Endoh’s Dungeon

Finally, the first group of drivers have taken the first move to challenge the high ERP charges in Singapore. Since the first ERP gantry was erected on Singapore’s soil, we have not heard of any official challenges towards the system that all of us dreaded so much.

In a contrasting comparison with private car owners, the taxis have a Taxi Union to debate their case and now the private bus drivers have the Singapore School & Private Hire Bus Owners’ Association to help them debate on this issue. So who can private car owners count on to protect their Rights and interests?

Taking into account the forever-rising fuel cost and ERP charges, it’s really difficult to pinpoint if this will be a fair move. In fact, the same argument of “not being able to be cost effective” due to roundings and extra distances applies to private car owners too. The only difference is, a bus carries more passengers than a car. But with more paying customers in a single trip compared to only one passenger (the driver lah!) in a private car, doesn’t that means the cost of ERP is recovered even faster?

I believe that if private buses are “spared” the same charges, it will create an imbalance in the system whereby a certain group of people get to enjoy privileges. Following suit, will be some other organizations or groups to contest for a lower road pricing charge. Afterall, lowering the ERP charges for private buses does not contribute directly to the usage of public transport, does it?

In London, a massive petition has already been put up against the UK’s government since long time ago. Of course, I am not insinuating for anyone to petition against the Singapore Government but as a comparison to London’s road pricing scheme, it brings us back to square one.

The key essential question that is bothering many motorists is, how have the roads ease up over the years? On one hand, private car prices are plunging to encourage more purchases. On the other hand, private car owners are being slapped with ERP for causing the congestion. If I have any specific doubt, I would be asking LTA - what is it exactly that you want? More cars? Or less traffic congestions?

BBC’s 2002 news article had a short list of advantages, but allow me a little time to debunk a small handful of them.

1. Drivers pay only when using the roads?
If ERP was meant for a pay-per-use system which many of us were already anticipating since many years ago, what is the purpose of collecting road tax then?

2. Motorists encouraged to choose whether, when or where to drive?
With more than half the population as employees adhering to office hours defined by the employers, do we really have choices to choose from? What choices are available when all ERP timings are specially targeted at hours where employees are expected to report for work or knocking off? Best of all, with an electrical MRT system that imposes fare hikes due to… erm… rising fuel costs?

… … … … …

Interestingly, BBC made an example out of the ERP’s failures by “the lessons learnt in Singapore indicate that it may not be a solution in isolation”. I had to concur with that because a traffic jam out of the peak hours, is still a traffic jam. And a traffic jam out of the ERP system’s peak timings doesn’t make life any easier either.

Coming back to this contest by the Singapore School & Private Hire Bus Owners’ Association, I don’t see how changing the IU unit will improve the situation. Does it means the private buses will charge higher fares by pegging the surcharges to the fares at different timings, just like taxis? And wouldn’t a new surcharge specially catered for private buses, be unfair to commuters using the major public transport system? If that’s the case, car pooling motorists deserve a “discount” for their efforts to reduce traffic as well. And any taxi that transports 3 or more passengers should offer a rebate in collaboration with LTA too.

“Reducing traffic” is what they are after, isn’t it?