Why is LTA buying buses for the private companies?

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
27,988
Points
113
Royston Sim | The Straits Times | Thursday, Sep 5, 2013

SINGAPORE - Two in five bus routes now have shorter waiting times and less crowding, a year after the launch of the $1.1 billion Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP).

And things will continue to get better, said Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew on Monday, as he noted that the bulk of the scheme will be rolled out by the end of next year, two years ahead of the 2016 deadline.

"We will continue to work hard to make sure it brings benefits to commuters, and spread it as widely as possible," he added, while giving an update on the programme on Monday.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has spent about 10 per cent of the $1.1 billion so far, to put 250 new buses on the road. While several have been used to set up 14 new routes, most have gone to supporting 111 existing ones, increasing frequency and reducing over-crowding during peak hours.

The waiting time for service 72 from Yio Chu Kang to Tampines, for instance, has been more than halved, with just three minutes between buses in July instead of seven minutes a year earlier, said the LTA. The number of routes with persistent peak-hour crowding has also been cut, from 96 to 56 - a drop of about 40 per cent.

Another 20 existing services will get extra buses in the coming months. Two short trunk routes will also be introduced by year-end to serve residents in Taman Jurong and Bukit Panjang.

According to Mr Lui, 200 more new buses out of the 550 committed under BSEP will be put to work by the end of next year, as the authorities speed up implementation. He said the programme will be reviewed after next year, when the bulk has been completed, to see "what more we should be doing for 2015 and beyond".

In addition, the LTA is planning to put in place a Quality Incentive Framework which rewards operators for being on time and penalises them if buses arrive off-schedule. Mr Lui hopes to test this scheme out on 25 services by early next year.

"We are aware that there are still areas in our bus services that need improvement, we hope to further enhance connectivity and raise service levels," said LTA group director for public transport Yeo Teck Guan. He added that LTA will continue monitoring the BSEP on a weekly basis. It has 40 surveyors on the ground, adding to its analysis of ticketing data and commuter feedback.

Bukit Panjang resident Yuen Kah Hong takes service 190 to the city several times a month during peak hours. He said buses have seemed less crowded. Waiting time has also gone down from five minutes to three. But he and several other commuters said they wanted to see frequency increased during off-peak hours as well.

For Dr Alexander Erath, a transport researcher at Future Cities Laboratory which focuses on urban sustainability, a key question is whether the enhanced routes run more efficiently.

"By increasing frequency primarily, one might also run into the risk that buses ultimately bunch up, especially if several routes overlap," he said, citing Orchard Road, which has more than 20 routes sharing the same bus lane.

He added that new MRT lines, which will have a big impact when they open, offer a good opportunity to optimise the bus network.

[email protected]
 
Bus and MRT should seperated so they can compete with each other. When ever new MRT line the SMRT fucker will remove bus service.
 
Profits go to the bus companies, cost is borne by taxpayers! It is amazing that sinkees don't seem to care how their taxes are being abused by the PAP government.
 
Profits go to the bus companies, cost is borne by taxpayers! It is amazing that sinkees don't seem to care how their taxes are being abused by the PAP government.

Thousands of companies get billions of dollars in subsidies from the government under various schemes every year. Why would you want to exclude a public transport operator???
 
Last edited:
Than what is LTA suppose to do with the spare millions...I rather they buy buses and improve sinkee worker lives than paying themselves more money..
 
knowing that the transport systems are in dis-aray to meet the existing population.
And they are never willing to hand-out cash with the huge surpluses in hand.
 
Govt give money to SMRT to buy buses. Buses are taken into Balance sheet. New revenue generated by SMRT are taken into P&L. Additional earnings will be reported as significant profits and given out as dividend. Temasek and its subsidiaries own more than 60% of SMRT... Maybe even more.

Taxes ==>Temasek pocket

This is just 10% of the 1.1Bn. How are they planning to use the remaining 90%?
 
Profits go to the bus companies, cost is borne by taxpayers! It is amazing that sinkees don't seem to care how their taxes are being abused by the PAP government.

Actually, two-thirds of the working population do not pay income tax. And the irony is that most of the one-third that does actually pay do not rely on public transport. In other words, the relatively well-off one-third is subsidizing the public transport needs of most of the two-thirds who are heavily reliant on public transport. This is therefore an aspect of redistribution, which I am not against. I am against the PAP on the majority of its policies, but this is not one of them.
 
Actually, two-thirds of the working population do not pay income tax. And the irony is that most of the one-third that does actually pay do not rely on public transport. In other words, the relatively well-off one-third is subsidizing the public transport needs of most of the two-thirds who are heavily reliant on public transport. This is therefore an aspect of redistribution, which I am not against. I am against the PAP on the majority of its policies, but this is not one of them.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/03/09/rebutting-dpm-tharman-that-55-of-sgs-dont-pay-income-tax/

More money is taken from the poor and working proportionately with the use of consumption taxes.

There is still no reason why the bus companies can't buy their own buses.
 
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/03/09/rebutting-dpm-tharman-that-55-of-sgs-dont-pay-income-tax/

More money is taken from the poor and working proportionately with the use of consumption taxes.

There is still no reason why the bus companies can't buy their own buses.

If the comparison is on the basis of the contribution by segments of the population to the treasury, then the top 20-25% of income earners contribute the vast bulk of all taxes, including GST but mostly through direct income tax. Their contribution amounts to around 80% of all taxes. Those who are not working or whose income falls below the tax threshold contribute a small slice, through GST, and, like I said, they are the ones that tend to be heavily reliant on public transport. As such I do not have any problem with the notion that those who have been blessed with good fortune are made to subsidize the public transport needs of those who are not so blessed.
 
If the comparison is on the basis of the contribution by segments of the population to the treasury, then the top 20-25% of income earners contribute the vast bulk of all taxes, including GST but mostly through direct income tax. Their contribution amounts to around 80% of all taxes. Those who are not working or whose income falls below the tax threshold contribute a small slice, through GST, and, like I said, they are the ones that tend to be heavily reliant on public transport. As such I do not have any problem with the notion that those who have been blessed with good fortune are made to subsidize the public transport needs of those who are not so blessed.

Right-wingers like to always use absolute amount to distort the picture (not that I am saying you are one) ...use proportion of income. Consumption tax shifts the burden of taxation from those better off to those earning less.
 
If the comparison is on the basis of the contribution by segments of the population to the treasury, then the top 20-25% of income earners contribute the vast bulk of all taxes, including GST but mostly through direct income tax. Their contribution amounts to around 80% of all taxes. Those who are not working or whose income falls below the tax threshold contribute a small slice, through GST, and, like I said, they are the ones that tend to be heavily reliant on public transport. As such I do not have any problem with the notion that those who have been blessed with good fortune are made to subsidize the public transport needs of those who are not so blessed.

Being a multimillionaire does not mean you spend the equivalent. For example, if your take-home is 4m a month, I doubt you spend 1600 times more than an average person. Only occasionally wjen you buy a car or yatch, which is a fraction of the 1600x. Hence, consumption tax is more taxing on the average person than the ultra rich.
 
Right-wingers like to always use absolute amount to distort the picture (not that I am saying you are one) ...use proportion of income. Consumption tax shifts the burden of taxation from those better off to those earning less.

Being a multimillionaire does not mean you spend the equivalent. For example, if your take-home is 4m a month, I doubt you spend 1600 times more than an average person. Only occasionally wjen you buy a car or yatch, which is a fraction of the 1600x. Hence, consumption tax is more taxing on the average person than the ultra rich.

There are 2 separate issues here. First, is the amount of contribution made by various segments of the population to government coffers.
Second, is the relative burden of tax on various segments of the population. The 2 are completely different issues.

My remarks are on the first issue because a claim was made that taxpayers money go into subsidizing transport companies and somehow that is a bad thing. If both of you care to re-read my riposte, I have made factual statements on who contributes the most to the treasury and I have stated that if most of the monies come from the wealthier segment which, incidentally, do not rely on public transport as much as others, then that is not a bad thing. It is in fact a good thing because it is redistributive in nature. If the government were to rely on the bottom segment of the population for tax contributions, it would not be able to subsidize squat. That also is a factual statement.
 
Left & Right Pockets.....Is this round tripping just like CHC..????

I am a layman..and my assumption based on a layman view....

..1.. Govt takes $1.1 billion from the Govt coffer to buy bus.

2. More buses mean more new routes and frequencies and more profits.

3. More profits mean more bonues and dividends paid to shareholder, of which Temesek owns 60%

4. This makes Temesek books look good and hence, their CEO, Ho Ching looks even prettier. ( Cos smiles all on the face)

5. Then, the extraordinary gains in Temesek books made are returned to Govt coffer, thus completing a round trip..

It makes a complete round trip.

.Is this round tripping..???

And at the same time, a face saving ploy to mitigate the transport woes.
 
Back
Top