travel.
Monday, August 23, 2010
i've just booked tickets for my melbourne trip with my bmt section mates, and will be booking tickets to my taiwan trip soon. as i was planning for both trips, i realise how important it is to bear in mind what the purpose of the trip is; an attempt to squeeze too many activities or goals into one trip will end up making it a wasted one.
and so, i will be busy with planning both holidays for the next couple of weeks. i suppose it's a good thing, at least i'm doing something productive. and of course not to forget, my overseas college applications. that, i'm still undecided.
moving on, there are a couple of topics that i wanted to comment on, but i'm just lazy to think in depth. i guess i will just use the 'touch-and-go' method here...
1. the distance-based fares.
after its implementation, there are people who complain that their travel expenses have increased (i'm one of them). i must say that no new policy will benefit everyone; it's always the case of subsidizing one group of commuters to benefit another. in the past, it was those who traveled by direct buses who benefited and those who made transfers who are penalized - what they call the transfer penalty. today, with the new system in place, the transfer penalty is removed and the whole fare system is made 'fairer' by calculating travel fares based on distance. while this may sound logical to me, i think it's important to note that the idea of 'fairness' is highly subjective; what may seem fair to one person may not be the case for another. in the past, the fare system was unfair to those who made transfers. today, the system is made fairer by calculating the fares based on distance, such that those who make direct trips pay the same as those who make transfers, provided the distance travelled is the same. however, more often than not, the direct trips often travel over a longer distance than transfer trips. moreover, there is not enough incentive (sufficient bus services that offer transfers and long waiting time) to attract commuters to benefit from this new system. is this still considered as 'fair'?
another controversial point is the conditions that come along with this distance based fares. let's not talk about the time limit of 2 hours (whether or not this time limit is realistic is another topic to argue about) and the maximum number of 5 transfers. the one that i think is really ridiculous is the mrt fares - how they are not based on distance travelled alone, but based on the shortest distance travelled, which includes walking time from one platform to another. with more mrt lines being built, our mrt system will get more complex, so much so that it will be difficult for a commuter to figure out which is the shortest available method to get from one place to another. the conditions that come along with the new fare system does not help to simplify things. instead, its lack of clarity on how walking distance and time taken to travel will result in commuters paying more if they pick the wrong choice. there are two options available - come up with a system that will conveniently tell commuters which is the shortest route to take when travelling from one place to another (which will cost money), or simply remove the time-factor.
yes, i simply cannot stand how profit-hungry public transport operators are in Singapore. and their lack of transparency in the methodology used to obtain their statistics to support the new fare system is not helping. i agree that there are people who benefit, and those who benefit will not call to say that 'i've benefited from the system' as much as those who complain that they have to pay more. but if the general consensus is that more people are paying more than paying less, then something is wrong with the new system. to be fair to LTA, I will give this system more time before my next comment.
2. YOG
and so, i will be busy with planning both holidays for the next couple of weeks. i suppose it's a good thing, at least i'm doing something productive. and of course not to forget, my overseas college applications. that, i'm still undecided.
moving on, there are a couple of topics that i wanted to comment on, but i'm just lazy to think in depth. i guess i will just use the 'touch-and-go' method here...
1. the distance-based fares.
after its implementation, there are people who complain that their travel expenses have increased (i'm one of them). i must say that no new policy will benefit everyone; it's always the case of subsidizing one group of commuters to benefit another. in the past, it was those who traveled by direct buses who benefited and those who made transfers who are penalized - what they call the transfer penalty. today, with the new system in place, the transfer penalty is removed and the whole fare system is made 'fairer' by calculating travel fares based on distance. while this may sound logical to me, i think it's important to note that the idea of 'fairness' is highly subjective; what may seem fair to one person may not be the case for another. in the past, the fare system was unfair to those who made transfers. today, the system is made fairer by calculating the fares based on distance, such that those who make direct trips pay the same as those who make transfers, provided the distance travelled is the same. however, more often than not, the direct trips often travel over a longer distance than transfer trips. moreover, there is not enough incentive (sufficient bus services that offer transfers and long waiting time) to attract commuters to benefit from this new system. is this still considered as 'fair'?
another controversial point is the conditions that come along with this distance based fares. let's not talk about the time limit of 2 hours (whether or not this time limit is realistic is another topic to argue about) and the maximum number of 5 transfers. the one that i think is really ridiculous is the mrt fares - how they are not based on distance travelled alone, but based on the shortest distance travelled, which includes walking time from one platform to another. with more mrt lines being built, our mrt system will get more complex, so much so that it will be difficult for a commuter to figure out which is the shortest available method to get from one place to another. the conditions that come along with the new fare system does not help to simplify things. instead, its lack of clarity on how walking distance and time taken to travel will result in commuters paying more if they pick the wrong choice. there are two options available - come up with a system that will conveniently tell commuters which is the shortest route to take when travelling from one place to another (which will cost money), or simply remove the time-factor.
yes, i simply cannot stand how profit-hungry public transport operators are in Singapore. and their lack of transparency in the methodology used to obtain their statistics to support the new fare system is not helping. i agree that there are people who benefit, and those who benefit will not call to say that 'i've benefited from the system' as much as those who complain that they have to pay more. but if the general consensus is that more people are paying more than paying less, then something is wrong with the new system. to be fair to LTA, I will give this system more time before my next comment.
2. YOG
There have been lots of complains on this widely advertised event. some are unhappy that MCYS had busted their budget more than twice, some demand an apology from Dr Balakrishnan, some are unhappy of the ticketing. Well, this is an inaugural event, there is bound to be some uncertainty to it. looking at how youths from around the world get to compete with each other in this rare opportunity and benefit from the experience and exposure, i'd choose to believe that the YOG has been beneficial for all the participants.
as for the budget - it remains a fact that they have busted the budget. some of the money spent may or may not be necessary, and it is a mistake on the ministry's part. but we have proven that we could host an international event well (look at India and the upcoming Commonwealth Games), and you could imagine if we flopped in this event. there may not be a YOG anymore - and imagine the lost to the participants! we made a mistake, we learn from the mistake, and we move on.
on the argument that this sum of money could be better used to help the needy - let us put this argument on the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. China isprobably be more in need of that kind of money to help the poor in the countryside than us. But remember, there are economic benefits that come along with the organising of this event. The spending by participants and the YOG staff all count as contributions to the economy, and this will trickle down to the needy eventually, through aid by the government in other forms.
Ticketing. I believe this was due to the kia si-ism of Singaporeans. When they realise that tickets are not snapped up fast enough, or for fear that the tickets would not sell, they sold most of the tickets to schools via MOE. of course, students are not able to stay throughout the event, and this will result in empty seats, which doesn't reflect well on us. they have corrected this by reselling the tickets, which I think is a good move other than the fact that it will mean double income for the organizers, which is unfair. I suppose the government needs to have more faith in the public - that Singaporeans will want to watch the Games and will buy tickets to watch them. Empty seats and lack of tickets really doesn't reflect well on us.
After reading so much on this hype, I think Singaporeans got lots to learn. We need to stop whining and complaining at every matter, and learn to look at things at the bigger picture.
as for the budget - it remains a fact that they have busted the budget. some of the money spent may or may not be necessary, and it is a mistake on the ministry's part. but we have proven that we could host an international event well (look at India and the upcoming Commonwealth Games), and you could imagine if we flopped in this event. there may not be a YOG anymore - and imagine the lost to the participants! we made a mistake, we learn from the mistake, and we move on.
on the argument that this sum of money could be better used to help the needy - let us put this argument on the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. China isprobably be more in need of that kind of money to help the poor in the countryside than us. But remember, there are economic benefits that come along with the organising of this event. The spending by participants and the YOG staff all count as contributions to the economy, and this will trickle down to the needy eventually, through aid by the government in other forms.
Ticketing. I believe this was due to the kia si-ism of Singaporeans. When they realise that tickets are not snapped up fast enough, or for fear that the tickets would not sell, they sold most of the tickets to schools via MOE. of course, students are not able to stay throughout the event, and this will result in empty seats, which doesn't reflect well on us. they have corrected this by reselling the tickets, which I think is a good move other than the fact that it will mean double income for the organizers, which is unfair. I suppose the government needs to have more faith in the public - that Singaporeans will want to watch the Games and will buy tickets to watch them. Empty seats and lack of tickets really doesn't reflect well on us.
After reading so much on this hype, I think Singaporeans got lots to learn. We need to stop whining and complaining at every matter, and learn to look at things at the bigger picture.