Public transport fares vaguely revised
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 10:54PM The headline published by Today was "Public transport fares to go down by 2.5%", even though that figure was derived in a very opaque way that prompts more questions than answers provided. I find the following morsels particularly tasty:
The PTC said that at least 60 per cent of commuters will save 48 cents per week or their weekly public transport expenditure will remain unchanged.
However, one-third of them will have to fork out $16 more every year.Fares for [senior citizens and students] will be capped at 7.2 kilometres and estimates show seven in 10 of them will enjoy savings with the elimination of the transfer penalty.
The PTC said the fare adjustment will cost the operators about $32 million annually.
Then there is this one from the Straits Times:
Fare rates themselves however will rise on the whole from July. This is because a 3 per cent temporary rebate offered last year will cease at end-June.
Leong Sze Hian sinks his teeth into it:
I am somewhat puzzled as to why a recession year which gave rise to a rare fare reduction can produce an outcome in which one third will have to pay more.
To top it off, even those who probably would be least able to shoulder any increase – like the estimated one in three senior citizens – will end up paying more.
I have a few questions of my own, besides the obviously vague and uninformative headline Today chose to go with, first of which is the same as Leong's: how did a fare reduction due to a recession year result in an increase in fares for one-third of commuters, including the senior citizens and students who will feel the full brunt of the increase?
I also fully expect the public transport operators will provide some form of subsidy for senior citizens and students, but why do this when they could just as well slash fares for these commuters?
Given the contradictions in the Today and ST stories, will we see a real drop in transport costs?
Lastly, when the PTC says this fare adjustment will cost the operators $32 million, how will this affect their profits, when both SMRT and SBS Transit are making record profits every year?
On the whole, what it looks like is dangling a financial disincentive to force commuters to take more shorter trips in the "hub-and-spoke" method that was plugged by Second Transport Minister Lim Hwee Hua last month. Sure it makes sense for the transport system and its operators, but does not make any sense for the commuters who use the system, and in the process, increasingly enrich the operators year after year. For providing a public good, that is very good money.
Reader Comments (3)
Looks suspiciously like a fare hike spun into some pre-GE goodie!
The given example by the PTC shows a saving of 4 cents under the new fare structure for that trip when a transfer to MRT is made – full bus ride cost $1.33 to Clifford Pier(bus stop code 03019) vs $1.29 with transfer at Newton MRT, alighting at Raffles MRT . The current cheapest mode of travel for this journey is to take SBS 162 or 167 and it cost $1.31 but if one were to start the trip from the next bus stop (code 53049, after Thomson P.O. instead of bus stop code 53059, opposite Thomson Plaza), the current fare is only $1.21 while the new distance based fare is definitely higher even with the transfer to MRT. You can use the journey planner to check with the given bus stop codes. And I think to alight from the bus and transfer to MRT is more inconvenient and takes more time for this journey.
@SayCheese: That's really good info. I think I might dig deeper into this. Thank you!
how did they arrive at the conclusion the transport companies would "lose" $32 million?
as for the claim that public transport fares would "go down" 2.5%, i guess
desperate times call for desperate lines.