I refer to “Strike balance between car ownership and use: Lui” in Today, 11th Jan 2013.We need both the COE and the ERP to keep Singapore’s compact 700 sq km free of grid-lock congestion.Any steps taken to bring down COE prices, the cost of owning vehicles, and to control the vehicle population will not be good enough.
More importantly, it is to make it expensive to drive as cars on the road contribute to congestion. Owning vehicles does not contribute to congestion but overuse of vehicles does.
To achieve these objectives, we need to install the ERP satellite-tracking and charging system first.
I would like to suggest that the satellite ERP system should have the following new features:
1] Real-time interactive and able to have fast, hassle-free and frequent changes to the ERP charges;2] Track all the cars going through each of the ERP gantries per month by each time slot;3]Identify the cars which have gone passed each ERP gantry more than 20 times during the past month by each time slot;
4] With this data, LTA should transmit and invite the car owners to propose the ERP charges for that ERP gantry for the coming month. An ipad e-application should be used by the invited car owners to submit their proposed ERP charges via iphone or Internet using password verification. All communications between LTA and the motorists should be via iphone or Internet;
5] The new ERP charges for that ERP gantry for the coming month shall be the average of, say, the top 30% amounts proposed by the motorists who have responded to the invitation. All the amounts proposed and the average calculations to derive at the charges shall be made transparent on the LTA’s website;
6] The ERP charges for trucks and motorbikes should be a fixed percentage of the charges for cars. LTA should decide the percentage for that particular ERP gantry and time slot.
The key features of the above proposal:
A]We can expect that this method will mean the ERP charges will self-adjust one month to another.
B] Motorists will have to bear the consequences of traffic jams if they decide to manipulate the ERP charges far too low as that could attract more vehicles to go pass that particular ERP gantry or time slot.
C] This method will mean that LTA will not be responsible for fixing the ERP gantry charges but to leave it to the motorists to decide.
I refer to the report, “Strike balance between car ownership and use: Lui” (Jan 11). We need both the Certificate of Entitlement and Electronic Road Pricing to keep Singapore’s compact 712 square kilometres free of gridlock.
Controlling the vehicle population alone will not be good enough; it is more important to make it expensive to drive. Vehicle ownership does not contribute to congestion, but overuse of vehicles does.
To achieve these objectives, though, we will need the satellite-tracking ERP system to first be built and for motorists to take more responsibility in this matter.
A real-time, interactive satellite-based system should allow for faster changes in ERP charges, and I would suggest that a feature of the system is to have car drivers propose the charges.
Cars that frequently pass an ERP gantry during a certain time of the day in a given month should be identified in the system, and the Land Transport Authority should devise an e-application for these owners to propose the next month’s ERP charges for that time belt.
The various new charges for that gantry should be the average of, say, the top 30 per cent of the amounts proposed by these motorists. The LTA should make the process of arriving at the charges transparent on its website.
The ERP charges for lorries and motorcycles should be a certain percentage of those for cars. The LTA should decide the percentage for each gantry and time belt.
Under such a self-adjusting ERP system, if motorists are not willing to pay more, then the low charges could attract more traffic for a particular gantry and/or time belt.
Weaning the Government off the responsibility of setting the charges would quell the current dissatisfaction in the public domain over the ERP system as being inefficient or a revenue generating tool. Let motorists decide and bear the consequences.
=====
“New ERP system ‘will offer flexibility in charging’” in Today, 26th Feb 2016.
.
To justify spending S$556m, the main enhancement of the satellite ERP system must be in removing LTA’s responsibility from fixing the ERP gantry charges by leaving it to the motorists to decide the charges and the level of congestion that they are prepared to live with and accept.
.
The satellite-tracking ERP real-time, interactive satellite-based system should allow for faster changes in ERP charges.
.
It should allow the motorists to decide among themselves the level of charges, and they should bear the consequences of gridlock traffic jams if they decide to manipulate the ERP charges far too low.
.
Surely, the system will self-adjust the charges as the top 30% high-usage drivers when affected by massive traffic jams would want to raise the charges for the following month to discourage the huge number of cars passing through that particular ERP gantry and time slot.
.
Also, LTA should use the system to incentivise and discourage motorists from using the CBD as a shortcut passage way to drive across the island during peak hours. This can be achieved by tracking the number of vehicles that take less than 15 minutes to cross the CBD from one end to the other.
.
However, many motorists are still not convinced that our COE and ERP systems are necessary in keeping our compact island of 713 sq km free of traffic gridlock situations. They must always remember that our CBD is in the southern edge and the reservoir catchment areas are in the middle of our tiny island of 5m people. All these fixed and unique features of our landscape affect the flow of traffic from one end of the island to the other.
.
Some Singaporeans even want the Govt to further control the vehicle population thus depriving many who are in need of owning a vehicle from owning one. We must not forget that vehicle ownership does not contribute to congestion, but overuse of vehicles does.
The ultimate aim in enhancing our traffic management is for MOT to end the dissatisfaction and scepticism in the public domain that the ERP system is inequitable, and that it is not for managing traffic flow but a revenue generating tool for the Govt. The new satellite system should make this happen.
.
———
============
I refer to ST’s FB page on 28th May 2013 seeking feedback from the public on “How do we improve the public transport system to discourage drivers from using their cars?”
Whatever the arguments for or against, the COE and ERP systems are still required in this compact island of 712 sq km with one million vehicles if we want not to have gridlock congestion end to end like in the 70s with pa-wang taxis.
Public transport system [MRT trains, buses and taxis] need freer road space to provide a more efficient mode of transport over private cars. Have more feeder buses to connect to the bus inter-changes.
First, free the road space by removing all road-side parking by building high-rise auto windowless parking facilities like in many major cities, which are many times bigger than tiny Singapore with population double or treble that of ours. Road-side parking slow down all vehicles. More road space means faster turnaround of public transport.
Second, build inner and outer city elevated seamless ring-road system expressways to free the surface roads for public transport to have more road space. Many major cities have it but Singapore is still playing catching up.
Third, do not mindlessly send half-empty buses and trains to the terminals as it is a waste of precious time and asset. Work smarter to reverse them to serve the busy sectors. Time is money.
Fourth, trains must operate at every 2 minute-intervals during peak period.
Fifth, have half the taxis fleet to be made available on alternate day on phone-call booking system rather than to roam the roads looking for passengers causing pollution and wasting time.
Sixth, have a minimum mileage requirement per month per shift for each taxi.
Seventh, put more resources to get the satellite ERP system into operation, the sooner the better, as time is money. The system should allow motorists to submit and decide the ERP charges for each gantry and time slot.
More ERP gantries will be possible for the Govt to regulate traffic when this system is put in place.
=============
==========
“Satellite-based ERP: Great technology but what’s the policy?” [ST, March 13).
What needs to be done for it to be equitable?
.
We need both the Certificate of Entitlement and Electronic Road Pricing to keep Singapore’s compact 713 square kilometres free of gridlock.
.
Making it expensive to drive is more important than controlling the vehicle population as vehicle ownership does not contribute to congestion, but overuse of vehicles does.
.
To achieve these objectives, the satellite-tracking ERP real-time, interactive satellite-based system should allow for faster changes in ERP charges.
.
For example, the system should identify cars that frequently pass an “ERP gantry”, the electronic satellite-based point of entry, during a certain time of the day in each month.
.
The Land Transport Authority should send an e-application and invite these owners to propose the next month’s ERP charges for that time slot and ERP gantry. The invited motorists should submit the forms via What’sApp or Internet using SingPass password verification.
.
The various new charges for that ERP gantry should be the average of the top 30 per cent of the amounts proposed by these motorists.
.
LTA should use its website to disclose the final computation and figures to the public. However, LTA shall set the base-rate minimum charge for each ERP gantry.
.
The ERP charges for lorries and motorcycles should be a certain percentage of those for cars. LTA should decide the percentage for each ERP gantry and time slot.
.
This new feature should allow the motorists to decide among themselves the level of charges, and they should bear the consequences of gridlock traffic jams if they decide to manipulate the ERP charges far too low.
.
The system will self-adjust the charges as surely the top 30% high-usage drivers when affected by massive traffic jams would want to raise the charges for the following month to discourage the huge number of cars passing through that particular ERP gantry and time slot.
.
Also, LTA should use the system to incentivise and discourage motorists from using the CBD as a shortcut passage way to drive across the island during peak hours. This can be achieved by tracking the number of vehicles that take less than 15 minutes to cross the CBD from one end to the other.
.
To justify spending S$556m, the main enhancement of the satellite system must be in removing LTA’s responsibility from fixing the ERP gantry charges, leaving it to the motorists to decide the charges and the level of congestion that they are prepared to live with and accept.
.
The most important point politically is for the satellite system to end the dissatisfaction and scepticism in the public domain that the ERP system is inequitable, and that it is not for managing traffic flow but a revenue generating tool for the Govt.
.
———
Our 713 sq km of 5m people is unique.
Why is that so?
Our CBD is at the southern tip of the island not in the middle of it.
Our reservoir catchment areas are in the middle of the island.
All these restrict the flow of traffic East to West and North to South.
We need both the COE and ERP systems due to all these restrictions to avoid gridlock situations like in the 1970s.
Those who believe that the ERP is a failed system should ask the Govt to let there be a free ERP day each year for us to experience the traffic chaos on our roads.
It will help many to thank the Govt for our systems in keeping our streets in the CBD free of gridlock like everyday is a Sunday.
=======
To justify spending S$556m, the main enhancement of the satellite system must be in removing LTA’s responsibility from fixing the ERP gantry charges, leaving it to the motorists to decide the charges and the level of congestion that they are prepared to live with and accept.
The most important point politically is for the satellite system to end the dissatisfaction and scepticism in the public domain that the ERP system is inequitable, and that it is not for managing traffic flow but a revenue generating tool for the Govt.
=======
Is ERP 2.0 merely a revenue generator?
PUBLISHED MAR 5, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT in Straits Times
The second-generation Electronic Road Pricing system, which uses satellite technology instead of gantries, will go “live” in 2020.
The $556 million system has islandwide coverage and the ability to charge according to distance travelled as well.
Several readers have written in, asking if a simpler solution to crimping car usage would be to raise fuel duty exponentially.
Others asked if the whole purpose is to generate revenue.
Senior Transport Correspondent Christopher Tan addresses these questions.
If the Government relies solely on high fuel duty to manage car usage, every motorist will incur higher expenses – including those who drive their vehicles on relatively empty roads during off-peak hours.
ERP 2.0 is a finely calibrated congestion charging system.
Like the current ERP system, its purpose is to manage demand for space on congestion-prone roads and during peak periods.
Roads are priced in such a way that capacity utilisation is optimal (too high a price will lead to empty roads, which means an underutilisation of infrastructure).
If the Government’s objective is to raise revenue, it could simply raise petrol duty, or car taxes, or issue more certificates of entitlement.
Instead, it is investing $556 million on an equitable system that hinges on the “user pays” principle.
The system also has other uses, such as allowing coupon-less kerbside parking, and automatic charging for off-peak car usage.
========
.
Satellite-based ERP: Great technology but what’s the policy?
by Han Fook Kwang
Editor At Large
.
PUBLISHED MAR 14, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT in Sunday Times
.
So, Singapore is set to become the first city in the world to have a satellite-based road pricing system.
.
Come 2020, eyes in the sky will replace those gantries – all 77 of them – to monitor the movement of every vehicle, 24 hours a day.
.
According to what’s been said so far, the new technology will enable the authorities to charge motorists based on how far they travel in a congested area.
.
The more they use the roads, the more they might have to pay, a feature the existing gantry-based system does not have.
.
It can also be used to implement parking charges without requiring the use of coupons, thus saving on enforcement costs.
.
If you trace how far road pricing technology has travelled from the days of the manually policed gantry in the 1970s requiring at least two traffic wardens, to the present system without the need for human eyes, and finally to one using orbiting satellites, you have to marvel at the progress achieved.
.
If cracking the congestion problem was mainly about employing the right technology, Singapore might well be on the road to a final solution.
.
But is it?
.
Don’t bet your Toyota on it.
.
Not even if it costs $556 million, which is the price of this newfangled system.
If there’s one thing about Star Wars- type gizmos, they don’t come cheap.
.
But if it works and results in smooth-flowing traffic – which makes the most efficient use of pricing, charging everybody who uses the road fairly and effectively, making Singapore a model of road pricing – it would have been worth every dollar.
.
The $556 million question is, will it?
.
Problem is, there is that other troublesome part called policy that often gets in the way.
So, what exactly is the policy that will be in place to control the usage of vehicles on the roads come 2020 when the new system goes live?
.
That’s what I really want to know.
.
Alas, compared to the information pouring out on the technology front, the news on the policy side looks like a sputtering bus.
.
Not much has been said about what the thinking is which will make use of those all-seeing satellites.
.
You have to go back to a parliamentary sitting in 2014, when then Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew answered a question posed by an MP on how the new system would affect frequent road users such as cabbies and commercial vehicle drivers.
.
This was what Mr Lui said: “We want to make sure that it is an equitable system. Today, you are charged the same rate, no matter how long you stay on the road…
.
“Going forward, we do have the option of pricing it in a different way. We will have to make sure that we take into account some of the implications on different groups of users and try to arrive at as fair a solution as possible.”
.
That was it, but there were hints there which pointed to what was in his mind – charging for distance travelled, and charging different groups of users differently.
.
What seems clear is that the Government isn’t thinking of just carrying on the policy as before but wants to explore new ways of charging road users.
.
This is the right approach as it would have been a waste of taxpayers’ money if the new investment, with all its advanced technical capabilities, merely replicated what the present gantry-based system was doing.
.
That would be like buying a Ferrari to drive in a carpark.
.
But the pity is that the issues Mr Lui raised were not debated, nor were they subsequently expanded outside the House.
.
And before you know it, the tender has been awarded and work on the new system started.
.
This is the problem: Shouldn’t policy be settled first before so much money is spent on new technology which enables the authorities to do things which have not been decided yet?
.
In deciding on a satellite-based system, is Singapore putting the technology cart before the policy horse?
.
Wouldn’t it have been better to first have a vigorous discussion on what a fairer, more equitable road pricing system might look like?
.
How would one charge a taxi driver compared to one who drives a commercial van or a bus?.
And what about a private motorist compared to others who drive professionally?
.
Other policy questions: With the ability to charge based on distance travelled, what should be the overall approach to congestion pricing in Singapore?
.
Should it retain the present way of pricing to discourage motorists from entering a defined cordon in the city?
.
Or should specific roads that are congested be targeted?
.
Then, there is the big bus in the room: How ought usage be charged relative to ownership taxes such as certificates of entitlement and Additional Registration Fee?
.
Many critics have questioned if the two work in opposition to each other.
.
They argue that the more motorists have to pay all those upfront costs, the more likely they will use their vehicles, ERP charges notwithstanding.
.
So, what’s the right balance?
.
You have to get the policy right first, then use technology to implement it.
.
The thing about policy is that, unlike technology, you can’t buy it off the shelf.
.
Every city has to develop its own based on its special circumstances and needs.
.
In fact, there are some places where no technology is deployed to discourage motorists from driving into their urban centres.
.
Boston in the US hasn’t allowed the building of new carparks in the city for decades.
You can’t drive to work because you won’t be able to park your car.
.
No technology, just good old-fashioned policy.
.
I don’t have the answers to what might work for Singapore, but I wish these issues were discussed before making the decision to buy expensive technology which may or may not be needed depending on the answers to those policy questions.
.
Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against modern science and this new satellite system might well be the right one for Singapore and worth its sky-high price.
.
But we won’t know until the policy issues are discussed and settled.
.
Which should start now, or yesterday.
.
============
.
Satellite-based ERP may not resolve congestion woes
.
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO in Straits Times Forum, 28th March 2016
.
I share Editor-at-Large Han Fook Kwang’s concerns that the expensive and complex satellite-based Electronic Road Pricing system might not be the most direct or cost-effective policy to address traffic congestion (“Satellite-based ERP: Great technology but what’s the policy?”; March 13).
.
Motorists and urban planners have long challenged the underlying concept of ERP.
.
Strong anecdotal evidence suggests that the selective introduction of tolls on arterial routes has succeeded in merely transplanting the traffic congestion from one road to another, rather than deterring private vehicle use to begin with.
.
With specific regard to a satellite-based ERP system, a pricing policy based on overall road use would disproportionately affect long-distance commuters, who might live far away from their workplaces and are thus forced to pay more simply out of circumstance.
.
If the current pricing model of a “restricted zone” is to remain, the existing gantry-based system would seem perfectly adequate, and far less expensive.
.
No major metropolis in the world is immune to traffic jams. Rather than eliminating congestion entirely, the realistic question is how best to manage it.
.
The certificate of entitlement (COE) system is a good starting point. After all, controlling the overall vehicle population tackles the root cause of widespread congestion.
.
In 2007, Singapore had 851,336 vehicles on 3,297km of roads, making for a vehicle density of 258 vehicles per kilometre. In 2014, 972,037 vehicles plying 3,496km of roads resulted in a density of 278 vehicles per kilometre.
.
More stringent limits on vehicle population growth are, hence, necessary to prevent unsustainable levels of vehicle density.
.
This could be enacted by way of tighter COE controls, and a more equitable distribution of the quota that prioritises those who require vehicles the most.
.
As Mr Han so eloquently put it, solving congestion might entail “no technology, just good old-fashioned policy”.
.
by Paul Chan Poh Hoi
=======
.
Consider social, economic impact of satellite ERP
.
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO in Sunday Times, 21st March 2016
.
Editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang aptly pointed out that we may be putting the technology cart before the policy horse (“Satellite-based ERP: Great technology but what’s the policy?”; last Sunday).
.
There are two hidden costs – economic and social – should the Land Transport Authority implement this new Electronic Road Pricing technology for distance-based charging islandwide.
.
On the economic side, there is the risk of profiteering.
.
To draw an analogy, during the recent oil boom, prices of goods, including petrol and transport, went up. But when oil fell to a low price, prices were not reduced correspondingly.
.
In this way, distance-based charges could lead to inflation.
.
On the social front, non-profit organisations which regularly use vehicles to transport beneficiaries with disabilities may see their running costs increase.
.
As a result, community events may not be so well-attended, and those with disabilities may not be able to meet as often.
.
There are many more negative scenarios that could arise.
.
I am all for the technology, which is great and could put us in the forefront in managing congestion.
.
However, I urge the Government to consider the economic and social costs before implementing the new system.
.
by Rodney Neo
.
========
.
New ERP system ‘will offer flexibility in charging’
.
BY
AMANDA LEE
leeguiping@mediacorp.com.sg
.
PUBLISHED: 4:16 AM, FEBRUARY 26, 2016 in Today newspaper
.
SINGAPORE — Motorists reacted to the impending roll-out of a new satellite-based Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system warily, saying they would want to see clearer signage near the zones where ERP charges apply, as well as what the charges are.
.
Landscaping supervisor Angie Ng said conspicuous signs could be placed about 1km away from the ERP zone to alert drivers. “Big signs can alert me earlier, in case I want to make a detour to avoid ERP charges,” said the 54-year-old who has been driving for the past 20 years.
.
Switch to road pricing based on distance ‘only a matter of time’
FEBRUARY 26
.
The charges should also be prominently displayed at every ERP zone, with Mdm Christina Li, 55, an office worker, noting that it would otherwise be difficult to know how much she was paying and keep track of how much she needs to spend every month.
.
Salesman Andrew Koh hoped to have more information on how the system would be implemented on the ground, which could have implications for processes like filing claims for ERP charges with employers. “With the new system, is there a way to claim from the company?” said the 60-year-old.
.
SIM University senior lecturer Walter Theseira said the main benefit of a satellite-based system is increased flexibility in road charging. “Flexibility is generally a good thing because it means charges can be varied more finely in response to congestion and demand.
.
For motorists, this potentially means a smoother traffic flow,” he said.
.
To help motorists get used to the system, SIM University adjunct associate professor Park Byung-joon suggested having a smartphone app which provides GPS navigation that can help direct drivers away from ERP areas.
.
He also pointed out that drivers could pay their ERP charges on a monthly basis and online payment could be made available to drivers for convenience.
.
Concerns over privacy under the new ERP system were also raised previously when it was first revealed the authorities were adopting it, and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) had assured it had factored this into the design of the new system.
.
The necessary safeguards will be incorporated in the system such that only data necessary to perform relevant functions will be collected, an LTA spokesperson had said previously.
.
Separately, under the new ERP system, there will be automatic payment for off-peak car owners who drive during the peak periods.
.
Banker Jonathan Yang, who owns an off-peak car, welcomed the move.
.
“(It saves) us the hassle of buying the e-coupons as well as preventing incidents where we forget to buy after using the car,” said the 27-year-old.
tankoktim 