WORLD CLASS LAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM (Motion)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move:

`That this House endorses the Paper Cmd 1 of 1996 on "A World Class Land Transport System" as the basis for developing an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singaporeans.'

Sir, land transport touches each one of us almost every day of our lives. It affects our lifestyle, where we work, where we live, how our children go to school, and how we spend our leisure hours. It is a major economic activity, directly providing jobs for 28,000 people and indirectly many more. It accounts directly for 1.3% of our GDP. Families spend about 14% of their disposable income on transport.

There is a Chinese saying that there are four essentials in life - yi, shi, zhu, xing - [ ] clothing, food, housing and transport. Singaporeans are well-clothed, well-fed and well-housed. The question is: do they also enjoy a good transport system? I believe I can say with very little fear of contradiction that the answer is yes.

We have succeeded so far in keeping our roads congestion free. Our bus, rail and taxi network is one of the most comprehensive in the region.

According to a recent Lianhe Zaobao survey on the lifestyle of Singaporeans, 97% of the 565 respondents said that they were satisfied with the public transport system, 27% said that they were "very satisfied" and 70% "somewhat satisfied".

Another survey commissioned by the Straits Times Life! section showed similar findings. In its report of 2nd January 1996, it noted that two out of three or 66% of the 538 respondents said that the overall public transport system was "good", 33% found the system "so so", and only 1% reported and rated it "poor". In fact, the level of overall satisfaction reported was higher than that found by Lianhe Zaobao.

Singaporeans are now more well travelled and they are more well read. They are now more aware of the severe traffic problems in many other cities. So the surveys perhaps reflect a better appreciation of what we do have and what we do enjoy in Singapore. All of us now must be keenly aware that we have not achieved this through doing nothing, simply leaving the vehicle population to grow unmanaged, unrestricted or to leave our public transport system to degenerate.

Land transport is management intensive. We have to keep on fine-tuning it. We have to keep on coming up with new initiatives in order to ensure that our roads continue to be free-flowing. Even though we do these things, already there are areas where traffic is building up and congestion is getting unacceptably persistent. I still receive lots of complaints about the difficulty of getting taxis. There is still the issue of COE prices and people's aspirations for car-ownership unfulfilled. These, as they say, are the problems of success, of many years of high economic growth, of full employment and high wages and, more importantly, of confidence in our future. But, if we do not take action now to solve these problems, again they will erode our competitiveness and affect our growth. A good transport system is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It supports our economy and it enhances our quality of life.

Sir, the issue before us is how we can, within the constraints of the limited land that we have, provide the best mobility for Singaporeans today, and meet our transport needs into the next century. Members have on many occasions in this House suggested various ways to improve our transport system. I agree with many of their suggestions.

Considering the importance of land transport to each and everyone of us and to the nation as a whole, and considering its complexity, the issue cannot be dealt with piecemeal. It has to be taken as a whole. Private and public transport policies and measures have to be considered together. They are inter-linked.

The paradox is that while the car is highly valued partly for its ability to provide a high degree of mobility, an unrestrained growth in the number of cars leads to congestion which in turn means less mobility for all road-users, including the car users. But car users argue that they are not willing to give up the convenience of the car for public transport because it is slow and unreliable. Buses are slow and unreliable, in turn, partly because of congestion. Inefficient and inadequate public transport drives more to want to own and use private cars, and so on it goes, in a vicious circle. The story is a familiar one in many cities around the world. And that is why I say that for this entire transport issue to be addressed, we have to do it in a holistic manner and on a comprehensive basis.

Last March, I informed the House that the Government would set up a new statutory board, called the Land Transport Authority (LTA), to spearhead all efforts to plan and implement a road transport system which will meet the needs of Singapore, now and in the future.

The formation of the LTA is a significant milestone in the Government's efforts to keep Singapore and Singaporeans on the move. As a single integrated agency, the Authority will be able to ensure that the transport projects and measures that have been carried out previously by separate agencies, complement one another in the most effective and cost-efficient manner.

When the LTA was launched in September last year, I challenged the Authority to develop an outstanding, world class land transport system for Singapore, one that can stand alongside our port and airport in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, one that is integrated, convenient, reliable, comfortable, and most importantly, affordable not only for the commuter but also for the nation as a whole.

The White Paper before this House presents the transport planning philosophy and strategies that the LTA will adopt. It spells out the LTA's vision of a world class transport system for Singapore, and it outlines a series of measures that the Authority proposes to take to achieve this mission. Let me just run through the various measures that are encompassed within this multi-pronged strategy.

First, integrating urban and transport planning. This is the starting point. This is to minimise the need to travel and to maximise the accessibility of public transport. Mixing residential and work places reduces the need to travel long distances and therefore reduces pressure on our road space and transport system. More intensive developments around as well as on top of MRT stations, bus stations, bus interchanges, maximise the accessibility of public transport and minimise the need for private transport, and integrating different transport facilities together so that transfer between different modes of transport becomes seamless which in turn increases the attractiveness of public transport. So that is pillar number one - integrating land use and transport planning.

Second, expanding our road network. Our road network will continue to be expanded where it makes sense from both the traffic as well as the planning point of view and where land is available. The feasibility of underground roads, which are much more expensive to construct and maintain, will be considered. As far as possible, technology will be harnessed to optimise road design and maximise road capacity. That is the second measure.

Thirdly, improving the management of vehicle usage to sustain higher vehicle population. No matter which way we turn, we cannot escape the fact that land in Singapore is finite, which means that road capacity is finite. Despite our best efforts in maximising the carrying capacity of our roads with new technology and design, ownership of vehicles and usage of limited road space must continue to be managed. The Vehicle Quota System has worked well for us; it has been accepted by Singaporeans. It will be retained. But we can increase car ownership from 1 in 10 today to 1 in 7, say, in about 15 years' time. This can be achieved only if we can complement the better transport planning and design with usage management. More comprehensive road pricing will have to be implemented. And this allows road users to make better choices, more informed choices, about when to use and where to use their cars. Conceptually, what this means is that those roads which are more congested will cost more to use and charges can also vary with the time of day, again depending on the level of congestion.

The last strategy is to improve our public transport system. This is the cornerstone of the land transport strategy. To satisfy the transport needs of commuters and to provide a viable alternative to the car, we need an outstanding public transport system. To do this, the LTA will increase the spectrum of public transport services and service levels, so that Singaporeans can enjoy a wide-ranging, quality transport service that matches their preference and suits their pocket.

To support our vision for a world class public transport system, the LTA has also set out to revise the financing formula for rail projects. The revised formula or the redefinition of the current arrangement lowers the hurdle rate, in other words, reduces the passing mark for rail projects. As a result, some rail projects which were previously not viable may now become viable. Or others that were not viable may now be built earlier than previously intended.

Sir, our basic policies and infrastructure are sound. The reason why we can be where we are today - relatively free-flowing roads, no gridlock during peak hours, and a generally acceptable public transport network, compared to many other cities, is testimony to the planning and foresight of government planners in earlier years. The Government has always taken a proactive approach in transport management. But the Ministry of Communications and the LTA recognise that we have to do more, by building on the solid foundations that have been set in place. To do nothing now when the trends are clear, will only saddle ourselves and our future generation with a situation which we all know is untenable for our future development. This would be irresponsible on our part. As an editorial in Berita Harian put it, we need to solve this problem and I quote, "a heritage to future generations" (in Malay: "warisan bagi generasi hari muka").

To put things in perspective, the strategies in the White Paper do not merely spell out how LTA will treat private car owners, or how it will improve public transport, or how it will build more roads per se. All the measures and the policies proposed should be seen as part of a comprehensive strategy to satisfy not only the growing demand for transport, but also the aspirations for a better quality and a higher level of transport services. These measures are all inter-linked. One cannot work without the others.

For example, we cannot manage demand for cars without providing good public transport alternatives. We cannot improve public transport without managing usage of roads, and integrating land use and transport planning. We cannot grow our rail network without reviewing our financing framework for rail extensions.

The White Paper will serve as a starting point for establishing an understanding, a kind of a social contract among the Government, the people, and the transport service providers on the kind of land transport system that we want: How do we develop and sustain a world class land transport system under the new financing framework? How do commuters co-share responsibility for public transport improvements? To what extent do we, as a nation and as individuals, want to invest in and spend on infrastructure for public transport?

In drawing up these measures and proposals, the LTA has been mindful of not just the dollars and cents, but also of the social concerns and the long term implications. And that is why in our policies, we strive to be as fair as possible to all. Often, this means that all road users will pay a little price, some more than others, to ensure that the interests of the majority are served.

Our second concern is that we should be fair to future generations. This is to ensure that they too will have a chance to enjoy the comfort and convenience of free-flowing traffic. They too will have a chance to fulfil their aspiration to own cars. Thirdly, this requires of us a willingness and a resolve to implement policies for the long-term good of our country, even if sometimes these measures may be unpopular in the short term.

And fourthly, we need to spend the taxpayers' money, our money, wisely at the national level. The business of transporting goods and people is not just about traffic management alone. It is also about the need to grapple with economic and social impact of allocating limited road space and opportunities for vehicle usage and fostering an environment that is conducive to good public transport services and their use.

Since the White Paper was presented to Parliament on 2nd January this year, my Ministry has received numerous comments, suggestions and feedback from the public, trade associations, and Members of Parliament directly and through the media. Some have suggested new ways of managing demand. Others have commented on how the LTA should go about developing the road network, and how it should go about developing and improving public transport, and so on. Many have expressed concern about the cost implications. But without exception, all have expressed support for the objectives spelt out in the White Paper. This has been most encouraging.

The support of this House for the White Paper will signal its commitment to build a transport system befitting our vision of a city of excellence and one which all of us can be proud of.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I look forward to the views and comments of hon. Members.

Question proposed. 3.17 pm

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the GPC fully supports and endorses this White Paper.

Sir, this thought-provoking White Paper brings to dawn on Singapore and Singaporeans a vision which we will all want to see come true: "A World Class Land Transport System". Through the pages are colourful charts, graphs, maps and photographs which make the visualisation of a difficult futuristic concept possible and simple. It fires us to want to achieve it, not years down the road, but very soon, and hopefully tomorrow. However, the White Paper reminds us that it will take us 10-15 years to attain this vision. Two questions then arise: What happens in the intervening period? Can we not shorten this period? As the initial excitement and euphoria ebbs, impatience begins to set in. Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper was received with a lot of excitement. Friends and grassroots leaders asked for copies of it. I understand that even Parliament House Library is running short of copies. Later, many asked: Why does it take so long to achieve? Are we not known to achieve great strides in a short time? Expectations run extremely high! Then over the last few days, anxiety has set in. How much will it cost? What happens in the intervening period? Is this a signal to impending increases to bus, taxi and MRT fares? The rumours begin.

Sir, the White Paper has comprehensively covered all aspects of land transportation in Singapore, from environmental issues to integration, to financing issues. The authors must be congratulated. The Paper has set measurable goals and standards, eg, a target of 75% of trips into the city by public transport and a rail system with a 160 km network. Qualitatively, it will offer high quality service - convenient, accessible, comfortable, safe, speedy and, most importantly, affordable. Very importantly, the commuter will be provided with "a spectrum of choices". All these objectives are most welcomed and will indeed enhance the quality of life of Singaporeans.

The White Paper is not what Mr Chiam has called "an election ploy". Indeed, it is a White Paper that will have a resounding impact on the quality of all our lives.

Private Vehicle Ownership Vs Usage

Sir, firstly, on the issue of privately owned vehicles versus usage. Sir, one of the most basic objectives is to have a shift from private transport, ie, private cars to public transport, to decrease road congestion. The aim, in measurable terms, is to reach the goal whereby 75% of trips into the city centre will be by public transport as is in Zurich today. Before we accuse Singaporeans of being obsessed by car ownership, let us compare Zurich and Singapore. Our hot and humid weather for one is definitely less inviting for walking. Singaporeans are also very pragmatic people. The system today is one where the upfront cost of owning a car comprises 59.4% of a medium sized car to 68.5% of a luxury car. Therefore, if you own a car, you will want to use it. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the mileage clocked by a car in Singapore averages 18,600 km per year - very high by international standards. I also suspect that this is because the car is often shared and therefore maximally utilized by several members (or drivers) in a family. I will not be unduly perturbed by this figure. Singaporeans, being pragmatic, I am also confident that this figure will fall as the policy shifts towards control over usage coupled with a more user-friendly public transport network.

However, the anxieties that have been expressed concern the intervening period or the transition period between ownership controls, or the Vehicle Quota System on the one hand, and the implementation of the user-pay system, the RPS, and subsequently the ERP. The White Paper calls for a "partnership". For the partnership to succeed, the interim period must be fair. The White Paper states, and I quote:

`as we introduce ERP, we will concurrently rationalise the current road tax structure";

`We aim for a more consistent vehicle tax structure, based on road space occupied, after giving proper regard to social and equity considerations'.

Sir, these are very loaded statements, and one requires not only to have a good command of English but also very strong intuition to translate this to simple understandable English. Can the Minister please explain in simple terms: What will the new road tax structure be? Will it be lower which we expect it to be? Will it be based on engine capacity, car size or tonnage? What will it be based? What is the system?

Furthermore, we are told that there is a need to "extend RPS to CTE and PIE within the next two years"; "we cannot wait for ERP to be ready, because by then the traffic would have deteriorated even further". Sir, in this transition period, is it not unfair to penalise those who have paid upfront for their vehicles? For a partnership to be forged, attention to "fairness" must be paid in this interim period while public transport is being upgraded. The element of choices is not widely available now.

Improving Public Transport: Buses

Sir, every day 51% of all motorised trips are by public transport: 3 million by bus, and another 700,000 by MRT. It will take another three to four years for the first Light Rail Transit (LRT) to be completed if we start today, while an MRT extension like the North-East Line would take seven to eight years to complete if we start today. Therefore, for the next five years or more, buses will play a key role in the public transport system. However, we are also told that "buses cannot be the solution for a compact city like Singapore" and that the "only acceptable solution is a good rail network" which takes time to build. When I put all these together, I was very concerned for the immediate future - the next five to eight years.

However, when we examine our bus industry structure we realise that we have two very successful service providers, viz SBS and TIBS. Can they play a bigger role? They must play a bigger role. Government has made the commitment of an infrastructure by setting aside bus lanes, giving priority to buses at traffic lights with the installation of "intelligent" traffic lights and provided modern integrated bus interchanges, as we have seen in the new Woodlands depot. More choices will be offered to commuters, such as BusPlus services, air-conditioned express services, etc. In addition to these, I would urge the bus companies to improve quickly intra-town services and feeder services from the MRT stations to major office buildings scattered all around them. Perhaps, the bus companies should work closely with building developers and owners and tenants to "market" and understand their needs. A more pro-active approach is required to provide for good integration.

Sir, I read with interest the request by SBS for Government assistance in replacing of assets. What is the Government's response to this? This would have far-reaching implications. If the Government's response is positive then an even-handed approach must be made to all public transport operations. Is this wise? I have my reservations.

Improving Public Transport: Taxis

Sir, taxis provide 500,000 vehicular trips per day compared to 700,000 by the MRT, not far different. I am glad that the Government recognises that "taxi is a form of public transport" and that "it will therefore not treat taxis completely like cars in terms of tax." It did not say it will not treat taxis differently from cars. I guess there must be some implication in these wordings. However, this reassurance is welcomed by all commuters. These are two very important statements. I can understand the concern that an "excessive demand" for taxis should not arise. It is stated in the White Paper that our taxi fares are low by international standards. I, however, submit that in view of our less than perfect public transport system that taxis today are a "key component" in our public transport system. Taxis are the bridge in our not yet integrated public transport system. We have a good system. It is comprehensive. But it is not yet integrated.

In the transition period of the next 10 to 15 years, to price taxis very high will increase car ownership and stifle the desired trend to shift towards public transportation. In the call to partnership, the LTA must also be understanding and patient. Allow for time for the integration process, allow for time for the building of light rail as a nexus in public transportation before raising taxi fares. The public is often asked to restrain car ownership and usage. This is a restraint on the part of the LTA that is essential in this interim period. I am sure that the taxi companies will take steps to function more efficiently by using technology such as global positioning to reduce cruising and wastage, which also adds to traffic congestion.

Improving Public Transport: Integration

Sir, the effectiveness of the LTA is shown by the model of the new Woodlands MRT station where there is integration to allow for private car drop-offs, bus interchange, taxi bays and covered walkways. The LTA must now look into the old stations; an example of a poorly designed one is exemplified by the Buona Vista MRT station. Integration will be the key to success of the public transport system. The Minister has already mentioned about integration between urban planning and transport and we fully endorse his views.

Improving Public Transport: Rail

Sir, I have left the rail system as the last topic in this debate, not because it is unimportant. Indeed, the White Paper states that it will be a most important mode of transport: the combination of light and heavy rail. I have left it to the last because it will be many years before we see new rail systems come into place after Woodlands and to place too much emphasis on it now will only raise expectations too high, and to feel let down while waiting for routes to be prescribed.

However, there is something that can be done immediately to improve the existing MRT system. Take the criticisms of the MRT seriously, as recorded in the White Paper, and these are, (1) overcrowding during peak hours (56%) and, (2) stations not easily accessible (32%), ie, integration.

Sir, I have mentioned to the Minister previously that his residents in Tampines, and mine in Bedok, are taking the MRT to Pasir Ris in the morning, just to catch the next train back to the city because of overcrowding during peak hours. This is wastage. The situation has not improved since our discussion about a year ago. As the White Paper states, "These areas need to be addressed", but I would like to have one more word "urgently". These areas need to be addressed urgently. These are the areas that the LTA can address now, while we wait for the vision that will arrive in 10 to 15 years of underground roads, integrated stations, multilevel traffic intersections, etc. These can be done now. Let us attend to it while waiting for a "world class" land transport system.

Sir, last night, after my meet-the-people session, I discussed this topic again with my grassroots leaders. I explained that the operators use an index called the crush load. How many can you pack in a cabin? Their response was very telling. There may be a big gap between what the operators expect and what the commuters expect. One of my Chairmen said, "Dr Beng, not only are we in contact, we can even smell each other. Is that close enough for your crush load?"

Sir, whilst working on this system of differentiation in bus services, we can also look into the differentiation in MRT services. Could we have services where seating is provided and maybe the commuters will pay more or services where the crush load is less and transportation then becomes more comfortable, a differentiation even within the MRT system?

Financing of Rail Systems

Mr Speaker, Sir, the change in policy to define operating costs to cover not full replacement cost but only depreciation of existing assets shows our Government's commitment to make rail fares affordable. Philosophically, it means that each generation will pay for the services and assets it consumes. As applied to the present existing rail system, it translates into an immediate fare increase of 30 cents across the board if the old financing system is retained. This is our Government's commitment. This is considerable and a generous and welcome gesture as it will also mean that the implementation of the rail system can be brought forward by a few years. This is indeed good news. Can the Minister be more specific with reference to the rail extension mentioned in the White Paper, both MRT and LRT? With this new financing scheme, how many of these projects will be realisable and can commence work in the next two years?

North-East Line

Sir, I would now like to dwell a little on the much debated North-East Line. I hope that with this new financing scheme, it would be possible to start work on the North-East Line immediately. Now, assuming that the new financing scheme still does not give the LTA enough comfort level, what about the other suggestions to make it feasible? One option discussed is that of higher fares for the North-East Line till a break-even point is reached. I believe that many will support this proposal. If the Members of Parliament whose wards are affected can convince their residents, will the Minister agree?

I would like to add another suggestion. The LTA should also come up with a transparent method of calculating these added fares so that all can monitor it. The MPs can then persuade their residents more convincingly.

Private Sector Involvement

Coming back to the rail system in general, I would also like to ask the Minister to hasten the implementation of the projects by letting the private sector build and operate some parts of the rail network. I am sure that as the new financing package is applicable to SMRT, it will also be applicable to other private operators. Thus, there will be other interested parties in the private sector. We must not have a situation whereby there is only one operator, the SMRT. We can then have a jump start with the implementation of several systems at one go.

Let me end by saying that this concept of partnership between the people, the Government and the service providers is a recipe for success. However, whether the partnership survives will depend not only on words but also on action. Given the political will, it can and must be a win-win situation for all.