Head W - Ministry of Transport

Head W - Ministry of Transport

Household Interview Travel Survey 2008 and Land Transport Masterplan

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, I started taking public buses to school instead of a school bus in 1977 when I was in Primary 3. My primary school, Sembawang School, is non-existent now, and it was about three kilometres away from the Nee Soon village where I stayed. The SBS buses plying between Nee Soon village and my school were 160, 161 , 164, 167 and 169. There were also the more erratic but much cheaper private buses numbers 19 and 20. They were like our premium buses today but their fares were much cheaper, almost by half. SBS charged 25 cents and the private buses charged 10 cents for students. I used to wait up to one hour for the private buses to save money.

1.00 pm

I remember the buses were very crowded during the peak hours and, frequently, I had to perch precariously at the boarding stairway. There were no air-conditioned buses then.

However, I did not mind the heat. I actually enjoyed the breeze coming from the open windows. It was on rainy days in very crowded buses that I cannot stand the humidity as well as the very stale air. There were no MRT and LRT then.

Although the public transport those days was a far cry from today, they seemed to be able to cater to most of our transport needs and the majority did not own a car. One possible reason was that most of our activities were nearby and there was less need to commute far. Instead of going to the library to borrow books, the library van came to the Nee Soon community centre once a week. If a household interview travel survey were to be conducted then, I am sure the results would be very different from what we had in 2008. I can postulate that at least 80% travelled by public transport then and many may even cycled to work.

The recent Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS) done in 2008 really hit MOT very hard, in a sense that it raised many questions when the headlines of media reports read a further drop in the public transport mode share from 63% in 1997 to 58% in 2004 and 56% in 2008. It seems that MOT is losing in its quest to achieve the target of 70% public transport mode use. Many questioned the drop and few comprehended the figures. When I was invited to Blog TV a few months ago to discuss this issue, the title of the show was "Why Aren't You Going Public?" The host started the show by commenting that the public is abandoning public transport and more are turning to private transport. I asked the host if more people are abandoning public transport, why are there so many complaints about crowded buses and MRT?

The real issue is, there is a huge jump in travel demand by individuals and our public transport system seems to be limited in capacity during the peak hours. I am not sure. Probably, it is due to our huge increase in population recently. There is an overall 24% increase in both public and private transport trips. However, private transport trips went up more than public transport trips. The callers to the show cited crowded buses and erratic frequency as the main reasons for abandoning public transport. I wondered if MOT were to achieve the target of 70% public transport mode share in the next few years, can the current public transport system take the additional 16% increase to 70%? That is an absolute 30% increase from the 2008 figures. I cannot imagine what the 30% increase in ridership do to our already crowded buses and MRT today. I hope the Minister can enlighten the House on the results of HITS 2008 and explain how MOT is using the results to further improve our land transport mode, especially public transport. When will be the next HITS?

Singaporeans understand and agree with the recommendations outlined in the Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP) released in early 2008. We look forward to a public transport system that can cater to most of our needs. We also agree that the most efficient mode of transport will be MRT. It is the least pollutive as well as the most cost-effective. But our building speed is slow. We have to wait until 2020 before our rail networks double. Between now and 2020 is a decade. What can we do to alleviate the already congested roads and crowded public transport in the interim? Many who are frustrated with crowded buses and MRT turned to owning a car, only to be further frustrated by congested roads and higher ERP charges.

As the nation progresses, so do the aspirations of Singaporeans. Over the years, we have seen a rise in car ownership. It is not uncommon to see a family owning two or more cars. Drivers are complaining about the congested roads, although our traffic is still better than many of the major cities in the world. Many wondered what went wrong since we have two powerful levers to manipulate our vehicular traffic, ie, COE as well as ERP.

When the COE system was introduced, we rejoiced that vehicular growth will be capped and our roads will be free from congestions. But our joy was short-lived as we saw COE prices escalated to above $100,000. A Toyota Camry cost near to $200,000 and a Corolla cost $160,000 in 1996 when I first bought my first car. Cars became a symbol of the divide between the rich and the masses. Many complained that owning a car is beyond the reach of the middle and some upper middle-class families.

In response, the Government shifted the control from vehicular population to its usage. ERP was born. More cars were introduced then. However, ERP charges and gantries started to increase. We started a vicious cycle. Like many drivers on the road, I am wondering when will be the next round of ERP increases and when will a new gantry be erected near my house or my working place. The car population has increased from just over half a million in 1990 to the 900,000 in 2008. The jump has been particularly steep in the last five years.

There was a 6% growth per annum, if you compute correctly. Why was there a sudden surge in car population? Should the COE system not moderate the growth to only 3% as promised earlier on? I am glad MOT has earlier announced that the vehicular growth will be further reduced to 1.5% per annum. Is this reduction coming a bit too late in controlling the current congestion? What is the projected vehicular population in Singapore in the next 10 years? Can our already crowded roads take the additional vehicles even if it is only a 1.5% growth? Will the Government consider a zero growth strategy or even a negative growth to remove the additional cars from our roads?

I read many years ago in a newspaper report that managing traffic is very complex and many academics studied and revealed that traffic jams are very similar to water molecules in a liquid state turning to solid ice state. The road can only take a certain vehicular load and a small increase beyond that threshold resulted in a sudden freeze and, as a result, a jam would start. I concluded that a jam will only start with a small number of vehicular increase. Looking and confronting at the daily slow traffic and jams on our expressways now, have we exceeded that threshold? Is it not time to reduce the vehicles on the road as it can only get worse?

The increased car population has also resulted in other problems. Previously, it was unheard of for a new HDB estate to run out of carpark lots. Now, I hear some new estates, carpark lots are even full before all residents have collected their keys. More vehicles and slower traffic speed will also mean higher fuel wastage and more pollution to our environment. There are many compelling reasons why we must rein in the vehicular numbers but many will not give up their cars for the simple reason that our public transport lacks the capacity.

I would like to propose a review of a category of transport, what I call "Shared Transport". I know the Ministry has maintained its position that taxis is private transport and, hence, are treated as such. Taxis, although privately-owned by taxi companies and leased out to taxi-drivers, occupies a space similar to private cars and the carrying capacity is the same as a private car. They are, in fact, a form of shared transport that can bridge the current gap between public and private transport. Taxis on the run and fully utlilised will not need a parking space and is, in the long run, a more economical way for all families, rather than all families owning a private car. Our current taxi companies are taxi leasing companies. Their main activity is to lease out their taxis. They should do more to encourage and increase taxi ridership.

I was surprised that under the LTMP, there was no mention at all on taxis. I propose that MOT do a review on taxis and see how taxis can be more effectively used to bridge the gap. I would like to make a plea for taxi-drivers to the Government to consider reducing ERP charges payable by taxis and also consider some concession for taxis to use the dedicated bus lanes. I hope we can streamline or do away with our confusing taxi surcharges that, in my opinion, have resulted in much undesired effects such as the "no taxi syndrome" after 11.30 pm which is miraculously resolved at the stroke of 12 midnight.

Car-sharing schemes are also another form of shared transport that did not take off well but took off well overseas. As a concept, I think it is a good one. Perhaps MOT can study and review our car-sharing schemes.

Our buses and MRT now are much better compared to the buses which I took in 1978. Today, my children enjoy a higher standard of public transport compared to what I experienced 30 years ago. Sometimes, they prefer taking buses and MRT home rather than waiting for my car.

I know that many Singaporeans look forward to the vision that is spelled out in the LTMP. Although we have an excellent public transport system and infrastructure, our men and women in MOT as well as LTA never cease to look for more ways to enhance and to bring our public transport system to a higher level. To these men and women, we thank them for their endless and thankless task to keep the traffic flowing.

Land transport policy

Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines): Mr Chairman, there seem to be more and more vehicles on our roads nowadays, their large numbers leading to frustrating congestions and traffic jams, especially during the morning and evening peak hours.

Under the Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP) unveiled in 2008, the vehicle population growth rate is to be lowered to 1.5% with effect from Quota Year 2009, ie, May 2009. Statistics show that the total motor vehicle population in May 2009 was 907,566 and that in January 2010 was 929,277. A quick calculation shows that the increase over this period of nine months alone is already 2.4%. Can the Minister explain the figures and enlighten us on any steps that will be taken to contain the yearly growth rate at 1.5%?

While waiting for our vehicle population to stabilise, I believe more should be done to ease traffic flow. I recognise LTA's efforts in road widening. However, I feel sad that while we take up more land to add lanes, vehicles can still be seen parking or waiting at the side of the road. Just one car waiting at the side of the road will effectively take that lane out of operation. Worse still, vehicles trying to switch out of that lane cause vehicles in other lanes to slow down, resulting in congestion. Because of one inconsiderate driver, many others are inconvenienced, wasting a lot of time for everyone. So, I would like to ask what are the KPIs of the traffic wardens. I do not mean that they should have a quota or summonses issued but their performance should be based on how our roads are free of obstructing vehicles. I urge MOT to indicate very clearly the busy trunk roads where any obstruction to the flow of traffic would not be tolerated during peak hours, and this should be enforced vigorously. These drivers play a cat-and-mouse game with our traffic wardens. They expect the wardens to approach them and ask them to move off; some even try to bargain before driving away. Now with modern technology like digital cameras, I think the wardens should just take a snapshot of the parked vehicles as evidence. Eventually, the message should be very clear – for certain stretches of busy roads, do not even try waiting there during peak hours because the likelihood of being caught is almost certain and the traffic wardens will not give chance.

Sir, to help motorists avoid congested areas, LTA should push for more publicity on Google Maps covering Singapore. The Singapore version of Google Maps, which has key transit and traffic information, including "live" traffic feeds from LTA, was launched last November. I discovered the application on my iPhone by chance only recently and I have been happily showing how it works to many of my friends. None of them was aware of its existence. It is a boon to both motorists and commuters alike. On Google Maps, I can now check on road traffic congestion and find the most convenient route to reach my destination. It is what I have been wishing for and it is free. It is simple to use and read, with the map showing which road sections are green, indicating free flowing; yellow for heavy traffic; and red for traffic jams. I would especially encourage motorists to make full use of this facility. With traffic information from the LTA updated every few minutes, drivers are able to avoid congested roads and plan their driving routes accordingly. Now, my only complaint is: why was this not made known earlier to people like me?

Sir, how can we make public transport the choice mode of transport? It is true that public transport has some way to go. The Mandatory Give-Way to Buses scheme and full-day bus lanes have made for smoother and faster bus rides. However, many drivers still flout bus lane rules. Perhaps they do that because the likelihood of being caught is slim. Instead of deploying enforcement officers only now and then standing by the side of the road to catch them, is it not more productive and economical to install electronic cameras to monitor the bus lanes continuously? Then, would-be offenders will have no doubt whatsoever that they will be caught.

Sir, in spite of the measures mentioned, complaints of overcrowded buses and MRT trains during peak hours still abound. I would like to know what additional steps will be taken to reduce overcrowding as this is surely one major factor that pushes commuters towards the car.

Two measures to moderate car usage are the Off-Peak Car scheme and the Park and Ride Scheme. The newly revised Off-Peak Car scheme has met with tremendous success. Car owners are still awaiting good news on the Park and Ride Scheme. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will have any measures to promote the Park and Ride Scheme.

Long-term plans for road use

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister for his plans on two issues. First, on the long-term vehicle population growth and the other, which is less directly linked to road usage, long-term plans for overhead bridges.

We are different from other major cities in the world. They have large suburbs where most of their residents live. The residents own cars because these are necessary for travel around the city areas. And many switch to public transport to travel into the city.

In Singapore, that distinction between city and suburbs is more difficult to make. I appreciate the Government's efforts to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans to own cars. Singaporeans are willing to pay a lot for their cars and, once purchased, expect to be able to use them.

To accommodate greater numbers, we are building more roads both above ground and underground. We are widening expressways and creating more lanes. But eventually, we will run out of space and roads to build. In that event, what is the strategy to control car growth or usage in the future?

1.15 pm

Despite the ERP, the effect of the growth of car population is plain to see. There appears to be less predictability on our roads. Many people tell me that the time it takes for them to drive to work varies greatly everyday. The unpredictability makes it difficult to plan and undermines the efficiency we pride ourselves on. The situation may be manageable now but will deteriorate as car numbers grow. As a matter of logic, we cannot allow car growth to continue indefinitely. So, what is the long-term strategy, particularly when we run out of roads to build? Is it the Minister's intention to use Electronic Road Pricing as a primary tool to control car usage? Can we, therefore, expect to see much heavier ERP charges and more gantries in the future? Is the principle to enable as many people as possible to own a car a realistic one and will it raise unrealistic expectations?

The second aspect I would like to raise concerns overhead bridges. All around Singapore, there are many overhead bridges, particularly over busy roads. Bridges, as opposed to signalised or zebra crossings, allow for smoother traffic flow. However, I am receiving more feedback from elderly residents that it is getting harder for them to negotiate such bridges. It is a real problem climbing if your knees or legs are weak and we should recognise this. These calls for help will get louder and more frequent as the population ages. May I ask what is the Ministry's long-term plans for such bridges? Will the Ministry provide signalised crossings to help elderly residents even if there is a bridge available? If so, will there be a need for bridges as no one will likely use them? Or are there plans to upgrade bridges to incorporate lifts and escalators to help those who cannot climb them?

Park and Ride scheme

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Sir, during lunch time yesterday, Minister Gan Kim Yong shared a joke with me. He told me that there were two men in Jakarta. One of them was walking, the other one was driving. The one who was driving offered to give the one that is walking a ride. And the one who was walking would say, "sorry, I am in a rush, I cannot take your car." I think that is the state of the current situation now whereby I find that MRTs are so much more efficient and so much more predictable compared to driving.

When I was working as a houseman in Tan Tock Seng Hospital in 1992, I used to take the MRT from Khatib MRT station to Novena MRT station, it is a very nice 20-minute ride. I remember that I had a senior also working in Tan Tock Seng Hospital and he used to tell me said that he would take much longer to reach the hospital and I remember that we would leave Yishun at the same time and I would be at the ward at about a cool 10 to 20 minutes before him, even though I needed to walk up the hill to Tan Tock Seng Hospital.

But I guess that is the reason why we are pushing for Park and Ride scheme. For someone who stays near or works near an MRT station, MRT is a natural choice for commuting. And for many who do not stay near the MRT station, Park and Ride scheme is a good option. It helps the driver to save on parking charges as well as CBD charges. It is a good scheme to be enhanced and promoted as since it will reduce the vehicles on the road and also encourage greater usage of our public transport. Most certainly there have been more calls for more Park and Ride schemes. I understand that Park and Ride schemes, some of them are very popular, some of them are less popular. I would like MOT to roll out more publicity to encourage more motorists to use the scheme. I understand that demand for the scheme varies according to locations. Which are the locations that demand actually exceeds the supply of carpark lots? The Minister said in 2009 in a reply to my parliamentary question that LTA will be reviewing the Park and Ride scheme. I hope the Minister can give us a good reply in this COS debate.

Alternative transport arrangements

Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, nowadays trains and buses are getting more overcrowded during peak hours and roads are more congested as noted by the GPC Chair earlier.

In order to help ease some of the congestion, I feel there is scope for LTA to consider expanding several modes of alternative transportation. One is the Park and Ride scheme, which allows drivers to park their cars at designated parking lots and switch to public transportation conveniently. It also encourages people to use their cars less and, hence, become more environmentally friendly. I believe this scheme needs better publicity as its capacity is not maximised, especially at certain carparks. Could the Ministry look into why the take-up rates at these carparks are low and also urge TransitLink to explore more convenient carpark sites? Also, could the Ministry get TransitLink to provide a more convenient system for drivers to join the scheme on a sustained basis as opposed to the current one where ticket sets have to be bought every month on a first-come-first-serve basis. To further encourage the take up of this scheme, I would like to ask if the Ministry could incentivise public transport companies to extend subsidies to users of this scheme as users now have to pay full adult fare for their train or bus rides.

Sir, another alternative transport system is the car-sharing system currently provided by companies like Honda car-share or the NTUC Income car co-op. Has any study been done on the take-up rate or effectiveness of this car-sharing service in the CBD and housing estates?

Public transport and road capacity

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, I think we have heard from many Members about Singapore's growing population and the demands on the land transportation system.

With the high level of economic activity in Singapore, the land transportation system plays a crucial role in enabling people to get to places on time. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress of meeting the increasing capacity demands on our public transport system as well as the management of traffic on the roads.

As the Minister said in his speech last year, our public transport system will need to do more to put the commuter at the centre of the land transportation system and our land transport system must be planned and built for people and not vehicles. Can the Minister tell us what the progress of making public transport more seamless and is it meeting the capacity demands in quality of service? Are our trains and bus systems able to meet the increasing volume of passenger load and demands? What is the wait time for services? And are we seeing improvements in the service quality of our public transport?

An area that I would like the Ministry to also look into is safety at our MRT stations given the increasing passenger load and the use of the MRT. Is there a regular review of the safety considerations and emergency procedures with regard to evacuation of commuters in the event of an emergency given the high passenger load?

Road capacity and traffic management. Our roads are increasing challenged to meet the increasing demands of road usage and more cars on the road. With the COE and ERP system, how effective have they been in managing in easing congestion on the road and can the Minister provide an update of what impact it has had on traffic flow? What actions will the Ministry take to reduce vehicular congestion on the road? I do hope that it would not mean that there will be more gantries and higher charges on ERP.

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

Public transport

Mr Seng Han Thong (Yio Chu Kang): During peak hours, public transport operators also report an increased in ridership, especially in the trains. One reason given for this overcrowdedness is the rapid growth of our population over the last few years from 4 million to 5 million.

Measures have started to kick in to make public transport more attractive like shorter bus headway times, more dedicated bus lanes and give-way-to-buses at designated bus stops. All these measures, plus the squeeze inside our public transport system would demonstrate that more are, in fact, taking public transport. Despite all these measures being implemented, the average daily commuters feel the crowdedness and squeeze, be it in buses or trains. May I ask the Minister if more measures and plans will be introduced to further enhance the Land Transport Masterplan, taking into account the growing population and the constraint of existing transport system before the new rail network is up and running? Sir, it was also reported in the HITS that public transport modular share has dropped from 63% to 59%. It does seem, contradictory, that the survey reflect a drop in transport share while the sentiments from the ground seems to reflect the opposite. Could the Minister clarify on this drop in transport modular share vis-a-vis the sentiment on the ground that public transport is, indeed, crowded.

Tendering of bus routes

A major review of the Land Transport Masterplan is to allow contestability in public transport system. Bus and train services could be tendered to competent operators to manage for a contracted period. We understand that the rationale behind this proposal, which is to ensure services standards and operation efficiency are kept up to the desired level. It is argued that with contestability in the bus routes, it may lead to more job opportunities and better but the reverse can also happen. A major issue in tendering of bus routes is the transfer of staff should there be a new winning bidder, and the key concern for the public transport workers is whether their current terms of employment can be preserved upon transfer. Can MOT give us the assurance that any tendering will not be based on price but will be a contest where we take into account various quality aspects?

Central planning of bus routes

One key feature of the Land Transport Masterplan is the integration and central planning of the bus routes between buses and trains so as to enhance the public transport system. LTA has engaged the grassroot organisations and its leaders, since last year, to collate their feedback and suggestions on the proposed central planning of bus routes. May I ask the Minister what are some of the key feedback received and whether these will have an impact on the bus and train services? What is the timeline that LTA will assume this central planning role from the two operators? How would the new bus and train routes be implemented once it is finalised? Will there be a big bang or will it be implemented in phases? Most importantly, what are the guiding principles in reaching the final decision of the service routes, knowing that there must many conflicting interests among the commuters?

The Chairman: Prof. Faishal you have two cuts, take them together, please.

Update on central bus network planning

Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Sir, I applaud LTA's approach in engaging the ground as part of its effort to implement the Central Bus Network Planning. In fact, LTA has met my grassroots leaders, residents and I at least three times to seek feedback and share their plans on the Central Bus Network Planning. I would like to ask the Minister on the nationwide progress of such a consultation process. What has been the feedback received on the proposed route changes?

Many residents who attended the Marine Parade GRC's Consultative Exercise found it to be very useful and engaging. While they attentively followed LTA's proposals with regard to the proposed route changes as well as the services in their respective Division, they also spoke passionately about the various aspects of Bus Network Planning in the areas they have an interest in. On the other hand, I am also very impressed with LTA's openness and sincerity in addressing the issues raised by the residents.

Sir, since its announcement, the Central Bus Network Planning has created an expectation among the residents for an improved bus network in the areas they live. This, coupled with the excellent consultative process taken by the LTA, raised the hopes of the residents. I see LTA's challenge as reconciling the needs together with expectations of the residents and the efficiency and practicality of bus network planning. I would like to know how the LTA intends to implement these changes, taking into account the varying interests of the stakeholders and the transport operators and what are its plans to sustain the engagement process in the spirit of a "people-centred transport system".

Land Transport Masterplan and elderly commuters

Sir, the Land Transport Masterplan attempts to make public transport a choice mode, a viable alternative to the car. In its attempt, I feel that the LTA should continue to enhance the travel via the public transport to make it more seamless for the commuters, paying close attention to meet the needs of Singaporeans.

We need to look at the details of the travel needs and options available to Singaporeans. It should also maximise their level of accessibility in travelling to activity nodes, especially those close to their neighbourhood. In addition, in view of the ageing population and also our move to encourage older Singaporeans to remain employed, the land transport system should meet the needs of our elderly. For example, studies have shown that elderly travellers place high importance on the travel factors in their choice of shopping areas and they tend to travel shorter distance for their shopping needs. Therefore, we need to enhance connectivity in intra- and inter-town travel so that our elderly are able to carry on with their daily life without much difficulty.

Like few other areas in Singapore, my Division has many elderly residents. Many live in 3-rooms flats and smaller and they usually take the public transport, particularly the bus for their travel needs. They are keenly awaiting for the improvements being set in the Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP) to ease their connectivity. I would like to ask the Minister, how have the initiatives of the Land Transport Masterplan so far, benefited our elderly commuters? What are the measures undertaken since the announcement of the Land Transport Masterplan to enhance their travel experience? With more elderly still remaining employed, how have packed buses and MRT during peak period affected their ease of travel on public transport? When will the full-scale improvements for the elderly, visioned in the LTMP, be realised? What plans are in place during this transition period before the full impact of the LTMP are in implemented?

Public transport concession for disabled

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, disabled persons face challenges fitting into society for work, recreation and social interaction. Travel is a necessary step towards integration to work, to socialise and to be consumers. There are currently no public transport concession for the disabled. The disabled here have low earning capacity, many do not work. Those who do, earn a few hundred dollars a month, spending up to a third on travel expenses.

1.30 pm

The Government has often said that we should build an inclusive society. It therefore should not take a backseat on this issue. Other governments are proactive. In the United Kingdom, for example, disabled persons qualify for a special rail card which entitles them to travel through the United Kingdom at one-third off from the normal fare. In addition, disabled persons in London can travel off-peak for free on buses, the Underground and trains.

The Government cannot wash its hands off the matter by saying that the public transport system is operated commercially and it is up to the public transport operators to decide. The disabled have no bargaining power against the big companies. For instance, the Land Transport Authority, as regulator, can make it a licensing condition that the public transport operators (PTOs) recognise disabled passengers for concession travel.

According to a 2001 MOH survey, less than 2% of Singaporean adults below 60 have some sort of disability. Is the number of disabled too much for the PTOs. The PTOs' operations are reaping profits of tens of millions of dollars annually, and this is part of their corporate social responsibility.

The Chairman: Er Lee Bee Wah, take all your three cuts together.

Bus concession

Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A] Mr Chairman, at the moment, the concessions for senior citizens starts from 9.00 am on weekdays, and on weekends and public holidays, they have concession for the whole day. But some senior citizens have to go to work before 9.00 am. Because of their age, they are not earning as much as before. And in order to be self-reliant and for survival, they have to continue working. I urge the Ministry of Transport to be more generous and more magnanimous to give the senior citizens more support. I think we should not have any restriction on the time for them to enjoy the concession as the public transport companies are earning so much money. We should be more gracious to them. We should help them.

Another group of students are the polytechnic students. Now, they have to pay $50 for their monthly ticket. And for the junior college students, they are paying $27.50. It is a big difference. So for the monthly concession for polytechnic students, it is $45 and for the junior college students who are of the same age, they are paying only $25. There is a difference of 80%. But for the consolidated concession that can be used for buses and trains, it is from $97 and $57 – it is a big difference. I urge the Public Transport Council to review the tickets for the polytechnic students.

*Cols. 4169-4170.

_Improve public transport _

( In English ): The Ministry of Transport is to bring about efficient and cost-effective transportation to enhance our economic competitiveness and quality of life. And its vision is to be a proactive and forward-looking organisation, anticipating and responding to the needs of their customers and changes in the environment both domestically and internationally.

Since LTA took over the planning of bus routes in September last year, can LTA please update us on what the improvements are?

For the residents who live in zone "B" of Nee Soon South, despite my feedback in last year's COS debate and subsequently to LTA, they still have to alight from bus 812 at the bus-stop before the bus turns into Yishun Avenue. They then cross the six lanes at Yishun Avenue and walk to the next bus-stop to take bus 811 to go to the community centre (CC). The total walking distance, I have measured, is 270 metres. You and I will have no problem in walking. But for the elderly and the pregnant women, to walk 270 metres to change buses is more like a mini-marathon.

I have faith in our Ministry's excellence and thus believe that this incident, which I have brought up, is an isolated occurrence. I therefore would like to implore the Ministry to examine the public transportation issue in zone "B" of Nee Soon South so as to bring greater quality of life to the residents by proactively anticipating the needs of Singaporeans.

Accessibility to MRT stations

We have a growing pool of seniors in our community. Mobility and access to facilities are key issues which have to be given priority. I acknowledge the far-sightedness of the Transport Ministry in ensuring that public transport remains highly accessible and user-friendly to the less mobile citizens through the incorporation of barrier-free accessibility (BFC).

I am heartened to note that lifts are gradually being installed in most MRT stations and at entrances to the stations where intensive stair-climbing is involved. Yet, considering how the Ministry appreciates the necessity of lifts in facilitating movement in and out of MRT stations, I cannot understand why the only means of accessing the overhead bridge entrances of some stations are only by staircase.

For the third consecutive Budget debate, I am appealing to the Minister to support the construction of lifts at all overhead bridges at MRT stations, not just at Khatib MRT, but throughout the whole of Singapore.

Stairs cause barriers to many groups of people – the handicapped, the elderly, pregnant women and children. In no way do they make the MRT station more accessible to these people. Furthermore, joint problems are common ailments of the elderly and using the stairs is like climbing over a five-foot wall. The 67 fleets of stairs at Khatib MRT's overhead bridge is a pain for many elderly residents in Yishun South and a common topic of complaint at my house visits.

Residents with mobility issues lament about the difficulties of using this staircase while their family members fret over their safety. I was told recently that there was an old man who fell at the staircase. Such is their trouble with the staircase that many of the elderly residents have even resorted to jaywalking.

As the Minister is undoubtedly aware, jaywalking is a main cause of death amongst elderly pedestrians whereby almost one in two pedestrians killed was above 60 years old last year. A lift at the overhead bridge is a means to enable them to move around safely and with ease. In line with the Government's appeal to the elderly and the handicapped to continue maintaining a healthy lifestyle and financial independence, I would like to urge the Minister to consider my request.

Cycling on road pavements

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, LTA may deny this, however, as a member of the public, not stating on pavements and at bus-stops that no cycling is allowed and with no enforcement action, you have implied agreement.

These places are crowded places and we have the very young and old using these facilities. Can we not have signs to forbid cyclists at these places that LTA enforce directly? The man in blue should be left to take care of drunkard drivers, loansharks, robberies and at our borders. If LTA cannot enforce this, then introduce the relevant Bills and Acts to ensure that LTA has a proper management of its own facilities.

On the issue of an accident between a cyclist and pedestrian, the onus should be on the cyclist at these places as they are not allowed. Once there is an accident reported, the cyclist should be taken to task by LTA – a fine regime – and not allow the Police to refer them to the Subordinate Courts.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank Members for their comments and many suggestions. I will address some of the key ones while Minister Lim Hwee Hua and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Teo Ser Luck will address some of the others.

In 2008, we launched the Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP), a document outlining our key land transport strategies for the next 10 to 15 years. Members have asked about our transport system capacity – Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked whether our public transport system can handle the increasing commuter load while Mr Hri Kumar commented that we would eventually run out of space to build roads. These were exactly the issues that we sought to address under the Masterplan.

Today, our transport system carries about 11 million journeys each day. By 2020, this will rise to 14.3 million. This means our transport system must carry 30% more and meet many different needs while ensuring our environment does not become dominated by congestion-filled roads. It was thus clear that we needed to make a decisive shift towards a higher public transport modal share, and reverse its downward trend in recent years, from 67% in 1997 to 63% in 2004.

As it turned out, in 2008, this had gone further down to 59% based on the latest Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS 2008) which came out in October last year. Some had erroneously concluded that despite the enormous effort put in over the past two years, the LTMP measures have failed to reverse the trend. This is not so. HITS was launched in the same year – 2008 – as the LTMP, to give us a proper baseline to measure the effectiveness of the LTMP initiatives going forward. If we had not done so, we may end up drawing wrong conclusions. A later survey may, for example, show the public transport modal share at say, 61% – which could be misread as a further two percentage-point drop from 2004, when it actually improved two percentage-points from 2008.

Indeed, HITS 2008 has affirmed that the LTMP is on the right course. To answer Mr Seng Han Thong, the reason why public transport modal share has gone down even though public transport ridership has gone up is because car usage grew much faster than public transport ridership between 2004 and 2008, 31% to 16%. We need to arrest this decline in public transport modal share if we are to have a sustainable land transport system and a liveable city. The LTMP sets out to do this by increasing the capacity and attractiveness of our public transport system and managing our road usage closely.

Several Members have pointed out that our trains and buses are getting crowded. I share this concern. It is one of our top priorities. Our high population growth in the last few years coupled with high fuel prices, have led to a significant growth in public transport ridership, in particular, the MRT system. If we are going to successfully transform our public transport system into a choice mode rather than one of last resort, we need to address aggressively not just this issue of crowdedness and comfort but also service quality issues as Ms Jessica Tan has brought up, such as waiting time, travel time and reliability.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked how are we going to bridge the capacity gap between now and 2020. Our strategy has never been to back-load all our measures to 2020. The LTMP contains short-term measures to deal with the current situation, as well as longer term plans to meet ridership growth over the next 10 to 15 years. This is why we will conduct the next HITS in four to five years' time to, assess the impact of the LTMP measures, and not wait till 2020. I have asked the Clerk to Parliament to circulate the summary of our progress to date.

We will improve our public transport system through a three-pronged strategy. First, improve our bus services. Second, increase our rail capacity. Third, ensure that the focus is on the commuter. In fact, this commuter-centricity informs all of our public transport policies. Only if we have a people-centred public transport system will we be able to make it a choice mode.

First, improve our bus services. To reduce crowding and waiting time, we have increased trunk and feeder bus frequencies. Today, at least eight in 10 basic bus services are required to come at 10 minutes interval during the peak periods instead of 15 minutes previously. SBST and SMRT have added 116 buses and more than 260 bus trips to 109 services during the morning and evening peak periods, shortening their headways by an average of 18% and increasing their capacity by 24%. To give commuters more choices, there are 75 premium bus services today, up from 42 in January 2008. To cut down travel time and improve reliability, we have given buses more priority on our roads – we have put in more bus lanes and impose mandatory right-of-way for buses exiting bus bays on some roads. The bus lanes have helped to increase bus speeds. On average, it is 7%, while the mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme has reduced the time a bus takes to leave the bus bay by up to 73%.

As Mr Ong Kian Min has pointed out, we need the cooperation of all road users, to give way to buses and keep out of bus lanes, to raise the quality of bus services. In addition to public education efforts, LTA deploys traffic wardens and make use of cameras on the buses to enforce the rules. Moving forward, LTA will study the use of roadside enforcement cameras to augment the existing enforcement efforts.

1.45 pm

Beyond these, we will work with the operators to see what more can be done to further increase frequencies on heavily-used bus services during the rush hours. We hope to make an announcement in the next few months. We will extend the mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme to another 158 bus bays this year from the current 44. LTA is currently looking at the possibility of giving buses signal priority at traffic junctions. SBST and SMRT collectively are bringing in 400 new buses this year.

Second, we will increase rail capacity. We have opened the Boon Lay Extension and Circle Line Stage 3. To deal with the increased loads on our trains, operators have added over 1,000 train trips per week for the existing rail lines since 2008. These represent a capacity increase of almost 14.8%, measured in train-km, in the last two years. Where possible, they will introduce more train trips this year. I am therefore pleased that SMRT has informed LTA that from 22nd March, it will add another 150 train trips during the week to help ease crowding and waiting times for rail commuters.

We are also addressing the infrastructural bottleneck in our existing North-South and East-West (NSEW) Lines by building an additional platform and track at Jurong East MRT station. We will complete this in 2011, and also take delivery of 22 additional trains to boost capacity by 15%. For commuters, this means less crowdedness and shorter headways during the peak hours. For instance, SMRT will be able to run trains at about 2.6 minutes between Bukit Batok and Jurong East, down from the current 3.2 minutes during the morning peak period. Other stretches of the NSEW Lines will also see higher capacities and shorter headways.

Further, we have decided to open our new rail lines in phases even though this is less cost effective than waiting for the whole line to be completed. We opened the Circle Line from Bartley to Marymount in May last year and will be opening the segment from Bartley to Dhoby Ghaut on 17th April this year. This will mean that half the Circle Line will be opened this year and LTA expects that this will directly benefit 200,000 commuters daily. The other half from Harbourfront to Marymount will be completed next year, while the Circle Line Extension to Marina Bay is targeted for completion in 2012. The Circle Line, when fully opened, will also help to relieve crowding levels on critical stretches of the existing MRT lines by 10% to 15%.

What this means is that when both the Circle Line and the extra capacity in the NSEW Lines come on-stream, the current crowding levels at the most crowded stations of about 4.5 passengers per square metre will improve to about four passengers per square metre. In the interim, where it is not possible to add on more train trips because of constraints in infrastructure and rolling stock, we will facilitate parallel bus services to provide an alternative. We have done so with service 128 serving the rail segment from Ang Mo Kio to Shenton Way. It has not been as successful as we had hoped as commuters found its travel time not sufficiently competitive with the MRT's. We are studying how best to further improve the attractiveness of such bus services as they will add needed capacity in these busy corridors.

As for the next major RTS Line, the Downtown Line (DTL), we can look forward to the opening of its first phase, from Bugis to Chinatown, in three years' time, 2013. These improvements would be more than sufficient to meet the current public transport demand and cater for growth over the next few years. Beyond that, the new lines to be rolled out – the rest of Downtown Line, Thomson Line, Eastern Region Line – would not only provide significant increase in our rail capacity to cope with long-term population growth but greatly increase the coverage and connectivity of our rail network.

Third, we will also continue to work on improving the commuter experience. We will remove completely the transfer penalty that a commuter pays when he or she has to transfer from say bus to bus or bus to train. When we started out, commuters were given a transfer rebate of 25 cents, which only partially offsets the transfer penalty of about 60 cents. The Public Transport Council (PTC) has reduced this penalty in the last two years by increasing the transfer rebate to 50 cents. This year, the PTC will see how best to get rid of it altogether, in a manner that will benefit the majority of commuters. Come July, commuters travelling the same distance will then pay the same fare for the same type of service, regardless of whether they travel direct or make transfers.

This will be the most significant change ever made to the structure of our public transport fares. When the new fare structure is in place, we hope that commuters will look at the entire public transport network as an integrated whole, and take full advantage of the choices offered to get to their destinations. As we open more rail lines and extensions, more commuters will find that a combination of bus and train trips, strung together into a single journey will likely get them to their destinations more quickly.

The key thing is to ensure that our hub-and-spoke model works well, in a manner that benefits the commuter. With LTA now planning both bus and rail routes in an integrated manner, and with the new distance-based through fares, we can better achieve this outcome.

Commuters often comment that they are unsure when the bus will arrive. Ms Jessica Tan will be pleased to hear that we are working to improve transfers in several ways. We are trying to make public transport more seamless. First, as I mentioned earlier, more frequent buses help to reduce waiting times during transfers. Second, is to provide commuters with bus arrival information, so that they can make informed choices. SBST already has its IRIS Next bus system. LTA is developing a similar system which integrates the bus arrival information from both operators.

I thank Mr Ong Kian Min for helping to spread awareness of the Google Maps for Singapore. LTA and Google held an event at Dhoby Ghaut station in November last year to launch this service. It is a wonderful tool, if Members have not accessed it, they should really access it, then they can see how good it really is. For instance, if you feel after a long day sitting in this House, that you need both exercise and food, say, at Newton Circus, this Google Map will direct you to the nearest MRT station from Parliament which is City Hall. It will detail your walking route, from Parliament to the station, then tell you which MRT line to take, the train frequency and, when you reach Newton station, how to walk to Newton Circus – giving you for completeness, the estimated time you will take for each part of your public transport journey. One way to increase awareness of such tools is to link it to a single portal that people are familiar with. LTA will shortly be launching a new mobile channel called MyTransport.sg . It will be a one-stop platform, offering a suite of mobile services from transport-related portals, including LTA's ONE.MOTORING and PublicTransport@SG portals.

So where are we today? Are these LTMP measures having an impact in improving our public transport system? To get an accurate assessment of how we are faring, we need to go beyond anecdotal feedback to see whether these stories – often colourful, good and bad – represent the general state of affairs or otherwise. This is why LTA has commissioned a Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey annually since 2006. The latest survey, conducted by UNISIM in October last year, has been completed and the results are encouraging. Overall, more than nine in 10 commuters were satisfied with our public transport services. Compared to the 2008 survey, we saw an improvement of 4% points, from 89.5% to 93.8%.

The improvements have been across the board. Ms Jessica Tan who raised the issue of safety and security in our public transport system will be pleased to know that this was the highest rated attribute by commuters with 90.7% satisfied, up from 88.3%. This is a reflection of the importance we placed in ensuring that our public transport system is safe and secure with emphasis on regular reviews and testing. The system is designed to be able to cope safely with a higher load of passengers than what we see today. And to enhance the safety of commuters, we are progressively installing platform screen doors at all elevated MRT stations.

Even for those areas which have traditionally been rated lowest, such as waiting time and reliability for bus commuters, and comfort and waiting time for MRT users, we have seen improvements. But we will continue to work with SBST and SMRT to find ways to further improve customer satisfaction, especially in those areas which matter most to commuters – crowdedness and waiting time – where I believe there is still room for the operators to do better. And that is why we are re-doubling our efforts in those areas.

When we launched the LTMP in 2008, we recognised that it is important to consult and engage the communities that we serve, and have thus assigned Community Partnership Managers to each constituency. This is a two-way process – there is a LTA "face" for the community to provide feedback and complaints; at the same time, LTA can better explain to residents the considerations and constraints involved. In the process, we are better able to meet the needs and demands of the commuting public, and build a transport system that everyone has a stake in.

The feedback from the Advisors has been very good, as Dr Muhammad Faishal has noted. Minister Lim Swee Say, Advisor to the Buona Vista Grassroots Organisation wrote to me, and I quote: "LTA used to be one of the agencies most complained about by grassroots leaders on the ground. But in the past one to two years, we have seen noticeable changes in its commitment to engage the ground. LTA attends our CCC meetings regularly, and takes feedback and suggestions constructively and responsively. Of course, not all suggestions can be implemented. But LTA would implement what is possible, and explain what is not possible. LTA representatives also work with our grassroots leaders to figure out practical solutions. Today, I no longer receive negative feedback from my grassroots leaders about LTA". We have taken a similar approach, to consult the communities as LTA develops the Bus Route Masterplan.

Mr Seng Han Thong and Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal have asked for an update on bus route planning. The key to this exercise is to provide a platform where the views of the community in all the GRCs and SMCs would be taken into account on a systematic basis. The measure of its success is thus not how many big changes are there, but rather how effective the consultations have been in taking into account the views of the communities affected. We should be mindful that every bus route change affects someone, so we should only proceed if it is for the better and has good support from the community. Minister Lim Hwee Hua oversees this initiative and will be giving an update later.

Once the review of the bus network is completed and implemented, we intend to gradually open up our basic bus service industry for more competition, by making the right to operate bus services contestable. Competition raises service standards, enhances efficiency and keeps costs competitive. Injecting greater contestability into our bus industry is a major change. It is critical to get the policies right. LTA is studying the issues very carefully. LTA has set up a joint workgroup with the National Transport Workers' Union and the bus operators to see how best to safeguard the welfare of bus drivers. But I think it is useful to put things in perspective. A public transport modal share of 70% by 2020, up from 59% today can only mean a lot more public transport ridership – that means more public transport workers, more bus captains and more station staff will be in demand. In fact, the operators are finding it a challenge to find enough workers and have been working with the Unions to get more Singaporeans to take up these jobs.

We intend to start competitive bus tendering gradually from the second half of 2011. We will start with, perhaps, one or two pilot packages and let these have some time to run before we make firm decisions on the rest of the network. And let me assure Mr Seng Han Thong that our intent is to evaluate the bids on factors other than price, such as quality attributes like headways, comfort and reliability.

Mr Chairman, Sir, let me now turn to the key issues raised on managing road usage. Several Members like Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Jessica Tan have asked what is our long-term strategy in managing road usage? The key tenet of our strategy is to recognise that there is no single solution to this problem. We often hear people say that congestion will be solved if we had a better public transport system or more roads. Unfortunately, experience has proven otherwise. Tokyo and Seoul have first-class public transport systems but are still plagued by horrific morning peak-hour traffic jams. This is because any success in achieving higher speeds on the roads through the pulling power of a better public transport system will encourage other commuters to drive and replace those who have switched.

Similarly, it is not possible to build ourselves out of congestion. Widening roads to deal with congestion is like dealing with obesity by loosening the belt. The increased capacity leads to increased traffic, so the problem just recurs but on a bigger scale. Other cities such as London, Stockholm and Amsterdam have come to the same conclusion – both pull measures, such as a high-quality public transport system, so people have an attractive alternative to the car; and push measures, such as congestion charging to curb excessive use of cars, are needed.

2.00 pm

Since releasing the LTMP, we have enhanced the efficacy of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. To answer Ms Jessica Tan, these ERP changes have been effective with significant improvements in traffic conditions within the city and on the expressways. As a result, not all the new gantries announced were needed and some rates were reduced. In fact, looking back further, it is significant that we have been able to keep at least 95% of our road network congestion-free during the morning peak hour since we started tracking this indicator six years ago. This is despite having a 30% increase in vehicle population while road space only grew 7%.

Since 25th January, we have also revised the Off-Peak Car (OPC) scheme. More than 660 new cars have since registered as OPCs and some 500 normal car owners have converted to the scheme. These rates are well in excess of the 570 and 20 per month respectively before the revision. While it is still early days, these initial results are encouraging.

Members such as Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Ong Kian Min have pointed out that the vehicle population has grown faster than the allowable growth rate in the last few years. The reason for this is that a large part of the total supply of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) for any given year depends on LTA’s estimate of the number of vehicles that would be de-registered in that year. If, as in recent years, it over-estimates, then the growth in vehicle population will exceed the allowable growth rate. LTA corrects for such over-projections in subsequent quota periods. Thus, the average growth rate from 1990 to 2008 was 2.8%, close to the 3% target.

However, the problem with this approach is that even though it achieves the 3% target in the long run, the short-term fluctuations in the growth rate are not desirable. It may have given the impression that a 3% growth rate was tolerable in the early 2000s as our roads did not seem to be congested when part of the reason was because the vehicle population growth then was actually about 1%, whereas in the late 2000s, our roads felt more congested as actual growth rate was more than 5%.

Hence, I informed this House last year that we are looking at a better way to determine the replacement COEs each year. LTA has since completed its review. From April 2010, after this quota year ends, rather than releasing replacement COEs based on the projected de-registrations in the coming year, we will base it on actual de-registrations that have already taken place and recycle it back into the system.

In its review, LTA had sought the views of the various motor trading associations. They are generally supportive of the proposal. They felt that the recycling method has the advantage of being more transparent as they can estimate the COE quotas by monitoring the de-registration rates.

Some may recall that this is similar to the pre-1999 methodology. The key difference is that the quota then was calculated on a yearly basis. This meant that there was always a one-year lag which was not sufficiently responsive and so we adopted a forward-looking projection approach instead. The difference now is that we will recycle every six months, in order to be more responsive to changes in de-registration patterns.

We do not rule out shortening the recycling period further to make the system even more responsive. As with all changes, we will allow the industry time to adjust first. LTA will be providing the details of the new quotas shortly.

Since 2009, we have reduced the annual vehicle population growth rate by half, from 3% to 1.5% for three years. We will review it then to see whether further reductions in the growth rate is necessary as some Members have suggested.

Before leaving this issue, let me also clarify the misconception that the vehicle population growth rate reduction from 3% to 1.5% was the main reason for the sharp 30% drop in the COE supply last year. This is not true. The bulk of each year’s COE supply is from the replacement COEs, not the new COEs from the allowable growth rate. It is the recent trend of lower de-registration rates that is largely responsible for the falling COE supply. To some extent, this is self-compensating because lower de-registrations also mean that there will be fewer car owners bidding for COEs to replace their cars.

We will also look at other ways to encourage drivers to switch to public transport for their daily commute. One such scheme which some Members have given their strong support for is the Park and Ride scheme. Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Dr Ahmad Magad will be pleased that LTA will step up their publicity of the scheme. Today, of the 37 sites, there are 15 within 400 metres of an MRT station or bus interchange that are less than half-full. LTA will use the PublicTransport@SG portal to provide additional information on the Park and Ride scheme, such as the walking path from Park and Ride sites to the nearest transport node and possible cost savings from using Park and Ride. It will also tap on the road tax renewal process to send Park and Ride leaflets to motorists and put big foot markers at the less popular Park and Ride sites to direct users to the nearest transport node. Dr Ahmad Magad has suggested making it more convenient for drivers to join in on a sustained basis, such as a GIRO-linked season parking scheme. We have considered this, but decided to keep the validity of the Park and Ride sets to one month as LTA felt that it is more equitable to give all interested buyers a more frequent chance to buy them on a first-come-first-served basis, rather than have a part of the supply locked out for three months or more, particularly for the popular sites. But I will ask LTA to re-look at Dr Ahmad Magad's suggestion after LTA has had a chance to review the response to its latest initiatives.

LTA and TransitLink are also working together to make it more convenient for Park and Ride users to obtain their monthly Park and Ride sets through a new online system. Those who purchase their sets online will not need to queue at the ticket counters when sales open. They can pick up the sets from any TransitLink ticket counter at their convenience. LTA will provide more details of the online system closer to when it will be ready in the second quarter of 2010.

LTA has also been working with HDB to increase the number of Park and Ride carparks, especially at popular locations. Starting 1st May, we will have three more Park and Ride sites with 90 lots. These three sites are located near Queenstown, Yio Chu Kang and Buona Vista MRT stations.

Dr Ahmad Magad has asked whether Park and Ride users could be given Public Transport fare subsidies. This is already the case today – not in the form of a subsidy for the fares but a discount for the parking. The $30 that goes towards the parking is a significant discount from the $65 or $90 a month, a Season Parking Ticket for a HDB car park will cost.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Dr Ahmad Magad have also suggested promoting car sharing schemes or car rental for those who only need to use the car for a short period. From an overall transport perspective, more people sharing a car in effect increases the use of that car. But we recognise that there is a niche market for such services and we will leave it to private enterprises – some of which Dr Ahmad Magad has named, to meet such demand.

Mr Ong Kian Min has pointed out that illegal parking obstructs the flow of traffic and causes congestion. Currently, the Police and their Traffic Wardens enforce against illegal parking on public roads, focusing their efforts on hotspots, such as those mentioned by Mr Ong. Last year alone, there were about 250,000 summonses issued against motorists who stop or park illegally. This works out to more than 20,000 summonses per month. However, the enforcement officers cannot be present everywhere, especially during peak hours. LTA will continue to work closely with Traffic Police to see how better to address this.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak has asked about the role of taxis and how taxi services can be improved. Taxis bridge the gap between cars and mass public transport like buses or trains as they provide commuters with a personalised door-to-door service. Therefore, it is important that commuters can get taxis where and when they need them. Market forces are best able to determine the size of the taxi fleet and the fares so that the supply of taxis can meet the different needs of commuters.

LTA's key focus is to ensure service standards are upheld and, where appropriate, enhanced. LTA also works closely with the taxi companies and Taxi Operators' Associations (TOA) to facilitate the workings of the industry. For instance, LTA has set up a common taxi call booking number, making it easier for commuters to call for a cab. It has also set up temporary taxi stands during major events such as the F1 to cater for increased taxi demand.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) sets out a comprehensive plan to meet a stretched target of 70% public transport mode share by 2020. Some of them, such as a more extensive rail network are welcomed, but others, such as a more effective ERP system, less so. We have made progress with measures that can be implemented quickly, but some others are more complex and will take time to see through. There is no silver bullet to solving our land transport challenges. We will need to stay the course if we are to build a land transport system that can meet the needs of an inclusive, liveable and vibrant global city.

The Second Minister for Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Mr Chairman, Sir, Mr Seng Han Thong and Assoc. Prof. Muhammad Faishal have asked about the progress of the move to have LTA take over the role of bus planning from the operators and the outcome of its public consultation with the community.

LTA, in its new role as central bus planner, has developed a draft Bus Route Master Plan for consultation purposes. This master plan maps out the detailed bus routes, service specifications and infrastructure facilities for our bus network over the next three to five years. LTA is guided by three key principles when planning bus routes. First, to improve journey quality. This includes greater transfer convenience, better service reliability and, where possible, shorter journey times.

Second, to have better integration between bus and rail, with buses feeding the MRT network directly and quickly for a more effective hub-and-spoke model.

The last, but no less important, is to maintain the overall financial viability of our bus system. Instilling financial discipline is essential if we want a sustainable and affordable public transport system.

LTA has been working with a consultant to review the bus network. The consultant’s assessment is that the current bus network, which has evolved over the years, is already comprehensive. Undertaking a substantial overhaul of the system would cause major disruptions to commuters’ daily routines. This was consistent with the conclusions of the public consultations. LTA paid special attention to modifying and improving the existing bus network so as to plug any gaps in connectivity.

LTA has been meeting communities across the island to discuss its proposals. Let me now share some of the challenges which will require fairly substantial changes to the bus routes. For instance, one common feedback was that services covering long distances were unreliable. This is not surprising, since by the time the bus reaches the end of the service, all the traffic-related delays along the way would have been accumulated. Minister Raymond Lim has just spoken about how we are increasing bus frequencies and implementing bus priority measures to address this. Another solution would be to split long bus routes into two shorter complementary routes. But the trade-off would be that for the minority of commuters who use it for longer inter-town travel, they would now have to make a transfer. LTA has to study and obtain feedback carefully on where the route should be split so as to minimise the impact to commuters.

Most other route changes would only require fine-tuning. However, there are also instances where an amendment is meritorious but may not be desirable to the commuters. Take for example, service 315 which serves my constituency in Serangoon. The service currently cuts through Serangoon Gardens, en route to the Serangoon MRT station, which makes the journey longer. LTA’s proposal was to "straighten" service 315 by bypassing Serangoon Gardens. However, doing so means Serangoon North residents would have to forego a direct service to Serangoon Gardens, where the market and food centres are located. After weighing the trade-offs involved, the community felt that it was better to keep to the status quo.

One common suggestion is that LTA should consider adding new bus services to plug gaps instead of amending existing ones, so that such trade-offs could be avoided. While it may seem a convenient option, this too has a trade-off. New bus services require investments in additional buses and drivers. Unless there is sufficient demand to support these new bus services, it would only drag down the overall financial health of the operators. Besides, more congestion would be generated. Commuters may not feel it immediately but, over time, this would eventually lead to higher fares or poorer services.

2.15 pm

Thus far, LTA has met just over half of the 14 GRCs and nine SMCs. These are extensive consultations with both advisers and their grassroots leaders and have been a very useful two-way exchange between LTA planners and the community. While the LTA planners have gained valuable feedback on their proposals, the grassroots leaders have also gained a better understanding and appreciation of the trade-offs involved. Some residents were able to come up with alternative suggestions. An understanding of the considerations makes for better suggestions. I think many Members will be able to identify with Assoc. Prof. Dr Faishal's observation that his residents who attended the session found it useful.

LTA targets to complete all consultations in a few months' time. Once LTA has completed these consultations, it will carefully evaluate and reconcile the different inputs. Some of our bus routes span the island and serve several constituencies. So the different GRCs may have different views. For example, when LTA suggested splitting Service 63 to make it more reliable, the grassroots leaders in Tanjong Pagar GRC supported the move. But when LTA consulted Marine Parade GRC, the grassroots leaders there preferred to keep the service as it is. So LTA will have to assess the proposal's benefit to commuters overall.

After the proposals are finalised, LTA will have to seek the views of the bus operators and close the loop with the communities again before eventually seeking the PTC's approval for the changes to be implemented. The process of reviewing bus routes will continue on a regular basis as travel needs change. But there is no need to wait till the next cycle. To answer Assoc. Prof. Dr Faishal, LTA currently has many channels of communications, and each CCC has a Community Partnership Manager attached whom grassroots leaders can forward feedback and make suggestions to.

The changes to the bus routes will be phased in progressively, starting from the end of this year. This is to give commuters time to adjust, as well as operators time to make changes to their operations. The first few changes to be made will include proposals to improve connectivity to MRT stations and local amenities. LTA will provide details of these service changes in due course.

At this point, I would like to say a big thank you to all the advisers, grassroots leaders and residents who have given of their time and contributed to the process.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Teo Ser Luck): Mr Chairman, Sir, like Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal, Member Lee Bee Wah, Member Hri Kumar, we are all concerned about the elderly. I have an elderly at home. I do not have a lot of time to ferry my mum around, so several times and on several trips, she has to take public transport. As the elderly age, they become a little more immobile and need a lot of help. We recognise that Singapore is changing, the demographics is changing and our population is ageing. So, our transportation system will have to adapt to the changing society. We have a series of measures and we are taking one step at a time as the situation evolves.

We aim to have all public buses wheelchair-accessible by 2020. At present, 30% of our public buses are wheelchair-accessible buses (WABs), but this will steadily increase as the bus fleet is renewed. With more WABs, the focus increasingly would be on getting more of such services to roll out, beyond the current 51 services. To facilitate this, LTA has been getting the bus-stops ready, with works already complete for about 3,800, or 84% of all bus-stops.

All our MRT stations are already barrier-free. By 2011, 70% of our MRT stations will have at least two barrier-free routes. This will benefit the elderly and the less mobile as they do not have to make long detours to get to the station. We are also making all our pedestrian walkways barrier-free – all of it, and this will be completed by the end of this year.

Our bus captains, service leaders and station staff also recognise that the elderly and the less mobile sometimes need a bit more help, and they have to go the extra mile for them. There are training sessions for all these service providers. One commuter, Ms Eng Li Hwa, wrote to the Straits Times last November, commending the bus captain of Service 132 for helping an old man with a walking stick alight from the front door of his bus.

Other commuters too can help to make the journey easier for elderly commuters. For that, we need the community's help. We have reserved seats on all our trains and buses for the less mobile. Last year, the Public Transport Council also engaged the help of Phua Chu Kang – if you caught the advertisements, to encourage commuters to give up their seats to those who need them more. We hope the message has been sent across and all commuters would give a thought to those who need them more.

Sir, we recognise that it is sometimes hard for the elderly and the less mobile to reach transport nodes. I know that Er Lee Bee Wah has brought it up three times. We would like to assure Er Lee Bee Wah and Mr Hri Kumar that LTA is presently working hard to study the feasibility of retrofitting overhead bridges in the immediate vicinity of MRT stations with lifts. LTA is carrying out exploratory works to determine whether it is technically feasible to do so. They are also looking at how the operations and maintenance of the lifts can be carried out. This is not a small exercise; it is actually a significant undertaking, so there is a need to study not just the technical feasibility but also the cost considerations, and to weigh this against other alternatives before a decision can be made. So time is needed. Hopefully, the Members can give LTA some time to do this entire exercise.

Another alternative suggested by Mr Hri Kumar is the signalised crossings. I am also glad to say that where possible, we want to provide signalised crossings at the road level, which is where the elderly and the less mobile would prefer or need most. And for this I will encourage Members to engage our Community Partnership Managers more because some of these are localised issues and it is important to share that input so that they can assess the situation at the local level and see where it is most needed. However, at roads with heavy traffic flow, it would be more feasible to rely on overhead bridges instead.

As Members are aware, LTA is also building more covered walkways, and also providing covers for most of our pedestrian overhead bridges, linking them to the nearest transport node with covered linkways where possible.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Faishal and Er Lee Bee Wah have raised concerns over bus connectivity for the elderly. LTA will assess each request carefully, and where there are opportunities to redeploy resources to meet these needs, we will do so. But not every need can be met, like not every measure can be implemented successfully. We will continue to engage the community to help us to gauge the right balance between the competing needs and requirements so that we can help those in need.

On Er Lee Bee Wah's request to reduce the walking distance for transfer between different bus stops, LTA will be working out a proposal that can help address the concerns raised – this is a local issue – and will consult her and her constituents when ready.

Ms Sylvia Lim and Er Lee have also asked for fare concessions to be extended to the disabled and polytechnic students, and more concessions for senior citizens. I understand the difficulties of the disabled. I understand that the request by the polytechnic students has been recurring. Mr Chairman, Sir, public transport concessions are determined and granted by the public transport operators. The costs of such concessions are cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters. The operators will have to take this into account when considering any changes to the concessionary schemes. Nevertheless, we strongly encourage the operators to consider these requests. And they have in the past responded to such requests, by extending senior citizens concessionary hours to all hours except before 9.00 am on weekdays. So if you have any requests, do put it up to the operators. I believe that through engaging them, they can better understand your needs and maybe a resolution can be reached.

As to whether the Government should intervene to provide concessionary travel, I think it is better to focus on providing targeted help or assistance to those who really need it. As you know, we do have initiatives that help the underprivileged or poor. An example is Workfare, which helps to supplement the income of low-wage workers, including the elderly. There are also others under MCYS like the ComCare Fund. These programmes will help the needy Singaporeans cope with the costs of living, including their transport needs. As you know, we do disburse transport vouchers as well.

Let me now turn to cycling. Mdm Cynthia Phua has suggested that signs can be put up to remind riders not to ride on pavements where it is not allowed. Yes, we will consider putting up those signs, especially where cyclists riding on pavements when they are not allowed to is prevalent. I would urge all advisers to engage your Community Partnership Managers to identify some of these locations so that we can assess the situation and know where to put up those signs.

Public education and enforcement on the proper use of the footpaths have to go together with the infrastructure. As you know, Tampines is the first cycling town in Singapore to have enacted by-laws to empower the Town Council to enforce the rules. They do that together with public education, where cycling clinics are conducted to complement enforcement. However, what LTA, together with the community stakeholders, will do is also to make sure that the infrastructure is comprehensive and complete by providing dedicated cycling tracks within our HDB estates so that cyclists can have their own space to cycle. We are trying to do this over the next few years, starting with towns which are more ready to facilitate cycling. Starting with Tampines, there are four other towns that will come on-board. Such cycling infrastructure will help, but it has to be complemented, as I mentioned earlier, with public education and enforcement. Tampines is the first town to start, and the other cycling towns are adopting different measures, I think it is important to let them evolve, and see how these different measures work out. We will monitor the situation before we implement other aspects, including enforcement. The current position is that the enforcement of the ban on cycling on footpath is under the Police. I ask for the Members' understanding. Let us monitor how the situation goes in Tampines and subsequently with the other towns, before we decide or determine whether a change is needed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, at the end of the day, we really live in a very compact city state and, of course, society is changing, the demographics is changing. We need everyone to play a part and everyone to exercise due care, show a little consideration for the people around them. It would ensure that this city would become a more liveable place and a place that we can all call home.

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong – two cuts, take them one after another.

Singapore air hub

Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, 2009 witnessed the largest post-war decline in the aviation industry in history, both in passenger and cargo movements. Could the Minister tell us how the recession has affected growth of the air hub in Singapore, in terms of passengers, cargo and flights handled? What measures are being taken to enhance the hub status and the competitiveness of Changi Airport amidst the emergence of other airports with similar ambitions within the region and beyond? Could the Minister also tell us how liberalisation of our air services agreements with other countries, some of whom still do not provide us with equal reciprocal rights, have benefited our air hub and also air travellers?

Aviation development fund

Sir, on the Aviation Development Fund (ADF), the Minister announced the formation of a $100 million ADF in January 2010. Could the Minister provide more details on the objectives of the Fund and what projects would qualify for funding? Could the Minister also elaborate how CAA intends to disburse these funds and how companies, especially the SMEs, would benefit from such funding? The Minister also said that the $100 million will be disbursed over five years. Would more funds be committed should the ADF be depleted before the five-year period ends?

2.30 pm

Liberalisation of air services

Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, Singapore has signed numerous Air Services Agreements in its quest to push for Open Skies Policy in the aviation sector. Over the years, the level of air services liberalisation has increased opening up more opportunities in the aviation industry. I would like to ask the Minister on the current status of liberalisation of air services. How has the liberalisation of air services benefited Singaporeans and Singapore companies, in particular, how has the the liberalisation of air services between Singapore and Malaysia benefited Singaporeans and our air hub? Are there tangible examples of how such liberalisation has benefited our air hub? Finally, what are the future plans in the liberalisation of air services in ASEAN and the region? Are there any plans to capitalise on the rise of Asia in the coming decade?

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong, you have two cuts.

Budget Terminal

Mr Charles Chong: Sir, data on passenger movement growth from 2008 to 2009 indicate that passengers carried by full-service carriers at Changi Airport fell by approximately 9%, from 33.1 million in 2008 to 30.1 million in 2009. However, the growth of passengers transported by budget carriers during the same period rose by almost 54%, from 4.6 million in 2008 to 7.1 million in 2009. By all accounts, we can expect that this growth will continue at least in the foreseeable future. In the light of these figures, could the Minister tell us if CAA intends to expand the Budget Terminal or upgrade its facilities to accommodate growth in this new trend in air travel? Would the terminal also be made handicap-friendly where the elderly and wheelchair-bound passengers are able board aircraft without having to hire special lifting equipment to raise them into the aircraft and having to pay lifting charges that could amount to three times the airfares? Have the facilities of the Budget Terminal also been able to meet the requirements of budget carriers? And if so, would the Minister be able to shed some light on why some low-cost carriers still prefer to use Terminal 1 rather than the Budget Terminal despite the higher associated costs? Would CAAS be able to address these issues and make the Budget Terminal more attractive to budget carriers and, as a result, make air travel even more affordable?

Changi Airport

Sir, corporatisation of Changi Airport and the restructuring of CAA were completed on 1st July 2009. One of the objectives was to achieve a clear separation between the role of the airport operator and the airport regulator. Could the Minister provide an update of this restructuring? Have the Government's objectives been met and what have corporatisation and restructuring achieved? Could the Minister also provide details of the revenue yield and the cap determination exercise that was conducted in August and September of last year?

Maritime transportation

Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad: Sir, 2009 also saw quite a significant shrinkage in maritime activities in Singapore. With the economy on the mend, could the Minister provide an update of MOT's efforts to prepare and capitalise on the economic upturn and enhance Singapore's position as a global maritime hub? What measures are being taken to ensure that we do not lose our competitive edge in the maritime industry?

I am also concerned about the increase in costs that companies in the maritime industry may incur due to the upcoming hikes in the Foreign Worker Levy. How does the Ministry intend to encourage companies to innovate and increase their productivity rates in the maritime sector so that they can benefit from the new productivity and innovation credit and thereby offset their labour cost increases?

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, I thank Mr Charles Chong and Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal, who asked about the state of the Changi air hub and the benefits of our air liberalisation policies. The international aviation industry was badly affected by the economic downturn last year, but Changi fared better than we anticipated, helped by a strong recovery towards the end of 2009. Changi handled 37.2 million passengers in 2009, a marginal 1.3% decline from 2008. The December 2009 figures were especially encouraging – passenger traffic grew 9.7% year-on-year, recording the highest passenger volume ever of 3.83 million. The strong momentum continued into January this year, with Changi achieving a 10.1% growth year-on-year. In terms of aircraft movements, Changi actually experienced a growth of 3.6% in 2009 over 2008.

Air cargo handling, however, continued to encounter challenging conditions. Air freight volume through Changi slipped 12% to 1.63 million tons for 2009. Nevertheless, there are reasons for optimism as volumes recovered and grew 15.7% in December last year year-on-year.

Our Open Skies policy remains the mainstay of our air hub strategy. The benefits of liberalisation can be seen in the opening up of sectors between Singapore and key Malaysian cities. Despite the downturn, overall Singapore-Malaysia traffic grew a spectacular 41% in 2009 as a result of bilateral liberalisation of traffic rights. After declining for almost a decade, traffic on the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur (KL) sector itself rebounded to a 34% growth in 2009 from 2008. The Singapore-Kuching and Singapore-Kota Kinabalu sectors also experienced phenomenal growth, doubling in 2009.

Sir, liberalisation has brought tremendous benefits to the travelling public in terms of competitive ticket pricings and wider travel choices. For example, ticket prices on the Singapore-KL sector have fallen sharply, from as high as $400 before liberalisation to as low as $50 presently. Besides, travellers can now choose from an array of airlines, including Jetstar Asia, Tiger Airways, AirAsia and Firefly.

Apart from bilateral air services negotiations, we have also been actively pursuing liberalisation at the multilateral level. Within the region, two Multilateral Agreements (MA) liberalising freighter and passenger air services among ASEAN member states have recently come into force. A third MA, which will expand on the earlier arrangement to fully liberalise passenger air services within ASEAN, is expected to be signed this year. For the first time, ASEAN is also in negotiations with a dialogue partner, China, to establish a liberal air services regime.

Next, on the Budget Terminal and the low-cost carriers (LCCs) growth. Mr Charles Chong asked about the plans for the Budget Terminal (BT) in relation to the boom in low-cost carriers activity. In 2004, LCCs accounted for just under 2% of Changi's passenger traffic. Last year, LCCs carried some 23% or almost a quarter. We must continue to tap this exponential growth by ensuring that Changi Airport remains attractive to LCCs. The Budget Terminal was recently expanded to accommodate seven million passengers, up from 2.7 million per annum previously.

While we prefer to see more LCCs at the Budget Terminal, there are other factors to consider. First, some LCCs may prefer operating at the main terminals for connectivity reasons. Second, Changi Airport Group (CAG), as the operator, has to balance capacity and utilisation at the main airport terminals vis-a-vis the Budget Terminal. CAG has to work closely with the LCCs on the best arrangement for the airlines, and ensure adequate and appropriate infrastructure to meet the LCCs' needs.

Sir, all airport terminals today are handicap-friendly, and wheelchair services are available for needy persons. To support the no-frills business model of LCCs, the Budget Terminal was designed without aerobridges. Nonetheless, wheelchair-related lifting services are available at a commercial rate.

Let me address Mr Charles Chong's query on the Aviation Development Fund (ADF). The ADF will comprise various incentive programmes to support initiatives to raise productivity, promote innovation and ultimately enhance the competitiveness of our aviation industry. CAAS will launch the Aviation Partnership Programme and the Aviation Innovation Programme in April 2010.

The Aviation Partnership Programme will support industry-level initiatives, encouraging the adoption of best practices or new industry standards or processes. An example could be the promotion of paperless freight documentation in the air cargo and logistics industry, which will result in cost and transport time savings.

The Aviation Innovation Programme, in turn, will support company-specific projects. This programme will support the development of new capabilities and growth of niches of excellence, eg, new business concepts and R&D projects to develop new products or processes.

I understand there has been much interest expressed by the SMEs in these programmes. SMEs with less resources to implement new initiatives and launch developmental work will find these programmes especially relevant as they can potentially enjoy up to 70% of funding for approved projects. CAAS will provide more information on these programmes shortly.

A budget of $100 million will be set aside for the ADF over the next five years and should the programmes be over-subscribed, we will certainly consider committing more funds for the ADF.

Sir, let me now move on to the restructured CAAS and corporatised Changi Airport Group (CAG). Last July, CAAS was restructured into a new CAAS to focus on regulatory and strategic functions; and the CAG to operate Changi Airport. Let me update the House on the progress of the exercise.

We have achieved a clear separation between the roles of the regulator and the operator – commercial functions and operations of Changi Airport are now carried out by CAG, while CAAS focuses on regulating aviation matters, providing air navigation services, and advancing Singapore's strategic interests in the international aviation arena.

Since corporatisation, both entities have been performing their respective roles well. CAG recently introduced a package of targeted, performance-based incentives called the Changi Airport Growth Initiative (CAGi) for its airlines and other airport partners for 2010. The programme represents a shift from past across-the-board relief measures, to more customised incentives designed to promote passenger and cargo traffic volumes at Changi. This is an early sign of the kind of new air hub innovative efforts we hope to see in the corporatised entity.

In August and September 2009, CAAS and CAG conducted the first exercise to determine the revenue yield cap (RYC) on aeronautical charges for the first regulatory period. The RYC is the maximum that CAG is allowed to collect from various aeronautical revenue streams per passenger per year. And these revenues, together with the partial subsidy from its non-aeronautical profits, will allow CAG to cover its aeronautical costs, including the cost of capital.

User consultation is a key part of this process as CAG is required to formally consult all designated airport users. And the RYC is set at a level that balances the incentive for CAG to innovate with the need to keep Changi Airport's charges competitive. And the exercise has enabled the two entities to better familiarise themselves with their new roles. While developments have generally progressed according to plan, the framework is, nonetheless, still new. We will, therefore, require time for all stakeholders in the system to become familiar with it and to test it out in practice.

Sir, in conclusion, 2009 has been challenging for the aviation industry. And while we start 2010 on a cautiously optimistic note, we are confident that our aviation industry is well-prepared not just for the recovery but also for the long haul.

Let me now move on to Dr Ahmad Magad's cut on the maritime sector. He asked what the Government is doing to position the maritime sector for the upturn and how we intend to encourage the industry to innovate and increase its productivity.

Sir, 2009 was indeed a tough year with our port recording a steep 13% drop in containers handled. Nonetheless, we maintained our global leadership in bunkering, vessel tonnage and overall container flows. The maritime industry remains a key pillar of our economy, contributing some 7% to GDP and employing more than 100,000 people in over 5,000 companies.

We are optimistic of 2010. Cargo volumes have picked up and freight rates have regained some ground. However, it is still too early to tell if the recovery is sustainable and the excess supply of vessels continues to be a structural problem for the industry. However, the Government will do whatever it can to keep business costs competitive, and we will extend the port dues concessions announced last year for another six months and take stock of the situation at the end of September.

To prepare for the upturn, we will continue to invest in port infrastructure for future growth. We are also pressing ahead with the expansion of the Pasir Panjang Terminals, and our port's size and overall connectivity will provide an enduring competitive advantage for our economy.

We are also enhancing our incentive schemes to help grow the services. Our programmes have attracted some 120 international shipping groups with business spending of S$2.8 billion annually; and six ship financing companies managing some S$3.5 billion worth of assets.

2.45 pm

The Minister for Finance has announced incentives during the Budget Statement for the shipbrokers as well as the Forward Freight Agreement traders. The MPA will release details shortly.

As for the hike in foreign worker levy, the impact on the marine sector is unlikely to be large. Nonetheless, the companies can still tap into several schemes administered by the MPA to encourage investments in process improvements and human capital and this will complement the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme that Dr Magad referred to which was announced during the Budget as well. Nonetheless, we have the Maritime Cluster Fund, which is still available for companies to build manpower capabilities as well as the Maritime Innovation and Technology Fund, for MPA to work with industry partners to grow our maritime R&D capabilites.

MPA will harness technology as well to enhance customer service and the efficiency of our port services. One example is BunkerNet which enables the bunker industry to enhance their delivery and back-end processes through the strategic use of Information Technology.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Sir, I have a few clarifications. Number one is the COE system. I asked why there was a huge spike and Minister said because of over-projection. But if there is an over-projection, should that not be corrected at the end of the year, which means one year there will be a lot, the other year will be fewer. Why is there an accumulation over the last four to five years resulting in a sudden 30% jump?

Second clarification: moderating road usage. Apart from ERPs, I hope that the Ministry can consider more creative ways to upgrade road productivity. For example, currently, when I drive my daughter to Bukit Timah on Mondays, the traffic is good; but on Tuesdays to Fridays traffic is terrible in the morning. The reason is because Nanyang Girls, on Monday mornings, delay their class by one hour. I am not sure whether LTA can work with the surrounding institutions in tight situations and see how they can moderate their timing. It could save us a lot of time and that will up productivity for everyone.

Another clarification is public transport for the elderly as well as for the disabled. Could MOT seriously consider building this into your contract when you start to tender for the network system?

Last of all: taxis. I would like ask whether taxis are considered public or private transport? Or is MOT prepared to have a new category called shared-transport? Because there will be fundamental differences in philosophy and planning in policy.

Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: Dr Lim's first question was how is it that we persistently had the over-projection. He thinks it should have washed this out in the following year. The reason is that we persistently over-projected every year. We spread it out over a certain period of time to correct it. But if we over-projected last year, and if for the current year it is over-projected again, we would add to the problem. We have done this for 10 years and it is exremely difficult to project. We have to forecast the economy, to project what is the demand going ahead. The economy is an important factor.

It is really not easy and, I guess, if the LTA chaps could have done that, they would not be in LTA. They will be "shorting" the market or "buying it long". The fluctuation creates a certain amount of policy noise. As I mentioned in my speech, in early 2000s, it looked as though 3% was okay, when that was because we were actually growing at 1%. And then in the late 2000s, we asked why is it all of a sudden so congested? We were making up for the earlier under-projections so the congestion starts to go up, and since we over-projected at the same time, we raised that spike. That is the reason it does not wash out because we continually made the same over-projection error.

On working with the institutions like Nanyang Girls, it is a good suggestion. We will have to work with the Ministry of Education, and employers, if we want to stagger the time. This requires a whole-of-Government effort.

The question on whether we should stipulate elderly concessions into bus tendering – as I have mentioned, we are not just looking at price, but we are looking at certain qualitative elements. It is a decision which the public transport operators would have to make if they want to put that as part of their bid. If you are saying that we should specify, I would be slow in doing that because as Mr Teo Ser Luck mentioned just now, to do this, you are really asking for cross-subsidies from full-fare paying passengers. We need to balance this and we have left it to the operators to do so. I think the critical issue is we do we provide help, for those in need, whether they are elderly, polytechnic students or disabled. And the answer is "Yes", except that we provide it in a different way. Some would say why do you not subsidise the specific expenditure? Then we do not have to stop at transport – what about electricity, utilities? We have said that is an inefficient way and it is far better for us to help the needy families with financial assistance, like the Workfare Income Supplement, and leave it to the needy families to decide how best to use the financial assistance, rather than to subsidise specific items that we think we should help them with.

The other question is taxis – where do I see taxis? As I have mentioned, taxis are really personalised door-to-door chauffeur services, closer to the high-end of private transport.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have three clarifications. It has been two years since Tampines became a cycling town. Now the whole of Singapore has become a cycling nation. The basic infrastructure cannot ensure that the pavements can accommodate two users, there is no education, no enforcement. The rest of the estates are facing increasing pressure by our residents on the safety of pedestrians. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, how long does it take to undertake the study? We need enforcement for the rest of the estates.

Second clarification: in Lorong Ah Soo, I have about 100 blocks along the Lorong Ah Soo stretch. Presently, Lorong Ah Soo estate is only served by trunk services. The bus arrivals are bunched together and very infrequent, and the buses are always crowded. I am just asking for a simple feeder service to go to either Serangoon central or bus interchanges or the Hougang bus interchange. Can the Ministry look into it?

Thirdly, in the private estates, there are many condominiums being built up because the intensified land use of the private estate lands. I understand that for small condominium developments, there is no need for a traffic-impact study. But if the estate's road is very narrow and if there are many condominiums being built up, the private estate roads are heavily used as well. So I would like Minister to comment on that.

Mr Teo Ser Luck: I will comment on the cycling query. I can appreciate that issue because my own constituency is not a cycling town where we implement dedicated tracks. I do see the number of cyclists increasing, some riding on pavements and, many a time, I wanted to stop them. At this point in time, the enforcement rests with the Police. What we can do now is to focus on education. We have started cycling clinics. They have started in Tampines, I think three sessions have been conducted. We are trying to roll them out in other towns as well. I have asked the LTA officers, the Community Partnership Managers, where there is a need and where the advisors request for it, these clinics can be conducted. The sessions are conducted by the Safe Cycling Taskforce and they work together with Singapore Sports Council on the literature – how you behave, how you can ride safely and what safety measures to observe and how they can co-exist with the pedestrians and cars. If there is request for such a course from any of the Members, do let us know. Let us focus on education first. We can also step up the enforcement and we will work with the Police on that. We will also look at the other towns where there are more and more cyclists to see whether we want to designate those as cycling towns.

Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: The Member asked about feeder services in Lorong Ah Soo. I am not familiar with the details. The LTA will look into this. The other question is more about policy with condominiums coming up, surely we should look at what is the impact on traffic in that particular area. I think that is a legitimate point. If the LTA is not doing it now, I think this is something that they will look into.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Four clarifications for my cut on concessions for the disabled for public transport. First clarification is that Minister did touch on the fact there are some vouchers available for the needy but I wonder if the Government is aware that in developed countries, the disabled are a distinct category recognised in its own right for concessionary travel, similar to the elderly. We have a system now for some concessions for the elderly, what about the disabled? Should that not also be recognised in view of the structural difficulties that they face because of their status?

My second point: the Senior Parliamentary Secretary earlier mentioned that the Government would encourage the PTOs to provide concessions but it will be left more or less to them. Would it be reasonable then to assume that the commercialisation of public transport really has actually taken away the layer of protection for the vulnerable group? Are we expecting these vulnerable groups to canvas their plight vis-a-vis these big commercial operators? Third point is, can the Government not assist the PTOs by, giving data or supporting a feasibility study as to how much this would really cause the PTOs if they were to provide concessions for the disabled. I think the number is small for they may not travel all that regularly except for those who work. So can the Government not assist in that area?

Lastly, I believe that the disabled group has been canvassing for this for quite sometime, maybe more than 10 years on this issue and there has not been any progress. It was reported in the press that in May last year, SBS was looking into this. I wonder if the Government can update us as to whether there is any outcome?

Mr Teo Ser Luck: I note the studies and the situation overseas and how they treat the disabled as well as the elderly. We will take them into consideration as we do our planning going forward. At this time, the position that we have taken is that we will let the public transport operators decide. I do understand how the other countries are doing it and we will take note and review them.

As for the canvassing by the disabled group, I would say that they can make their request. If LTA has the data and the statistics, we could provide those to help these groups compile a study, and submit the study to the public transport operators for them to consider. I do not think that has been done before but we can always look at the current situation as well as the past year and see if any changes have taken place, including whether there had been an increase in the number of disabled commuters or the elderly, for them to propose it again to the public transport operators. I think this is as much as we can help with – to provide some of the information for them to compile the study.

As for the outcome, if the Member could help to repeat the question again –

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, it was reported in the papers in May last year that SBS was exploring the possibility of providing concessionary travel for the disabled passengers, first on buses. That was in May, so I wonder whether the Government is aware of any outcome or progress on this?

Mr Teo Ser Luck: I have actually addressed it earlier. We take the position that the public transport operators will have to decide on that.

3.00 pm

But like I said, we strongly urge the public transport operators to consider those who are in need, and whether they could cross-subsidise some of these groups. Nevertheless, like the Minister has mentioned, we target those that are in need. We issue targeted help through vouchers, ComCare funds and other assistance schemes. That is the position we take today.

The Chairman: Ms Lim, any more clarifications? I can take one last clarification. Er Lee Bee Wah.

Er Lee Bee Wah: I would like to direct this to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Teo Ser Luck. He mentioned that he needed some time to study the feasibility of providing lifts at overhead bridges at the MRT stations. How long would be required? On the concessionary bus fares: actually I am very disappointed with the response. It seems that we adopt a very hands-off approach, ie, leave it totally to the bus operators. I would like to urge the Ministry to put into the tender, at least as an optional item, the price at which they would give concessions to the senior citizens and to see how much would it cost us. So far, we talked about cost subsidy, but how much is it, we do not know.

Mr Teo Ser Luck: I will address the question on how long the lifts would take. I will leave my Minister to talk about the tender.

We intend to complete the study by April. Once the study is done, we will look at the other issues. As I have mentioned before, there is the issue of costs, maintenance and replacements. All these need time to sort out. But the study itself will be completed in April.

Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: The Member is saying why not we put the concessions into the tender. As I said, if we do a bus tender and we do it on a qualitative basis, we will allow them to do it on their own accord. They can say that this is the concession policy that they would put forward. But as I said, I will be very slow in stipulating to them how best to run the concession policy. As I mentioned just now, the critical question is do we help polytechnic students from low-income needy families? The answer is yes. As a Government, we help. So I am not quite sure where the disappointment is. The Government actually helps quite a fair bit.

On Ms Sylvia Lim's point about other countries subsidising the concession for the elderly or disabled. They have a model completely different from ours. Their model is basically a state-run system. If you look at all the European public transport operators, they are running a deficit of about 40%-60% in a year. This 40%-60% does not mean it is free. Where does the 40%-60% come from? It is through the taxpayers. We have decided that our model is to have commercially-driven entities, but with the Public Transport Council regulating them to ensure that fares remain affordable and service standards are not compromised. This model has worked well for us.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Sir, the journey to a world-class transport system, be it air, land or sea, is one that has no finishing line. We have come a long way since 1977 when I took a first public bus. The challenges that MOT face are multi-dimensional, from solving the problems of Nee Soon Zone "B" residents changing buses, all the way to escalators for overhead bridges as well as signal light crossings and the overall picture of whether our roads are too congested. I certainly thank the men and women in MOT for working very hard to ensure that we have a good system. Let me just take this opportunity, on behalf of my GPC as well as the House, to thank both Ministers Lim as well as Senior Parliamentary Secretary Teo for your answers. Certainly, we look forward to a more seamless flow of traffic –

The Chairman: Dr Lim, I am waiting for your withdrawal. We do not have time, you know. [ Laughter .]

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Lastly, to quote the Minister "that public transport should be a choice mode and it should not be the last choice for commuters".

With that, Sir, I seek your permission to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $467,333,600 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $5,167,811,600 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

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

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.06 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]:

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]