Scb11980 1st Gear February 24, 2012 Author Share February 24, 2012 "Free" money does not hurt anyone's pocket. Higher bus fare does. You can choose either this or choose expensive bus fares. The buses are to help defray the operators' running costs to keep the fares low. Many times, the gov get blasted for not using the profit from SWF to help the public. Now they are doing something and yet get blasted again? Think about it. i dont think i can convince you firstly, these are private companies, and they have projects based on government policies on increase population hence, you have to make clear where the public money is going and use secondly, all the COE, ERP, road tax etc where all these money have gone to cant these be use to better our transport system (infra-structure) and not only buying buses buying buses, help selected companies to make money (profit) from using public money if so, shouldnt the government give "free money" to our foreign own" power stations so that our electric bills dont have to increase i respect your opinion we stop here ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tianake 2nd Gear February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 There is no promise from the Garmen that there will be no price increase for the next few years. If the running cost for the operator is too high, then why are the bus operator still making money? if this is a money losing business, then why are they still in the market?? one possible reason was to keep the fares low. But how low is defined as acceptable? There is no clear guideline on how low the fare will need to be? Should the fare be tied to a certain percentage of the medium income of Singaporean since the government is pumping money for the benefit of all singaporeans including FTs who take buses? There is a lot of arguements or confusion as the garmen is not being transparent as to why they are buying buses to the 2 operator and pumping in money? if the reason is to improve the current situation as the demand is too high to meet the ridership then why aren't they considering setting up a 3rd operator. I wouldn't mind setting up the 3rd Bus operator since the government is providing the seed money for new buses and the operating cost for the next 10 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scb11980 1st Gear February 24, 2012 Author Share February 24, 2012 The Patriot: February 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm The Patriot(Quote) The thing I don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happily1986 5th Gear February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 You think they so short sighted as you ah ? This include spare parts, training the bus drivers, maintenance for its life span , fuel, technology integration etc. Yes, it does cost these much. so you support the notion of using state funds to defray the myriad of costs incurred through the entire service lifespan of the bus? for what are essentially private companies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon1668 Neutral Newbie February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 i dont think i can convince you firstly, these are private companies, and they have projects based on government policies on increase population hence, you have to make clear where the public money is going and use secondly, all the COE, ERP, road tax etc where all these money have gone to cant these be use to better our transport system (infra-structure) and not only buying buses buying buses, help selected companies to make money (profit) from using public money if so, shouldnt the government give "free money" to our foreign own" power stations so that our electric bills dont have to increase i respect your opinion we stop here If anyone can convince the diehard 60%, I cut off and feed to the chicken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 ferraribus? or the bus comes with a million dollar driver? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 Well said!! Now, tony (whatever chinese name you now use), listen here:- as the person paid to guard the nation's resources, say some thing!! The Patriot: February 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm The Patriot(Quote) The thing I don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 (edited) "Free" money does not hurt anyone's pocket. Higher bus fare does. You can choose either this or choose expensive bus fares. The buses are to help defray the operators' running costs to keep the fares low. Many times, the gov get blasted for not using the profit from SWF to help the public. Now they are doing something and yet get blasted again? Think about it. come back and defend your stand..... Edited February 24, 2012 by KARTer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scb11980 1st Gear February 24, 2012 Author Share February 24, 2012 come back and defend your stand..... basically he thinks i am talking rots please tell him singaporean money should not be use to cover the backside of private company Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 basically he thinks i am talking rots please tell him singaporean money should not be use to cover the backside of private company hopefully those who run our country dont always think the ways he does and uses such 'warped logics'.... but I got a feeling many do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidklt 6th Gear February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 (edited) Actually, I did not want to reply to this thread as the person that I had the discussion with requested for the discussion to stop. But since he broke the tacit agreement, I have every right for a response. I do not support the principle behind the monetary provision but I am against the effects of not doing so which is higher fares esp for those in the lower level of the income pyramid, elderly and children. The very fact that the gov choose to do this is also an admission that SBS infrastructure has reached the laws of diminishing returns if they expand their network further. Here, the net result of the expenditure is a better bus network, stable bus fares, lower waiting time, better comfort and improved travel experience. Best of all, it benefits the hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans that rely on buses as a means of transport daily. If you take the bus to and fro from work. You benefit from it two times a day. Can you tell me why spending on something which benefits hundreds of thousand of Singaporeans on such a bread and butter issue is a bad thing? The theory of motive consequentialism applies in this case. i.e. end justify means. so you support the notion of using state funds to defray the myriad of costs incurred through the entire service lifespan of the bus? for what are essentially private companies? Edited February 24, 2012 by Davidtkl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piyopico Supercharged February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 Actually, I did not want to reply to this thread as the person that I had the discussion with requested for the discussion to stop. But since he broke the tacit agreement, I have every right for a response. I do not support the principle behind the monetary provision but I am against the effects of not doing so which is higher fares esp for those in the lower level of the income pyramid, elderly and children. The very fact that the gov choose to do this is also an admission that SBS infrastructure has reached the laws of diminishing returns if they expand their network further. Here, the net result of the expenditure is a better bus network, stable bus fares, lower waiting time, better comfort and improved travel experience. Best of all, it benefits the hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans that rely on buses as a means of transport daily. If you take the bus to and fro from work. You benefit from it two times a day. Can you tell me why spending on something which benefits hundreds of thousand of Singaporeans on such a bread and butter issue is a bad thing? The theory of motive consequentialism applies in this case. i.e. end justify means. You pen so many words but actually said nothing. Do you even know why the public transport companies were privatised to begin with? While we are at it why not give a billion to Tiger Air cos if they fail we will suffer. Budget tourists will be unable to come and cheapo Singaporeans will be deprived of a cheap way to travel. Millions of tourist come here every year and hundereds of thousand locals go overseas too. Left pocket or Right pocket still end up our pockets.................. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthrevan Supercharged February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 $1.1b can pay 2000 staff a salary of almost $4600 every month for 10 years..in reality how much of the $$ actually goes to the staff? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Without_a_car Clutched February 24, 2012 Share February 24, 2012 Time to ponder Title : "Serious downsides" to WP suggestion, says Transport Minister By : Date : 14 July 2011 0618 hrs (SST) URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1140792/1/.html SINGAPORE: The Workers' Party's (WP) suggestion to nationalise public transport "might seem like a very attractive idea" but it has "serious downsides" in reality, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew said on Wednesday. Chief among these "downsides" is that "commuters and taxpayers - yes, even those who don't take public transport - are likely to end up paying more, and possibly, for a poorer level of service over time", Mr Lui added. Mr Lui's remarks on his Facebook page came a day after the WP reiterated its call for a National Transport Corporation. The Transport Minister pointed out that, an entity that depends on Government funding and which operates on a cost-recovery basis, "would have little incentive to keep costs down". Said Mr Lui: "Cost increases will be passed on to commuters. Over time, this will lead to higher costs for the same level of service, which means commuters pay higher - and not lower - fares. Not only would people have to pay more, nationalising the operators could result in a stagnation of service quality or efficiency over time." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happily1986 5th Gear February 25, 2012 Share February 25, 2012 (edited) Actually, I did not want to reply to this thread as the person that I had the discussion with requested for the discussion to stop. But since he broke the tacit agreement, I have every right for a response. I do not support the principle behind the monetary provision let us have a mutual understanding that this is the bone of contention. but I am against the effects of not doing so which is higher fares esp for those in the lower level of the income pyramid, elderly and children. The very fact that the gov choose to do this is also an admission that SBS infrastructure has reached the laws of diminishing returns if they expand their network further. since we are talking about road going buses here, i genuinely believe that the government is not intent on broadening the current catchment network serviced by buses. they are trying to shore up the existing network by improving the frequency and thereby the service standards. in fact, for the past 5 years, it can be noted that very few new bus routes are launched except for the express bus services which don't count because they typically target a select group of commuters and their daily passenger turnover is low. The train network has seen greater lateral expansion in comparison and i personally feel that buses are seen to complement trains as feeders and yet also supplement train carrying capacity as far as trunk bus routes are concerned. Here, the net result of the expenditure is a better bus network, stable bus fares, lower waiting time, better comfort and improved travel experience. Best of all, it benefits the hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans that rely on buses as a means of transport daily. If you take the bus to and fro from work. You benefit from it two times a day. Can you tell me why spending on something which benefits hundreds of thousand of Singaporeans on such a bread and butter issue is a bad thing? The theory of motive consequentialism applies in this case. i.e. end justify means. i definitely agree with you in principle that the public operators are struggling to meet even the basic requirements in the service level agreement. i am not so sure that the government budgeting gesture should be used to generally mean that the operators are incapable (whether that is of the view by the government) of mustering additional bus capacity out of their own pocket. the question that begs me is after reading your reply is, can i be sanguine that having obtained a major boost of "capital injection", the public operators will be readily amiable to pass the buck forward? can i? for operators who insist the "discounted" fares of students (up to JC level) are to be subsidised by the pool of full fare paying commuters, i am sceptical that they are ardent believers of the saying, pass the buck forward. My point is, the government should do its part in improving public transport which will in turn benefit Singaporeans but why should the public operators benefit out of this? Remember that the Budget is drawn from the state coffers which by extension represents the interests of tax paying Singaporeans. You are subsidising assets of private companies which answer to group(s) of shareholders. it appears that the assets are given on an unconditional basis. Essentially you have interests of the taxpayers pitted against those of the shareholders. How will this pan out? Edited February 25, 2012 by Happily1986 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerwoods Turbocharged February 25, 2012 Share February 25, 2012 Somehow I got the feeling some scholars among the Elites made mistakes again. Like trains can not cope and need major upgrading: replace trains/tracks... Many buses required during the upgrading . Just got back from Hong Kong. Finally I counted the number of carriages of their trains. Total 12. how many carriages in our Smrt train? I think 8?... simple math will tell you our transport companies are to busy counting their money and not doing their job of ensuring enough capacity to accommodate the increase in ridership. Buying buses is to cope with increase in ridership. Trying to pull of the numbers from taking MRT. if the business model is channel profits into increasing more buses and adding carriages to ensure capacity is always ready to accommodate ridership garment don't need to use $1 billion now. This goes to show and prove public listed companies failed to support public needs when money stand between them and us. With more and more broken rail clips as the evidence from the lapse in maintenance probably from cost cutting to boost profit.. There will be more rail clippings flying of the tracks... Thanks to the great former leader of smart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerwoods Turbocharged February 25, 2012 Share February 25, 2012 "Free" money does not hurt anyone's pocket. Higher bus fare does. You can choose either this or choose expensive bus fares. The buses are to help defray the operators' running costs to keep the fares low. Many times, the gov get blasted for not using the profit from SWF to help the public. Now they are doing something and yet get blasted again? Think about it. David, This action taken by garment is a patchwork. Go and imagine if the money earned from our dear public listed transport companies if not distributed a dividends to shareholders and used to but more buses to support increasing ridership this money could have been saved for better use. They should never privatize them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerwoods Turbocharged February 25, 2012 Share February 25, 2012 LTY says level of service will decrease if transport companies are delisted says alot about the performance of civil servants... ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
Public Buses of Yesterday
Public Buses of Yesterday
Checklist: Things to look out for when buying a place
Checklist: Things to look out for when buying a place
LTA buys electric buses from China
LTA buys electric buses from China
smoky vehicles...
smoky vehicles...
Tin Pei Ling appointed director of public affairs and policy at Grab. Can like that ah? 🤭
Tin Pei Ling appointed director of public affairs and policy at Grab. Can like that ah? 🤭
Mitsubishi Space Star
Mitsubishi Space Star