June 23, 2009
THE Land Transport Authority's letter on Saturday, "3 aims of $1m fund", on its rationale for setting up the fund to promote taxi ridership, reflects its lack of appreciation for the reasons some commuters cut down on their use of taxis.
The recent drop in taxi ridership is perhaps a sign that the various surcharges have resulted in overall taxi fares rising to a level beyond what many commuters are prepared to pay. The situation is not helped by the practice of some errant taxi drivers who park their empty cabs and wait for phone bookings.
Without addressing these concerns among commuters, LTA's intention to fund more campaigns and install more taxi stands at major events will not encourage more commuters to take taxis more often.
Instead of ploughing public funds into promoting taxi ridership, LTA should encourage taxi companies to react to market forces and reduce the various surcharges, and start clamping down on bad practices which distort the supply of available taxis on the road.
LTA should also consult consumer bodies such as the Consumers Association of Singapore to get a sense of consumer sentiment and ensure that its future policies continue to be relevant and representative of the needs of all stakeholders in the market.
Liew Chin Wen
[Incoherent letter. On the one hand, he acknowledges that there are some taxi drivers who will wait for phone bookings. On the other hand, he claims that surcharges are too high. Phone bookings come with booking charge. Taxi drivers like that. People obviously are willing to pay for that otherwise the drivers will wait in vain.
And obviously the writer has not read the LTA's explanation carefully. The infrastructure is aimed at supporting major events, so it is irrelevant to general taxi ridership. As for the campaigns, these would be Taxi companies' initiative and LTA will fund up to 1/3 of the costs - presumably on approval. The other part is to improve service and training.
It is not clear from LTA's letter if the fund is actually called "fund to raise taxi ridership", but based on its objectives, it should be called, "fund to improve Taxi Service".
As for low ridership, I don't think there is low ridership. Taxi drivers may have fewer passengers than before the last fare increase, but their income has not suffered according to some survey. This is good for the taxi driver.
Another "let me use the issue of the day to push for my own agenda, which is basically getting things cheaper or better still, free" letter. ]
THE Land Transport Authority's letter on Saturday, "3 aims of $1m fund", on its rationale for setting up the fund to promote taxi ridership, reflects its lack of appreciation for the reasons some commuters cut down on their use of taxis.
The recent drop in taxi ridership is perhaps a sign that the various surcharges have resulted in overall taxi fares rising to a level beyond what many commuters are prepared to pay. The situation is not helped by the practice of some errant taxi drivers who park their empty cabs and wait for phone bookings.
Without addressing these concerns among commuters, LTA's intention to fund more campaigns and install more taxi stands at major events will not encourage more commuters to take taxis more often.
Instead of ploughing public funds into promoting taxi ridership, LTA should encourage taxi companies to react to market forces and reduce the various surcharges, and start clamping down on bad practices which distort the supply of available taxis on the road.
LTA should also consult consumer bodies such as the Consumers Association of Singapore to get a sense of consumer sentiment and ensure that its future policies continue to be relevant and representative of the needs of all stakeholders in the market.
Liew Chin Wen
[Incoherent letter. On the one hand, he acknowledges that there are some taxi drivers who will wait for phone bookings. On the other hand, he claims that surcharges are too high. Phone bookings come with booking charge. Taxi drivers like that. People obviously are willing to pay for that otherwise the drivers will wait in vain.
And obviously the writer has not read the LTA's explanation carefully. The infrastructure is aimed at supporting major events, so it is irrelevant to general taxi ridership. As for the campaigns, these would be Taxi companies' initiative and LTA will fund up to 1/3 of the costs - presumably on approval. The other part is to improve service and training.
It is not clear from LTA's letter if the fund is actually called "fund to raise taxi ridership", but based on its objectives, it should be called, "fund to improve Taxi Service".
As for low ridership, I don't think there is low ridership. Taxi drivers may have fewer passengers than before the last fare increase, but their income has not suffered according to some survey. This is good for the taxi driver.
Another "let me use the issue of the day to push for my own agenda, which is basically getting things cheaper or better still, free" letter. ]
No comments:
Post a Comment