a community of singaporeans

Analysis of PTC’s news release on fare increase

Posted by theonlinecitizen on September 12, 2007

By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the Public Transport Council’s (PTC) News release on 11 September, on the increase in bus fares from 1 October.

I would like to comment on the following:-

“PTC considered Singapore‘s economic outlook and the affordability of public transport. The economic outlook has been positive with the latest GDP gowth forecast for 2007 revised upwards to 7 to 8% and the unemployment rate for June 2007 at 2.4%, the lowest in 5 years.”

Will the positive economic outlook reverse the trend of declining nominal wages (before inflation-adjustment) for about the bottom 30 percentile of workers?

Unemployment has actually increased

Although overall unemployment was the lowest in 5 years, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) 2nd quarter report on employment, “among the resident (Singaporean and permanent resident) labour force, the non-adjusted unemployment rate was 4.2%… higher than (the) 3.4% in March 2007”

The estimated 79,600 unemployed residents, was higher than the estimated 66,000 last quarter.

So, the resident unemployment rate went up, and the number of resident unemployed has increased!

Return on Total Assets

ROTA (Return on Total Assets) in 2006 of SBST (Bus and Rail) and SMRT (Bus and Rail) was 7.9 and 11.4% respectively.

These are higher than the 6.5 and 9.1% respectively in 2005.

The Ministry of Transport has said that these 6.5 and 9.1% ROTA “returns are healthy but not excessive, compared to companies with similar industry structures and risk profiles”.

Since ROTA has increased by 22% (7.9 divided by 6.5) and 25% (11.4 divided by 9.1) over the last year, how can a fare increase be justified on the basis of ROTA?

Why do we always seem to be comparing with countries and companies with high ROTAs?

Why don’t we compare with public transport companies in countries with lower ROTA?

Comparing with other countries – use a fairer approach

Why do we always seem to be comparing average fares with cities like Hong Kong, London and New York City, which have higher fares than Singapore?

Why don’t we compare with other lower fare cities and countries as well?

As cities like London and New York City have multi-modal bus passes, an average fares comparison may not be very appropriate.

Don’t we realise that the median wage in these cities are much higher than Singapore‘s (about $2,050) ?

With the Residential Feeder Services Aircon Adult fare increasing from 65 to 67 cents, has the PTC done any analysis on the percentage rate increase of fares for feeder services over the last 8 years?

In this connection, a local university study found that about 15% of commuters walked a straight-line distance of more than one kilometre, despite the availability of feeder services. Has the high rate of increase in feeder service fares deterred people from using them because of affordability?

Transport vouchers – to cover only one year’s increase?

As to the $30 transport vouchers to be given out to needy commuters, has the PTC reconciled the number of transport vouchers (total funding amount divided by $30) with the number of people who live in households with monthly income below $1,500?

Is it not obvious that giving $30 or $20 whenever fares are increased does not take into account that it only covers one year’s increase? Shouldn’t transport vouchers be given to reflect 7 years’ increases over the last 8 years?

The PTC report makes no mention of the ever increasing record profits of the transport operators, or the possible effects of the GST hike.

Flaws in the Fare Adjustment formula

As there are more than 500,000 cars in Singapore, how can the Fare Adjustment Formula be based on average Wage Increase?

Shouldn’t it be the median wage increase to reflect the fact that it is the lower-income who take public transport?

As the CPI (inflation) for the lower-income is much higher than the higher income, shouldn’t the formula be based on the CPI of those who take public transport rather than the average CPI?

Why is the Public Transport Affordability Index (PTAI)* on a downtrend since 2003, when as I understand it, the MEPT has been increasing due to yearly fare increases and declining wages for the bottom 30 percentile of workers?

As to “the average wage growth was 5.5% for the 1st quarter of 2007”, I understand that the median wage has hardly moved in real terms (after adjusting for inflation) over the last few years.

$30 per year vouchers for the poor. Adequate?

According to the Straits Times report, “100,000 needy families to get $30 transport vouchers”,Straits Times, 12 September, it says:

Among commuters who have to make one transfer to another trunk
bus, they will see a fare increase of at most 4 cents.

For example: A bus journey from Ang Mo Kio to Alexandra Road with a
transfer at MacRitchie Reservoir currently costs $1.583. From 1st October,
the commuter will see an increase of 3 cents to $1.61 (a 2-cent increase
for the 1st leg and a 1- cent increase for the 2nd leg). This is an increase of
6 cents per day or about $1.32 per month.”

If “they will see a fare increase of at most 4 cents”, why is the example one which shows a 3 cent increase per trip of 6 cents per day?

Based on just 2 trips a day, 30 days a month, an increase of 6 and 8 cents a day, works out to $21.60 and $28.80 a year, respectively.

So, does it make sense that the “Transport Ministry spokesman estimated that, typically, a single voucher ($30) could defray a poor family’s fare increase cost for one year”

$30 a year for a typical poor family of 3 to 4 persons can cover $21.60 or $28.80 fares increase per person?

Do more Singaporeans generally take buses more often and spend more on buses than trains?

*(Monthly Expenditure on Public transport (MEPT) divided by Monthly Household Income (MHI)


8 Responses to “Analysis of PTC’s news release on fare increase”

  1. Pui Yee said

    stinko! mega con job!

    and i don’t see why the pappies want to use that gerard ee as their hatchet man. why should the public have any good opinion of him? justice has not been served in the nkf scam at all. it was just been “wrapped up” and “repackaged” under ee’s interim management.

    pls, instead of using a lackey, let us see the face of the pap minister who is really responsible for this.

  2. scb said

    It has now become an annual ritual like the ‘Seventh Moon Ghost Festival’ when the hungry ghosts are offered all the material goodness. But the allurements of our ESSENTIAL GOODS AND SERVICES PROVIDERS are demanding Annual Increases in the prices of their goods and services. Their love and greed for money is on top and above good profits every year for their lucrative businesses.

    Those businesses they are doing, be reminded, are ESSENTIAL, NOTE ESSENTIAL GOODS AND SERVICES; which means goods and services that most cannot do without. And we know most of these enterprises are monopolistic, state-owned, cartel having exclusive rights.

    The latest increase of one to three cents in bus fares is very tactical for it appears to be minimal. But many do not use stored value card and with the uselessness of low value coins, passengers are unlikely to carry one and five cents coins. Of course it is not the fault of the bus operators and passengers unlikely to blame them(operators). However, a substantial amount(of cash) would have accrued over time when passengers paid five or ten cents instead of the increase of one to three cents.

    Other than this Sin Island, I have not heard of any other country implementing annual increases of goods and services. Going by the histories of most other democracies, such implementation in other countries could result in much bloodletting. The local sheep are fast becoming mutton.

  3. tc said

    there must be an audit –

    1) at the end of 12 months – how much of the vouchers were used? 10%? 20% of the amount budgeted?

    2) How much paperwork to do to get the $30 vouchers?

    3) Who are the main shareholders of SBS?

  4. Keith said

    Mr Leong,

    You have indeed analyzed the impact of the hike very well. Maybe this article should be sent to the ST and Today forums so that the public are aware of it. It would be interesting to see how the PTC defends its decision when the shortcomings of their decision are exposed.

  5. scb said

    Correction to Post Number 2 by me; scb. Fare increases should read one to two cents(per trip) instead of one to three cents as entered in Post Two here, my apology.

  6. James Chia said

    Buses and MRTs are getting more and more packed. They would earn even more profits in FY 2008 with or without the hike. Why then does the PTC approve it?

  7. Ace said

    Ai yah….what else is new?? The problem is the people above the PTC, NWC and whatever the organisation is…. Dun matter.

    Keep voting the way you have voted, then you deserve to be screwed this way….

    Let’s aim for a 100% PAP victory the next election and see IU units drilled into your heads and pay ERP for walking around…..

    Beautiful country this is…

  8. scb said

    Dear readers, I have to make another correction to my first post(Post Number 2) as I ralised that passenger paying cash for bus fares are not affected by the increase from the first of October 2007. My sincere apologies to the bus operators and readers.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: