Debated in Parliament on 20 Mar 2018.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
We have invested substantially in our public transport network and will continue to do so. By 2030, eight in 10 households will be within a 10-minute walk of a train station. The advent of sharing services of active mobility devices, such as bicycles, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and personal mobility devices (PMDs), has made the journey between the train station and our homes and workplaces even more convenient.
Over time, we will reduce our reliance on cars. Today, two in three trips during peak periods are already made on public transport. By 2030, we aim for three in four trips to be so. We will continue to work towards a car-lite Singapore, which will allow us to maximise the use of limited land and free up car park spaces for other uses, such as housing, schools and hospitals.
This Bill will support our vision of a car-lite Singapore by making two key changes to the Parking Places Act (PPA).
First, the Bill introduces a licensing regime for dockless vehicle-sharing operators, which will cover sharing services for bicycles, PMDs and PABs. While such sharing operations contribute to the attractiveness of our public transport network, it was unfortunate that it has led to pervasive indiscriminate parking of bicycles which degrades our living environment and creates safety issues. A licensing regime will address the problem of indiscriminate parking and allow sharing operations to grow in a more sustainable manner.
Second, the Bill will allow the Government to improve the management of parking provision by private developments to support our car-lite vision. This will, in turn, allow us to maximise the use of the limited land in Singapore and free up space to improve our living environment. Let me explain each of these changes in turn.
The first set of amendments pertains to the licensing of dockless vehicle-sharing operators. Dockless bicycle-sharing started just over a year ago and has expanded rapidly. There are now more than 100,000 shared bicycles in Singapore. There are many advantages to dockless bicycle sharing.
First, it omits the need to build expensive docks.
Second, it provides the convenience for Singaporeans who wish to use a bicycle occasionally, but do not want the hassle of owning one.
Third, users can pick up the bicycle at the start of a journey and drop it off at the end, which is very convenient and offers Singaporeans more travel options. This has, in turn, helped to encourage active mobility in Singapore.
Unfortunately, indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles has marred this positive development. The bicycle sharing operators have exacerbated this problem as they grew their fleets too quickly in a bid to capture market share. There are also inconsiderate and irresponsible users who leave bicycles outside of the designated parking spaces.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has worked hard to address the problem. LTA has been increasing parking infrastructure for bicycles. There are now over 170,000 public bicycle parking lots at Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, bus stops, HDB estates and parks. LTA and other public agencies plan to provide another 50,000 more bicycle parking lots by 2020. Collectively, they provide ease of accessibility without cluttering our urban landscape, a balance we need to strike even if some users prefer bicycle parking lots right at their doorstep.
LTA, the National Parks Board (NParks) and Town Councils have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with bicycle-sharing operators in October 2017. The MOU contains guidelines for the responsible operation of bicycle-sharing services in public spaces and educating users on proper parking behaviour.
In addition, LTA has impounded indiscriminately parked bicycles which were not removed by operators within half a day and fined operators. Since mid-last year, LTA has issued more than 2,100 removal notices and collected about $180,000 in fines and administrative fees from the operators.
Despite these efforts, the problem of indiscriminate parking remains. To strengthen LTA's levers to deal with indiscriminate parking, we propose to introduce a licensing framework for active mobility device-sharing operators. I have spoken about this during my Ministry’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this month and many Members in the House have expressed their support.
Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new Part 3, which consists of new sections 8 to 8T setting out the proposed licensing regime. It will be an offence to operate without a licence under section 8C. If convicted, unlicensed operators will face a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day the offence continues after conviction.
Next, allow me to elaborate on the scope and key features of the licensing regime. I would like to highlight three points about the scope of the licensing regime.
First, the licensing regime will cover dockless vehicle-sharing services for active mobility devices, such as bicycles, PMDs and PABs.
Second, the regime is focused on sharing services that operate in public places. Section 8 defines public places as state land and land controlled or managed by a statutory body, where the public has free access. Vehicle-sharing services that operate only in private land, or in areas where the public does not have free right of access, will not be covered by the licensing regime. Examples include private land, such as shopping malls, places where access requires proof of identity, such as military camps or ticketed attractions like the Singapore Zoo.
Third, we will not regulate docked vehicle-sharing businesses whose vehicles must be hired from or returned to exclusive vehicle docking stations, such as Vélib in Paris or YouBike in Taipei. A bicycle rental business operating from a shop is also excluded from the licensing regime if its customers must return the bicycles hired to the shop. The nature of such services makes them less likely to cause parking-related disamenities.
The licensing regime has three key features.
First, LTA will manage the size of each operator’s fleet. This will be done by using its powers under section 8G to impose licensing conditions, including conditions on the maximum fleet size that each operator can deploy. Given the scale of the indiscriminate parking problem today, LTA will take a more conservative approach in setting the fleet sizes at the start. However, we will review the fleet sizes regularly. Operators who manage their fleets well can apply to LTA to grow their fleets.
In assessing applications to increase fleet size, LTA will take into account factors, such as the operator’s ability to manage indiscriminate parking by its users, its fleet utilisation rate, and other relevant factors, such as the demand for the service and availability of parking spaces. This will create the right incentives for operators to put in place processes to manage indiscriminate parking and ensure that each operator grows its fleet in a more sustainable manner.
Second, the licensing regime will give LTA regulatory levers to require operators to manage indiscriminate parking.
Under sections 8G, 8H, 8N and 8O, LTA will be able to impose and vary licence conditions on each operator, issue directions, and set industry-wide "standards of performance" on the service provided by licensees. For example, under section 8N(2), LTA will set industry-wide standards relating to the use of geofencing and on the frequency of removal of indiscriminately parked vehicles in a timely manner.
Under section 8P, LTA can take regulatory action against operators who fail to comply with its directions, standards of performance or licence conditions, such as the maximum fleet size. A range of regulatory action is provided to LTA to enable a better calibrated response to non-compliance by licensees. Regulatory action ranges from reducing the maximum fleet size, imposing financial penalties of up to $100,000 for each instance of non-compliance, suspending or even cancelling licences.
Clause 11 also amends section 15 of the PPA to empower appointed enforcement officers to remove and detain abandoned vehicles which were used in the provision of unlicensed vehicle-sharing services or parked in contravention of any written law.
Third, LTA will direct licensed operators to work together to collectively ban individuals who persistently park improperly in public places. This means that an individual who has been found to have parked improperly at least three times in a calendar year when renting from one or more operators, will be banned temporarily from renting from all operators.
The majority of users are responsible and park the shared vehicles in designated parking areas. However, there are irresponsible and inconsiderate users who do not do so. It is important to hold them accountable. Under the licensing regime, LTA can direct operators to impose a time-limited ban on users who repeatedly park the shared vehicles indiscriminately.
To this end, section 8L authorises licensed operators to share among themselves information on users who have improperly parked vehicles in a public place. The information sharing will be limited to the extent necessary for implementing the collective ban.
Let me quickly touch on a few other provisions related to the licensing regime.
LTA will be able to leverage data and technology to improve enforcement. Section 8K imposes obligations on operators to keep accounts and records, and to provide information to LTA. This can include data on the location of each deployed vehicle so that LTA can remotely track indiscriminately parked vehicles and enforce more effectively. Section 8M also requires operators to provide information when requested by LTA for enforcement purposes. Failure to provide information to LTA under sections 8K and 8M will be offences.
Section 8Q empowers the Minister for Transport to make safety directives to minimise the risk of death or serious injury to individuals, or damage to property arising from dockless vehicle-sharing services.
Under section 8R, licensees or licence applicants can appeal to the Minister for Transport against certain LTA decisions under the new Part 3.
Clause 12 inserts a new section 15C to make it an offence to provide false or misleading information in licence applications. The penalty, on conviction, is a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.
Let me now turn to the second set of changes proposed in this Bill, which is the management of parking provisions.
PPA was last amended in 2005 and needs to be updated to prepare for a time when we will rely less on cars. Today, PPA allows LTA to make rules on the number of parking places or spaces to be provided on any type of land or buildings. Private developments have to provide a specified minimum number of parking lots. Clause 17 introduces a new section 22 which empowers LTA to make rules prescribing the range of parking lots which private developers have to provide, defined by a lower and/or upper limit. This will enable LTA to better calibrate parking provision requirements for private developments. LTA will release more details by the end of the year.
Clause 5 introduces a new section 6A which allows LTA to approve proposals to provide parking lots in accordance with rules made under the new section 22. Alternatively, LTA can administratively approve parking provisions, taking into consideration factors, such as the proximity to the development of public transport facilities, or the availability of other parking places in the vicinity. This will allow developers to trial new concepts of space and land planning, and new parking concepts, such as hub car parks in future car-lite precincts.
The Bill will also amend the PPA to improve the operational efficiency of HDB and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) car parks. Today, the PPA requires the Minister for Transport to prescribe parking charges for HDB and URA's car parks. However, this is operationally cumbersome. We are, hence, amending the PPA to empower the LTA Superintendent and HDB’s and URA’s Deputy and Assistant Superintendents to prescribe parking charges for HDB and URA car parks, via clause 7 of the Bill.
In view of the volume of decisions to detain vehicles found abandoned or parked unlawfully, and to improve operational efficiency, clause 11 amends section 15 to allow the Superintendent as well as authorised officers to also make these decisions on his behalf.
Mr Speaker, this Bill will facilitate more sustainable growth in the use of shared active mobility devices and allow LTA to calibrate parking provision more precisely. This will bring us a step closer to our vision of a car-lite Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Speaker: Dr Teo Ho Pin.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.
Sir, the 15 PAP Town Councils support the use of shared bikes and PMDs to facilitate the last-mile connection for our land transport system. Cycling is also a healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transport.
Sir, since the introduction of shared bikes and PMDs in Singapore, the Town Councils have received feedback from our residents outlining various concerns. The key concerns which have been received are as follows.
First, the dangers cyclists and PMD users bring to pedestrians, especially when they travel along footpaths and common areas.
Second, the dangers they bring to themselves, drivers and riders when they travel recklessly on roads, ignoring traffic rules and basic road etiquette.
Third, the indiscriminate parking of shared bikes at common areas.
And fourth, the inconsiderate use of shared bikes, exemplified in the abuse and dumping of shared bikes. These have generated not only inconveniences, but also tangible hazards to the health and well-being of our people.
Sir, the 15 PAP Town Councils support the Bill which will provide a regulatory framework to address the problems of indiscriminate vehicle parking, make provisions for private parking places, and introduce an enforcement regime to manage the behaviour of shared bike operators, cyclists and PMD users. In particular, we strongly support clause 6 which will license all bike sharing operators in Singapore.
Sir, to ensure the successful use of bike sharing services and PMDs in Singapore, we need the support of all stakeholders to take ownership, exercise due consideration, and comply strictly with the proposed regulations. I wish to propose several measures for LTA to consider to make the use of shared bikes and PMDs a more pleasant experience for all in Singapore.
First, infrastructure for cycling and PMDs. Sir, many footpaths in our built environment are not suitable for cycling and PMDs. As a result, accidents which have resulted in injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users have occurred. We need to expedite the building of cycling and PMD-friendly paths, especially along LTA's road pavements. Where possible, cycling and pedestrian paths should be separate to minimise the risks of accidents. In addition, cycling paths should be wide enough, preferably about 3.5 metres in width, so that both novice and experienced cyclists can cycle safely.
Second, provision of bike-sharing parking places. Sir, to support bike sharing in public housing estates, the 15 PAP Town Councils have drawn 3,000 yellow boxes at the void decks of our blocks. These provide enough space to store 28,000 bicycles for our residents and have drastically reduced the indiscriminate parking of shared bikes in our blocks.
I would also like to draw attention to a pilot project undertaken by the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council involving the implementation of Geo-Station technology. This has also encouraged shared bike users to park their bikes at the designated yellow boxes in our town.
Although the increase in the supply of bicycle lots at the HDB void decks has reduced indiscriminate parking, many shared bikes are still left at various places outside and around housing estates. These pose safety hazards.
Sir, the Town Councils will continue to identify places to house more yellow boxes. At the same time, we hope that LTA and other Government agencies will also expedite the provision of parking places at bus stops, Light Rail Transit (LRT) and MRT stations, parks and public amenities.
Sir, I urge LTA to expedite the installation of Geo-Station and quick response (QR) code technology for all yellow boxes, including those at the Town Councils. This will ensure the docking of shared bikes at these yellow boxes by all bike sharing users. In addition, it is of paramount importance that LTA ensure that regular housekeeping is performed by the bike sharing operators to make sure that shared bikes are properly parked in the yellow boxes.
Third, enforcement against bike operators, cyclists and PMD users. Sir, I support section 8P on regulatory action against licensees. This will ensure that bike sharing operators take measures to maintain a fleet of safe and roadworthy bikes for hire, and adopt appropriate measures, technological or otherwise, to prevent the indiscriminate parking of bikes by the hirers.
The Bill has specified performance standards for the licensee. However, it will be more effective if LTA can introduce a penalty system which imposes demerit points on the licensee, based on different types of infringements, eventually culminating in the termination of operating licences upon reaching a certain threshold.
Sir, besides regulating bike sharing operators, it is necessary for LTA to conduct regular enforcement operations to address the reckless behaviour of some cyclists and PMD users. I urge the Ministry to consider imposing default liability on cyclists and PMD users if an accident occurs along a pedestrian footpath, unless it is proven that the accident is attributed to the behaviour of pedestrians, rather than the cyclists and PMD users.
To ensure the safety of all parties, all cyclists and PMD users must slow down and signal in advance to warn pedestrians. LTA should also set up mobile enforcement teams to act against reckless cyclists and PMD users based on feedback from the public. In the facilitation of enforcement, a telephone hotline to gather information from the public on "hot spots" or accident-prone areas will be of great value. The setting up of a hotline will also encourage more people to keep watch on the behaviour of cyclists and PMD users. This will enhance safety for all. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Sir, I welcome the amendments made in relation to the Bill to include regulation of operators of vehicle sharing services, in particular, to address the indiscriminate parking of mobility devices in public places and, more importantly, imposing requirements of operators to, amongst other responsibilities, ensure their fleet are in serviceable condition to ensure safety of the hirers. I would like to touch on the following two points on the proposed amendments.
The first is on the role and accountability of the operator to maintain roadworthiness of their vehicles so as to ensure the safety of hirers. This particular issue is mentioned under a few sections, such as 8E and 8G, with regard to granting and renewal of licences, and also section 8O under the subheading "Directions".
Sir, the sections in this Bill, however, are not clear on the responsibility of the licensee on claims on hirer in events where accidents can be attributable to improperly maintained vehicles or negligence in other forms from the operator. I would like to suggest the inclusion of liability requirements and consideration on reasonable closure to cases of claims or dispute as part of licensee application and renewals.
My other point is on section 8K(2), which depicts, "a licensee must keep and retain for such periods, as may be prescribed records, where the records are relevant to the hiring of vehicles from the licensee, their period of hire, the place from which the hire started and ended, and any other prescribed information relating to the hirer or hiring of vehicles used to provide licensable services".
Sir, I would like to seek clarification on what is the need for such detailed level of trip information on the hirer, and under what circumstances can the authority call on such information, and how would the information be protected. Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms K Thanaletchimi.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendment to the Bill has, with it, the intention to move Singapore towards a car-lite society. Though the Bill aims to implement a licensing regime on dockless bicycle-sharing operators to address the problem of indiscriminate parking and to better manage provision of parking by private developments to support our car-lite vision, however, we need to also calibrate the regulations, monitor and evaluate the parking measures if this invariably results in less take-up of bicycle sharing as a result of this Bill.
On bike-sharing operators, I have the following concerns.
Licensing for bicycle-sharing operators is a good idea. However, LTA must also look into the size of each operator's fleet. While there must be regulations, it should not be a deterrent to the market players with high barriers to entry. Industry players currently operate in a free market. Yet, with fairly many regulations, these operators may not have the incentive to compete to expand their market size, as well as to invest in innovation for more efficient operation methods if their business is not viable.
Penalties, including hefty fines of up to $100,000 for operators who did not manage to remove indiscriminately parked bicycles, require behavioural change. However, the responsibility should not lie solely with the operators, but also with the end user. Having said that, imposing fines as punitive measures alone may not be the best idea to discourage adverse behaviour, but rather to reward good positive behaviour. One of the operators, Ofo, has designed a reward scheme for users who parked the bicycle properly. This reward scheme can be practised by other operators to encourage and incentivise correct behaviours.
Operators may be pressured to exit the industry while new entrants may be discouraged with financial penalty imposed on them. Will LTA be open to extending assistance/exemption of penalty for the operators who perform the necessary due diligence to incentivise correct behaviour among users?
Also, will LTA have plans to ramp up on public education on car sharing to complement and encourage Singaporeans to go green?
On managing provision of parking by private developments, I have the following concerns.
On reduced supply of parking lots, will this translate to an increase in car park charges? Part 4, provision on parking charges, indicates parking charges may be changed from time to time. Is there any general guideline on the fluctuations? Is there an upper or lower limit to this?
On reduction in car park spaces for new developments near train stations, what is the definition of "near"? Does a two-kilometre (km) radius of a train station location constitute the required proximity? Will there be feeder bus services available in such a situation for those who wish to take public transport?
Lastly, I would like to propose for the Government to encourage and incentivise developers' partnership with private operators. Such partnership will help to retain the connectivity and convenience of movement around the private development and/or access to public transport. Developers can be incentivised to partner with operators to provide bike-sharing facilities within the infrastructure development, that it, having designated bicycle parking lots near the building. Sir, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the arrival of dockless bike-sharing services is both a blessing and a bane to many cities, from the United States (US) to the United Kingdom (UK), Australia to China. Singapore is not spared. Some users seemed to be gripped by a reckless penchant for destruction. Instead of parking, they are dumping the bicycles and creating junkyards within the city, parks and housing estates.
I would like to raise a few concerns. Under the proposed amendments, LTA will be introducing a licensing regime, limiting operator’s maximum fleet size and implementing a QR code-enabled geofencing solution. Will the operators have to rent the parking zones from LTA and, if so, will the cost be passed on to the users?
I would like to point out that concerns have been raised over the vulnerability of the QR code parking method, which can be tampered if it is static QR. For example, if someone takes a photo of a static QR code at a geo-tagged location, it can be reused at a different location, thus defeating the purpose. QR codes can also be vandalised, rendering them useless.
I hope LTA would not do so at the expense of the parking space currently allotted to those who own their own bicycles. Many of these are now located near MRT stations, and I hope these will stay put.
Another solution to encourage users to park appropriately would be to create more parking options in places where there is a high volume of usage. As bus interchanges, MRT stations and HDB and private housing estates are common destination stops, more purpose-built metal bicycle racks and parking areas could be built as official geo-tagged parking zones. These parking zones should preferably be covered so that when it rains, the bicycle seats would not be soaked.
Next, I ask that bicycle parking zones be made available in the industrial estates as some of the workers are frequent bicycle users. It is good that LTA is working with bicycle-sharing operators to educate bicycle users and develop educational materials on proper bicycle etiquette. The ugly truth is that some users simply disregard proper etiquette. I fully support penalising such users. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another solution to encourage users to park appropriately would be to create more parking options in places where there is a high volume of usage. As bus interchanges, MRT stations and HDB and private housing estates are common destination stops, more purpose-built metal bicycle racks and parking areas could be built as official geo-tagged parking zones. These parking zones should preferably be covered so that when it rains the bicycle seats would not be soaked.
Next, I ask that bicycle parking zones be made available in the industrial estates as some of the workers are frequent bicycle users.
It is good that LTA is working with bicycle-sharing operators to educate bicycle users and develop educational materials on proper bicycle etiquette. The ugly truth is that some users simply disregard proper etiquette. I fully support penalising such users.
(In English): The Bill has a provision whereby LTA can ask operators to collectively ban errant users who failed to park responsibly, for a period of time. LTA's aim is to ensure that recalcitrant users will not be able to use any device-sharing services. I hope LTA would consider tightening this rule further by imposing a fine on the errant users if they are caught riding using someone else’s identity, while under a ban. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I welcome the new bicycle-sharing licensing system. Many of the provisions are much needed and timely.
In particular, I strongly support the installation of proposed QR code for all public bicycle parking points. Having a clearly defined area to park will do much to manage the situation of indiscriminate parking.
Having said that, I do hope that we can work with the companies to come up with sufficient parking points. This is especially in the case of the private estates. A key benefit of shared bicycles is the ability to solve the "last-mile problem" in transportation, and this is especially the case with private estates.
As such, I hope that, especially within our private estates, we can aim for having parking areas near major bus stops, as well as parking areas between every few streets. We can allow the bike-sharing companies to propose such locations, given that they know their customer base well, and then have LTA review them to ensure a certain amount of universal coverage.
Given that public behaviour is evolving, it is also important that we regularly review our regulations after the regulations are passed. I would like to ask the Government what other public consultation and feedback channels are available, so that we can take on the feedback to evolve our policies. I would also like to ask the Government when it is time we will do a review on this current situation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Speaker, for the longest time, provision of car park lots in the Singapore city, as compared to other major cities in the world, has been generous. The car park requirement in a Central Business District (CBD) office building is 0.2 parking lots per 100 square metres (m2). This compares to 0.1 lots in Seoul and zero in Sydney.
Consequently, the car park rate in the Singapore CBD is comparatively cheaper than other major cities in the world. A Colliers International survey done in 2011 showed that Singapore's median season parking fee in the CBD was $278 per month. This was lower than $919 per month in Hong Kong and Tokyo and seven times lower than $1,338 in London for that year.
However, I note that under the Range-based Car Parking Standards, developers already have the flexibility to reduce the parking provision for commercial and residential buildings by up to 20% in Zones 1 and 2. Zone 1 refers to the buildings in the CBD and Zone 2 refers to areas within 400 metres' radius from the MRT stations outside Zone 1.
In view of the push for a car-lite society, it is understandable for the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to remove the minimum parking lots required for residential and commercial buildings. With the current amendment Bill, MOT is stipulating a maximum number of parking lots, instead of a minimum required for each building. While I can understand the benefits of replacing car park lots with more commercial space at office buildings and shopping centres, I am more sceptical about the benefits for the buyers of residential units, unless there is a corresponding change in the building codes. Thus, I would like to clarify a few points with the Senior Minister of State.
Firstly, will the new parking provisions be applicable to existing commercial buildings, especially those in Zones 1 and 2? If so, would the Minister mandate a certain percentage of the extra space to benefit the public and the community? For example, the windfall arising from having to provide fewer carpark spaces can be shared with the public by providing the additional space for bicycle parking, car sharing/electric car charging facilities, or lease extra space for use to childcare centres or eldercare centres at a cost-recovery rate.
As a guide, I would like to suggest that MOT consider working with the Ministry of National Development (MND) to direct the building owners to share at least 50% of the benefits arising from the lower car park provision. The lower car park provision should also translate to facilities that can benefit members of the public. And for new commercial buildings, the lower car park provision should also translate to facilities that also benefit the public, such as promotion of healthy living, promotion of car-lite measures and provision of childcare and eldercare facilities at a cost recovery rate.
Next, will the new parking provision be applicable to existing residential buildings as well? If so, would the Minister mandate a certain percentage of the newly available space for use as shared bicycle or PMD parking facilities? Or for that matter, devote space for car-sharing and electric car charging facilities?
In a similar fashion, the lower car park provision for the new residential buildings should not end up benefiting the developers alone, and alone. I know that developers are capable of maximising the residential units for sale so as to maximise their profits. Hence, I hope that MOT could work with MND to mandate the bulk of the additional space arising from lower car park provisions for communal spaces like gardens, physical fitness facilities and even shared car, bicycle or PMD parking facilities. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to applaud MOT's intention to control the abuse and indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles. However, we should caution against over-correction.
The chief benefit of shared bikes is that they can be parked anywhere, anytime. Many residents use them to go from HDB void decks to the MRT stations before going to work or school. If after the amendment is passed, residents have to walk several hundred metres to use the bikes, it will be taking a step backwards.
How do we then find a balance? It will depend on how the Minister could shape the situation.
I support LTA’s plan to designate more yellow boxes at HDB void decks, MRT stations and bus stops. However, I wonder whether the planned additional 50,000 parking places within the next two years are enough. Perhaps the Minister can consider doubling the number of bicycle parking places in two years.
Providing yellow boxes incurs cost and resources, especially when there is a plan to install a unique QR code for each of the yellow boxes. Such costs should not be completely borne by the Government, Town Councils or building owners.
To encourage co-responsibility, I suggest the bike-sharing companies be made to share the costs, even if it is a symbolic $1 per month per site. Only by doing this can the shared-bike operators appreciate the efforts made by the Government. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill to address the growing problems posed by the indiscriminate parking of dockless shared bicycles.
Not only are vehicles parked this way becoming eyesores on our landscape, they also contribute to obstruction on pavements, passageways and at the entrances and exits of buildings and estates, posing a hazard. There are two main problems here: one is the problem of the parking infrastructure, and the other, the problem of accountability.
Firstly, hirers utilising the bikes need somewhere to leave the vehicles when they have completed their journeys. Mandating the installation of QR codes for approved parking areas will go a long way towards ensuring that these bikes will be deposited where they will not cause disamenities. Having designated parking lots will also enable the rental firms to collect the bikes more easily in a timely manner when needed.
However, we need more designated parking lots in a wider spread of locations to ensure the viability and utilisation of shared bikes. LTA has indicated its commitment to enhance our parking infrastructure and I urge the agency to expedite the setting up of more dedicated parking places to facilitate responsible parking. Areas with significant human traffic, in particular, should have more designated parking areas for these bikes.
Next, I would like to speak on the issues of accountability in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I just mentioned that the dockless bikes need more dedicated parking places to deter indiscriminate parking. We must acknowledge that it is not enough to rely on this measure alone.
The sense of responsibility of each user is very important. My residents said that indiscriminate parking is akin to littering. They said jokingly that indiscriminate parking is not just a 'land' issue; it has also become an "air, sea and land" problem. They explained that "sea" means bicycles are dumped in the drains or by the river; "air" means that you even see bikes on trees or left in the corridor of HDB blocks. So, this is really an "air, sea, land" problem.
We must adopt a carrot-and-stick approach. Hence, I support the provision that all operators will impose a temporary ban on users who repeatedly park the bicycles irresponsibly.
In addition to public education to remind users to park responsibly, we should also consider imposing a fine on recalcitrant offenders, or we can reward those who park responsibly. I think this can send the message more effectively to riders that they must be responsible for the bicycles used. I would like to ask whether the Ministry possesses any users' data, such as age and the average income. This data can help us determine the amount of the fines or reward.
According to my observation, users are from various social strata, and the majority are from the low-income group. Most of them are young and middle-aged, including students and foreign workers. The fine should not be set too high and the award should not be too little so that it can achieve a good deterrent or rewarding effect.
The amendments require that all operators must apply for a licence. This will help the Government to control the quality of the operators and ensure that they properly manage the number of bicycles. Perhaps, the market is already saturated. It is estimated that out of the 100,000 bicycles, only half are frequently used.
Recently, the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) and the Singapore Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Alliance for Research and Technology did a study on one major bike-sharing operator in Singapore. They analysed their data of 10,000 bikes in April and May 2017 and found that each bike was only rented for 30 minutes a day on average. Hence, it is wise for the Government to control the operators and the number of bicycles through licensing. I support this amendment Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is a timely one, with better clarity and provisions made on the parking of vehicles in public places. I support the overall recommendations made in the amendment Bill. However, I have a few clarifications to make and one suggestion to offer.
First, I wholly support the inclusion of Part 3 that introduces the new sections 8 to 8T. These sections provide better clarity on the various provisions made in Part 3 relating to public parking places, licensing requirements and enforcement actions, which are much needed. Residents I met have expressed their frustrations with shared vehicles and bicycles that have dotted the void decks and green spaces in our estate. Personally, I have also had to manoeuvre through obstacle courses made up of indiscriminately parked bicycles at the void decks, including those at my own block.
However, I wish to clarify if these provisions and restrictions apply only to vehicle hiring operators and users or hirers of shared vehicles, such as bicycles or PMDs, and not to private owners of similar vehicles? At the moment, there is still no requirement for private bicycles or PMD owners to register ownership of such vehicles, and if they also indiscriminately park their vehicles in public places, then no enforcement action can be taken on them. Are there plans to require private bicycle or PMD owners to be registered so that proper monitoring of indiscriminate parking and subsequent enforcement can be carried out?
Second, while the amendments in this Bill seek to rein in on the licensing requirements of the operators of shared vehicles in order to bring about greater responsibility towards the hiring of shared vehicles, how will the users or hirers of such shared vehicles also be made to shoulder equal responsibility in the use and parking of these shared vehicles? What enforcement actions can be taken on errant or irresponsible users or hirers of shared vehicles? And since there are numerous users or hirers of shared vehicles, will monetary fines be the only form of enforcement to be meted out to irresponsible users for indiscriminate parking? Would LTA consider imposing compulsory community work on repeat offenders, for instance?
Third, the requirement for geo-fencing of a shared vehicle operator’s vehicles has been made known to the operators for quite some time, yet no adherence to this requirement has been made and little or no enforcement carried out. Hence, for the shared vehicle operators, how does LTA plan to impose the standards of performance, such as the use of geofencing technology or monetary fines, to minimise or eradicate indiscriminate parking of the shared vehicles under their licence? Will vehicle docking systems, for instance, be imposed on these operators should they fail to comply with the requirements for proper parking of their shared vehicles, such as through the use of geofencing technology? Will current LTA enforcement officers be sufficient to carry out checks to ensure adherence to the required standards of performance by the shared vehicle operators, or will more enforcement officers need to be recruited?
Finally, I would like to suggest that for places or buildings where there are absolutely no designated parking lots for motorcycles, some flexibility is to be accorded to dispatch riders and food deliverers who usually move about on motorcycles or PMDs. To elaborate, when such dispatch riders or food deliverers need to deliver whatever items as assigned as part of their job at these buildings or places, they would park their vehicles at a spot in a public area while they go about delivering the items as assigned, since there are no designated parking lots for motorcycles there. Examples of such buildings are the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) Building, Marina Bay Sands and Novena Hospital, from what I understand, though I may stand corrected.
Can LTA work with the management of such private developments to provide designated Interim Parking Lots for dispatch riders and food deliverers to park their motorcycles or PMDs for free for a period of no more than 10 to 15 minutes so that they would not get parking offence summonses and would not obstruct traffic or pedestrian access? These dispatch riders and food deliverers can be given vehicle stickers or decals that clearly indicate they are delivering items as assigned as part of their job and some leeway can be given to them to park their vehicles at these Interim Parking Lots during such work assignments.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications I have put forth and the suggestion posited, I support the Bill.
Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and unanimous support for the Bill.
Let me first address Members' queries on the three key features of the proposed licensing regime.
First, Mr Gan Thiam Poh expressed his support for LTA's management of the size of each operator's fleet by setting a maximum fleet size. LTA will review the fleet sizes regularly. Operators who manage their fleet well can apply to LTA to grow their fleet. This will ensure that they grow their fleet sizes in a more sustainable manner and are incentivised to put in place measures to manage the indiscriminate parking as they grow their fleet.
LTA will use a bottom-up approach and consider each application on its own merits. This is because the fleet size needs to take into account how well each operator manages his business to maximise utilisation and minimise disamenities. With LTA managing the fleet size of each operator, operators will be incentivised to deploy their limited fleet wisely, instead of flooding public bicycle spaces with unused shared bicycles. LTA will also monitor the situation and, if necessary, step up the expansion of bicycle infrastructure.
Second, LTA will be able to impose licence conditions as well as set industry-wide standards, to address indiscriminate parking.
With regard to Dr Teo Ho Pin’s suggestion on the penalty framework for licensees, we will look into it as LTA works out the implementation details of the licensing regime. We would also like to assure Dr Teo Ho Pin and Dr Intan Mokhtar that LTA will take strong action against repeated or serious infringements of licence requirements, including revocation of the operator's licence.
Mr Faisal Manap asked about the data requirements under the new section 8K. Section 8K imposes obligations on operators to keep accounts and records, and to provide information to LTA. This can include data on the location of each deployed vehicle, so that LTA can track indiscriminate parking and enforce more effectively by leveraging data and technology. LTA will put in place safeguards to protect the information, including implementing controls to limit access to the database.
To ensure that dockless bicycle-sharing remains attractive to users, and to prevent indiscriminate parking, several Members spoke about the importance of having adequate parking, and I agree. While it is not possible for us to always have parking at our doorsteps, we are striving to have parking spaces available within a short walk of most households and key destinations.
Currently, there are over 170,000 bicycle parking spaces which are well-distributed across Singapore. More than 99% of public homes and 90% of private homes are within a five-minute walk from bicycle parking. There are also public bicycle parking areas close to more than 80% of key destinations, such as polyclinics, community centres, schools and town centres. We will continue to work with HDB, Town Councils and other public agencies to provide more parking spaces where there is demand. Fifty thousand bicycle parking spaces will be added by 2020 at MRT stations, HDB estates and parks.
To address Ms Joan Pereira’s suggestion of sheltered bicycle parking, we will try to locate bicycle parking spaces within sheltered areas as far as possible. However, this may not always be possible in areas with site constraints.
Ms Joan Pereira will also be pleased to note that in industrial estates and business parks, JTC has already designated more than 50 parking zones for shared bicycles. LTA will continue to work with JTC to implement more parking spaces in industrial areas.
The data that the operators provide to LTA on the distribution of shared bicycles will also help us better plan parking provision, including providing more bicycle parking spaces at areas with high demand.
I share Ms Thanaletchimi's view that the provision of shared device parking in private developments would improve convenience for their tenants and visitors. LTA is working with the operators to have them reach out to condominium managements, foreign worker dormitory operators and commercial buildings to allow for the parking of shared devices within these developments. However, the decision to allow shared devices to be parked within their premises ultimately rests with the private developers.
QR codes will be installed at all public parking spaces at MRT stations, bus stops, parks and HDB estates. I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that these parking spaces will continue to be open to all privately-owned and shared bicycles. Private users can continue to park their bicycles at these spaces as they currently do today, and operators do not have to rent these parking spaces. Allowing shared bicycles to be parked at public parking places benefits members of the public who use these services.
Ms Joan Pereira also asked about how QR code-enabled geofencing would work and whether its potential downsides can be mitigated. QR codes complement the accuracy of GPS-based geofencing. Safeguards will be put in place to reasonably ensure that the scanning of static QR code geofencing cannot be "gamed". Each parking location will have a unique QR code and users will only be allowed to end their trip if the scanned QR code matches the GPS location of the parking location.
For example, if users take a photo of a QR code and use it to park anywhere outside of the specified parking location, they will not be able to end their trip because the QR code does not match with the GPS location of the shared bicycle. Where a QR code has been vandalised, users will still be allowed to end their trip if they take a photograph of their bicycle parked within the bicycle parking area and submit it within the operator’s application. LTA will also act promptly to replace QR codes which have been damaged. At the same time, LTA will continue to study other ways of geofencing to strengthen our capabilities to pinpoint the location of shared bicycles.
Third, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke about the measures which will be put in place to engender greater user responsibility. I would like to clarify with Dr Intan Mokhtar that under the MOU with existing bicycle-sharing operators, LTA has worked with the operators to implement GPS-enabled geofencing and geo-tag bicycle parking spaces in their mobile applications. With this function, users can plan ahead for where to park before they start their journey. Despite this, there are still irresponsible users who choose to park indiscriminately.
Hence, it is necessary to take firmer steps to deter irresponsible user behaviour. We will do so through the collective ban. Users will also not be allowed to end their trips with the operators until the bicycles are parked within designated parking areas. In other words, irresponsible users who park indiscriminately will continue to be charged until they park properly.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that the Government hold users accountable for improper parking, instead of relying on operators to do so. Under the Street Works Act, LTA can fine users who are identified as parking improperly. However, it is often difficult to catch users red-handed. As operators can track the whereabouts of their bicycles, they are better-placed to detect and prevent indiscriminate parking from occurring in the first place. Nevertheless, LTA will continue to see how we can better enforce against improper parking under the Street Works Act, including using information from the operators to identify hotspots for enforcement.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested differentiating the fine amounts for individuals based on age and income. It is not possible to do so as the law has to be fair to all individuals who have committed the same offence. Ms Joan Pereira suggested imposing a fine on users who are caught using someone else’s identity to rent a vehicle when they have been banned, while Dr Intan Mokhtar suggested compulsory community work for repeat offenders. We will study these suggestions.
Ms Thanaletchimi asked if LTA could consider waiving the financial penalties for operators who have done their due diligence to discourage users from parking indiscriminately. I would like to clarify that operators will not be penalised if their users park indiscriminately. Users will be penalised for parking indiscriminately through the collective ban. Through geofencing, if users do not return their vehicle to a proper parking area, they will not be able to end their trip and will continue to be charged by the operators. However, LTA will take regulatory action against the operators if they do not remove the indiscriminately parked vehicles in a timely manner, and if they do not comply with other licence conditions, such as implementing the collective ban.
To address Dr Intan Mokhtar's query on enforcement resources, we will use data and technology to enforce more efficiently. We will also cross-deploy enforcement officers where possible, to balance between sufficient enforcement presence on the ground for deterrence as well as the need for prudence and efficiency.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about recovering from the operators the costs of the licensing regime, including the cost of providing yellow boxes and QR codes. We have invested in providing bicycle parking spaces to support active mobility and our car-lite vision. Hence, we do not intend to charge operators for rental of surface-level bicycle parking spaces and will continue to allow residents who use both private and shared devices, to use these spaces. Under the licensing regime, LTA can require the operators to provide additional parking spaces if needed. As far as possible, we intend to recover the costs of the licensing regime through licence fees.
Ms Thanaletchimi cautioned that the licensing regime should not result in high barriers to entry and innovation. We do not intend for the licensing regime to be unduly onerous for operators. However, the licensing requirements are costs which should be internalised by the operators in the course of their business as they reflect the social disamenities caused and efforts needed to address them.
To reduce barriers to entry for new operators and encourage innovation, we are considering implementing a "regulatory sandbox" for new operators with no track record. We recognise that new operators could benefit from a trial phase as they scale up their operations and learn how to manage their fleet responsibly. They would be granted a much smaller fleet and subjected to a subset of the full licence requirements. LTA will monitor their performance closely before determining whether to grant them a full licence.
We agree with Mr Henry Kwek that is it important that our regulations evolve to keep up with public behaviour as well as new technology and business models. The proposed licensing regime was developed based on feedback on indiscriminate parking from members of the public, LTA’s engagement with stakeholders and interest groups, and the passionate debates we have had here in Parliament. We will continue to track the situation and engage the public and operators to review the effectiveness of these regulations. Where necessary, we can also update the licensing conditions to better address indiscriminate bicycle parking.
Some Members have also raised other issues which lie outside the scope of this Bill. I would like to reiterate that the proposed licensing regime under the Parking Places Act aims to address indiscriminate parking. It is not intended to address issues unrelated to parking, such as reckless riding behaviour and cycling path improvements, which were raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin, and maintenance standards and liability issues in the event of accidents, which were raised by Mr Faisal Manap. However, I understand these are useful and pertinent suggestions. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel will be reviewing the active mobility rules to address reckless riding. Maintenance standards and liability issues are covered under the MOU with the operators and all bicycle-sharing operators under the MOU have purchased insurance for riders and third parties.
With regard to Dr Intan Mokhtar's query, the licensing regime is for dockless vehicle-sharing operators and will not cover privately owned vehicles and devices. To address indiscriminate parking of privately-owned bicycles, we will continue to provide more parking spaces and step up enforcement where necessary.
Next, on the parking provision requirements.
I would like to assure Ms Thanaletchimi that when determining the parking provision standards, LTA will take into account all relevant factors, including the development’s proximity to the public transport network and first-and-last mile connectivity. Developments within 400 metres of an MRT station, for example, are considered to be well-connected via public transport. For areas which are more than 400 metres away from an MRT station, there is already an extensive feeder bus network to provide first-and-last mile connectivity.
Ms Thanaletchimi also asked about the impact of the new parking provision parking charges. Private parking charges are determined by the market, and may vary based on the specific parking demand, parking availability and building owners’ parking management considerations.
As for HDB and URA’s parking charges, HDB and URA takes into account relevant factors, such as the costs of providing car parks, when setting car park charges at a reasonable level.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked a few questions about how we will implement the new parking standards. I would like to clarify that the Bill will allow LTA to prescribe the range of parking lots which private developers have to provide, defined by a lower and/or upper limit. This will apply only to new developments as well as existing developments undergoing redevelopment and major Additions and Alteration (A&A) works. For existing developments undergoing redevelopment or major A&A works, LTA will work closely with URA to implement the new parking standards and to ensure that our limited land resources are put to good use.
With regard to Dr Intan Mokhtar's suggestion on provision of parking spaces for despatch riders, LTA will study its feasibility.
Mr Speaker, these amendments to our parking provision standards are timely and necessary. Since our last review of the car parking provision requirements, there has been a significant expansion of the public transport network and enhancement in first- and last-mile connectivity. The amendments in the Bill will give LTA a wider range of tools to better calibrate parking provision requirements for private developments.
In summary, Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to support car-lite initiatives in a sustainable and responsible manner. Sir, I am confident that the proposed licensing regime will address the problem of indiscriminate parking and allow sharing operations to meet commuters’ needs in a more sustainable manner.
The amendments to vehicle parking provision will enable us to calibrate vehicle parking more precisely, so that we can maximise the use of the limited land in Singapore. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify what are the planning parameters of providing the yellow boxes both in the private estate and the public estate? Because the Senior Minister of State mentioned we will be providing yellow boxes within a five-minute walking distance to the units.
I thank Mr Ang for the clarification. As much as possible, we will try to draw yellow boxes as near to the place of residence as possible. We also have to take into consideration the demand for shared bicycle services. If the demand is high, then we will draw more boxes. This is one area where we can actually make use of the data submitted by the bike-sharing operators to determine exactly where the high-demand areas are, and we will draw yellow boxes accordingly.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min.]*
*Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 –
Clause 5. There are five amendments. Senior Minister of State for Transport.
Chairman, there are five amendments to clause 5, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Chairman, I beg to move the amendments 1 to 5* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments make clear that LTA's power to waive parking provision requirements pertains to requirements that are stated in the rules made under the new section 22.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 4, line 24: to leave out "and section 6B".
(2) In page 6, line 10: to leave out "Despite section 6A(1), the" and insert "The".
(3) In page 6, lines 15 and 16: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places for that private parking place" and insert "requirements in rules made (or deemed made) under section 22".
(4) In page 6, lines 17 and 18: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places" and insert "requirement in those rules".
(5) In page 7, lines 21 and 22: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places" and insert "requirement".
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 –
Clause 6. Senior Minister of State for Transport.
Chairman, I beg to move that the amendment* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment replaces a reference to "public land" in the new section 8P with "public place", which is the specific term that is defined and used in the new Part 3.
*The amendment read as follows:
In page 34, lines 31 and 32: to leave out "on public land" and insert "in or at a public place".
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
*Clause 7 – (proc text)]
Clause 7. Senior Minister of State for Transport.
Chairman, I beg to move that the amendments* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments clarify ways that HDB and URA can give public notice, when fixing or changing parking charges at their car parks, by publishing these rates in newspapers, publishing the charges on HDB or URA's websites, or in any other way that would secure adequate publicity.
*The amendments read as follows:
In page 44, line 32: to leave out "(a)".
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS