WORLD CLASS LAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the White Paper before this House.

According to the newspaper reports today, there are some people who feel that this White Paper is introduced for the sake of the General Election. I think this is a very superficial reason deliberately put forward to mislead readers of the newspapers. This White Paper is actually the blueprint for our land transport development over the next 10 to 15 years. Before implementation, the Government wants to have it discussed, to collect feedback on it, and to get suggestions so that all taken together will enable us to reach a consensus and a better understanding and acceptance of the basic principles involved in this issue. This is a very significant way of doing things. I believe most people in Singapore will support this White Paper.

Sir, 15 years later, if what is listed in the White Paper before us is completely implemented, then the whole situation of Singapore's land transport system will be transformed and changed for the better. The way of travel among our people will also change for the better. At that time, more people will use the MRT, LRT and other means of public transport.

Sir, Mencius once said, "If you cannot have both the fish and the bear's paw, then you will have to choose the bear's paw and give up the fish." Public transport vehicles and private cars are like fish and bear's paw (both delicacies in the Chinese menu). In the tiny island state of Singapore, we just cannot afford to have both growing at the same time. We cannot have the cake and eat it, so to speak. Page 6 of the White Paper points out clearly its purpose and main theme from the very beginning, that is, having a world class transport system means having a world class public transport system.

I feel that this is a very important point because it sets out very clearly the whole idea to determine the direction of development for our transport system and that is to make a choice between two exclusive alternatives. You cannot have both. You choose one which is of greater value to the whole country. This is the overall direction that we are moving into. So we should look at this White Paper and the whole transport issue from this point of view.

Let me now deal with the new financial formula and the North-East Line. The Government has decided to change the formula for financing the MRT. This is a very major change of policy. It shows that the Government has not only made the choice between the two alternatives but has also illustrated its determination to marshall all the resources available to develop the public transport system and to ensure that this system can be completed within the shortest possible time. The Government has decided to increase the financial assistance to the MRT system. This means that new MRT lines, including the North-East line, will be constructed and commissioned earlier. This is very, very encouraging. Because the North-East line is the next MRT line to be built by the Government, the tens of thousands of people living in the North-East region of Singapore will be the first to benefit from this new formula of financing. Therefore, people living in the North-eastern region of Singapore should fully support this policy. This new financial formula will ensure that MRT fares will remain affordable and there will be no need for MRTC to raise fares very substantially to meet the high replacement cost required in the future.

Let me now deal with Manual Road Pricing (MRP) and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP).

Mr Speaker, Sir, common sense will tell us that where you have availability of a public transport system like the MRT system, because of the convenience, there will be less need for people to use their own vehicles. Therefore, in that area, congestion will be less, or at least less serious, if any. That means the need to have MRP or ERP will be much less. On the contrary, where there is no MRT, there will be a greater need for the use of cars and therefore a greater need to implement the MRP or ERP to relieve congestion. This is a very great contradiction, that is to say, people living in areas without the MRT system will have to face extra penalty. This is a double-barrelled beating. So I would like to urge the Minister to study and consider very seriously the timing for the implementation of MRP or ERP. The implementation of the system should be closely linked with the progress of the improvement to the public transport system or services. At the same time, the Government also will have to take stop-gap measures, in the area where MRT service is not available, to improve the bus services operating in that area as a priority.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even if the construction of the North-East line is to commence immediately, it will take at least five to six years before the services will be available. So if the ERP system is implemented in 1997, as scheduled, then people living in the North-east region will have to face, as I said, the double blow. On the one hand, they do not have the benefit of the MRT, while on the other hand, they have to pay the high price of ERP. As such, improving the bus services in this region is indeed a matter of great urgency.

I have three suggestions to make for the improvement to the bus services.

(1) Provide more feeder services within the town to facilitate the movement of residents from one point to another within the town very expeditiously and conveniently, such as the bus interchange or to places that link up with the trunk services.

(2) The frequency of bus services along the main lines, especially during the peak hours, should be increased. The White Paper has quoted a survey done by LTA which shows that complaints of people against bus services mainly centre around long waiting times (45% of people surveyed complained that waiting time is too long). The other complaint which is common (43%) is uncertainty in the arrival of buses.

I believe that having more bus lanes will be of some help in shortening the waiting time for passengers and ensuring prompt arrival of buses. More importantly, we must increase the frequency of buses along these routes, that is to say, the bus fleet should be expanded for these areas. It is only then that you are able to shorten the long waiting time.

(3) During peak hours, we should provide semi-express bus services in the areas not served by MRT, that is to say, the number of stops along the routes should be reduced. In other words, the bus fleet for these routes can be divided into two groups: one group is to start from the beginning, and the other group can pick up passengers from the middle of the route.

Next, let me deal with the need for implementing interim measures or the construction of traffic interchange and underground road system.

The White Paper has mentioned that the LTA will take interim measures to improve the road system, especially at junctions which are very congested. They will build traffic interchange or underground road system. Two places have been identified. One is at the junction between Upper Serangoon Road and Braddell Road, and the other between Serangoon Road and Upper Paya Lebar Road. I welcome this recommendation. However, these two projects, I believe, will also take three to five years to complete. During this period of construction, I believe the congestion in these areas will be aggravated because right now the areas are already quite congested. With the construction work going on, it will become worse. This is something the LTA should look into.

Apart from this, residents who will be affected by the construction work may also have their land acquired. I believe some of these residents have already received notices and they are required to move out by April this year. I think the notice is very short. Their properties are freehold. If you require them to look for alternative accommodation within such a short notice, it will be difficult. On the other hand, they have also been informed that the acquisition of their properties is under the Land Acquisition Act and not under the resettlement scheme. Therefore, they would not be given priority to apply for HDB flats. They can only get some form of compensation. Sir, these residents have been made to sacrifice for the benefit of the country. I hope that the Government can give them assistance in applying for HDB flats and not just paying them compensation alone. I hope that the Housing and Development Board will consider granting them priority in their applications for HDB flats.

Finally, let me deal with another point in the White Paper, and that is, the proposal to set up the Singapore Underground Road System. The White Paper states that there is a possibility of building the underground road system in the city area. I hope that the LTA will look at it very seriously. Personally, I have reservations about this proposal. Firstly, it is against the principle of encouraging people to go into the city by public transport. Secondly, the more roads you provide, whether underground or above ground, you will encourage more cars coming in, and this again is against our principle of discouraging the use of private cars and encouraging people to use public transport. Thirdly, I am worried that such a massive project may not be conducive to our environment. It may have a negative impact on our environment. According to the White Paper, the underground road system will cost about $4.8 billion. This is a very massive amount of money, which is about the same cost for the construction of the North-East line. So I believe that we should concentrate our resources to expedite the development of our Light Rail Transit system and MRT system. We should not divert our attention or resources for the development of the underground road system. We have already made a wise choice, so we cannot be greedy and still want to go back to the other alternative.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, can I have a clarification from the Member for Braddell Heights? In my speech, I have, in fact, urged the Minister to get on with construction of SURS (Singapore Underground Road System). But according to Mr Goh, he thinks that it will have negative effect on the environment. Can I get a clarification from him? Since these roads are all underground, how can it affect the environment?

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): If Mr Chiam had heard me clearly, what I said was that we should be very cautious in studying the construction work of the underground road network, to see whether there will be any negative effect on our environment.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

In terms of motorised trips made by the public every day, three million passenger-trips are made on buses, 700,000 passenger-trips on the MRT, and the remaining 3.55 million passenger-trips on other modes of transport. From these figures, we can see that every day, more than 90% of our people are using the roads as their means of transport. Even after the completion of the planned extension to the MRT and the LRT totalling 160 km added in, the total number of people using the rails will be about 20%. So if we have to make a choice between the road and rail, in the short term, our emphasis should be on the improvement of the roads. If the road system is good, then it would be able to satisfy the desire of our wealthy Singaporeans to own cars. Moreover, if the roads are free from congestion, our people would be able to utilise the public transport to reach their place of destination much faster and in a more efficient manner. So it will benefit all our people.

I agree with the White Paper that we should put in more effort to complete the construction of all the interchanges and multi-tier road system within the next five years as well as all the expressway projects that we have.

The Central Business District is a key point in our road system. Now we are using the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) as an artificial means to prevent traffic congestion in the city area. But if we look at the long term, with economic growth, we would have to increase the road capacity in the city area so that we could satisfy the needs of our economic activities. So if we keep on using the ALS mechanism to prevent congestion in the city area, I think it would have a suppressing effect on the growth of our economic activities in the city area.

If the Underground Road System can increase the road capacity in the city area by 40%, I think we should actively consider how to have this underground road system ready as soon as possible. We must know that the genuine way of resolving the problem of traffic congestion in the central business district is by increasing its road capacity. ALS only plays a supplementary role to remedy the shortfall in our whole traffic system. It can only play a supporting role and not the main role.

Between spending $6 billion on the construction of the MRT North-East Line and the cost of $4.5 billion on this underground road system, I think I would choose to build the underground road system first.

The White Paper mentions that the shuttle bus service has not been as lucrative as the main scheduled bus services. Hence, the bus companies are reluctant to provide shuttle bus services and they will have to revise the fares for the shuttle bus service to catch up with that of the scheduled bus service. Actually, this is not correct. The shuttle bus service is a supplement to the scheduled bus service and the reason why we have shuttle bus service is to prevent the scheduled bus from going round and round the housing estates, and to improve its efficiency. So we should not be looking at which service is more lucrative, or considering merging all the shorter routes into a long route. I think that is not the right way to do.

Commuters who take the shuttle bus travel the distance of just a few bus stops away. In terms of distance, the fare per kilometre on the shuttle bus is more expensive than the normal scheduled bus routes. Actually, we should charge according to the distance and not in terms of how many times you have to change buses. I think maybe, in the long term, the bus companies should come out with a system to charge the fare according to distance. Then I think it would be fair to the commuters.

On the other hand, when we talk about improving the public transport service, there is still much room for improvement to the present system. For example, the present system of paying on the bus either by cash or card is not a good system, particularly during the peak hours. I think the bus companies should come out with some method for the commuters to pay before they board the bus so that they do not have to buy the tickets on board the bus. Then the efficiency will be increased tremendously, particularly during peak hours.

The White Paper mentioned that the present generation should pay for the cost of the present generation of public transport vehicles, and that the Government would bear the difference between the cost of the operating assets for the present generation and that of the next generation. I think this is a reasonable and rational decision. The reason is very simple. If I drive a car, do I pay the present cost of the car or its future cost when my son drives it in the next generation?

However, the White Paper did not say whether this would be applicable to the other public transport system, like buses. Although the lifespan of buses is shorter, if we consider it to be an effective means of public transport, like the MRT, we should also give it equal treatment. Some people say, "Well, we have to wait until the fares are high before we look into the matter." The fact that the present bus fares are low is not a crime. In fact, when the fares are low, it is an illustration of the efficiency and success of the bus operation. So if the concept of letting the present generation pay for the present generation of public transport system, I think the bus service should also be accorded the same treatment so that bus commuters can continue to enjoy low fares.

The White Paper makes special mention that the cost of usage per kilometre of a taxi is only 14% of that of a private car. I think this figure is somewhat exaggerated. Actually, the only difference is that diesel attracts a lower tax than petrol. If we add in the taxi diesel tax of $6,600 per year, the figure will not appear to be so frightening.

If we take the cost of usage as a reference point for traffic control, we would have to seriously look into the great difference between petrol tax and diesel tax. As we all know, whether it is a petrol-propelled vehicle or a diesel-propelled vehicle, it contributes to traffic congestion. As a matter of fact, the effect of the latter is larger because diesel-engine vehicles are normally bigger in size. So they are contributing more to traffic congestion.

Using the cost of usage as the broad principle of traffic control, we should levy the same tax on diesel and petrol, and abolish the present taxi diesel tax.

The White Paper mentioned only the vision of a good public transport system. But it has made no mention on the problems that will come about with a more developed transport system. With more cars running on the road, they will certainly contribute to more air pollution as well as noise pollution. So are we going to have more stringent standards on air pollution and noise pollution? When we are heading towards a world class land transport system, can we also have a world class pollution-free and noise-free living environment?

With regard to air pollution, at the moment, there has been very strict control on the petrol-propelled cars. In fact, the standard is world class. It is a very high standard. However, much has to be done about the control on diesel-propelled vehicles like the buses and lorries. Perhaps, in the long term, we should try to set a high anti-pollution standard for diesel-propelled vehicles.

Many people are very unhappy with the noise produced by motorcycles. I think we should have very strict control on the noise pollution of motorcycles. With the massive construction of roads and rails, we know that many houses and flats are very close to the expressways and the MRT lines and although we do have certain guidelines that a certain distance has to be kept, the noise level is still quite an important factor to consider. We should learn from other countries. Perhaps we should have some noise-absorption boards or reflectors installed at appropriate places. I think this would improve the quality of our living environment so that our people would not be affected by the noise produced by the heavy traffic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.