Response to Feedback on Roll-out of ERP 2.0 On-Board Unit for Vehicles

Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport with the implementation of ERP 2.0 which involves the relocation of the processing unit carrying CEPAS (Specification for Contactless e-Purse Application) or NETS cards to the front passenger footwells or other technically feasible positions in motor vehicles, whether it can be made mandatory for all carpark operators to upgrade their systems so that it will no longer be necessary for drivers to tap their cards at carpark terminal stations.

Thank you, Sir. The current Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system will reach the end of its operational lifespan in a few years. Its replacement, ERP 2.0, is based on Global Navigation Satellite System technology. It is able to perform all the functions of the current ERP system, plus additional capabilities to better manage traffic flow on our roads, without the need for physical gantries. As I mentioned during the Ministry of Transport (MOT) Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this year, it also provides the option for distance-based charging in future, which could allow for a one-off increase in our total vehicle population while keeping traffic congestion in check.

The transition from the current in-vehicle unit to the on-board unit (OBU) is a major exercise involving many motorists and a diverse range of vehicles, vehicle makes and models, including new and existing vehicles. The process will take a few years to complete.

Before embarking on the installation exercise, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) worked with the dealers to study how the OBU could be best installed in different vehicles. LTA has staged out the installation exercise, starting with a group of early adopters since August 2023. I am one of them. About 2% or 18,000 vehicles out of almost one million vehicles in Singapore have installed the OBU. Of these, around 11,000 are fleet vehicles, including buses and company-registered vehicles.

This phased approach gives the workshops time to prepare their workers and progressively ramp up their resources. It also allows LTA to take in feedback from stakeholders and understand the areas for improvement, before extending to other vehicles.

Sir, based on feedback gathered from the early adopters, LTA has reviewed and made several improvements to the ERP 2.0 features and installation process to provide motorists with enhanced choice, convenience and safety.

First, on enhancing choice. Before installing the OBU, vehicle owners will be given the option to decide if they want to install the touch-screen display. Some may choose to have the touch-screen display, while others may prefer to use their in-vehicle display or their mobile phones. Our recommendation is to install the touch-screen display, I have done so for my car, but this is a choice for the vehicle owner to make.

The vehicle owner can also choose where to place the touch-screen display subject to technical feasibility, for example, on the driver side or in the middle of the dashboard. If a vehicle owner decides not to install the touch-screen display, a unit of the display will still be given to him, so that he has the option to install it subsequently if he changes his mind.

Likewise, the vehicle owner can decide where to place the processing unit. For the initial phase of installation, LTA only allowed the processing unit to be installed on the passenger side. Taking on board feedback from the early adopters, LTA has expanded the option for vehicle owners to install the processing unit on the driver side if they wish to do so, subject to technical feasibility. Service ambassadors will also be present at the showrooms and workshops to explain the options to vehicle owners before OBU installation.

By providing more choices, the process becomes more complex and the workshops will require more time to complete the installation. However, we think the trade-off is necessary, to allow vehicle owners to have the flexibility to customise their preferred options and not have a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Second, enhancing user convenience. We understand the concerns from early adopters on the inconvenience of having to remove and reinsert the CEPAS (Specification for Contactless e-Purse Application) card in the processing unit. LTA has worked with its partners to improve the ERP 2.0 system, so that motorists do not need to remove their CEPAS card from the processing unit when they are driving the vehicle. This is a key design feature of the OBU. You do not need to remove the CEPAS card from the processing unit when you are driving the vehicle.

For example, LTA has implemented a button on the touch-screen display to deactivate the card when motorists want to use their complimentary parking tickets. They can press the button on the touch-screen display. The card will be deactivated and they can then use their complimentary ticket to exit the carpark. If the motorist forgets to reactivate the card after leaving the carpark, the correct amount will still be deducted from the card balance when he reaches the next active ERP gantry. This is unlike the current in-vehicle unit (IU). If the motorist pulls out the card from the IU to use his complimentary parking ticket and forgets to re-insert it – it happens to us sometimes – he will not be able to make ERP payment when his vehicle passes through an active ERP gantry.

Another scenario is the topping-up of the CEPAS card. Today, some of us may reach the carpark gantry only to realise that our balance is low, we must then find a way to exit the queue to top-up the card. Quite inconvenient. With the OBU, your CEPAS card balance will be shown once you start the car. This can help remind motorists to top-up before reaching the gantry. For added convenience, motorists can sign up for auto top-up so they need not manually top up their card when the balance is low. The top-up will be done automatically.

LTA will deploy service ambassadors to workshops to guide motorists who wish to sign up for automatic top-up of their CEPAS card when they install the OBU.

The third scenario where removal of the CEPAS card may be needed, is at certain carparks which require motorists to tap their cards at carpark terminal stations, as Mr Murali asked. Sir, all public carparks and many privately-owned carparks today already use Electronic Parking System (EPS), which does not require motorists to tap their cards at carpark terminal stations. There are, however, some privately-owned carparks which have yet to implement EPS. We welcome the initiative from NETS to provide a complimentary One Motoring Card for motorists who install the OBU. Motorists can use this additional card at the privately-owned carparks without EPS, without having to remove their CEPAS card from the processing unit.

And finally, on enhancing user safety. This is not the main reason for doing ERP 2.0, but the added capabilities provide opportunities for LTA and its partners to offer some features that could help enhance user safety. Early adopters have shared with LTA that they find the notifications for bus lanes, Silver Zones and School Zones useful, as these increase their situational awareness and improve road safety. We are working with partners to expand the list, including with the Traffic Police to include notifications for speed camera zones, with the intent of enhancing road safety by reminding motorists to keep within the speed limits at these locations. It will include not just the fixed cameras, but also red light and mobile cameras used by the Traffic Police to enforce against speeding.

LTA will continue to take in feedback from motorists and develop features that can help enhance safety and convenience for motorists. These additional features can be pushed out to motorists "over-the-air", after the OBUs have been installed. Motorists do not need to bring their vehicles to the workshop for these software upgrades.

Mr Speaker, the transition to ERP 2.0 is a major exercise as there are different vehicles with different designs and specifications. We appreciate the feedback from our early adopters, which LTA has taken on board where feasible and made improvements to enhance user choice, user convenience and user safety. LTA will continue to gather feedback from motorists, workshops and dealers to further enhance the user experience for all motorists, as we proceed with the installation exercise.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. I have three supplementary questions. Actually, he has answered my last supplementary question.

The first supplementary question is: there are a lot of reports that came out immediately after the ERP 2.0 release on social media, as well as one that came out just today in CNA, talking about how the installation is not so straightforward. Even now, with it being allowed for the OBU to be installed it at the driver's footwell, some car makes are a bit smaller, especially Japanese cars, so, the footwell may not be the best location – drivers may still hit against the unit as they drive or as they get in and out of the car. I am just wondering whether MOT will continue to improve upon the current design, based on feedback from users, and introduce a different model? Some have also been asking, since the motorcycle OBU is smaller, can that be used for cars as well, rather than having the bigger units for the cars.

The second supplementary question is: as we launched this OBU on 1 May, is there an active survey or feedback programme by MOT to actively collect feedback from all the motorists that have had the OBU installed? So, if there is none, then, why not? If yes, then continue to do so, so that we can get more feedback from the motorists, and we can improve upon it.

The third supplementary question was to ask the Minister whether his car has been fitted with the OBU, but the Minister had answered yes. So, I would like to find out from the Minister's personal experience using this and then what are the difficulties that he has encountered?

Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Lim for, I think, it is four supplementary questions, not three. First, the point about the installation at the driver's footwell. Indeed, as some of the mechanics have shared and as it was reported in the CNA article that Dr Lim mentioned, it is not so straightforward for all vehicle makes and models. Because depending on the design and the layout and the specifications of different vehicles, the preferred location, the ideal location, may vary from vehicle to vehicle.

So, the trade-off between giving more choices to vehicle owners is that it does introduce more complexity to the installation process. But we think this trade-off is important because we do need to respect the individual choices of vehicle owners. It does not mean that every vehicle can install the processing unit at the driver's footwell. It depends on the layout and design of the vehicle, but in many vehicle types, this is possible. So, we do want to provide this option, even though it is not always possible, to the vehicle owners so that for those who prefer to have it closer to them, they have that option that they can choose.

But this process is best done in discussion with the service ambassadors and the mechanics at the workshops so that the vehicle owners understand what are the trade-offs, what are the options, before the OBU installation.

Sir, another important point I wish to reiterate is that we have designed the system such that no matter where you choose to put your processing unit, which is a personal choice subject to technical feasibility, regardless of where you put the processing unit, the workflow is such that you do not need to remove your card while you are driving.

So, even if you do not sign up for auto top-up and you need to manually remove and do a manual top-up, you can do that after the car is parked. You do not need to do it while you are in the driver's seat, while you are driving. So, when you are driving, you do not need to remove the card from the processing unit. That is our design paradigm. That is our design philosophy. So, that is why we introduced some of these additional features to make it such that you do not need to remove the card while you are driving, for safety and for convenience.

Sir, I think the point I wanted to highlight is also that this process is quite a complex one. It takes a few years, involving different workshops, different vehicle makes. So, I just want to register my appreciation to our partners from the industry, the workshops, the motor dealers, our mechanics and also our staff and our partners who are serving as service ambassadors. It is a lot of hard work for them. They have to engage the vehicle owners, explain the options to them. But I think this is an important part of the overall installation process – so that people are clear what are their options, so that when they go in and they choose a certain configuration, they understand what are the trade-offs, what are the pros and cons.

Dr Lim also asked about the one-piece OBU, which is for the motorcycles. Sir, we have explained this before, but allow me to reiterate the reasons why we cannot do this for cars and commercial vehicles, compared to motorcycles. If you think about the physics of it: in an enclosed environment with glass, it is like a greenhouse. You do have a greenhouse effect, which will cause the interior of the car, in an enclosed space, to be warmer. Temperature is higher.

We have done some testing, measuring. I just read one article from AsiaOne and I think they also did their own measurements. And it is quite clear from all the various measurements that we have done, that the footwell, whether passenger side or driver side, the temperature there is significantly lower than the temperature on the dashboard during a hot sunny day. So, the ambient temperature, if it is about 35 degrees, for the motorcycle it is pretty much that, because it is not an enclosed space.

But for the footwell, it could go up to about 38 to 39 degrees, because it is an enclosed space. But on the dashboard, it will go as high as 50 to 52 degrees. With this kind of temperature, if you were to put a single-piece OBU – that means the antenna, the display and the processing unit, all on the dashboard – there is a risk that it could overheat. And then it will affect the functionality of this unit.

You could design it such that there is cooling, there is a fan inside, but that will make it very bulky and I do not think motorists will want a very big and bulky one-piece unit on their dashboard. It will not be the right design. By splitting it up, we give motorists the option of deciding whether or not you want the display, because it is not part of the same piece; you can choose, it is optional. And you can also choose where to put your processing unit.

In some vehicle makes, the dealer actually recommended that one of the options available is that you can also put it below the driver's seat, if you prefer not to see it. So, that is a possible option. They are offering that to their customers. And because we have now designed the process such that you do not need to remove your card while you are driving, actually that option is now possible, viable. It will not cause inconvenience to the driver and if that is what the drivers prefer, they have that option to choose from.

Sir, Dr Lim also asked about the survey. Yes, certainly. I think I mentioned in my main reply, we will continue to gather feedback from motorists, from the mechanics at the workshops, from our service ambassadors for how we can further improve the user experience, how we can further improve our communications.

And lastly, Dr Lim asked me about my own experience. Sir, I think like many of the early adopters, I also experienced some concern about not being able to reach the card conveniently if I have to use complimentary parking tickets. That is why, I was very happy when LTA developed that feature where I could just deactivate the card by pressing a button on the touch-screen display. I can do that very conveniently now; I do not have to take my card in and out.

There are also other features that we have given feedback to LTA from the group of early adopters. I think that is a continuous process for improvement and I want to thank our early adopters as well, for their inputs, for their feedback, and if amongst them, any of the early adopters feel that they now want to switch their configuration. For example, because previously we only allowed them to put it on a passenger side; if some of them now say "I want to put you on the driver's side", we will do the switch for them for free. I think that is fair, because when they installed earlier, there was no option given to them. But if some of them now want to do it, we will offer this reconfiguration for them, free of charge.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, did LTA considered the widespread availability of smartphones when developing the specifications for ERP 2.0 and if so, why was the mobile first approach not taken?

Sir, using a smartphone instead of an unwieldy OBU could save a tremendous amount of installation effort, hardware cost and long-term maintenance costs. Is the Minister prepared to order a system redesign of the ERP 2.0 to make it mobile first? And to be clear, I do not mean providing the mobile phone as an as a secondary option, like what the Minister had just said. I am talking about making it a default option.

And secondly, I understand that there are no immediate plans to implement distance-based charging, but given that distance-based charging is one of the key reasons for this new system – its implementation seems inevitable. My question is, has the Government considered the significant cost impact that distance-based charging will have on those who drive for a living, including taxi drivers, private hire drivers, and delivery drivers and riders.

Mr Speaker, I think on the second question from Mr Giam, he should not jump the gun. I have said in my COS speech that we are looking at distance-based charging as a possible option that we need to study further. In my COS speech, I also acknowledge that there are trade-offs affecting different groups of stakeholders. Therefore, we need to be quite careful and deliberate in how we go about with this review.

I think that in my main reply, I did not suggest anything that this is an inevitable outcome, as what Mr Giam mentioned. So, I will urge Mr Giam not to overstate the point. What ERP 2.0 gives us is the option to do distance-based charging if we wish to do so, and if in the process of doing that, certainly we need to consider the impact on different groups of users and, overall, what is the benefit to society.

Sir, on the first question on smartphones, we have looked at this, not just once, but several times and with different groups of stakeholders. It depends on what you want to use a smartphone for. If you want to use a smartphone for displaying the information, we are allowing that. It is not something that would be unworkable. Certainly, it is feasible. We have studied that option, and we are going to allow people to opt out of the display and to use a smartphone or their in-vehicle display, if they wish to. That is an option.

However, because your smartphone is something that you carry with you. It is not secured to the vehicle. We need, for the purposes of ERP – whether it is distance-based or other types of usage-based charging – you need a device that is secured to the vehicle so that you know where the vehicle is and there is no dispute about whether the device is functioning or not.

There is also a second consideration, Sir, which is the security of the data transmission. Because the OBU is designed to transmit the information one-way, whereas a phone, you would have two-way transmission. And a phone, depending on the model that you use and the software, and the apps that you install, I do not think you can be assured of the same level of data security and systems security, including against tampering.

So, for all those reasons, a smartphone system would not be able to fulfil all the features and functionalities of what we want to achieve with ERP 2.0. But certainly, I think as part of integrating with the processing unit and the antenna, the use of a smartphone to replace the touch-screen display is a possibility.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one quick supplementary question for the Minister. I note the Minister's explanation about temperature being the reason why we cannot have the one-piece design on cars, but I just wanted to confirm that this new OBU actually meets the minimum grade force standard of the Automotive Electronics Council Q100 requirements for reliable operations in Singapore's climate.

Sir, LTA has done a series of tests to ensure that the OBU was able to function if it is installed properly in our weather, in our climate. So, not just to look at the temperature, that is one factor, but also to take into account safety aspects. So, for example, if there is going to be an accident, we did crash tests as well, to make sure that the OBU, if it is installed properly, according to the proper procedure, will not pose a safety risk to the motorist and passenger.

So, it is quite a comprehensive set of tests that has been done to take care of the different aspects, but what we need to continue to do is to work with our partners and with stakeholders, including motorists, mechanics, our service ambassadors, to continue to find ways in which we can improve the user experience and allow more value to be delivered to motorists with this capabilities of the ERP 2.0 system.

Beyond what I have shared earlier, there could be more functionalities that could be possible and we remain open to good ideas from our stakeholders on how we can maximise this value for motorists, through the capabilities and functionalities of ERP 2.0.