//
you're reading...
Musings, The Straits Times

In A Fix Over Public Transport Fares

The recent furore and controversy over the introduction of the “distance-based” fare structure is a perfect example of how a supposedly well-intentioned public policy has been promoted and disseminated carelessly and almost disingenuously. If it is true that nearly 70 percent of public transport commuters are now paying less after the variety of alterations and rebates, then the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the Public Transport Council (PTC) most certainly need to take the blame for failing to educate the general populace about the pros and cons of the new structure accordingly.

The respective agencies and councils did undertake an extensive publicity campaign in a bid to facilitate a smooth transition from the previous fare structure; yet in the hopeful desire of simplifying the complex system, individuals were equating “distance fares” to “lower fares”. Quintessentially, the MOT and PTC had failed to convey the most important message: that those who made single-trips would now be cross-subsiding those who made transfers, particularly since the latter would be rendered more regular given the expansion of train lines and bus services. Especially for many elderly citizens who do not have the patience or ability to sieve through the details of the explanations from posters and websites, money talks. Having been subtly lulled into the belief that “distance-based” fares mean paying less for public transport regardless, it is not difficult to comprehend the uproar that erupted on-line and off-line.

Little has been done to counter the numerous comparisons done independently and published on the Internet; many of which utilise benchmarks that do not take into account the recession rebates, reduction in transfer penalties et cetera. In retrospect, the PTC’s decision to overwhelm Singaporeans with an assortment of statistics and supposed example-comparisons – with varied feedback – has not only confused many, but has also increased the credibility gap. Unhappiness with the quality of public transportation has certainly compounded the situation, leading to greater overall backlash.

Crisis-management now must be adopted with a two-pronged approach. First, the PTC has to move away from the convenient message of a fare reduction, and begin to be more transparent and all-rounded in its public education effort. Suspicions would only confound if plain figures are shoved down the throats of commuters, with the absurd expectation that they would look at the policy from the bureaucrats’ perspectives. Second, more help and rebates should be offered to the elderly and the needy. It seems logical that if senior citizens are generally paying more, and their limited mobility often restricts them to making single, short transport journeys, they should not be penalised to pay more; given that many have low incomes and struggle with the costs of living.

The 30 percent who have ended up paying more would not go down without a fight; if not enough is being done to mitigate and remedy and challenges, then public transport providers – together with the administration – could potentially struggle with the implementation of future public policies or changes.

A version of this article was published in The Straits Times.

About guanyinmiao

A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting. Carlos Castaneda.

Discussion

6 thoughts on “In A Fix Over Public Transport Fares

  1. The 30 percent who have ended up paying more would not go down without a fight; if not enough is being done to mitigate and remedy and challenges, then public transport providers – together with the administration – could potentially struggle with the implementation of future public policies or changes.

    ———————————————————

    Somehow I don’t see them quivering in their shoes…

    Why?

    Because they typically steamroll the policy changes out first – “education” only come after the decision has been made…

    Posted by xtrocious | August 26, 2010, 3:15 pm
    • I think to be fair, there was some form of “education” through public awareness and advocacy campaigns. However, it was selling a “distance-based fares equals lower fares” policy, which is clearly not the case. Dishonesty and lack of transparency at its best / worst.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | August 29, 2010, 3:50 pm
  2. Incisive points. I didn’t realise that this policy penalised the older commuters till you pointed it out.

    Posted by Norvin | August 28, 2010, 10:54 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 26 Aug 2010 « The Singapore Daily - August 26, 2010

  2. Pingback: Weekly Roundup: Week 35 « The Singapore Daily - August 28, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow guanyinmiao's musings on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,363 other followers

Twitter

%d bloggers like this: