Congested roads are a common sight in many urban centres the world over. The morning rush, the evening jam, practically all urbanites would have encountered these situations – much to their irritation – at some point. This congestion is considered detrimental to the city’s economic growth mainly due to the practical inefficiency of doing business in that city. To combat this, a number of cities have introduced various road congestion schemes, with differing levels of success, with the explicit intent of cutting down on traffic pileups in their central business areas especially during peak hours. Singapore, to the consternation of its public, introduced the Electronic Road Pricing 1998; the London traffic department introduced the London Congestion Charge in 2003; the Swedish capital of Stockholm introduced the Stockholm congestion tax in 2007.
The current measures implemented are perhaps the more expedient, practically and politically, for the particular government or municipal authority. However as with most politically guided propositions, these are not long term solutions to the urban traffic problem. Imposing taxes on particular routes only serves to redirect the vehicular traffic elsewhere, causing jams on other routes, which obviously will demand the attention of the relevant traffic departments. It eventually becomes a cat-and-mouse game between the traffic department and the road users.
The problem of traffic congestion is not going to disappear any time soon. In fact it is probably going to get worse. By most counts, urbanization of the human population is going to increase over the next two score years. Some estimates put it at 60% globally by 2060. In China, for example, UN estimates expect that 70% of its people will be living in cities by 2035. On the home front, the whole population of Singapore is already urbanized and the population is slated to increase by another 20% in the coming decade (to 6 million).
These phenomenal growths in urban population will only serve to cause further traffic delays. Housing people is one thing, getting them to work and back both safely and quickly is another. An increased population, with proper management can improve an economy, but inappropriately organised can send the economy backwards. The obvious cause of traffic problems is simply the overabundance of cars travelling to the same city centre around the same period of time. Everyone wants to own a car for different reasons, expediency, practicality (especially in big cities) or even personal pride. Charging people for the use of a road is not a long term solution. Once the shock effect of additional cost wears off, people disregard the gaping hole in their wallets. Even if they were not numb to it, the extenuating need for the use of private vehicles will override that.
There is a way out of this, but it is not a single step solution. Rather it is a whole package solution. This scheme will help not just with traffic flow during peak hours at the business area but throughout, maybe even boost the economy of the particular country and cut down on unemployment. However it would require the pumping in of extensive financial resources.
Any solution to the traffic problem must respond to the practical and the emotional aspects of the issue. This practical aspects in this case cover three main areas convenience of a personal vehicle; actual distance between locations and the inefficiency and undesirability of public transport. The emotional aspect should consider a personal vehicle as a status symbol. Public Transport in the following discussion consists of Taxis, Buses and Trains, while Private Transport refers to personal owned vehicles.
The convenience of a personal transport is an important factor. The reasons should be rather self explanatory to those who own vehicles (here is an attempt to elaborate on that convenience, by someone who has neither a license nor a vehicle). Varied kinds of employments sometimes require the speedy movement of people or goods to a particular location for different reasons, and the timings are sometimes rather irregular hence it is difficult to plan in advance a certain public transport route. Other more reasons would be its efficiency in emergencies (e.g rushing to a hospital etc), it being the few choices of transport at the wee hours of the morning. Unless there is a form of public transport that can ply certain routes 24/7 it would seem rather difficult for this need to be overcome.
The actual distance between locations also figures towards private transport. Transporting people over any distance is obviously time-consuming, over a substantially long distance, even the time difference between efficient public and private transport is considerable. The cost effectiveness of private transport obviously far outweighs public transport. From a commercial perspective the time wasted on public transport could be better directed towards more productive use in the office. From a more personal standpoint, a person might be able to rest for longer if he drives rather than commutes on public transport.
The undesirability of public transport weakens the case tremendously for any public transport system. The umbrella term undesirable includes almost everything in public transport. The cleanliness of the vehicle, efficiency in getting from place to place, precision of arrival of vehicles, the location of the interchanges, stations and stops, the cost of the public transport… Obviously, every transport system will be lacking in some part. A locally-based example will serve to accentuate this point. Imagine trying staying in Jurong West, and working in Choa Chu Kang. In order to get to work using public transport, one might have to take the bus from his block of flats to Boon Lay/ Joo Koon Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Station to Jurong East Interchange and from there transfer to the North-South Line until Choa Chu Kang Station. It might cost him about $5 and 1 hour to-and-fro, as well as quite a bit of squeezing. There is obviously going to be some comparative advantage in driving a car.
When we add the three points above to the consideration that private transport is an intrinsic aspiration and expression of prosperity (in Singapore at least, it is ‘enshrined’ in the fabled 5Cs – Cash, Car, Credit, Condo, Club) we realize how much of a challenge the traffic problem is.
The following solution is geared towards the microcosm of the Singapore traffic system. Obviously, the Singapore traffic problem is comparatively less acute than some other countries, and the solution will clearly differ from country to country. In fact some of the following suggestions will only be implementable in Singapore.
The number of cars in Singapore is limited by a whole host of measures but is most directly related to the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) and the Vehicle Quota System (VQS). The COE is required for anyone in Singapore to buy a car, and the number of COE released in the year is determined by a particular mathematical algorithm called the VQS[1]. This need to control the growth of vehicles is due to the traffic density in Singapore which the VQS review of 1999 mentioned was the highest in the world with 163 cars per kilometer.
A quick look on the Land Transport Authority’s website shows that there has been a net allowed increase of some 20,000 vehicles every year from 2000 until this work year (where the net increase allowed has fallen by half). The mathematical formula is something along the lines of currently 3% x vehicle population. What is ironic is that year on year, a variable number below 1000 of COEs expire. What this translates into is a continuing increase of vehicles on the road, without a similar increase in road size or availability. The current amount of vehicles in Singapore has gone up from some 800,000 in 2006 to 850,000 in 2007[2]. The number of vehicles now stands at 872,000. Of this some 278,000 vehicles enter the city every day. Subtracting the public transport vehicles, the number of privately owned vehicles is approximately some 700,000. It does not take a mathematician to realize that sooner rather than later some 1 in 5 people in the country would own a private vehicle. Some questions have to be asked. Firstly, were the roads in Singapore constructed with this amount of vehicles in mind? Secondly, if the traffic problem is so debilitating, should there not be a ceiling limit to the total amount of vehicles allowed? Considering that the number of new roads is not going to increase dramatically, the first suggestion would be to relook the VQS algorithm, to consider the capacity that the current main roads can cope with smoothly, this is a long term solution that is to the benefit of the country. This suggestion is however politically controversial. Restraining the number of vehicles available runs contrary to the lassie-fare business model that allows the market to regulate everything. Also, there is an obvious distaste for the restraining of human desire, hence it must be admitted that only a politically very secure government would be able to risk their fortunes with the former suggestion.
The utilization of roads also deserves to be studied, with traffic diverted to the underutilized roads as a short term solution. How could this be done? A method could be the selective lowering of ERP prices across various less utilized ERP gentries to encourage vehicles in those directions.
The splitting of vehicular traffic can also achieved by encouraging staggering of road usage. This is another short term suggestion that involves manipulation of the ERP prices with the cheapest costs earlier and progressively increasing as it reaches peak period.
Manipulating the private vehicular movement is not enough however, because this does nothing to lower the entry of vehicles. The only way to do so is to improve the public transport system and convince the practically minded that it is even more cost effective to enter the city on public transport. This is a medium to long term strategy but is also a political minefield.
First, the road infrastructure must be upgraded. This would mean increasing the road capacity (additional flyovers, small routes etc). There is a common refrain that Singapore cannot afford even more land to be used for roads considering she already uses some 4.7% of land for this purpose. Certainly proper land management is vital, but this caution is a flawed conception of the use of roads. Roads may be built completely on land, but flyovers certainly are not. Overhead bridges can be increased so that certain portions of pedestrian walkways that serve little functional and aesthetic purpose can be expanded into an additional road/ parkway.
Next, the cost of mass public transport must decrease. This equates to a nationalization of the train and bus companies. Contrary to the common fallacy that the opposite of profit is loss and nationalization leads to loss, there is actually a middle point. This middle point would be the breaking even point. By removing useless add-ons (e.g TV Mobile system on buses) the fleet maintenance cost can be cut. Another method for cutting fare is to remove the ERP payment requirements for the nationalized buses. Revenue for public transport can be increased by allowing increased advertising on trains and buses (alternatively, advertisements could be shown on the TV Mobile systems). The lowered maintenance and operating cost, combined with the increased advertisement income when added to the goal of nationalization (i.e to cover operating cost) will lead invariably to lower travel fares.
Third, bus stops and train stations can increase in key locations, as well as express services of which there is substantial demand. To this end, the upcoming Circle and Downtown lines should certain help ease public traffic congestion within the city area when they reach full operational capacity in the next few years. In addition, further development of express bus services can be considered. There is certainly traffic for express bus services that travel from the city area to the extremities of the island (Changi, Woodlands, Jurong etc) such services could be increased and promoted. Additional Light Rail Transport (LRT) and a few main stations on the main lines could also be added.
Fourth, the cost effectiveness of riding in a taxi must be increased in comparison to driving a car. This will be especially helpful in convincing those who though practical would otherwise not want to ride a bus or train. There is a whole host of additional cost saddled on the passenger and taxi hirer when he rides a taxi including ERP, peak period surcharge, airport tax, road usage tax. This is ironic since the taxi is an important part of the solution in decreasing the number of jams in Singapore. Taking away the ERP cost from taxi rides, making it considerably cheaper and cutting down the surcharge costs especially at peak hours can subtract a significant cost from the total bill. This equates to increased passenger potential because it is so much cheaper than a car/ slightly more expensive but so much more efficient than a bus or train. The taxi driver will also increase his intake because he will be able (hopefully) to pick up more passengers while still pay the same daily rental. Ultimately waiting for three hours at the airport should not be more attractive than taking a few passengers in the meantime.
Ultimately, road congestion is a manifestation of a transport system with room for improvement. Just like medicine, curing the cause is more beneficial than removing the symptom because it strengthens and fortifies the system. Hence, the suggestions above are geared at reinforcing the traffic system in its entirety. No solution can be successful if it merely attempts to resolve the symptom outside the context of the whole solution.
[1] http://www.lta.gov.sg/corp_info/doc/VQS%20Review%201999.pdf
[2] http://www.lta.gov.sg/corp_info/doc/Stats%20In%20Brief%20%282008%29.pdf
Pingback: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 14 Dec 2009
Pingback: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 51
Thank you for the insightful blogpost. The Singapore Democrats have featured your post in our blogs of the week section – http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/blogs-of-the-week