Fare Increase in Disguise

[Goh Meng Seng]

For one simple alternative example, if this whole system is to result in the lower total fare by 2.5%, then why not reduce ALL FARES, both MRT and bus, by 2.5% altogether?

That would mean that 100% of people will benefit with 2.5% lower fare! What so difficult about that instead of bringing us into a system with so many unknown factors and flimsy motherhood statement?

Who is intellectually dishonest here? All for you to judge.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[cass888]

For one simple alternative example, if this whole system is to result in the lower total fare by 2.5%, then why not reduce ALL FARES, both MRT and bus, by 2.5% altogether?

That would mean that 100% of people will benefit with 2.5% lower fare! What so difficult about that instead of bringing us into a system with so many unknown factors and flimsy motherhood statement?

Who is intellectually dishonest here? All for you to judge.

Goh Meng Seng

The system never promised lower fares in the first place. They promised FAIRER fares. What they did was to change a system that weighed in favour of the single trippers and charging the commuter for the actual value received i.e. the actual distance moved.

 

[cass888]

You want facts, I gave you facts but it seems that you cannot handle the truth at all. ALL PROCEEDS from LAND SALES in Singapore by the government goes into the reserves. This is plain simple facts.

Mr Secretary General

Nobody is disputing that all proceeds from land sales in Singapore go to the reserves. That is the "fact" you chose to give.

But the next step in logic really befuddles me. You are saying that the $300 billion in reserves largely come from land sales. For that, you have not given an ounce of proof to that. Frankly, the various sums I run through my head cannot justify that.

And that is where your intellectual dishonesty comes in. You state a fact, then reach a conclusion from the fact, a conclusion which does not necessarily follow from that fact. Then you call it the truth that other people cannot agree upon.

Utter intellectual dishonesty. Please confirm to all present (that includes all the silent readers, not the rowdy anti-PAP vocal crowd) that this is what the NSP stands for.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

The system never promised lower fares in the first place. They promised FAIRER fares. What they did was to change a system that weighed in favour of the single trippers and charging the commuter for the actual value received i.e. the actual distance moved.

CASS,

You are being intellectually dishonest here.

PTC has specifically CLAIMED that MOST PEOPLE, 70% of them will have lower fare. And they also claim that total fare collection will drop by 2.5%.

If being FAIR means more money making for the establishment and its GLCs, please say so specifically. Don't be shy about it.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Mr Secretary General

Nobody is disputing that all proceeds from land sales in Singapore go to the reserves. That is the "fact" you chose to give.

But the next step in logic really befuddles me. You are saying that the $300 billion in reserves largely come from land sales. For that, you have not given an ounce of proof to that. Frankly, the various sums I run through my head cannot justify that.

And that is where your intellectual dishonesty comes in. You state a fact, then reach a conclusion from the fact, a conclusion which does not necessarily follow from that fact. Then you call it the truth that other people cannot agree upon.

Utter intellectual dishonesty. Please confirm to all present (that includes all the silent readers, not the rowdy anti-PAP vocal crowd) that this is what the NSP stands for.

Did I say ALL of the reserves are due to land sales? I say the land sales contributed to the ballooning of the reserves! Well, at least you have finally agreed that land sales proceeds all go into the reserves. good. One land sales recently fetch 200m. And there will be more land sales. Go figure out yourself.


Don't try to twist my words sonny. It doesn't work.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Boliao]

The system never promised lower fares in the first place. They promised FAIRER fares.

Aiyo, twisting that fact now that you know you're wrong? THEY DID PROMISE LOWER FAIR. Lim Hwee Hua went national on this and it was hotly debated as nobody believes that it would be possible.

 

[SneeringTree]

The system never promised lower fares in the first place. They promised FAIRER fares. What they did was to change a system that weighed in favour of the single trippers and charging the commuter for the actual value received i.e. the actual distance moved.

They did promise lower fares! My point is this (and I am sure most reasonable people will agree): I would not have wanted to benefit from a measly 0.5% reduction in fares if it meant that a significant minority will end up paying 20% more (through no fault of theirs other than an unfortunate mismatch between the locations of their home and work place).

If the new fare system ends up with SMRT raking in even more profits than I say it is an utterly evil system.

 

[cass888]

They did promise lower fares! My point is this (and I am sure most reasonable people will agree): I would not have wanted to benefit from a measly 0.5% reduction in fares if it meant that a significant minority will end up paying 20% more (through no fault of theirs other than an unfortunate mismatch between the locations of their home and work place).

Speak for yourself then. Although it doesn't affect me either way, I (and I'm sure the majority of those actually affected) will prefer to pay a lower fare and will not harp on the minority paying more, 20% or 100% or otherwise.

It is time the multi-trippers stopped subsidizing the single-trippers. I still remember during my busing days having to take a 90 minute bus ride because it costs more to take the 3 buses for a 55 minute trip. I am sure some of the policy makers fell in my category and is putting right this anomaly now.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

That is really SELFISH of you! Sometimes, I really wonder how Singapore could progress with people like you around.

Goh Meng Seng

Speak for yourself then. Although it doesn't affect me either way, I (and I'm sure the majority of those actually affected) will prefer to pay a lower fare and will not harp on the minority paying more, 20% or 100% or otherwise.

It is time the multi-trippers stopped subsidizing the single-trippers. I still remember during my busing days having to take a 90 minute bus ride because it costs more to take the 3 buses for a 55 minute trip. I am sure some of the policy makers fell in my category and is putting right this anomaly now.

 

[cass888]

That is really SELFISH of you! Sometimes, I really wonder how Singapore could progress with people like you around.

Goh Meng Seng

What is wrong with correcting an anomaly? Why should someone travelling from Bedok to Paya Lebar and maybe taking a bus and an MRT subsidize someone travelling in a single bus from Bedok to Jurong?

 

[AndroAsc]

Will the PAP troll just shut the fuck up? To the best of our knowledge the new fare is only cheaper if you take multiple bus/MRT services to work... and to be honest we have no idea on the percentage of commuters who only take one bus/MRT service to work vs commuters who take two or more bus/MRT services to work. Without the actual figures, the conclusion is still unknown. While it seems reasonable that most people would need to take feeder + MRT, or feeder + trunk because not everyone live near a MRT station, we do not know if they are the majority. And even if these people are the majority, how big a majority do they make up?

The fare system is a fucking regression if you haven't realized. You only get cheaper rates if you make a transfer. Who in the right mind would want to do that if he/she can get a direct service? Nobody likes to make a connection from one service to another, especially given the shitty standards of public transport in this country like buses always running late at unpredictable intervals.

And I still don't understand how the fare is fairer or how it has become more distance based. I would think a true distance based fare would divide Singapore in various sectors and the total fare depends on your starting sector and ending sector irregardless of how you travel. So a direct MRT trip from Yishun to Raffles Place should cost the same as a feeder + trunk + feeder combination from Yishun to Raffles Place. However, under the new system a feeder + trunk + feeder might end up cheaper than a direct MRt trip. Does anyone bother to say S-T-U-P-I-D?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

What is wrong with correcting an anomaly? Why should someone travelling from Bedok to Paya Lebar and maybe taking a bus and an MRT subsidize someone travelling in a single bus from Bedok to Jurong?

This anomaly is caused by bad city-town planning.

The city-town planning doesn't go round the MRT stations. Land are wasted for some shopping malls without residential flats surrounding these MRT stations. If most flats are built in a way that take MRT stations as the central focus, you and all other people won't be taking feeder bus services.

Even if you want to correct this so call anomaly, the problem lies with the bus companies over charging for feeder bus services. The proper way is to ask them to lower that price and not raising other fares to cover this lower fare.

Get your priority right.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[hitower]

Based on my last few days trip around Singapore, it seems i am paying more. The reason is that when I take a single trip is always cost me more then what they rebate.

For example: If I take a bus from Sim Lim Sq back home at Tampines, it cost me additional of 10 cents compare before the price changes. When I take MRT follow by feeder bus is gave me rebate of 2 cents. Therefore, my conclusion at this moment, in a long run we might be paying more.

The reason is that people like me will take the most convenience route back home (One Way If Possible); if you are calculating a fix route then of course it is cheaper.

The above is my experience in taking public transport for the last few days. I will keep monitoring till the end of the month then I will know whether I am paying more or less in this new fare calculation.

 

[Boliao]

I guess the one thing good coming out of this is that homes near MRT can no longer call for high COV; maybe even need to sell under valuation.

I lived 15 mins walk from the MRT. I take a train to Raffles and am not required to switch to bus. I find myself being penalized for no apparent reason.

 

[rodent2005]

I totally agree with what you say.

Who the fuck wants to change buses several times to get to a destination? If you need to change buses several times, this is regression of service standards to me.

Changing buses waste time. And time is money. You will cost you more to make transfers because you will be wasting lots of time waiting for the next bus to come.

 

[saratogas]

Owner wants to make more $$$, Customers wants it cheaper and better. Staff can only use both hand, one to cover their mouth, the other cover their own backside.

Its hard to make a living in Sinkapore.

 

[cass888]

Owner wants to make more $$$, Customers wants it cheaper and better.

So this is perfect. Even if what GMS says is true, majority of commuters pay less (even if it's only 2.5% less). Minority pay more (according to GMS, it's 25% more). Company makes more. Majority of commuters pay less.

Most people happy. But GMS doesn't understand. He die die wants Company to lugi then he satisfied.

 

[RonRon]

So this is perfect. Even if what GMS says is true, majority of commuters pay less (even if it's only 2.5% less). Minority pay more (according to GMS, it's 25% more). Company makes more. Majority of commuters pay less.

Most people happy. But GMS doesn't understand. He die die wants Company to lugi then he satisfied.

A short sighted person won't go far..a good politician plan things ahead 20-50 yrs for the good of Singapore. He just want to gain votes from the citizen thats all, his interest is for Singaporean not Singapore

 

[MIWIBDogRonRon]

A short sighted person won't go far..a good politician plan things ahead 20-50 yrs for the good of Singapore. He just want to gain votes from the citizen thats all, his interest is for Singaporean not Singapore

lan jiao ron, good boy, now fetch my slippers :oIo:

 

[MIWIBDogRonRon]

So this is perfect. Even if what GMS says is true, majority of commuters pay less (even if it's only 2.5% less). Minority pay more (according to GMS, it's 25% more). Company makes more. Majority of commuters pay less.

Most people happy. But GMS doesn't understand. He die die wants Company to lugi then he satisfied.

Hi lan jiao ron aka cass888, talking to urself? it is time for u to see a shrink