Committee of Supply – Head W (Ministry of Transport)

Madam, lately, train services have been disrupted quite frequently due to different factors. Such incidents have impacted the reliability of the public transport and, at the same time, confidence of commuters in general.

Thus, the recently announced code of practice on incident management framework, with a command structure to handle large-scale disruptions, is crucial and important.

However, it is even more important to prevent such frequent disruptions from happening. May I ask the Minister, how would the "Predict and Prevent" whole-life maintenance approach be effective in restoring commuters' confidence and reliability of the train service? How could the Government ensure that the operators will provide for the necessary manpower capabilities and financial resources to fully comply with the "Predict and Prevent" whole-life maintenance approach to train service assets? Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The frequent train service disruptions have caused a lot of inconvenience for commuters, undermining their confidence in the reliability of the rail system. This press report has reflected the sentiment very well. The report said, "Commuters were unhappy with the fact that train services broke down five times within a month. Minister for Transport said he shared the same feeling".

Residents told me, "When the train breaks down, the Minister has a sour face. We can understand that."

Page: 40

They also asked me what is "Predict and Prevent". I told them, "Predict" means predicting that disruptions might happen; "Prevent" means stopping them from happening. They then asked me, "How does the Minister make sure that the train operators invest enough resources to predict and prevent these incidents from happening?" Hence, I would like to ask the Minister how to solve this issue.

Mdm Chair, public transport reliability is a crucial factor in our effort to promote public transport as the mode of choice transport for the majority. Commuters expect high frequency, reliability and punctuality attached to rail travel. But we have failed in meeting their expectations.

Last year, more than 130,000 commuters were affected by disruptions lasting more than an hour each, much the same number as in 2012, although these were less than in 2011. Such disruptions cause angst and anxiety, let alone the substantial loss in economic impact. Would MOT improve further and make an even better effort in curbing disruptions to our rail travel as soon as possible and adopt a zero-tolerance for major rail disruptions of more 30 minutes.

Breakdowns on the 125-year-old 340-km 24-hour New York City Subway averaged one every 266,000 km compared to Singapore's 25-year-old 180-km network breakdown of once every 120,000 km. Could the Minister give an explanation for this stark difference? Is there anything that we can emulate?

The Minister said in this House last month that Singapore's MRT system is more reliable nowadays and I quote, "We have made some strides in the right direction. But there is certainly room for improvement."

May I then ask the Minister what measures are there in place presently to solve or achieve better reliability? Are these measures sufficient and sustainable in the long run? Will the Minister consider prioritising preventive measures to predict and prevent breakdowns before they occur, as mentioned by Mr Seng Han Thong before me? This is particularly useful for older rail systems.

The purpose is to prevent disruptions by correcting faults before complete breakdowns or major disruptions happen. There should be a team to take

Page: 41

charge of these tasks on a long-term basis to study and predict the disruptions that may take place, either from past experience or from studies of similar happenings encountered by similar rail systems elsewhere. Public transport operators should be mandated to provide this preventive component from the beginning. Instead of just punishing PTOs for breakdowns, we should incentivise them to invest in preventive measures. I feel this approach will enhance reliability.

On bus transportation, may I ask the Minister what has been the progress on the Bus Service Enhancement Programme? Is there still a shortage of bus drivers? Are the new buses put to maximum utilisation? How will the Minister further improve on service standards? May I ask the Minister whether he will review bus routes to provide more efficient and reliable options? Should long routes be shortened in order to increase reliability? Will the Minister also provide timetable bus services that take more than 10 to 15 minutes for buses to arrive at any one place in order to enable commuters to plan for their journeys better?

Mdm Chair, the Yishun neighbourhood is growing rapidly. The estate has always been popular among resale flat buyers and, recently, many BTO flats have been announced for Yishun. There are 11 new BTO projects in Nee Soon South alone. In the next four years, the transport infrastructure in Yishun must be expanded accordingly, or it will not be able to adequately cater to the transportation needs of the residents. I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that plans are already envisioned for the enhancement of the MRT network. I would like to ask the Minister: are there new plans to improve the bus capacity for Yishun in general, and Nee Soon South in particular? It is quite obvious that a projected 20% increase in completed public housing dwelling units will lead to an influx in number of public transport users.

Next, I would like to share the sentiments of many public transport users that the standard of service must be improved. It is appalling that so soon after the Public Transport Council announced the fare increases, we see an intermittent breakdown in the train services. Can the Ministry change the formula on the fare increment calculation to include the level of service or the number of service disruptions in the equation?

Finally, I would like to share with this House the challenges that I face in dealing with some Government agencies, in this case, LTA to be specific. After several years of lobbying, I eventually managed to get the funding for the long linkway along Yishun Ring Road that would enable my residents living in Blocks 858 to 864 – seven blocks – to walk to Khatib MRT station, rain or shine. The

Page: 43

long covered linkway will pass by an SPC petrol kiosk and a Sikh temple. When my architects submitted plans to LTA for approval, we were asked to get a letter of no objection from SPC and the Sikh Temple. The Sikh Temple has been very helpful and gave us the letter very quickly, but not SPC. Until today, we have yet to get the letter of no objection from SPC. Does it mean that the project cannot proceed if SPC refuses to give the letter of no objection? And why does LTA impose such a requirement? Does LTA have to get letters of no objection when LTA wants to do a highway cutting through a residential area, such as for the North-South Expressway?

I met up with SPC representatives yesterday on-site and they cited two reasons – one is safety and the other is that their signboard will be blocked by the linkway. But for safety, my residents have been walking the same way with or without covered linkway, so I do not see the issue. I hope that it is not to cover their backs or look after their interests, be it LTA or SPC. I hope to get some help. With that, thank you.

Madam, in January, when the Public Transport Council (PTC) approved hikes in bus and MRT fares, many commuters asked why fares were being raised when they had yet to see satisfactory improvement in service reliability.

The PTC Chairman acknowledged that service reliability needs to improve, but said that this issue should be kept separate from fare raises, which are to cover rising costs for operators.

This is quite baffling for most commuters, myself included. In most service industries, customers demand good service before they agree to pay. But for public transport in Singapore, we seem to be expected to pay more just to get satisfactory service.

Can the Ministry consider revising the fare review formula to incorporate service reliability as one of its components? This will create a direct link between service quality and fare adjustments, and will better align the incentives for transport operators with the interests of commuters.

Page: 44

Previously, I had called for noise barriers to be installed along elevated MRT tracks to reduce noise level from passing trains. Noise barriers stretching from Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 to Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1 have been identified for first phase of installation work and to that, I would like to thank LTA for its expeditious work.

I understand that the tender was awarded in 2013 for this particular project. With regard to the stretch between Avenue 3 and Avenue 5 Ang Mo Kio, the plan was to implement it from 2017 onwards. Whilst I understand that construction will need to be coordinated with our rail enhancement projects like track sleeper replacements and re-signalling works, I think it is important to recognise the urgency as these tracks are located close to high density flats and schools. Hence, I would like to check if LTA can bring forward the pace of installation at these two stretches as well as other areas in Singapore and what are the challenges they face in doing so.

Mdm Chair, my cut is on the progress of installing MRT noise abatement barriers. Noise pollution is an increasing problem for high density communities. Following a 2012 year-long noise pollution study of homes near elevated MRT tracks, the Government has announced plans to install 20 km of noise abatement barriers across the island by 2020, as one of the initiatives of the Land Transport Master Plan 2013. These noise abatement barriers were said to cut noise levels by five to 10 decibels, bringing noise levels in these areas to NEA's acceptable limit of 67 decibels.

Page: 45

I would like to ask the Minister to provide a progress update on the installation of these noise abatement barriers, what sort of barrier designs were chosen and if tests have successfully shown that the noise levels at these hot spots can be adequately reduced to NEA's acceptable levels.

Mdm Chair, my next cut is on the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). The BSEP started in third quarter 2012. Through a partnership between LTA and the Bus PTOs, about 40 new services were set to be introduced and 800 buses will be added. Out of this, the Government is to fund 550 buses by end-2014, instead of the original plan of 2016. To date, the Government has funded more than 300 buses. The progress of the BSEP on the Government's part has been good and ahead of schedule.

I would like to ask the Minister about the progress, on the part of the two bus PTOs. How many buses have they introduced to date? And also, how has BSEP benefited commuters? Whether a survey has been done to determine the improvements that commuters have come to enjoy, such as service reliability, frequency of service or crowdedness on buses after these new buses were added.

Under the BSEP, an additional 250 buses remain to be delivered. Would the Minister also inform this House when these buses are expected to be on the roads and how the commuters would benefit when these buses are eventually delivered?

Finally, beyond the existing BSEP, which is slated to be completed soon, since the Government has moved ahead of their original plan, are there additional plans to increase bus capacity? Would there be a BSEP II, for example?

As part of its plans for better bus services, the Government has also worked on improving feeder services by introducing private bus operators for Peak Period on Short Services. I would like the Minister to explain the extensiveness of this programme. Where would these buses ply and when would the programme be implemented?

It is noticeable that there are now more new buses on the roads. Bus capacity has been expanded with the introduction of more than 300 of the 550 buses funded by the Government. With the roll-out of the remaining 250 buses by end of this year, two years ahead of the schedule, may

Page: 46

I ask the Minister whether the public transport operators are able to recruit enough drivers to meet this sudden increase of their bus fleet? As we know, even if we can afford to roll out more buses in the shortest possible time, the new buses can only be parked at the depot if there are not enough bus drivers. The increase of 550 buses will need more than 1,000 bus drivers. To be exact, it is 550 multiplied by 2.5, for two shifts plus one relief, which is 1,375.

What are the measures taken to ease the existing infrastructure and bus interchanges capacity to serve this increase of 550 buses?

On top of it, would the competitive bidding for the provision of bus routes under the BSEP be extended to the existing bus routes? How would the bus interchanges be managed if there are multiple bus service providers through competitive bidding?

Madam, with the implementation of the BSEP last year, public transport services have improved. However, for residents living in private estates like Tanjong Rhu, Meyer Road and Haig Road, there is still a lack of public transport alternatives. There is currently only one public bus service, No 158, plying through Tanjong Rhu estate. And there are very limited Premium bus services travelling along Meyer Road to connect residents to the city during peak hours.

I met transport representatives several months ago to ask for increased number of buses. But to date, there has been no improvement. Many of my residents living in the private estates tell me they will be willing to give up driving to work if they can find comfortable and convenient public transport to their workplace. The irony is that there are three MRT stations – Dakota, Mountbatten and Stadium MRT stations – all within a 10-minute bus journey to these private estates. However, none of the existing bus services provide that last mile connection to link the residents to these MRT stations. Thus, residents at Haig Road only need a bus service to link them about 1.4 km to reach the nearest Dakota MRT station. Residents at Tanjong Rhu and Meyer just need a feeder service to bring them to the nearest MRT station at Stadium MRT.

MOT states on its website, "We endeavour to make our public transport system attractive, not just to existing users but also people who have access to cars so that they will embrace the bus or train as ‘my other car'". I call on MOT to introduce short feeder bus services to provide better public transport connectivity to the nearest MRT stations or to introduce more parallel bus services so that residents could take the environmentally friendly option and embrace public transport.

Our public transport operators exist as private profit-making companies, while being in the business of

Page: 49

providing essential services. With an eye on their profits, these companies are perhaps less keen to invest and operate on less profitable routes and greater frequency. But the Government on its side has to ensure reasonably priced, efficient, frequent and convenient transportation to the public as a part of its social objectives.

The Government last year for the first time made an intervention by financing the assets needed to provide better and more frequent services and, thereby, helped the operating companies. The infusion of public and budgetary funds to a private operator also forced the need to have some governance and their accounting aspects to be kept in view. While ring-fencing the investment from the other profit-producing investments of the shareholders in those companies is being done, I feel that this approach confuses and leads to lots of misconception amongst people which can be avoided.

The companies are private entities and therefore only a select set of citizens who hold shares benefit from its profits. While ring-fencing ensures that public money accountability is ensured, there is a cost to it, too. Besides, there is a question of why the transport companies should continue to increase profits and not invest more liberally to improve the services. It appears that the transport companies can continue to work on their profitability motive with a fall-back that, eventually, the Government will step into the area where marginal returns on investment is less than adequate to their shareholders.

I would like to propose that we should look at the transport companies like healthcare institutions which operate not on profit or loss basis and receive support from Government. This way, at least, it is neat and clean and is not torn between the objectives as a private company and obligations of a national service provider.

Mdm Chairperson, as usual, Members of this House have been generous with their questions and feedback on public transport. So, let me try my utmost to respond to some of the issues that have been raised.

The latest Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey (PTCSS), which UniSIM conducts every year, showed that Singaporeans' overall satisfaction with our public transport was 88.5% in 2013, similar to the 88.8% in 2012. Satisfaction with rail services dipped while that for bus services improved. On

Page: 50

rail services, I am keenly aware of the issues to be fixed. My priority is to address reliability and capacity waiting times and I will go into that in some detail.

Mr Cedric Foo has asked for an update on the progress of the LTA and Public Transport Operators' (PTOs') implementation of the Committee of Inquiry (COI's) recommendations. We have, through the establishment of the Joint Teams after the COI, implemented almost all of them and gone beyond some of the recommendations that they have made. Over the last two years, I think we have seen some results and I will share that with Members in a moment. And with your permission, Mdm Chairperson, may I, therefore, display some slides to illustrate?

Last year, normalised train withdrawal rates fell by at least 25% for the North-South-East-West Lines (NSEWL), North East Line (NEL) and Circle Line (CCL). These are train withdrawal rates [Please refer to Annex 1.] I have decided not to include also the service delays of greater than five minutes which I have shared on previous occasions so as not to overly complicate the situation. Members can see what the trend is like.

I think we can do much better. The setback that we had seen over the first two months of this year is certainly a stark reminder that when we try to improve the reliability of the train system, it is a lengthy and painstaking journey, even while the overall trend on train withdrawals shows that we are moving in the right direction.

Members like Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Seng Han Thong, Dr Lily Neo and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah have also stressed the importance of reducing the frequency of service disruptions and asked about our plans to improve overall rail reliability.

This year, our goal for NSEWL is to bring down the withdrawal rates by about another 20%, to 1.8 withdrawals for every 100,000 train-km by the end of this year, down from 3.3 at its peak in 2012, and 2.2 in 2013. Our goal, by 2016, is that we should be better than where we were in 2008. So, this year, to continue the downward trend to 1.8 and, by 2016, to bring it down to better than where it was in 2008.

Reliability improvements will take time. Both operators have ramped up their engineering capabilities and processes, hired more engineers and significantly increased investment in maintenance, and so on. We estimate that

Page: 51

SMRT and SBST have increased their annual repair and maintenance expenditure for its rail lines by about 65% and 35% respectively, over the past two years [Please refer to Annex 2.] Taking into account the expanded network and more trains being operated, it is still a very sizable increase.

I thank Dr Lily Neo and Mr Seng Han Thong for raising the importance of predictive maintenance. Indeed, we are taking a more pro-active, "Predict and Prevent" approach towards the maintenance of our rail system. Our operators are strengthening their maintenance regimes to actively monitor the condition of their assets, to predict where the problems are most likely to occur, and to take pre-emptive steps where required. This is one aspect of it.

The other aspect of "Predict and Prevent" is to look to those who are operating older systems. Our system today is about 25 to 30 years old. And if we are to anticipate the problems that will come up when the system is 35 years old, then we need to look at those who are operating or who have experience operating such systems. Or, to go to the equipment providers who have trains that are already 35 years old operating in other regimes and to find out the problems that may well arise when our system ages even further.

To put predictive maintenance into practice, we also need to monitor the conditions of the rail equipment over their entire life-cycles, to ensure that ageing equipment are replaced or upgraded before they start to fail. Hence, it is important not only to look to our own data, but to look at the data that other people may have. This is what we mean by a "whole-life asset management framework".

In addition to life-cycle monitoring, the operators will need to also put in place real-time condition monitoring systems that will alert them early to potential problems that may arise within our system. For example, SMRT has adopted new technologies such as the Wheel Impact Load Detection (WILD) System and what this does is that it allows early detection of abnormal vibrations. We know that this is important because this was one of the contributory factors to the December 2011 incidents and its engineers can rectify them in a more timely manner.

In particular, we need to focus on reducing train disruptions during the morning peak hours because these cause the greatest inconvenience to the most commuters. The most important checks are done in the wee hours prior to deploying the fleet in the morning. The operators must enhance their night time maintenance works and conduct more stringent checks on the condition

Page: 52

of the trains, just before they are launched into revenue service.

We are complementing these measures with tighter regulation and higher penalties. As Members are aware – and some Members have mentioned – we recently raised the maximum penalty for poor service performance to 10% of the revenue for the affected rail line, or $1 million, whichever is higher. We will consider carefully Mr Foo's suggestion of compensating commuters inconvenienced by service disruptions with fare credits for future trips. But I think it is necessary to bear in mind that it is not so straightforward to identify exactly who should be eligible for compensation because this will potentially include those commuters who detour using alternative routes, as well as those who have decided to use an alternative mode of transport or forgo their journey entirely.

Tighter Operating Performance Standards (OPS) have also been in place, since the start of this year. The operators are now held accountable for short delays, even if they do not lead to service disruptions. In response to Mr Png Eng Huat's question on how service quality is measured, well, we monitor the occurrence of all service delays that lasted about five minutes or more, to reflect their impact on the commuters. Even if these faults causing the delays are addressed relatively quickly, anything that causes a delay – which means a train stopping till when it starts again – anything more than five minutes, we will monitor this.

Sometimes, this can happen as a result of train withdrawals; and sometimes, it is as a result of track problems. It is not that all service delays are caused by the trains alone. The operators, to their credit, have improved the way they are able to offload the passengers and to move a train out of the way so that sometimes, it happens within a five-minute window. But it is still a train withdrawal and not a service delay of five minutes.

We have to measure both because they impact the commuters in different ways. And today, I have shown Members only the train withdrawal because that is something that we are paying quite a lot of attention to.

What we measure is normalised against the total train-km operated, which is quite different from the metric that is based on car-km used by the New York City Subway, which Dr Lily Neo had mentioned earlier. I think she was quoting from a Straits Times' article in February. So, ours is a train-km measurement

Page: 53

and theirs is a car-km measurement.

On our six-car systems, one train-km is equal to six car-km, and on the Circle Line, one train-km is equal to three car-km. When we do a like-for-like comparison between Singapore system reliability versus what the Member has quoted of the New York Subway reliability, our reliability in 2013 is considerably better. It is one delay longer than five minutes in every 456,000 car-km for us across the whole network, compared to one in about 247,000 car-km for New York's full year figure for 2013. So, the article, and the allegation that our system is significantly less reliable than the New York City Subway, are incorrect.

We are also upgrading the ageing infrastructure because track infrastructure also plays a very important role in contributing to overall reliability. We are replacing sleepers and the third rail of the NSEWL to improve train speeds, reliability and comfort, and we will do so by mid-2015 for the North-South Line and end-2016 for the East-West Line. That is sleepers as well as the third rail, from which trains draw power.

We are also changing out the signalling system by 2016 for the North-South Line and 2018 for the East-West Line to further improve signalling reliability. More importantly, it will allow us to run 20% more trains during peak hours. These are three major works that we are doing on the track side – sleepers, the third rail and signalling system.

And I will come now to the complementary work of building noise barriers. We are taking the opportunity, as we do these track works, to build some 20 km of noise barriers along elevated MRT tracks. These will help to minimise the disturbance from the noise of passing trains for residents living near these tracks.

Mr Cedric Foo and Mr Ang Hin Kee asked about the progress of this programme. They have tried it out at several places, Bishan and Tampines, and the post-implementation noise measurement shows that the barriers have been able to bring down the noise of passing trains by at least about five decibels.

I am pleased to announce that by improving coordination with some of the other track renewal and upgrading projects, we will be able to accelerate the noise barrier programme which was earlier slated for completion at the end of 2020. I am bringing this forward to 2019. On top of that, we will also be able to bring forward more of the works for completion by 2016. Originally, this was 10 km by 2016. We are now able to push that up to 14 km. LTA will announce the

Page: 54

locations of the additional 4 km shortly. LTA will also finalise the locations for the remaining 6 km, and will announce them in due course.

Let me now move on to the other issues of train capacity. In reply to Mr Cedric Foo's question, we are indeed increasing rail capacity. To relieve crowding on existing lines, we have purchased more trains. There is a fleet of 13 new trains that are being delivered for the NSEWL in 2014, of which four have already entered revenue service. These trains allow us to immediately insert more trips during the peak periods, to provide additional capacity and shorten the wait for a train within the limits of the existing signalling system. The existing signalling system limitation is 120 seconds interval between trains, and in some instances, we are not able to do that further. In other stretches, we can do so.

As more trains arrive over the next few months, we will continue to inject more into the system, targeting especially the crowded stretches for the morning peak and we will also have more resources to increase the evening capacity. Just as importantly, the larger train fleet will also allow the operators to intensify their maintenance work to prepare the older trains for re-signalling and upgrade them more quickly.

From next year, 42 new trains will join the NEL and CCL and these will increase their existing fleets by about 70% and 60% respectively. What it will mean is that in 2015, we can gradually look forward to more comfortable, less crowded rides and shorter wait times for NEL and CCL commuters.

Across the network, we are also requiring the operators to increase train frequencies under the tightened OPS, that I mentioned earlier, so that by the third quarter of this year, passengers travelling on the NSEWL and NEL generally will not need to wait more than five minutes for trains to arrive, except for the very early morning and very late in the night periods when train ridership is extremely low. Similarly, the waiting times for CCL will also improve to less than five minutes across most of the days when more trains are delivered in 2015.

For residents in Bukit Panjang, I would like to share that the first of 13 new trains is arriving and will be ready for service in the fourth quarter of this year, and all of them will be fully delivered and deployed by mid-2015, and that should increase the existing fleet size by about 70%.

Page: 55

As we add capacity to existing lines, we are also adding new lines to the system. By 2030, we will double the rail network to 360 km. One of the LTA engineers recently told me that there are 25 of these tunnel-boring machines currently in operation at any one time, digging and digging away and tunnelling below us. There is a lot that is happening underground and we are trying to get the new rail lines as fast as we can. We need to do it safely but most importantly, I seek Members' support to help your residents understand that in order for us to get it up quickly, sometimes there is a bit of noise, road diversions and inconvenience, so bear with us while we try and expedite these works as much as possible.

We remain on track for our rail building plans. Last December, we opened Downtown Line (DTL) Stage 1. In the coming years, by mid-2016 and end-2017, we will open up Downtown Line Stages 2 and 3 as well as extensions to the NSEWL. For Punggol residents, the Punggol West LRT will open in the middle of this year.

As these new lines open, what we will see is that the crowdedness on the existing stretches of the network should improve as we decant some of the current commuters onto the new lines. So, by mid-2016, residents along Bukit Timah, Bukit Panjang and some parts of Bukit Batok will be able to ride the DTL2 directly into the city; and in 2017, those living along the Bedok, Ubi, MacPherson stretch would likewise be able to use DTL 3. Hopefully, we will see a lessening of the load on the East-West Lines. As the Thomson Line and the Eastern Region Line come up towards the end of decade and early into next decade, we will see improvements also along the Northern corridor.

Some academics have pointed out that the key difference between our MRT system and those of cities like Tokyo, New York, London and so on is that ours does not seem to have much redundancy, which means that the impact of an unexpected train disruption is disproportionately large. I agree with them.

A denser network, with more interconnections will provide more alternatives for commuters to explore in the event of a disruption. London Underground took about 150 years and the New York City Subway about 110 years to get to where they are today. If our rail network expansion goes according to plan, in about 15 years, our rail network density will be comparable. By 2030, our public transport system will be much more extensive and much more accessible. We will have some 280 train stations, about double the number that we have today, scattered across the island and eight in 10 homes

Page: 56

will be within a 10-minute walk to a rail station.

The most important thing is not so much about rail density, even though we are comparable. The most important thing is how close am I to a railway station and how do I get there. Is it walking? Is it cycling? Is it by feeder bus? That is the part that I will move on to next, because buses connect us to not only the final destination but also plays an important part in our hub-and-spoke network.

We have made good progress with our Bus Service Enhancement Programme – some Members have commented on it – since its introduction about 18 months ago. I mentioned earlier in the survey that satisfaction with bus services rose and it went from about 86.4% in 2012 to 88.3% in 2013. It is generally a reflection that the improvements are being felt by commuters on the ground.

Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Lily Neo, amongst others, have asked for an update on the BSEP. LTA together with the bus operators have worked hard to deliver the programme ahead of the initial schedule. We planned to stage it over five years, front loaded in the first three years, but I think what we have been able to do is to work with them, recruit more drivers, buy more buses and we are confident that we can deliver all 550 of these buses by the end of this year – two years ahead of schedule. So far, we have delivered about 320 of these buses. They have added 2,200 additional trips every week across 125 existing services.

Peak hour loading has improved, and scheduled intervals between buses have decreased by about one to five minutes on average. These are the Government-funded buses. Of the 550, 320 have been introduced. The PTOs themselves have contributed about 100 more buses to meet additional ridership, out of the 250 to which they had earlier committed over the five-year period. It is roughly about 50 buses a year and they have kept to their commitment.

We have also added 24 new routes to our network, in part by augmenting these new routes with resources from private bus operators. Mr Ang Wei Neng spoke about the City Direct services (CDS) of which seven have already been introduced to provide direct connections between the heartlands and the CBD during the peak periods.

There is a difference between the City Direct Service (CDS) and the Premium Bus Service (PBS) that Mr Ang mentioned. PBS targets a niche market

Page: 57

of commuters who are prepared to pay more for guaranteed seats, and in fact some of the feedback is: why do the operators allow people to stand when I have paid more to get a guaranteed seat and I expect the aisle to be free next to me. I believe that there is still going to be a role for PBS even as we roll out CDS. So far, the seven CDS have been well-received, and three more will be implemented in the coming months. Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned this point and I would like to let him know that the response to all 10 CDS tenders has been encouraging and we have received competitive bids from the private bus operators.

By running more buses at higher frequencies, we have significantly reduced the number of persistently crowded services across the island. I thought what would be useful is to show Members half-yearly snapshots of where we were and where we are now. This is something that we monitor – in fact, we monitor more than this. This shows average loadings across the island during a peak one-hour period, and it is a moving one-hour period [Please refer to Annex 3.] "Red" shows where the crowdedness is higher, at 80%. Our commitment is to lower it to below 85%, and we use 80% as an early warning indicator of where we should pay particular attention to. So, this is a heat map in July 2012, and it is not only MEWR that is showing you "hotspots", even MOT monitors "hotspots" of a different kind.

We move forward to January 2013 – some improvement. June 2013 is slightly better, and then now we have January 2014 [Please refer to Annex 4.] What Members can see is that it changes. Sometimes areas that were "yellow" previously, become "red". The "reds", of course, we hope to move it to "yellow", and then to "green". But what it tells us is to pay particular attention to certain areas, plan to add new buses to it, so that we can address some of these issues that arise and it is a dynamic situation.

To further improve feeder services, we will introduce 15 Peak Period Short Services (PPSS), which overlap critical stretches of the existing feeder services, but specially targeted at the most crowded stretches, and also to further reduce waiting times during the peak hours. Four of these services will be launched in the second quarter in Woodlands, Boon Lay, Bedok and Ang Mo Kio.

Overall, I think commuters are happy with the BSEP. I hear Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's call to provide more bus resources to meet the growing demand arising from more and more BTOs. I will come to this in a while, but I just wanted to

Page: 58

say that we have, at my last count, introduced 35 buses into Nee Soon GRC to augment existing services as well as to introduce three new services. Many of them, not all, but most of them, in fact, I think also serve Nee Soon South. That is about slightly more than 10% of the buses that we have introduced so far. We recognise of course that there are more and more BTOs coming up, and rest assured that there are plans to make sure that we are going to introduce new services and buses in tandem with these projects.

I have asked LTA to work with the bus operators to further expand our BSEP programme. I intend to introduce another 450 or so buses over the next three years, on top of the 550 buses under the BSEP programme that I mentioned in COS 2012. This will bring the total number of Government-funded buses under the BSEP programme, with this expansion, to about 1,000 buses. We intend to implement a bulk of this by 2016.

This expansion will focus on two objectives. First, we want to introduce more new services. We will double the number of new routes from 40 under the original BSEP to 80 new routes under this expanded programme. This will help LTA to respond to requests such as that made by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, and I think they have been in discussion not only to just introduce a new service, but to try and also extend one of the existing services to better serve the Tanjong Rhu residents.

Second, we want to improve feeder bus frequencies during the peak periods. As I mentioned, this is important to our overall bus-rail hub and spoke system. We will reduce the scheduled maximum intervals for all feeder services to between six to eight minutes. Even for those that are currently serving at six to eight minutes, there may be room to do more, so that it comes more frequently, but is also less crowded. With more buses under the expanded BSEP and more resources from private bus operators, we can increase the total number of buses deployed for existing feeder services by about 60%, compared to before the BSEP programme was first introduced. This actually is quite a significant change.

If I were to sum it all up, with the buses from the Government, with whatever we are using from the private operators, we will increase the total capacity of our bus system by about 1,400 buses, or about 35% more than the original, within the period of about five years, 2012 into 2017. The expanded BSEP, just like the original, will be funded by the Government and not from fare increases. It will follow the same regime that we have for the BSEP which we talked about earlier. It will continue to draw from the $1.1 billion Bus Service Enhancement Fund (BSEF). Clearly, the fund will now no longer be sufficient to last for the originally envisaged duration of 10 years for the 550 buses. But I know it will be sufficient to

Page: 59

last the next few years and we will carry out a review of this fund at the appropriate time.

I thank Dr Lily Neo for her suggestion to further improve the reliability of buses by shortening long bus routes. We have observed that on some long trunk routes, only a very small proportion of commuters remain on board the bus for the entire route; most would alight at mid-point, at major transport nodes or popular destinations. Indeed, these points to the possibility of re-configuring the longer routes and we will certainly consider her suggestion carefully as part of the longer term bus route planning. One option obviously is to see how we can shorten these routes. But there are options that could be further studied, which does not result in the complete removal of the long bus route, but instead to introduce shorter variants, to augment the parts of the route that are most popular and most heavily used, so that buses arrive at these segments more regularly.

As Mr Seng Han Thong and Dr Lily Neo have rightly pointed out, these bus improvements are contingent on being able to recruit and retain enough bus drivers, especially in a tight labour market. We have been watching the recruitment efforts of the operators very, very closely. Both have raised salaries and implemented progressive salaries such that the bus captains get higher salaries as they deepen their experience and skills, and take on expanded job scopes. This helps to attract more people to join the industry, and over the past year, the number of bus captains has increased by 5% for SBST and 6.5% for SMRT. We will look at more measures and explore them, including funding support to cover the start-up costs involved in recruiting and the initial period of training for new bus drivers before they are operational and can be deployed to the fleet.

To Mr Seng Han Thong's concern over the capacity of our bus infrastructure, it is indeed a challenge. We will provide additional infrastructure to support this expanded programme, such as the recently completed Taman Jurong roadside terminal, the bus parks at Woodlands and Upper Changi Road East, and the upcoming depots at Jurong West and Loyang. The public bus operators will continue to manage the interchange operations and, where required, lease berth spaces to private bus operators running our bus services. There are, indeed, complications that come with competitive tendering, which we have been experimenting on a limited basis with the CDS and Peak Period Short Service routes. We are using these tenders to help us better understand the feasibility of extending bus tendering to the rest of the bus network which we are committed to do. LTA has been exploring the introduction of greater

Page: 60

contestability in the bus industry, including the possibility of a contracting model. At the right time, we will share more about this.

To round up on buses, Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned the example of Taichung in providing free bus travel. The idea is novel, although not entirely new to us. For instance, free travel was offered on Bus Service 49 last year, on its first day of launch. This was really at the behest of Mr Ang Wei Neng, because his CCC suggested it. And we said, "Why don't we partner each other, and your CCC chip in and help bear some of the costs?" They were willing to do so and so we did. We are prepared to consider similar promotions on basic bus services, if the community is willing to come in and partner us; we co-fund them so that residents can try out the new services for free on the first one or two days when a new service is introduced.

Finally, let me turn to the issue of public transport affordability. So far, our current system has done well to keep fares affordable. First, let us start with a comparison of our fares versus that of other major cities around the world like Hong Kong, New York and Tokyo. I think you can see it for yourselves [Please refer to Annex 5.] We have given the cost for a bus trip over 10 km, train over 10 km, and a hybrid trip. Because we have a distance-based fare, obviously, our fares remain the same whatever mode and no matter how many transfers you make.

But beyond this international comparison which is important, the Public Transport Council (PTC) also tracks the affordability of our fares on an annual basis. For a typical family in the second quintile, or from the 21st to 40th percentage points, which we use as a proxy for the average household taking public transport, the proportion of their household income spent on public transport has declined steadily, from 3.7% to 2.6% in 2012 [Please refer to Annex 6.] So, that is for a second quintile family.

For the lower-income groups, we also track the second decile. This is from the 11th to 20th percentage points, and this is the same group that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman used in his Budget address. Their proportion of expenditure on public transport has likewise declined from 5.3% to 4.1% [Please refer to Annex 7.] Therefore, when you look at this, you do know that with the rising salary levels, expenditure on public transport has come down and fares have generally become more affordable.

But we know that there are some groups, like the people with disabilities, lower-wage workers seeking employment, for which public transport fares

Page: 61

might still be a difficulty. Hence, the Government decided to fund two new concession schemes for these groups, starting April of this year. They will get their cards in July, but, in the meantime, we will give them vouchers of $30 and $80 for the three-month period between April, where fares go up, and July when they get their cards. For those who require even more transport assistance beyond this, about $7.5 million will be withdrawn from the Public Transport Fund to fund the vouchers for this year. So far, about 100,000 applications for the vouchers have been received since it started about a week ago.

In total, together with the enhanced concession schemes, like for polytechnic students, about one million commuters are expected to benefit from both the new as well as the enhanced schemes. There may be others who will benefit from the public transport vouchers. I want to assure the House that we are watching this very carefully, and that the Government is committed to make sure that fares remain affordable for all Singaporeans.

Some have asked why fares have to be increased, especially when service is still below expectations. I think this is a point that Mr Gerald Giam has brought up and also made a suggestion that we should link service quality directly to the fare formula. The Fare Review Mechanism Committee has considered this, and Mr Cedric Foo also has commented on it and concluded that the issue of service level is best addressed separately outside of the fare formula, where the Government can directly regulate and work with the operators to improve the overall service levels. Overall, this is a sensible and practical approach. Even as Mr Foo has mentioned, certainly there are disruptions that impact commuters but, as I have also mentioned in previous Parliamentary Questions (PQ) replies, about 99.95% of the daily trips do not suffer any service delay of more than five minutes. So, 99.95% of the trips that are made every day on the rail network do not experience a delay of more than five minutes. But having said all that, it really does not mean that we are not raising service levels. For instance, we have tightened MRT operating standards and improved the service levels for buses, as I have shared earlier. We also have a unified fare structure that is applicable for the entire public transport system and we would have to unravel this if we want to give differentiated fare increases to different PTOs on account of different service quality issues. That is another point to bear in mind.

Some Singaporeans have also asked why we should raise fares when the two PTOs continue to make profits. We are mindful that the PTOs should not be earning excessive profits at the expense of commuters. I have compiled a slide just to share what the profit numbers have been like over the last five years. [Please refer to Annex 8.] And, indeed, when they look at it, there has been quite a significant drop in recent years for the overall profit levels for both

Page: 62

SMRT, which is the line on top, and SBST. For them, the most recent financial year numbers have dropped by more than half compared to five years ago. Our public transport system is based on shared responsibilities between commuters, the PTOs and the Government. We seek a balance where the public transport system remains financially viable for our PTOs but fares are kept affordable for all commuters.

Mr R Dhinakaran has asked if we should operate our PTOs as non-profit organisations. While the suggestion to remove this profit incentive from the PTOs is indeed a tempting one, we also have to think about whether there are possible adverse outcomes. This is because once we tell the PTOs that any future profits that they may make would be taken away, their behaviour will change. They would have less incentive to be efficient and productive. If we move to a cost-plus model where whatever cost they incur we will pay for it, together with a small margin, it would change their behaviours quite drastically.

We are not alone in taking this approach of having commercial entities run public transport operations. Sydney is a very interesting study because they had been privatising their bus industry. Part of it is run by unionised public operators, so-called "nationalised system"; and part of it has been transiting to being run by privatised entities. Their comparison is that the private operators were able to operate at 20% to 30% lower cost than the public operators. That is quite a significant number. The Hong Kong MTR, which our operators are often compared to, is also a good example of a privatised operator that has done well – reliable system and fares, very much comparable to what we have here in Singapore.

Before I conclude, let me quickly update Mr Pritam Singh and other interested Members of this House on the Rapid Transit System (RTS) link to Johor Bahru. The preliminary engineering study with Malaysia has been completed. We are working with Malaysia to finalise the alignment and the station location in Johor and then to commence the second part of the study which will focus on the detailed design of the system. The second part of the study, like that of the first phase, will be equally co-funded by both sides.

Mdm Chairperson, please let me conclude. At MOT, we do have an exciting vision for our public transport system. In our Land Transport Master Plan, we set ourselves the goal of achieving 75% public transport mode share by 2030, up from about 63% today. We are committed to this goal, we are working hard

Page: 63

to develop a much more extensive, well-connected and integrated public transport system that can persuade the public to use it as their main mode of travel and which can be the keystone of our overall vision for a more sustainable and car-less transport network.

But even as we work towards this long-term vision, we are also seeking solutions to the real problems that commuters face today. I recognise that there is still a gap in what commuters expect of us and their experience on the ground. We are improving reliability, increasing bus and rail capacity where we can, and as quickly as we can, so that we can sustain the level of service expected of a First-World public transport system. We are committed to developing a transport system that we can all be proud of, a transport system that is an important part of our greater vision to build a liveable and endearing home for Singaporeans.

Madam, in 2009 and 2012, I had asked LTA to review the need for ERP on Saturdays along Nicoll Highway. I am trying again this year.

Each time I travel along Nicoll Highway on a Saturday afternoon, the road is relatively empty. It simply defies logic as to why motorists are required to pay ERP on Saturdays for a road which is not so congested. The road all the way to Marina Square, Shenton Way and Chinatown is clear. If there is a need to regulate traffic in the Bugis or Orchard Road areas, in order to ring-fence that area, surely LTA can adjust other ERP gantries to discourage vehicles from travelling towards those areas.

Page: 66

In fact, I had previously argued that some congestion on Saturdays may be tolerable. And the situation may be similar to traffic conditions on Sundays where there is no ERP. Motorists live with whatever traffic is on the road on Sundays.

I urge LTA to review the need for ERP on Saturdays along Nicoll Highway and, for that matter, whether ERP is required on Saturdays in parts of Singapore.

The Marina Coastal Expressway (MCE) is listed as LTA's most ambitious project yet. It has also made the list of projects with huge cost overruns. What started out as a $2.5 billion project became $4.1 billion when it broke ground in 2009. At the end of last year, the cost was reported to be $4.3 billion.

Madam, we have seen more public projects breaking the budget, and by significant amounts in recent times. I seek clarification from the Minister on whether the cost for MCE is going to go up further and the effort by LTA to prevent such cost over-run for the many on-going mega projects as well.

Next, I wish to talk about the design of the MCE. The MCE had an eventful opening in end 2013. As the connecting expressway between AYE and KPE, the MCE does the job seamlessly. I use the MCE almost every day and I can attest to that. However, as a replacement route for part of the ECP, the MCE has more room for improvement.

Many motorists expecting familiar exits from ECP will not find them easily underground, and that is probably where the frustration and confusion lie. But what compounded the situation is that LTA is too dependent on those overworked electronic message boards to direct motorists to the right exits. There is only so much information you can squeeze into those boards and messages have to take turns to be displayed.

The MCE is a very expensive piece of engineering but the solution to providing motorists with a pleasant driving experience need not be expensive. LTA has acknowledged that more signs are needed. There is a lot of space on the walls inside the tunnel for simple, cheap traditional directional signs – "Rochor Road Next Exit" in large white font on a green background on the wall leading to the said exit would help clear the confusion quite nicely. I do not see why the walls inside the tunnel cannot be used for such a purpose. Perhaps, the

Page: 67

Minister can shed some light on this.

Madam, in a 2013 circular to professional institutes on the review of parking requirements for places of worship, LTA noted that the worshipping patterns have changed over time with greater congregation sizes and the concurrent use of ancillary prayer halls. This resulted in a shortage of parking facilities and greater reliance on short-term parking along roads, causing inconvenience to the surrounding community.

The regulations of better meeting the parking needs for new places of worship have taken effect. However, managing the parking woes at existing places of worship continues to be challenging. I am concerned that our racial and religious bonds as a society get strained when commuters have to deal with congestion around places of worship. I get particularly concerned when loose remarks are made about the problem concerning one faith every Friday and other faiths which have their day of worship or celebration on weekends and yet other uncalled for remarks about clan or cultural association dinners.

I would like to ask the Ministry if it would consider launching a tolerance campaign with a view to encourage greater understanding between both road users and worshippers, with each party recognising that it has a duty to the other. Worshippers should be mindful of the neighbouring community and take extra efforts to avoid causing obstruction and deploying marshals, as is done in some places of worship. Road users should be encouraged to exercise some patience around places of worship in knowing that worshippers do not seek to inconvenience the larger community.

I believe a targeted public campaign of this nature would also have the unintended but positive effect of generating greater harmony and supporting efforts at building greater understanding between the races.

Mdm Chairperson, in private estates, many residents complain about non residents parking heavy commercial vehicles, lorries and big pick-ups just outside their homes. This has caused the residential nature of the estate to be affected as heavy commercial vehicles are practically using the roads as parking lots.

Page: 68

The indiscriminate parking of such heavy commercial vehicles by the roadside has also caused congestion to the estate. There are also insufficient places for the owners to park their own cars. Some residents have resorted to using dustbins, flower pots or clothes racks to block a space for their cars and this has sometimes resulted in quarrels between neighbours which is unhealthy.

I urge LTA to consider a ban to disallow heavy commercial vehicles from parking along residential roads. Owners of such vehicles should exercise consideration for others and find proper parking places for these vehicles at their factories or commercial premises instead of causing disamenities to other residents.

In Singapore and other parts of the world, we have seen the development of using smartphone applications technology to match the commuters' demand for taxi service to the taxi drivers without the need to go through a centrally-manned call centre.

Would the Government, under the current frameworks of Taxi Drivers Vocational Licence (TDVL) and Taxi Operators Licence (TOL), regulate the use of such third-party innovative technology that would enable commuters to be directly served by many more taxi drivers or other private transport drivers all at the same time?

Despite trying hard for several years, our ability to ensure that taxis are available easily at most places leaves a lot more to be desired. It is a common grouse for many waiting passengers in key places like Orchard Road and this has affected businesses along such stretches in

Page: 71

Singapore, especially during peak hours. It is a common sight to see long queues for taxis, with most desperately trying to call for a taxi, but in vain.

We have built a lot of rules, surcharges and minimum standards to ensure that we get better service. But things have not improved as these rules are sometimes counter-productive. Taxi companies are private operators with profit maximisation as their sole motive.

The taxi driver is also an individual businessman with fixed costs to foot daily. He is paying the rentals and has a limited risk taking ability. He likes to conserve every bit he can and will not enter the CBD area and pay ERP without a passenger inside. Whenever taxi drivers find that earnings are insignificant due to higher rentals, we have more surcharges to help increase their daily earnings. But the rentals catch up and, yet again, the same thing happens. It becomes a vicious circle and the passengers are left in the lurch.

While taxis are arguably not a public transport service, a significant portion of our public uses it as a substitute for high-costing private vehicles. Moreover, it is also our desire to restrict car ownership, so, like public transport, taxis should also be made more available. I urge the Transport Ministry to look at improving the availability of taxis, which affects businesses and tourists in our small economy, besides Singaporeans who view it as a more affordable alternative to cars.

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each attribute, on a scale from one to 10. All eight attributes had an average score at or above nine [Please refer to Annex 9.]

From the commuter's standpoint, taxis should be available when they are needed. Besides better matching of demand and supply, which I will talk about later, better taxi availability therefore means: (a) each taxi being driven more

Page: 74

regularly; (b) more taxis in service, especially when demand is highest; and (c) more phone bookings being catered to.

These are exactly the outcomes we sought to improve by introducing the Taxi Availability (TA) standards in 2013, after close consultation with the taxi companies and National Taxi Association (NTA). We have, indeed, seen improvements in all three aspects. There are more taxis in service, especially during peak hours. The booking rate has increased to almost 95%.

The most significant outcome, however, is the reversal of the trend of a declining share of taxis operating on two shifts. From 2006 to 2012, the share of two-shift taxis declined steadily from 60%, to just 52%, a drop of eight percentage points down in six years. The share has climbed back up to nearly 60% in the one year since the TA standards were introduced.

This trend reversal is significant because the average daily mileage for a two-shift taxi is 450 km, one-and-a-half times that of a single-shift taxi. In other words, taxi availability can be improved without expanding fleet size if more taxis operate on two shifts, which is the case in other cities where taxi services are rated well by commuters, for example, in New York.

This does not mean, however, that taxi drivers have to drive unreasonably long hours or cruise empty more often, a concern which Mr Ang Hin Kee has raised. The monthly gross earnings for two-shift taxis are generally also one-and-a-half times that of one-shift taxis. This suggests that the extra mileage that they cover is not simply a case of empty cruising.

All of us agree that taxi drivers should, indeed, get sufficient rest, both for their own welfare and for the safety of their passengers. With two drivers sharing a taxi and each of them choosing to rest one day a week, each driver needs to clock four to five hours a day for the taxi to meet the minimum mileage requirement. A taxi hirer with no relief driver would have to clock eight to nine hours daily, with one rest day a week. This is assuming an average speed of 30 km/h, not very high.

We also recognise that there are some days when individual taxis may not meet the mileage requirement, for example, due to illness or family exigencies. That is why the standard is applied on a fleet-wide basis. That is 80% and not 100% of a company's fleet need to meet this requirement every month.

Page: 75

The current standards also give drivers flexibility to choose their own rest days, whether on a weekday or a weekend. The taxi only needs to meet the 250-km requirement on 80% of the days in a month, and not all the days. It is up to the driver to decide which days they want to meet it. This approach is better than one where LTA specifies the days that drivers are exempt from the requirements, and also less disruptive to commuters who would otherwise find most taxis out-of-service on the same days.

Overall, the taxi standards aim to strike a good balance between giving taxi drivers some flexibility and making sure that most passengers can get hold of taxis when they need one. We recognise and appreciate that some drivers have made adjustments, and will monitor the situation before raising the standards further.

In addition, we will intensify efforts to better match taxi supply to demand. To shorten waiting times at taxi stands, an issue brought up by Mr Dhinakaran, LTA will provide more real-time information to both commuters and drivers. For example, commuters will be able to compare waiting times at taxi stands by scanning quick response codes with their smartphones. LTA will also try out a system to transmit live demand data at taxi stands so taxi companies can broadcast to their drivers. In doing so, we will also reduce empty cruising by taxi drivers.

Mr Seng Han Thong highlighted the trend in some cities towards smartphone taxi bookings. We agree such applications will improve the overall matching of supply and demand of taxi services. We will assess how to evolve our regulations to benefit both commuters and taxi drivers.

Mr Ang Hin Kee has called for a review of the taxi fare structure. Indeed, the different fare structures are confusing and frustrating to commuters. The problem, however, is multi-layered.

Most commuters can see that peak-period surcharges are an effective way to get more taxis on the roads when demand is higher. Most also agree it is fair to compensate drivers for their late night shifts, or trips involving far-flung locations which usually entail an un-hired drive in one direction, either to or fro.

As it is, time-based surcharges are standardised across companies. Location-based surcharges may differ from building to building, but taxi companies tend to levy the same surcharge for each location.

Page: 76

Surcharges play a part in matching demand and supply. They can be retained with some refinements. For example, a table of surcharges should be prominently displayed in all taxis. Where payable, they should be highlighted to commuters before the start of a trip. However, the main bugbear for commuters is not surcharges but the many variations of flag-down fares.

Generally, these fares should reflect the rental costs of taxis. As taxis are bought at different times, and are of different ages, models, fuel efficiency and so on, their costs are different. Taxi companies have taken to charging different rental rates to reflect these varying costs. Consequently, the companies have also set different fares payable by commuters, commensurate with the different rentals paid by taxi drivers.

While taxi companies would do well to consider if they can simplify rental and fare structures, we are concerned that this may lead to a common levelling up of rentals and fares. While commuters and drivers may prefer a simplified fare and rental structure, I doubt they would prefer one where all fares and rentals are harmonised upwards.

This is why any transition will be tricky and needs to be thought through carefully to ensure that commuters and drivers are not worse off. As a next step, LTA plans to engage regular taxi commuters to get a better sensing of their preference, and will share these findings with the NTA and taxi companies before considering further steps.

Finally, let me address Mr Ang Hin Kee's suggestion to allow taxis to pick up and drop off passengers at bus stops. We have already made a concession to allow taxis to do pick-ups and drop-offs along the roads in the Central Business District, as long as they abide by the bus lane regulations. Mr Ang's suggestion will, indeed, improve convenience for taxi commuters, but it will not be fair to the many other public bus users who will incur longer waiting times to board and alight if there is a taxi obstructing the buses. Besides, it is safer for the elderly and the pregnant to be dropped off or picked up at a proper driveway.

Mr Ang Wei Neng made several suggestions regarding COEs, for example, redefining Category (Cat) A, by Open Market Value (OMV).

Madam, OMV can fluctuate quite significantly for different batches of the same car, due to variations in exchange rates and car model specifications. This would result in certain cars falling in Cat A at certain times, and in Cat B at others.

Page: 77

For example, a Mercedes-Benz A180 brought in by a parallel importer in November last year had an OMV of $19,800, while the same model brought in by an authorised dealer in January this year had an OMV of about $25,100, quite a big different. Likewise, the Honda Civic models registered in Singapore had OMV ranging from about $19,000 to more than $25,800, from 2010 to 2012. So, within the two-year period, the Honda Civic had OMVs that fluctuated quite a bit.

On the other hand, a technical criterion, such as engine power, is generally more stable and can be measured accurately. It is also a reasonable proxy for value, when coupled with engine capacity. This is why we re-categorised Cat A to be based on both engine capacity and engine power.

Should re-categorisation lead to lower Cat A COE prices? Much as we would all like to see softer COE prices, COE prices are ultimately the result of demand interacting with supply. The intent of re-categorisation was simply to retain Cat A more for mass market car buyers, and early indications are that this objective has been achieved. The median OMV for cars registered since the re-categorisation was $19,000 in Cat A, compared to more than $26,000 before – a drop of almost 30%. The share of cars with OMVs above $20,000 has also nearly halved.

Mr Ang suggested splitting Cat C into two sub categories, which some Members had also raised last year. We are sympathetic to businesses that need the use of vehicles and we have provided concessions to commercial vehicles. These include the nominal Additional Registration Fee (ARF) of 5% of OMV, and the lower effective road taxes compared to cars and exemption from diesel fuel taxes on top of road tax rebates granted last year, and also repeated five-year COE renewals.

But the splitting of Cat C will result in relatively small categories. Cat C COE prices would be generally more volatile, and businesses would have to deal with higher price uncertainty. That is why LTA had decided not to go ahead with it.

We are open to suggestions on how the Government can try to help with rising business costs, but I should caution that it is generally difficult to do so within the COE system without implications for other vehicle users.

In the last year or so, we have listened to feedback and made changes to the COE system where sensible. These changes include: (a) taking taxis out of

Page: 78

Cat A; (b) lowering the rate at which all vehicle categories contribute to Cat E; (c) lowering the vehicle growth rate to 0.5%; (d) re-categorising Cat A; and (e) shortening the quota cycle to quarterly instead of half-yearly periods to be more responsive to de-registrations.

The motor industry is still adjusting to these changes. We note Mr Ang's suggestions, but it is probably best to leave things be for a while before introducing further changes.

Let me now touch on ERP. Last year, we announced that LTA has completed the technology trial for the next generation ERP system (ERP2), which Mr Cedric Foo and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about. This is necessary as our current ERP system is coming to its end of life.

If we do not replace the ERP system, it will become more expensive and difficult to maintain and repair. After careful study, we have established the viability of the technologies on offer and will proceed to call a tender in the next few months to develop the ERP2 system by around 2020.

With ERP2, we will be able to calibrate the charging for motorists in proportion to the congested road segments they use, which is a fairer approach. ERP2 can also provide value-added services, such as navigation, payment for roadside parking in lieu of parking coupons and real-time traffic information, which Mr Ang also noted. There could be scope to review the off-peak car and we can do so in due time.

Members have raised possible concerns over the loss of privacy with ERP2. As with any technology, there are benefits as well as trade-offs, but rest assured that there will be appropriate safeguards to minimise privacy concerns. There will also not be any change in the pricing policy and no new charged roads while we transit to the new technology.

Let me respond now to questions raised by Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Png Eng Huat. For the city centre, we charge ERP based on a cordon concept. This means that ERP rates are based on the collective traffic conditions on key routes within the cordon. We take this approach because the roads leading into the city centre are fairly good substitutes for one another.

Page: 79

The gantry at Nicoll Highway, which Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about, is part of this cordon. If the gantry were not operational on Saturdays, traffic would naturally gravitate towards Nicoll Highway, resulting in greater localised congestion there. Mr Lim has asked whether ERP ought to be levied on Saturdays at all. In fact, the ERP charges in some sections, for example, in Orchard Road, were adjusted in lieu of the feedback.

Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the Marina Coastal Expressway (MCE), which was designed to improve connectivity to the New Downtown at Marina Bay. LTA had undertaken a very comprehensive planning and design process to ensure that the MCE caters to both short- and long-term land use needs.

In January, Minister Lui Tuck Yew updated Parliament that, with the exception of the morning of the first working day, peak-hour traffic along the MCE and the adjoining road network has been generally smooth-flowing. MCE has, in fact, resulted in reduced ERP charges paid by drivers, which is within our planning expectations for the short-term as the New Downtown at Marina Bay is currently only partially developed.

As for Mr Png's query on the costs of the MCE, we expect to keep within the revised MCE budget of $4.7 billion, with possibly some savings. The budget for MCE was revised upwards from the original $2.5 billion, and a full explanation was given in the Parliament sitting in January 2009. To recap very briefly, the cost estimates were revised due to three factors: higher construction and material costs, poorer than expected soil conditions, and higher regulatory standards.

I will now address Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Pritam Singh's questions on parking. Today, LTA regulates the overnight parking of heavy vehicles so that they do not cause disamenities in residential estates. These vehicles are required to secure a parking lot in an authorised parking place under the Vehicle Parking Certificate scheme. It is an offence for a heavy vehicle that is not in use, which is between 12.00 midnight and 6.00 am, not to be parked in its designated parking place.

For places of worship, LTA exercises flexibility when enforcing illegal parking during praying hours or special events, as long as the vehicles do not cause obstruction or pose safety concerns. This is the approach regardless of religion. Most of the religious organisations proactively do their part to manage the traffic and advise their worshippers not to park indiscriminately. Nevertheless, when there are complaints about indiscriminate parking that

Page: 80

endangers other road users, LTA will take strict enforcement action.

Last but not least, Madam, I would like to share my Ministry's contributions towards managing the carbon footprint of our transport sector. One strategy is to control vehicle population growth. Another strategy is to reduce vehicle emissions, especially by old diesel vehicles, through the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS), which Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about.

More than 850 vehicles have been replaced with cleaner models, under the ETS. We hope to improve on this rate of improvement by sharply increasing the COE bonus offered under the scheme. This could lead potentially to the early turnover of the oldest and most pollutive diesel commercial vehicles, comprising 20% of all Cat C vehicles. Let me explain how the enhanced COE bonus works.

Take an owner of a heavy vehicle with five years of vehicle life remaining and four years of unused COE. And let us assume that the Prevailing Quota Premium payable for a 10-year COE renewal is $50,000. Under the current ETS, the owner transfers the unused four years of COE to the new vehicle when he deregisters his old one. He gets a COE bonus of one-and-a-half years, or 30% of the five years of remaining vehicle life. So, that is the blue part, which is the COE bonus. And, therefore, he needs to pay for an additional four-and-a-half years of COE, and that is $22,500; already less than half of the Prevailing Quota Premium.

But under the enhanced ETS, he will get a much bigger bonus. How does it work? The remaining four years of COE is similarly transferred, but the owner gets a full five-year bonus COE, or 100% of the remaining life of his old vehicle. As a result, he need only pay for one additional year of COE and that is $5,000. The scheme is, therefore, especially helpful to businesses, by bringing down the COE cost of vehicle replacement, with potential savings of thousands of dollars, up to $30,000 in some cases. In this case, he gets extra three-and-a-half years of COE bonus free of charge. Not only that, he only needs to pay $5,000.

The enhanced scheme will kick in tomorrow and will be effective till end April 2016 instead of 2015 to give vehicle owners more time to decide. Nevertheless, we encourage owners to do so early, as they stand to enjoy higher bonuses when they replace their vehicles earlier.

On suggestions to do more to mitigate carbon emissions, we have done so with the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS). Since the

Page: 81

implementation of the surcharge in July 2013, the percentage of high-emissions models registered has halved to less than 7%, compared to the first half of 2013. In the second half of 2013, 59% of the models were in the rebate bands, compared to about 40% in 2012, had the scheme been in place then.

The CEVS has been extended to June 2015. This was announced during the Budget. We will consider Mr Pritam Singh's earlier suggestion during the debate to sharpen the incentive and disincentive structure when the scheme is up for review.

To conclude, Madam, I would like to return to where I started, which is to advocate for a sustainable model of transport mobility that places the most emphasis on high-quality public transport, supplemented by good access to personalised services, including taxis, car-sharing and cycling, and controlled growth of car population and usage.

Public transport must be our mode of choice for as many trips as possible. Whatever the number of cars we can accommodate on our roads and in our residential areas and offices, better that more are shared by many than owned and used by a few. This will require a shift in social norms and our mobility culture, which is in complete alignment with the broader shifts that we hope to see in our journey of economic and social transformation.

Mdm Chair, within Tanjong Rhu estate, there are 1,528 households. Of these, about 1,260 residents are above 60 years of age. For many of them, they struggle to climb a three-storey high pedestrian overhead bridge just to reach the other side of Mountbatten Road where there are more amenities like supermarket, clinics, wet market or the Mountbatten MRT station.

I had previously made several requests for a lift to be installed at the pedestrian overhead bridge, but to no avail. Instead, LTA decided to build a long ramp which I did not feel will solve the issue. I just want to invite LTA senior officers to come and witness a 60-year-old or 70-year-old elderly man or woman relying on walking stick to walk along the ramp.

Hence, I am appealing to LTA to consider a signalised traffic crossing along Mountbatten Road so as to facilitate the travel patterns of the elderly residents who are unable to climb the high pedestrian overhead bridge. A signalised traffic crossing will bring about greater convenience and allow elderly residents to cross the road in a safe manner. I note that there are similar signalised traffic crossings along other busy roads like Lornie Road, Bendemeer Road, Victoria Street and Jalan Besar.

I urge LTA to look at the profile of the estate. LTA should aim to allow elderly residents living in the area to have a better quality of life and to have access to more amenities. This would be in line with the Government's efforts to honour the Pioneer Generation and our elderly residents.

Over the past year, we have put a lot of emphasis on enhancing the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and getting views from the users' perspective. Besides personally engaging various groups to hear their views and suggestions, I also join them to try out our cycling network. For example, late last year, I joined a group of cycling enthusiasts on a ride along the cycling paths at Marina Bay. They liked the off-road cycling paths that we are building, and affirmed that this would, indeed, enhance safety for all cyclists. They were also candid in telling me that infrastructure alone is not enough. What is more important is to build a common culture that emphasises graciousness, respect and courtesy towards all road users, whether they are pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.

The Inter-agency Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Committee, which I chair, shares this philosophy. The Committee was set up last year to review and improve road safety initiatives. It has been studying best practices from other countries and analysing accident trends to better understand their root causes.

Dr Janil Puthucheary, who expressed his concern for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, would be happy to note that the number of fatal and injury accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists has dropped by 15% last year, to less than 1,200 cases in 2013 [Please refer to Annex 10.]

I think this has partly to do with several initiatives that we implemented last year. Some of these are relatively small improvements but make a big difference on the ground. For instance, people have told me that the new "LOOK" road signs, as you will see here at selected zebra crossings, reminding pedestrians to watch out for traffic before crossing the road, have been quite helpful. We intend to include these at 150 more zebra crossings this year. We are also testing a new design, the "Give Way to Pedestrians" sign, at selected traffic junctions to provide better contrast and visibility to motorists so that they will be more vigilant of crossing pedestrians when making right turns.

LTA has implemented the Black Spot Programme since 2005. This programme identifies accident-prone locations for more safety initiatives to be implemented. One such example is at the junction of Jurong Town Hall Road and Boon Lay Way towards West Coast Road, where we have replaced the usual right-turn green arrow of the traffic lights with controlled red, amber and green right-turn arrows. This simple initiative has halved the accident rate at the junction from 22 to 11 over a three-year period. This site has since "graduated"

Page: 90

out of the Black Spot Programme. Ms Irene Ng would be glad to know that, starting this year, LTA will adjust the criteria of locations to be included in the programme from areas with more than 15 accidents over three years, to areas with 12 or more accidents over three years. This will bring in more accident-prone locations for treatment, and require more resources as the number of locations under this programme would increase by 11% from 90 to about 100. But a small investment like this is very important to make for safer roads.

We are particularly focused on improving road safety for the elderly, who are over-represented in pedestrian accidents. Forty percent of all pedestrian fatalities are elderly pedestrians, although they make up only 16% of the population. I worry because our elderly population is growing by an average of 32,000 each year. To mitigate this situation, we will introduce a new concept called "Silver Zones" in residential areas with a high elderly population, and relatively high accident rates involving the elderly. This is based on best practices overseas, such as in South Korea and New York City, where similar zones have been established. In these zones, we will try out a number of additional road safety measures to cater specifically to the elderly. Examples of these include adding a centre divider in the middle of the road so that the elderly can rest for a while instead of crossing the whole road at one go, painting special markings on footpaths to guide the elderly to the nearest pedestrian crossings and transport amenities, and finally, installing lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges. These measures will take into account specific site conditions and community feedback. We will pilot Silver Zones at five locations in the following towns – Bedok, Bukit Merah, Jurong West, Marine Parade and Yishun – by the end of this year.

The safety of school children is another area of focus for the Committee. We have implemented the Enhanced School Zone at all Primary schools for some time now to alert motorists to be more cautious when driving in these zones. I am sure that those of us who drive are familiar with the red-textured road surface of such zones by now.

Through consultation with MOE, the Traffic Police (TP) and the school community, the Committee has put together a comprehensive "toolkit" of School Zone safety initiatives, to be implemented at 10 Primary schools this year. One example is the reduction of the speed limit to 40 km/h along roads fronting Primary schools during certain hours. In addition, we have decided that we should also bring Secondary schools into our safety programme. This is done by extending "School Zone" signs to the frontages of all Secondary

Page: 91

schools to alert motorists to the presence of students in these zones. These efforts will complement TP's measure of raising demerit points for offences, such as speeding and careless driving, in School Zones.

Let me share another example where Government agencies have collaborated and worked with the community to do more for school safety as part of the Committee's work. At Edgefield Secondary School in Punggol, MOE has assisted the school to widen its internal driveway to prevent congestion within the school car park that may cause a spill-over to the road. LTA has also stepped up enforcement against illegal parking outside the school, and the National Parks Board has trimmed overgrown trees at a nearby car park exit to improve visibility for motorists. My insight from all these is that there is really no "one size fits all" solution to road safety. Agencies must work together with the community to identify the unique road safety issues at each school and resolve them.

Let me now move to cyclist safety. Notwithstanding the number of high profile accidents recently, the number of cyclist accidents has actually been on a downward trend since 2008. The number of cyclist fatalities has actually also been on a downward trend, from 22 per year in 2008 to 15 in 2013. But I agree with Ms Ng that each fatality is one too many and we must continue to make our roads safer for cyclists. I seek Ms Irene Ng's understanding that given Singapore's land constraints, we need to optimise our available road space and balance the needs of cyclists with that of motorists, commuters and pedestrians. Nevertheless, we are taking steps to enhance cyclist safety. LTA is in the midst of refreshing all 190 "Cyclists Ahead" signs along popular cycling routes, such as Upper Thomson, Mandai, Upper Changi, Kranji and Tanjong Rhu, to alert motorists to the presence of cyclists on the road. The new signs were developed in collaboration with the Singapore Cycling Federation and the Safe Cycling Taskforce, and I am happy to have heard much positive feedback on these new signs.

LTA is also providing more mid-block signalised bicycle crossings. As shown on the slide, this will allow cyclists to have their own space to ride across roads separately from pedestrians without dismounting. We already have 13 such crossings and six more will be installed next year at Taman Jurong and Changi-Simei in tandem with the completion of cycling path networks in these towns.

Dr Janil would also be glad to hear that the Committee is currently working on designing and implementing a national voluntary cyclist education programme. This initiative is led by the Singapore Road Safety Council, with

Page: 92

customised curricula for different groups of cyclists, such as students and commuting cyclists. We intend to involve cycling groups, academics and other agencies in this process, and I hope that eventually, we will all see safe cycling as a useful life-skill that we should learn.

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the members of the Committee, who have put in a lot of hard work to achieve the "Safer Roads Singapore" vision that we have always looked towards and improve the safety of Singaporeans.

Let me now share the Ministry's plans to enhance our cycling ecosystem. Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Ms Irene Ng, Dr Janil, Mr Nicholas Fang and Mr Yee Jenn Jong have made impassioned commentaries on cycling. I agree with all of you. Not only is cycling a healthy activity, it is also environmentally-friendly and one of the most efficient forms of urban transport. In addition, the feeling of freedom and mobility you get when riding a bicycle allows you to connect to your living environment in a way that sitting in a car can never do.

I visited Australia last November and I was very impressed with their cycling infrastructure. In comparison, our cycling infrastructure is less developed. This is understandable, as our journey into cycling is shorter than theirs, and also in other cities like Copenhagen and San Francisco. In addition, we had historically prioritised motorised over non-motorised transport in our infrastructure plans. It is thus a challenge now, in land-scarce Singapore, to build dedicated off-road cycling paths everywhere, even though we would like to do so to better cater to cyclists of all skills.

However, we have one unique advantage, and that is our extensive and wonderful Park Connector Network, which we must better integrate and link up with our cycling path networks to create an island-wide network that will eventually span more than 700 km, or 14 times the length of Singapore, over the next 10 to 15 years. These dedicated, off-road cycling paths will also minimise conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists.

As pointed out by Mr Cedric Foo, errant cyclists who display reckless or dangerous riding behaviours endanger pedestrian safety. TP enforce against such cyclists. In 2013, 543 summonses were issued against cyclists riding on footpaths, a slight increase from 525 in 2012. Nevertheless, I agree that various agencies can explore ways to address this multi-faceted problem more effectively. Agencies and stakeholders will thus need to come together to review this holistically.

Page: 93

Dr Janil and Mr Ang Wei Neng spoke about the progress of the cycling path networks. To date, over 200 km of Park Connector Networks and intra-town cycling paths are in place. Last October, I announced that cycling path networks will be built in Ang Mo Kio, Choa Chu Kang and Toa Payoh. We will call tenders for them by the end of this year. In addition, we have identified Bishan, Bukit Panjang and Woodlands as the next towns under this programme, bringing us to a total of 15 cycling towns. We will also continue to build more short links between MRT stations to nearby park connectors to further improve connectivity in 12 towns by 2015, starting with Buangkok, Dover and Yew Tee.

I certainly agree with Dr Janil's suggestion to provide more bicycle racks. On top of the 3,000 bicycle racks at 32 MRT stations that have been completed since 2011 or those which are still under construction, we will construct 500 more bicycle racks at 11 MRT stations. This will begin this year. Bicycle racks will also be provided at the Sports Hub, as well as locations in Marina Bay and Jurong Lake District, in partnership with residential and commercial developers. Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked about the provision of bicycle racks at HDB void decks and neighbourhood centres. For all new public housing developments, HDB will provide bicycle racks in the common areas, while for existing towns, Town Councils will provide them based on demand and utilisation of existing bicycle racks, with more generous provisions in cycling towns, such as Pasir Ris and Tampines. Agencies are thus working closely to ensure that bicycle parking needs of residents are met, but we can explore how to better coordinate efforts, as Mr Ang suggested.

Finally, last year, I shared that LTA was planning to pilot a bicycle-sharing scheme, like those in Paris, New York and London, starting with Jurong Lake District by 2015. This scheme is practical for those who do not own bicycles, or prefer the convenience of using shared bicycles for one-way trips. Dr Janil will be pleased to know that with the completion of the first phase of the cycling path network in Marina Bay, we will be able to pilot bicycle-sharing there, too. We will also explore launching this pilot in HDB towns with completed cycling path networks, such as Tampines and Sembawang, should there be interest from potential service providers.

I will move on now to share what we are doing to improve the walking experience. With the massive investments we are making to improve our public transport, especially in building new rail lines, we want to do what we can to make the walking component of a public transport journey far more convenient and pleasant for Singaporeans. This will go a long way towards our ambitions to make public transport a choice mode.

Page: 94

Many people have told me that Singapore's weather discourages walking. Our Walk2Ride programme, which comprises over 200 km of sheltered walkways connecting MRT stations and bus interchanges with schools, healthcare facilities and public amenities, is our key initiative to improve the walking experience, by protecting pedestrians from the elements. Late last year, we called four tenders to construct these sheltered walkways by 2018. We will begin construction this year.

I would like to reply to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's earlier comment on the covered walkway. I would like to highlight that the proposed walkway at Yishun essentially blocks the view of the advertisement sign of the SPC. In such cases, LTA takes into account local stakeholders' feedback and concerns and will advise the Qualified Person to inform stakeholders and address their concerns. LTA will continue to work closely with Nee Soon Town Council, the Qualified Person and SPC to get this issue resolved quickly.

We will also continue our vigorous efforts to improve accessibility for the elderly and disabled. This is to "future-proof" our transport system as we prepare for an ageing demographic. Today, all bus stops are barrier-free, except for a few that cannot be upgraded due to physical constraints. All MRT stations and bus interchanges today have at least one barrier-free access route.

This is probably a good point to respond to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's request for a signalised traffic crossing near the Kampong Arang estate along Mountbatten Road. In fact, Mr Lim has brought this up a few times and we had assessed it again. We have re-assessed that providing a signalised traffic crossing at this location would significantly impede the flow of traffic at this major road. As he mentioned earlier, we are building ramps at the nearby pedestrian overhead bridge (POB), and this should be ready by next month.

Let me also update Members about the programme to install lifts at overhead bridges. We announced the expansion of this programme last year, from six to about 40 more POBs, and this has received a lot of support. We will review how to expand the programme further, with priority for the Silver Zones. In addition, we will also continue to expand the Green Man Plus scheme by about 240 pedestrian crossings. This scheme allows the elderly and disabled to use their concession cards to get more green time to cross the road.

Page: 95

Madam, while we have developed a whole host of measures to ensure that our transport system is friendly to the needs of diverse groups, we must aim to do more, to truly make our land transport system people-centric, more inclusive, more accessible and, most importantly, safer for all. I have received feedback and very useful ideas from many people, including many who have spoken in this House today and in the past. I appreciate these valuable ideas. My colleagues and I at MOT and LTA would certainly do our best to help create a liveable and inclusive community for all of us.

Mdm Chair, my next cut is on enhancing Changi Airport as an air hub. On a monthly basis, Changi Airport handled about 4.5 million passengers and 29,000 flights last year. That is a 5% – 6% improvement from 2012.

Page: 96

So, on first impression, this looks like a credible performance, not until you compare them to the competing hubs that continue to grow at a faster clip. Dubai, for example, grew at 16% for the nine-month period between January and September last year. Bangkok's growth was 18% prior to the start of the political unrests that it has experienced in end 2013, and Kuala Lumpur's international passenger growth was at 18% as well. All much stronger than Changi's growth rate at 6%.

With new aircraft technologies, Singapore is losing its competitive edge to Dubai as a regional hub as aircraft can fly from Europe to Dubai, and then with long haul aircrafts no longer have to re-fuel in Singapore, but are able to fly directly between Dubai and Australia, what the airline people call the "Kangaroo route". Bangkok and KL are also quickly transforming into Asian hubs for low-cost carriers.

I would like to ask the Minister to share Changi's plans for Terminals 4 and 5, and the three-runway system, and also if more air services agreements are envisaged and planned for, and further strategies to attract low-cost carriers to Changi. Would the Minister also elaborate on the new strategic thrusts that will enhance Changi's competitive edge? In all, can we all look forward to a rate of growth for Changi Airport that is ahead if not at least comparable to those enjoyed today by Dubai, Bangkok or KL?

Mdm Chair, first, may I echo Mr Charles Chong in saying that our thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones that are most affected and impacted by the MH370 incident, and that Singapore will continue to provide all meaningful assistance in any possible way that we can.

Both Mr Cedric Foo and Mr Charles Chong highlighted the performance of Changi Airport versus that of competing airports and asked about our plans to ensure Changi's continued competitiveness. As noted, 2013 was another record year for Changi, which handled 53.7 million passengers, 5% more than 2012. We were the second-ranked airport in Asia by international passenger volume. For airfreight volumes, they registered a slight increase of 0.8%, a reversal from the 1.6% contraction in 2012 and a fair performance relative to the 1% contraction seen within the Asia Pacific region.

Some of our competitor airports have, indeed, grown more quickly, but I think we cannot expect to be growing at such rates, nor is it desirable. If we grow at 18% each year like Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, we will need to double airport capacity every four to five years, which is not sustainable, given our land and manpower constraints.

Our emphasis is to try and achieve sustainable, quality growth. On this score, Changi remains well-positioned to ride on the strong growth of air travel demand within Asia Pacific where the International Air Transport Association or IATA has projected passenger traffic to grow by 5.7% annually over the next few years. For 2014 and the rest of this decade, we anticipate passenger growth at Changi to continue at an annual rate of about 4% to 6%.

We have a three-pronged strategy to ensure that Changi remains the premier air hub for the region. First, we will continue to pursue a liberal aviation policy. This will enable airlines to launch new city links and increase frequencies on existing ones, thereby ensuring that Changi continues to enjoy superior connectivity, and improving the value proposition for passengers and airlines.

Page: 101

For example, the expansion of the Singapore-Indonesia Air Services Agreement (ASA) last year resulted in a 40% increase in the number of weekly flights between the two countries. This made travel between Singapore and Indonesia even easier and enhanced our position as the leading gateway to Southeast Asia.

We also expanded six other existing Air Services Agreements and concluded nine new ones in 2013, bringing our total number of air services agreements to over 120. The Changi Airport Group (CAG) will continue working with airlines to encourage them to take advantage of these ASAs and to add new routes and flights judiciously at Changi.

Another important strategy to ensure Changi's continued success is to expand our infrastructure ahead of demand. In this regard, 2013 was an important milestone as CAG broke ground for the new Terminal 4 and unveiled plans for Project Jewel, the mixed-use complex to be built in front of Terminal 1, utilising the three hectare plot that is currently occupied by the open air car park. In these plans, we have taken the requirements of both passengers and airlines into consideration. For example, Terminal 4 will be designed to facilitate quick aircraft turnaround, in line with the operating models of Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) and airlines operating regional services.

The Prime Minister also announced the longer-term plan for a new Terminal 5 during last year's National Day Rally with an initial capacity of 50 million passengers per annum. I am pleased to inform Members that, since then, we have received much useful feedback from the industry. We will take onboard this feedback and refine the Concept Plan that will guide the long-term expansion of Changi Airport. We aim to reveal the Concept Plan later this year.

In the meantime, the most critical work is to operationalise a three-runway system at Changi. This has commenced. We are now moving into the land preparation phase. Land preparation will take a significant amount of time as we have found from recently-completed extensive tests that the soil condition onsite is very much poorer than expected. We expect to appoint a contractor to carry out the land preparation works around the middle of this year. Based on current plans, we are still targeting for the three-runway system to be completed around the early 2020s. In the interim period, CAAS will work with various stakeholders to optimise the capacity of the existing two runways to ensure that we can continue to accommodate growth without compromising safety.

Page: 102

Increasing airport capacity is not achieved just through runways and terminals alone. Enhancement of procedural capabilities and processes are equally important. To this end, we recently inaugurated the new Singapore Air Traffic Control Centre which features a truly state-of-the-art LORADS III air traffic management system that is able to accommodate significantly higher air traffic. CAAS has also embarked on a $200 million Air Traffic Management Centre of Excellence initiative and this will result in significant optimisation and expansion of Changi's air traffic capacity over the coming years.

Thirdly, as was mentioned by Mr Chong, it is essential that we raise the productivity of airport operations, particularly in light of the tight manpower situation in Singapore. We will introduce self-service facilities and processes in Terminal 4 to validate their feasibility before we adopt them on a larger scale at Terminal 5. Trials of such features are currently underway.

CAAS and CAG are also exploring other productivity-enhancing initiatives, such as introducing fixed ground services at the existing and future terminals and remotely-operated aircraft pushback. These will also help to enhance productivity and reduce our reliance on manpower. Such measures will ensure that Changi continues to deliver the efficient and pleasant user experience for which it is renowned while keeping it cost-competitive for airlines.

At the same time, we will continue our efforts to develop a larger pool of talent for the aviation sector, which provides many good jobs for Singaporeans. CAAS will step up its outreach programmes to attract more Singaporeans to aviation careers, including in the very important aerospace sector.

In summary, the prospects for the Singapore air hub remain bright. But we cannot take our success for granted. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure that Changi remains globally competitive. In turn, this will help Singapore to continue to thrive as a global hub for business and tourism, support the creation of quality jobs for Singaporeans, and make air travel even more accessible and convenient for Singaporeans.

Let me reply to the points that have been raised on the maritime sector by Mr Charles Chong. As he has rightly pointed out, there are several challenges that the maritime industry has to grapple with. Some of these challenges have affected growth in the sector, not only in Singapore but all over the world.

Page: 103

Nonetheless, the maritime sector in Singapore remains robust and our fundamentals are strong. Last year, container throughput grew by about 3% to reach another record high of 32.6 million TEUs. This growth rate is quite similar to other major ports around the world, with the exception of Hong Kong that went into negative growth, and Ningbo which was growing more strongly than ports like Shanghai, Shenzhen and even Singapore. We remained the world's second busiest port, after Shanghai, and the world's top bunkering port.

Our maritime sector has consistently contributed about 7% to our GDP, and is also a significant multiplier for the rest of the economy. Our port is a strategic asset providing critical connectivity for our manufacturing industry, giving them a key competitive advantage. Our position as an International Maritime Centre (IMC) provides both a high value-added growth engine for our economy and a source of good jobs for Singaporeans.

We are, therefore, committed to investing in the maritime sector. And here, we have a four-pronged strategy to growing this.

Firstly, let me begin with infrastructure. We take a long-term view of our Port and will continue to grow port capacity ahead of demand. The expansion of Pasir Panjang Terminal (PPT) is on track and the first set of new berths at PPT will be ready later this year. The PPT will eventually increase our port capacity by about 50% to 50 million TEUs per annum. By introducing the new berths, we are just making sure that we have that capacity ahead of time. We have also commenced the development of Tuas Terminal, where we will eventually consolidate all our container port activities in the long term.

We are also committed to developing our Port in a safe and sustainable manner. Our vessel traffic management systems are regularly upgraded to support growing port traffic. We are doing more to promote cleaner shipping. We are working with relevant stakeholders to put in place a framework for Singapore to be ready for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) bunkering, which is a cleaner alternative to conventional marine fuels.

Secondly, as Mr Chong has also highlighted, it is essential that key waterways remain open and secure. This is one of the reasons why Singapore participates actively in the work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and abides by and advocates Law of the Sea principles that uphold the preservation of navigational safety and freedoms.

Page: 104

We partner our neighbours to enhance navigational safety and environmental protection in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, or SOMS for short. There is the Co-operative Mechanism that has been in place since 2007 that allows the three littoral States, other user States as well as the maritime industry, to work together on areas of common interest – safety of navigation, environmental protection, and so on. One of the key initiatives under the Co-operative Mechanism is the Marine Electronic Highway Project, which aims to improve navigational safety and protection of the marine environment in the SOMS by linking shore-based marine information and communication infrastructure with the corresponding navigational and communication facilities on board transiting ships.

Our third strategy is to promote productivity and innovation across the maritime sector. Last year, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) launched a S$25 million Productivity Programme under its Maritime Cluster Fund (MCF) to support the industry's productivity efforts. Over the next few years, we will focus on key areas, such as our cargo terminal operations, harbour craft operations and that of our ship agencies, which provide services to the ships calling at Singapore.

Likewise, innovation is a key enabler for our maritime sector. And we do so by promoting maritime R&D because innovation is such an important aspect of productivity in the maritime field. Since its inception 10 years ago, MPA's Maritime Innovation and Technology (MINT) Fund has supported over 250 maritime R&D projects in areas like port automation systems and clean energy. Recently, MPA topped up the MINT Fund by another $50 million to further support maritime R&D.

Finally, we must continually refine and sharpen our maritime policies and schemes to enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a choice maritime centre. These schemes must be business-friendly and relevant to the sector's needs.

Central to our development as an IMC is talent. Hence, our fourth and most important strategy is to grow a core of local maritime talent. It is a sector that is employing over 170,000 people, and there is more scope for Singaporeans to take up the many opportunities in this field, not just as seafarers, but also as financiers, insurers, lawyers, brokers and engineers.

MPA has been working closely with its tripartite maritime partners to promote maritime careers through outreach activities, such as internship programmes, scholarships and the Singapore Maritime Week held in April each

Page: 105

year. We have helped our educational institutions enhance maritime education and training. Last year, for example, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) introduced a new Higher NITEC course for Shipping Operations and Services, while the Singapore Management University (SMU) launched a Maritime Economics Concentration for its undergraduates and thereby adding to the slew of tertiary programmes that we have in the maritime field. The take-up has been encouraging, with about 100 students enrolling in these courses.

We also continue to groom a core of local seafarers through training schemes, such as the "Place and Train" programmes for aspiring Deck Officers and Marine Engineer Officers. This is important not because we think that they should be serving on board ships until they are 60 years old, but because we need them to have some experience commanding a ship at sea and, thereafter, come ashore to hold jobs in the MPA and in the industry where such sea-going experience is quite critical. So, for the Deck Officers and Marine Engineer Officers, we have been providing support for these programmes and we should see another batch of 40 cadets graduating later this year. And for those who are already in the sector and need to be upgraded through short courses and programmes, we have used our Maritime Cluster Fund (MCF) for Manpower Development to annually provide support to about 4,500 maritime professionals in their training programmes.

Finally, let me turn to Mr Charles Chong's question on our involvement in the Arctic Council. As a responsible member of the international maritime community, Singapore takes a strong interest in the development of Arctic shipping and the possible impact of such new shipping routes on maritime trade and the freedom of navigation. But I also think that beyond this interest, the knowledge and the experience that we have gained over the years with vessel traffic management in the very busy Singapore Straits and the emergency responses plan that we have put in place can contribute to the development of safe and sustainable shipping in the Arctic. And over time, as we see more exploratory activities taking place in that remote part of the earth, I think some of the experience that our offshore companies have built up over time, in Keppel and Sembawang, will also come in very useful.

So, in conclusion, Mdm Chair, the Government will continue to work closely with our tripartite partners in developing new infrastructure, capabilities and talent so as to ensure the continuing success of Maritime Singapore. At the same time, we will continue to work through regional and international fora to ensure that the SOMS, as a key waterway for international shipping, remains safe, secure and open.

Page: 106

Mdm Chair, I thank the Minister for his replies, especially on the point of new train introduction for the next three years. But that is only part of the equation. The other part of the equation is ridership growth. If ridership growth is faster than train introduction in the next three years, then crowdedness will become worse and waiting time can be affected as well. Can the Minister comment on crowdedness and waiting time as a result of the interaction between the train introduction and ridership growth?

Mdm Chair, I think that is, indeed, a very good question. First, let me say that in the coming years, supply is going to be ahead of demand and, therefore, it will allow us to address some of the imbalance that we have seen in the early years. We have seen the growth in ridership come down in recent years. And so, last year, the growth in the number of public transport journeys was about 3%. It was growing at about four-plus percent, 5% in earlier years.

The train capacities that we are adding, for instance, on the North-South and East-West Lines, we are looking at an additional of 41 trains to the current fleet of 128. So, that is about a one-third growth. That will take place this year and the next batch is coming in 2016. So, it is about one-third growth over the next two or so years.

For the North-East Line and Circle Line, as I have mentioned again earlier, we have about 60%-70% increase in the fleet size starting from 2015. That would allow us to run the trains much more frequently than what we are able to do today. For the Bukit Panjang LRT, we have new train cars that are coming in starting at the end of this year. Again, that will result in a 70% capacity increase over the existing fleet size and, likewise, by 2016, we will have made improvements to the Sengkang-Punggol LRT where I think you will remember that we talked about coupling cars together so that instead of running single cars, we can run two cars but over the same system, thereby doubling the capacity. That will take place in 2016.

On top of that, of course, we add new lines to the system because what will happen over time is that instead of relying only on the six-car East-West Line, by 2017, we would essentially have increased the East-West corridor to a nine-car system with the addition of the Downtown Line. So, over time, it is increasing capacity on the existing Lines and, from the figures that I have shown and enunciated, over the next three years, I think the capacity is well ahead of

Page: 107

what we think demand would be, including shifting some of the population to public transport over our longer term vision as well as catering to population growth. Together with the new Lines, I think we are in good shape when they come on board.

Mdm Chair, may I ask the Minister to comment on our road congestion problem here, especially now with the rolling out of 1,400 buses by 2017?

Madam, I thank the Member. That is another good question. The 1,400 buses that I have mentioned earlier, 1,000 are provided for under the Government-funded extended BSEP programme and the other lot makes use of the resources from the private sector.

That is quite a lot of capacity increase: 35% over the existing fleet by 2017. We have got to make sure that we keep speeds for the buses on the roads where it is and, if possible, to increase even further. It is not at the desirable stage right now and it has reached a plateau over the years. We are not increasing the speed; it is just hovering where it is.

We will need to put in place more measures over and beyond what we have done. For example, some of the things that we need to continue to do is to identify places where we can span some of the key bus stops and make them into bus hubs, so that instead of two buses pulling in at one time to embark and disembark passengers, we try to make sure that we can have three and four buses doing so simultaneously. This way, the buses do not have to wait in order to come into the bus bay to pick up and disembark passengers.

We would like to do more to introduce bus lanes, including full-day bus lanes. We have a plan and we have identified some of the areas where we will progressively roll out more bus lanes and full-day bus lanes. In other areas, we are thinking of expanding the road network, especially in some of the towns. We would like to see some of that converted to bus lanes, so that we give higher priority to the buses.

The next thing we are going to do is to put in place at more locations the Mandatory Give Way to Buses scheme. It has worked. To some extent, we need to continue to educate motorists to give some priority to the buses where they are exiting the bus bays, so that they continue with their journey. We will want

Page: 108

to do more in this regard. Certainly, this is an area that we think has to complement the introduction of more capacity and the recruitment and retention of more drivers.

I have four clarifications for the Minister regarding the BSEP.

First, how much will the additional 450 buses cost? If we extrapolate the cost of the 550 BSEP buses, and it appears that the 1,000 buses would cost the Government about $2 billion. Is that the amount that it would cost?

Secondly, are these additional buses meant to enhance the standards further beyond the current QoS (quality of service) standards, or is it just to meet the current QoS standards?

Thirdly, while I believe that there should be continued investment in public transport, where will the Government draw the line in subsidising the operational cost of profit-making PTOs?

Fourthly, are there any plans to claw back any of the future profits from them?

Let me start with the last two questions. Firstly, on profits: for buses, no profits because the operators, both of them, are running losses. The SMRT losses on buses are about $30 million dollars; less for SBST, but also still in the red.

Next point will be on subsidising profit-making operators. As we have explained on numerous occasions on the BSEP, it is a subsidy to commuters rather than to operators. The operators make no profit out of running the 550 buses. The operators will make no profits running the additional 450 buses. The 550 buses, we have already said, if they have to be paid for by the commuters, it would cost probably in the order of about 15 cents more a trip. The Government decided that in order to introduce capacity quickly and we wanted to frontload that five-year programme and introduce 70% of it by 2014 – of course, now, we are making sure that we will introduce all 550 buses by the end of this year – so, that is subsidy to the commuters; no profit to the operators. It will remain the same in the expanded programme.

On the cost of the 450 buses: I think it will be roughly proportionate to what they see for 550 buses. Quite a bit of it is going to be upfront costs. On average,

Page: 109

it costs about half a million dollars per bus. For a typical day, in terms of operating cost, it is about $600-$700.

QOS standards: the Member may recall that when we introduced the BSEP programme, we left the overall QOS standards the same. We had a separate agreement with the PTOs on the buses and the routes where these buses were introduced to enhance those standards.

I would have to get back to you on that. Let me check on it.

The Member's other question on actual implementation, we have said so on many occasions that for the taxi companies, when they are taking actions to try and encourage the taxi availability standards to be met, that they are also to be mindful of the impact on the drivers. This is the same stand that we continue to take. It is good that LTA has continued to raise this issue with the taxi companies. We certainly agree with Mr Ang that it is useful to find out what more is happening on the ground. And, we will do so.

Indeed, Mr Lim is right that we do not allow standing on the PBS buses. In part, this is because of feedback from the rest of commuters who feel that because they are paying a premium, they do not want it to be as congested. We are quite happy to make that change, provided commuters are understanding and supportive of this.

We are agnostic as to whether people stand or sit. It is just that people feel that having paid that premium, "I ought to have the space and I ought to get a seat". But we are prepared to relook at that, should there be support for it.

Mdm Chair, I should also remind the Member, Mr Lim, that we have made some adjustments to the ERP charges on Saturday. The gantry along Nicoll Highway was shifted. It used to be where the Stadium was

Page: 111

and it has gone further down. What this has done is to enable motorists who are using Nicoll Highway to access ECP, to avoid having to pay the ERP charges. That is one adjustment. Next is, although it is not immediately intuitive to a road user that it is part of the network of roads that leads to the Orchard and Marina area, it is, in fact, a substitute for drivers. That is why the gantry is still needed.

Madam, I must admit that I admire Mr Lim's persistence in benefiting his residents. I would like to share with Mr Lim that for each traffic junction on each road, there are different flows that we have to look at. Even though the Member mentioned a few roads which have similar characteristics, looking deeper into the flow, you will realise that it is different. I have brought the issue up to LTA when the Member raised the issue with me. We realised that at that junction, unfortunately, if we included a traffic signal, it will significantly impede the flow of traffic.

Madam, two clarifications – one on safety and one on cycling. With cycling, given the approach of public transport in committing to an intended share of total commuting, could we not do the same with cycling? Could we not commit to a certain percentage of commuting being done by cycling as a primary mode? If people are forced to measure it, they will then generate a strategy to achieve it. People will have some stake in it to ensure the shifting of behaviour. Could we set a target of percentage commuting by cycling?

My second clarification is on road safety. We heard about the Black Spot programme and the Gray Zone programme. The sense of both of these is that, is there a reactive component? Could we not be more proactive, rather than waiting for more than 15 incidents or 12 incidents over three years? Is there some way to model, either from the software point of view or, simplistically, if we have two arterial road crossings in an area where there is an eating house and a high-density area of senior citizens, should we not assume that that will be a Black Spot zone, and be proactive about it, rather than waiting for incidents to happen?

I would like to thank the Member for the question. Two good questions. The first, as I mentioned earlier with regard to our landscape that we have in Singapore, we have always promoted the motorised kind of transport. Also, the Member would realise that we are building pockets of cycling tracks from town to town. What we want to do, first and foremost, is to take care of the first-mile and the last-mile kind of travel. Not only with regard to facilitating the different types of road users to acquire the skills to adjust to one another but, at the same time, we will facilitate

Page: 112

them getting used to cycling to the different areas.

If you look at the map, over time, Singapore will have all these different pockets of cycling tracks. We are going to connect them one to the other. That will facilitate movement.

We are at a young age in this journey. Many have mentioned other countries and cities, but when we look at it, we will realise that we are making good progress in this aspect. I recently went to Sembawang, the newly completed cycling track. I am so happy that the cyclists and pedestrians were able to look after one another. It is a journey that we need to take on. In the first few years, it may result in some discomfort but, over the years, when you get used to it, I am sure it will be better.

The next issue is about the Black Spot zones. We have a framework whereby we not only look at the Black Spot Programme. As we talk, there are residents also giving us feedback and we will refine the features as we have done in many areas. So, it is not only looking at the Black Spot Programme but the Programme will give us the opportunity to focus on the different areas that we have to look at. As I shared earlier, we are very pleased with the development. We want to see how we can facilitate this process to make the roads safer for fellow Singaporeans and to facilitate the movement of vehicles.

Mdm Chair, I want to thank Parliamentary Secretary Faishal for the progress made on cycling infrastructure. But it does seem to me that the approach is still quite piecemeal; more pieces but still piecemeal. Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary two questions? One is whether MOT could review the transport policy which now seems to favour motorists on roads and to set out a more integrated and coordinated strategy for cycling as a mode of transport which would include the roads. My second question is also related to what the Member Dr Janil raised, which is to set a target for the modal share of cycling for all trips in Singapore. Right now, the current level is about 1%. Can I ask the MOT to set the target by a certain date, for instance, to reach 4% or 5% by 2020 but to set a target so that we can monitor the progress and also to spur this coordinated approach towards cycling as a mode of transport?

Madam, I am very surprised by the Member's comments that it is piecemeal. I think the efforts that

Page: 113

we have taken are an integrated one whereby – as I shared with Dr Janil earlier – we are looking at developing all the different towns and it will be connected together. And it is not happening at one region but across Singapore. One thing that we have done is that we have integrated it with the park connectors, and not only park connectors, but also with the works by the Town Council, the local agencies, and see how we can connect all these cycling networks. At the same time, we also look at the educational and enforcement perspectives and see how we can make cycling a culture in Singapore.

So, I hope Members will also look at all these things that we have done. I have met many cyclists and my counterparts from other parts of the world. They shared with me – we are actually on the right track. They shared with me the mistakes that they have done in their countries which many of us thought would be a good thing for Singapore. But they realised that, by having it off the roads, cycling tracks are the right way to go because they have problems that they face with the road users in their country. What we need to do is – I would like to urge Ms Ng to continue to work with us – to see how we can facilitate this culture. For the other aspects relating to her second question, I think I have answered Dr Janil. It remains the same.

Maybe I will complement what Parliamentary Secretary has said with regard to cycling as a target that we should impose on cycling in our modal share. Why do we do it for public transport? Why do we want to move from 63% to 70% by the end of this decade and then 75%? It is because we realise that if we continue on the trajectory that we had in the past where it was actually only in the high 50s, you will require more and more land for roads. And you will need more and more vehicles and then it puts pressure on your COE system, ERP system and congestion overall. Because of those constraints, we felt that with a growing population in land-scarce Singapore where we also want to have more spaces for parks, greenery and roads that are not so close to housing developments, that the only way to achieve that quality of life, that liveable inclusive city, is to move more people away from private transport to mass public transport.

I think cycling contributes to public transportation. It contributes in several ways. First, the last and the first mile – bringing people to key nodes, key hubs, running to the town centre, short errands and so on. There is a small number that uses it as their primary mode of transport. The larger numbers that want to go on the road want it as a form of recreation – serious cyclists with beautiful helmets and all the lovely gear and their bikes – but they like to do it on weekends. And as much as possible, we must try and accommodate that by

Page: 114

making it safer and so on.

But for me to set cycling as a certain percentage of the modal share, I am not so sure that I really see the rationale behind it. If I do set a number, why did I set the number? What does it mean? What am I going to do in order to drive behaviour towards that number? Do people really want it that way? So I am most happy as much as possible for the average cyclist where I believe it is safer – and I have said it before – they are safest when they are segregated from the motorists who are moving at much higher speeds compared to the average cyclists – let me add – and they are also segregated from pedestrians. Hence, our approach, priority, is to get off-road segregated cycling paths that will allow the cyclists to get to their destinations but also as much as possible to make sure that they do not run into the path of the elderly and the children.

Madam, may I thank the Ministry for the provision of the Silver Zone package. I realise that there are five areas that were chosen and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider implementing the same package in areas, such as the hon Member Sam Tan's Redhill, Dr Lily Neo's Chinatown, and my Beach Road area where there is a higher percentage of elderly residents compared to the national average.

Thank you, Madam, and I also thank the hon Member. This mood has also been shared by other parliamentary colleagues during the break earlier. They want their areas to be included. I want LTA to seriously focus its attention in doing the measures that we can take in these five areas. Over time, when we find that the measures are really useful and we are able to roll out to other areas, I am quite sure we will look at those areas like the Member mentioned earlier, because the five areas that we have looked at also have a high level of ageing population. So, I want to assure the Member that we will think of her and her residents when we move on.

Thank you, Mdm Chair, for giving me this opportunity to clarify a question which hon Member Mr Ang had asked. Mr Ang had asked why the daily ridership for taxis in fact did not seem to have grown last year. I apologise for not having the numbers with me earlier on. I do now, and I think it is quite useful to follow up on his question.

Page: 115

The daily ridership for taxis in 2013 was 967,138. The corresponding taxi fleet size in 2013 was 27,695. What that means is that if you use ridership per day per taxi in the peak, it is 34.9. I just crunched out some numbers quickly. If we look at the equivalent numbers last year, what we find is that the daily ridership per taxi in 2012 was 34.2. So, 34.9 this year, 34.2 last year, it is a growth of 2%. A growth of 2% over the course of one year will not seem to be very low. It is still a growth. But the answer to the Member's question is that really we do not know to what extent we can look at these numbers to draw conclusions about taxi demand. That is because the ridership does not give us an indication of the distance travelled or other changes in travel patterns.

In fact, I have the figures with me dating back 10 years. I randomly picked another year, 2010, when there were no taxi availability standards whatsoever. And it turns out that the daily ridership per taxi was also 34.9 – what it is this year – which means that, frankly speaking, this number does not tell us as much as we hope it might. What is probably a better indication of how the taxi availability standards are affecting the drivers would be to look at the gross monthly earnings. I have shared with Members earlier that if we look at two-shift taxis versus one-shift taxis, two-shift taxis cover about one and a half times the mileage of one-shift taxis. Their gross monthly earnings correspondingly are also about one and a half times.

One of the most significant impacts of the Taxi Availability standards has been to bring about a reversal of the declining trend of share of two-shift taxis. What it would seem to suggest to us is that not all but many more of the drivers are using a relief driver so that they are able to meet the Taxi Availability standards because the standards apply to the taxi, not to the driver.