Taxi fare hike again!
I am just so pissed off at this issue that I cant help but to take a break from my revision and pen down my personal thoughts.
First and foremost, who is that bloody 'genius' behind the most recent proposal for taxi fee hike? I am certain that this is a VERY irresponsible and 'cheap' reaction to 'solve' any existing mismatch between supply and demand in the 'taxi service market'. While pricing is often a good way to influence one's behaviour, it, by no means, is the optimal policy choice. Using price to influence both consumer and supplier (taxi drivers) behaviour in this case, will open the floodgate to a plethora of new problems.
1. taxi driver will begin to avoid fringe CBD area. and what's next? expand the city zone for surcharge? this will just go on and go. what will this lead to?
2. it seems like most decisions are determined by raw economics. money, profits and what not that ultimately affect the pay of these decision making executives. Please spare a thought for people who may not be affluent but yet need to taxi because (a) they are handicapped, (b) they are old etc. Did we not realise that that we do not see many elderly or handicapped in town or elsewhere? Is it becsause that they love to stay at home? Did we not realise that our transport system in Singapore is only world class for those who are able? What is wrong with policy makers? Take a look at Australia, U.S. (L.A.) and many European countries' transport systems. Yes, they may not be as efficient as ours but certainly, they are more elderly/ handicap friendly! and therefore, U will not be surprised to see these people around everywhere on their own! Money, money and profits! If this continues to dominate our policy decisions, we will fail very soon. There are many more factors to be considered in policy making. What are the effects of a policy on the community at large? The environmental impacts etc?
i just got to end of by saying that I am utterly disappointed in our regulators and the companies involved. Spare a thought for a the larger society. Open up and listen to other groups. A business exists in a community and thrive on the resources of the community, if ultimately, the business so decides to exploit the resources of that society that it operates it, it will ultimately suffer the consequences.
disappointed. I will work hard to be able to do something to contribute one day...soon.
First and foremost, who is that bloody 'genius' behind the most recent proposal for taxi fee hike? I am certain that this is a VERY irresponsible and 'cheap' reaction to 'solve' any existing mismatch between supply and demand in the 'taxi service market'. While pricing is often a good way to influence one's behaviour, it, by no means, is the optimal policy choice. Using price to influence both consumer and supplier (taxi drivers) behaviour in this case, will open the floodgate to a plethora of new problems.
1. taxi driver will begin to avoid fringe CBD area. and what's next? expand the city zone for surcharge? this will just go on and go. what will this lead to?
2. it seems like most decisions are determined by raw economics. money, profits and what not that ultimately affect the pay of these decision making executives. Please spare a thought for people who may not be affluent but yet need to taxi because (a) they are handicapped, (b) they are old etc. Did we not realise that that we do not see many elderly or handicapped in town or elsewhere? Is it becsause that they love to stay at home? Did we not realise that our transport system in Singapore is only world class for those who are able? What is wrong with policy makers? Take a look at Australia, U.S. (L.A.) and many European countries' transport systems. Yes, they may not be as efficient as ours but certainly, they are more elderly/ handicap friendly! and therefore, U will not be surprised to see these people around everywhere on their own! Money, money and profits! If this continues to dominate our policy decisions, we will fail very soon. There are many more factors to be considered in policy making. What are the effects of a policy on the community at large? The environmental impacts etc?
i just got to end of by saying that I am utterly disappointed in our regulators and the companies involved. Spare a thought for a the larger society. Open up and listen to other groups. A business exists in a community and thrive on the resources of the community, if ultimately, the business so decides to exploit the resources of that society that it operates it, it will ultimately suffer the consequences.
disappointed. I will work hard to be able to do something to contribute one day...soon.
posted by NevaSayDie at 11:18 AM
1 Comments:
Something I wish to state upfront: I’m not a Singaporean and have only read the articles that have been hyperlinked on blogs such as this by way of knowledge of this issue- my experiences in Singapore being somewhat out of date (I also take the MRT and walk, for the most part, when I am there as a tourist).
Firstly, it’s a pity that there isn’t a well developed network of outlets selling Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LGP) in Singapore. Most of the taxis in major centres in Australia run on LPG as opposed to petrol or diesel- and it is a fairly simple conversion on a petrol-engine car. Petrol prices in Australia fluctuate due to market forces on a roughly weekly or fortnightly cycle, but it is around AUD 1.45 ( SGD 1.85) a litre, but LPG is around AUD 0.60 ( SGD 0.76) at the current time. Consumption, however, is about 30% higher for LPG over petrol in terms of the number of litres used to cover a specified distance. This noted; the cost of running a car on LPG is about 55% of that for petrol. Given that an average taxi in Sydney will cover of the order of 180,000 to 200,000+ Km per year, the AUD 2,000 cost of retro-fitting the tank (or the cost of a dedicated vehicle over a standard petrol-powered vehicle of the same model) is recovered in fairly short order. Service and maintenance of LPG-powered vehicles is not much more than that of a petrol-powered vehicle.
Also, retro-fitting a tank into a Toyota Crown that is the principle model used as taxis in Singapore, from my memory, will take up half of the usable boot space of the vehicle. While not a problem moving mainly passengers with some shopping bags around the city and residents around the island, it will prove a major problem to transporting passengers with suitcases and other luggage coming from, or going to, Changi Airport. A solution to that would be for the taxi companies to convert something like a Toyota Hiace into a taxi or import either a London cab style vehicle or a large Australian passenger car for primary airport use.
A point that I have not noticed any major focus being made in the linked article is on multi-hire of taxis. This has proved a contentious issue in the past in Australia as there is a great potential for drivers to exploit the regulations concerning the issue. Multi-hiring may be restricted to certain times- late at night and during “crash” procedures when there are simply not enough taxis on the road. Can someone please list the rules governing the multiple hiring of a taxi in Singapore?
Otherwise, let me illustrate two possible scenarios to make a more efficient use of taxi resources. Destinations, distances, and fares are for illustration purposes only. Imagine that two couples, who do not know each other, meet on a rank waiting for a taxi after eating dinner in the same area (e.g. Newton Circus). The first couple live a distance that equates to a $10 fare (Namly Estate or Sixth Avenue?), and the second couple are a $25 fare from the pick-up point (Jurong?). Both couples agree to share a taxi. Dropping the first couple off will require a detour off the quickest route to the second couple’s destination, and the final fare will now be $30. The two possible scenarios for payment are as follows:
• The first benefits the passengers who get out last. The first couple pays the second couple the cost of their portion of the fare, which gives the second couple a reduction in their fare of $5- which will compensate them for having to divert from their quickest route home. The taxi driver will also benefit to an extent by making an extra $5 on what is basically a single fare to take the second couple home.
• The second benefits both couples. The first couple pay 75% of the metered fare for their portion of the journey ($7.50) to the taxi driver. The second couple pay 75% of the total metered fare to ($22.50) the driver. Both passengers have made a saving on what they would have paid being the only fare in the taxi, and the taxi driver still makes $30 for the one fare.
The second option of passengers paying 75% of the metered fare will work even more in the driver’s favour if there are three passengers in the one taxi. Three passengers, for example, going from Newton Circus to Sixth Avenue ($10- driver gets $7.50), Choa Chu Kang (normally $25, but is $30 with the diversion- driver gets another $22.50 at this point), then finally to Woodlands (normally $35, but is now $45 with two diversions- driver gets another $33.75 at this point). Three fares, one taxi. Driver makes $65.75 (hence the appeal for drivers to abuse this system!)
Interested to read what anyone else thinks of this.
Post a Comment
<< Home