• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

MOT: No direct link to fuel price woh...

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
33,627
Points
0
<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
icon.aspx
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - MOT: No direct link to fuel price woh...</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
icon.aspx
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">kojakbt22 <NOBR>
icon.aspx
</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">Jan-1 7:38 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 11) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>4656.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Jan 2, 2009
PUBLIC TRANSPORT FARES
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : start --></TD></TR><TR><TD>No direct link to fuel prices

</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- show image if available --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the report, 'Government will try to keep transport costs down' (Dec 22).
Some members of the public have written in to the ministry seeking clarification on the Transport Minister's remarks that public transport fares are pegged to national inflation and wage levels, and not oil prices. As they pointed out that this contradicts the reasons public transport operators gave when they applied for fare increases, we would like to explain how the public transport fare review process works.
Adjustments to public transport fares each year are based on a formula that is pegged to changes in two overall economic indicators, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Wage Index (WI, which measures national average monthly earnings) over the preceding year.
We explicitly decided not to allow operators to pass on their direct costs, such as fuel and wage costs, or to base their fares on these costs. This is to give operators every incentive to operate efficiently, and keep their costs as low as possible. Thus, even though the operators have sought to justify fare increases based on rising fuel prices, the Public Transport Council (PTC) will adjust fares only according to this prescribed formula.
This is why last year, despite a 40 per cent increase in diesel prices, the increase in CPI and WI was only 2.1 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively, leading to an allowable fare adjustment of 3 per cent. As the PTC also made the operators absorb a large part of the increase in transfer rebate, fares went up by only 0.7 per cent in October last year.
In assessing the fare applications, the PTC takes into consideration extenuating circumstances, such as adverse economic conditions and significant deterioration in the affordability of fares. Furthermore, as a reality check on the fares, the PTC compares the operator's return-on-total-assets values against those of other industries with similar risk.
The PTC has used these powers before. In 2001, it rejected applications to raise fares, in view of the economic climate then. In 2007, the PTC turned down the application to raise train fares after assessing that the rail industry had done very well the year before.
We understand commuters' concerns about the affordability of public transport. Early last year, the Land Transport Authority announced the plan to introduce distance-based through fares this year.
As we have seen in last year's fare revision exercise, this initiative has helped to reduce fares for most commuters, particularly those who make frequent transfers. When the PTC next deliberates the fare adjustment for this year, we can expect it to move further towards distance-based through fares.
The fare review process is detailed at [URL="http://www.ptc.gov.sg/publi&papers.asp"]www.ptc.gov.sg/publi&papers.asp[/URL]. Phua Hooi Boon
Director (Land Transport Division)
Ministry of Transport


[email protected]

</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Since wage has fallen, surely there should be a cut. No?
 
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">kojakbt22 <NOBR>
icon.aspx
</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">Jan-1 7:40 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">kojakbt22 <NOBR> </NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (2 of 12) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>4656.2 in reply to 4656.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE cellSpacing=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=heading>Latest comments</TD></TR><TR><TD id=messageDisplayRegion width="100%"><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=Post style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>cross_fire:

i have queried PTC on the use of national average wage for WI as well. I have suggested that the median should be used instead. Let me dig my mailbox tonight to paste their response to you. Cannot remember the reasons that they gave now.

HelenaYeo:
The fare formula is available on the PTC website. Something like:
Change in fare = Change in CPI + Change in WI - Change in Efficiency gains by transport operators.

If transport operators dont submit fare proposals, it means PTC do not have to review based on the formula right?
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: wudang10 at Fri Jan 02 10:58:34 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=AlternatePost style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>According to a news report in 2005, the formula actually allows for fare reduction in an economic downturn. So, are we going to see a fare reduction?
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: cross_fire at Fri Jan 02 10:06:56 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=Post style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Further to newsstorm's comment.

LTA should return vehicle taxations to the higher levels of late 2005, road tax, import tax, other tax and registration fees, etc. Otherwise, large number of poor are subsiding small number rich on land transport. Basis of my premise,

LTA stated that revenue from road transport collection is reduced because richer people who owns cars pays lesser direct tax, while poorer people who squeeze in public transport contributed handsomely to bottomlines of transport companies (which is not part of revenue captured by LTA's direct revenue collection system).

LTA could have handled the situation better.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: a1159167 at Fri Jan 02 09:55:16 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=AlternatePost style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Can the Transport Ministry reveal to the public the exact formula for determining the cost of transport? From the reply, all we know is that this cost depends on the CPI and Wage Index.

Even if tranport cost depends on inflation and wage levels, it still doesn't make much sense here. According to the latest news, Singapore's inflation has eased in November 2008 and many analysts believe that inflation will ease further this year 2009, compared with those earlier months of 2008. If higher inflation and the higher oil prices in the earlier months of 2008 resulted in an increase of transport cost of 3%, shouldn't an easing of inflation and lower oil prices at least warrant a reduction in transport cost?

In addition, more people are getting retrenched, which means that they are not earning any wages. Do these people contribute to the wage index by reducing it? Does a reduction in wage index mean that transport cost should go up? If so, does it make any sense to worsen the sufferings of the retrenched?
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: HelenaYeo at Fri Jan 02 09:52:27 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=Post style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>The biggest flaw in this formula is Wage Index (WI, which measures national average monthly earnings).

It include the monthly earnings of the top 20% wage earners who do not take public transport.
With huge rich-poor gap we are facing, the top income earners keep the WI high distorting the real financial stress of the low income earners.

The WI should be reformed to include the lowest 60% income earners only.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: cross_fire at Fri Jan 02 09:35:56 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<HR SIZE=1>Edited 1/1/2009 10:41 pm by kojakbt22</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Back
Top