and so on. And who from the Government actually does this? Is it MOT or MHA or somebody else?

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Chair, let me thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her questions. Yes, indeed, we conducted a couple of reviews in 2011 and 2013 with all the recommendations to be implemented fully by 2017. In part, it is also because the operator is expanding the depots and some of these will need to be implemented in time with the expansion of facilities.

5.15 pm

The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): (cont'd) because the operator is expanding the depots, so some of these need to be implemented in time with the expansion of the facilities.

The intrusion, yes, indeed, it was over three consecutive days and not detected by the operator. Again, I would say that the point I wanted to make earlier was the need to have a layered defence, and not rely only on a particular set of instruments or a particular set of technologies. So, it is not just fences, cameras and physical patrols because, in this case, I believe they came underground. Therefore, the final check both against graffiti or actually against potential terrorist incidents, is to have the train captains make a physical check of the train prior to it being deployed. That is the final check that we must make, and the one that we enforce the more stringently.

On the Government's role, yes, we conduct ground audits. It is not just an audit of their plans. People actually go onto the ground. These are security experts from MHA.

The Chairman: Please keep your clarification short. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah:

): I want to seek clarification on the Bukit Panjang LRT breakdown. The 19-hour disruption on the LRT is yet another major disappointment to the residents, and a major dent, I would say, to public confidence in the LRT system. It has caused significant inconvenience to the residents and I was told by the principal that the students were also late for school. So, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and myself, we were on the site on Monday and Tuesday night to get an update to see the recovery efforts. In a sense, what we came away with from observing it is that the measures taken to get the system running are pretty temporary in nature. It seems that the system is yet to stabilise and there is still a significant risk of further disruptions. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether, since we are still in the state where the system is not stabilised, can the parallel bus service continue to run along the LRT system, just as a back-up, and perhaps extending the PBS service, the parallel service, to a whole-day service, instead of just the peak hours?

My second clarification is that Minister Lui in his Facebook page mentioned about LTA---

The Chairman: Mr Liang, please keep your clarification short.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: --- doing an overall review on the health of the LRT system. Obviously, it is in a poor state of health. So, I want to ask the Minister what more can the MOT do to boost the health of the system.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Firstly, on Mr Liang's suggestion to continue to run the parallel bus services, I understand the point that he has raised. I fully empathise with the concerns of the residents and, indeed, as I mentioned right at the very beginning of my reply, this series of incidents, not just in BPLRT but across some of the entire MRT network, has undermined confidence in the public transport system. It is something that we will need to work hard to review, and I give you my full assurance that we will be watching this very, very closely.

Having said that, I also know that, basically, we need to use our resources to the best that we can do. We deploy as many buses as we can certainly during the morning and peak hours because there are those who rely on buses. They would like buses to come more regularly. I am loath to pull more resources out from the bus network in order to have them stand by or in order to have them back up the BPLRT system. Where it is possible for us to have some buses and, if there are some drivers available, I will certainly try to do so. But I think, to have a full back-up for the BPLRT system over a slightly extended period of time, may perhaps not be the best way to use the resources.

On the overall health check, it is important for us to try and see if there are clear trends in terms of the disruptions and breakdowns that we are facing. Post December 2011, after the third rail incident, we did something similar for the North-South and East-West lines, and we were able to identify particular trends with regard to train breakdowns, for instance, if I were to just give you an example.

So sorry, it is a slightly long answer, but I thought it is useful to explain some of these in context.

There are four generations of trains that run on the main network – three generations from Kawasaki and one from Siemens, and we – or at least I – found the reliability of Siemens train was certainly very different from the Kawasaki trains. In particular, you will be able to zoom down to whether it is the doors or the electrical cards or whatever. So, when you do a systematic health check like this, you are able to determine and identify trends, you are able to spot like the mean time between failures for components and, if necessary, you do a complete change out, which is what we did for the doors. So, we did that over 2013, and we are able, since then, to arrest the spate of door problems that we had with this generation of trains.

I think we need to do something similar with BPLRT. We already had plans, of course, to do a mid-life upgrade of the trains. 2012, we did a visit together. We announced a series of measures which, I think, in the last couple of years, actually helped to bring down the incident rates in the BPLRT itself. We introduced new capacity and now I need to find out whether that introduction of new capacity had actually affected the series of power-related incidents that we had over the past week or so. So, this health check is really useful for us to go down and pay very, very close attention and scrutinise very carefully not just the maintenance, the records and so on, but also to identify the most troublesome areas, determine if they are clear patterns and what more we should do in a systematic way to try and bring up the health of the system.

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to seek some views of the Minister. Apart from the satisfaction level with public transport, will he also be monitoring the fatigue level of bus drivers, train drivers and taxi drivers? Because as we push our satisfaction level higher, I am worried, from conversations with some of them, that they are working more overtime, they are stretched and, therefore, it may impact on the safety of the commuters that they ferry around.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): I want to thank Mr Ang Hin Kee. That is certainly a pertinent point. It is not just the train drivers, taxi drivers and bus captains that we are looking at. We are also looking at the rail maintenance teams to make sure that we have enough people for all three shifts, and to make sure that we build up in good time because, as I mentioned earlier, we are expanding the train fleet significantly. So, we need to make sure that the manpower that we have in place now are the right numbers, correct quality, experience levels, and to build up for the future. So, it is something that we are watching very closely on what the operators are doing.

On taxi drivers, I know this is one of the concerns that Mr Ang Hin Kee always has because he is a great champion of the taxi drivers. The intention of what we are doing in requiring taxis to meet 250 kilometres daily is really not to have the taxi drivers work harder. It is to have taxis work harder, because we know that the drivers, after driving at most 10 to 12 hours, really that is about the maximum. But the cars, the vehicles, can go 24 hours or almost 24 hours. So, the intent is to try and make taxis work harder so that there is less of a need to expand the fleet in order to cater to the needs of the commuters. What we have been encouraging, and Mr Ang has really been supportive of it, is to try and see whether we can move towards more two-shift taxis – the hirers, as well as the reliefs. And certainly, over the last two or so years, we have seen it grow. The percentage of two-shift taxis has grown from about 59% to I think the high 60s over the last two years, and it is certainly moving in the right direction.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Madam. I am referring to Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo's reply on the goods vehicles. Certainly, there are some businesses which can change the mode to use the delivery services, but a lot more, like handymen, electricians and plumbers, they need their vehicles. I would like to ask MOT is there any measure to help these people to own the goods vehicle. Otherwise, you will see a lot more such business vehicles coming from across the causeway running about in our estates.

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mdm Chair, actually this was discussed at the most recent sitting, so I shall not overly repeat, but simply to say that to help small businesses, there are several measures. For one, businesses pay lower ARF and road taxes. They are also allowed to renew their commercial goods vehicles on a five-year basis and as long as the vehicle still has statutory life. There is also the ETS scheme which has been enhanced and which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan will say more about.

The Chairman: Mr Cedric Foo, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mdm Chair, on behalf of my parliamentary colleagues, I thank the Minister and his team for engaging us. Also, the Minister's ‘full assurance' is re-assuring. We are not yet there in terms of public transport efficiency but we hope that, in time, we will get there.

Mdm Chair, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $792,920,700 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $10,495,765,500 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.