Monday, 31 December 2007
Friday, 28 December 2007
Where are the passengers?
071227
It is 18:05 at International Plaza, long row of taxis, empty taxi stand.
It is 18:05 at International Plaza, long row of taxis, empty taxi stand.
Thursday, 27 December 2007
Monday, 24 December 2007
Saturday, 22 December 2007
Friday, 21 December 2007
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
车资复杂化 司机收益不大
早报 071218
● 甄福生
随着油价的暴涨，德土公司的车资也上涨是可以理解的，然而，有关的多家德土公司，为提高德土司机的收入，却不是直接以车程论价，而是制定了本来就很复杂的更加复杂的“林林总总”的收费方式，又由于多家德士公司各施其政，各行其制，重叠式的车资收费，将更加复杂。
须知道，德士乘客，十之八九，都是下层阶级的普罗大众，他们没有自己的交通工具，每次出门在巴士和地铁都无法抵达的地方，不得不依赖德士来代步，尤其那些残障人士和病人，他们需要到医院或诊所治疗，更非靠德士的载送不可了。至于一般的搭客可能因赶时间或提着重物，也要靠德士的运载，所以乘搭德士不是奢侈的享受，为什么会有这么多如“牛毛”的重叠车资结构的条例呢？
作为搭客的我，今后要乘搭德士，出门之前先得看“天时”（繁忙与非繁忙时间）。“地利”（市区和边缘以及ERP的开关）。“人和”（德士的普通或高级款型），再看看自已的钱包，是否有足够的钱才好跨进车座。
个人认为，以这样的制度来提高车资收费对德士司机的收益不大。而且，人们要乘搭德士前，都需再三计算上述各种情况，才能预算出钱包里的钱够不够。
现在唯有希望陆交局伸出援手检讨减免德士进出ERP闸门收费，和德土可以进入全天候巴士车道让搭客上下车的可行性，毕竟德士也是公共交通服务的一环，如果能放宽上述的两项条例，对乘客也更加方便，想必会受乘客普遍赞扬。
● 甄福生
随着油价的暴涨，德土公司的车资也上涨是可以理解的，然而，有关的多家德土公司，为提高德土司机的收入，却不是直接以车程论价，而是制定了本来就很复杂的更加复杂的“林林总总”的收费方式，又由于多家德士公司各施其政，各行其制，重叠式的车资收费，将更加复杂。
须知道，德士乘客，十之八九，都是下层阶级的普罗大众，他们没有自己的交通工具，每次出门在巴士和地铁都无法抵达的地方，不得不依赖德士来代步，尤其那些残障人士和病人，他们需要到医院或诊所治疗，更非靠德士的载送不可了。至于一般的搭客可能因赶时间或提着重物，也要靠德士的运载，所以乘搭德士不是奢侈的享受，为什么会有这么多如“牛毛”的重叠车资结构的条例呢？
作为搭客的我，今后要乘搭德士，出门之前先得看“天时”（繁忙与非繁忙时间）。“地利”（市区和边缘以及ERP的开关）。“人和”（德士的普通或高级款型），再看看自已的钱包，是否有足够的钱才好跨进车座。
个人认为，以这样的制度来提高车资收费对德士司机的收益不大。而且，人们要乘搭德士前，都需再三计算上述各种情况，才能预算出钱包里的钱够不够。
现在唯有希望陆交局伸出援手检讨减免德士进出ERP闸门收费，和德土可以进入全天候巴士车道让搭客上下车的可行性，毕竟德士也是公共交通服务的一环，如果能放宽上述的两项条例，对乘客也更加方便，想必会受乘客普遍赞扬。
期待德士的优质服务
早报 071218
● 刘永峰
● 刘永峰
最近，德士市场老大康福德高带头宣布调高车资，其他多数德士公司如影相随。这次涨价是通过复杂的车资结构改革。新加坡人好像习惯了“涨”，但到底德士涨价该不该？我说，当然该，但要涨得有理由。
首先德士行业也需要吸引人才留住人才。德士业可说是一个城市的窗口。坐在德士里，从德士司机的穿着打扮言行举止就可以看到这个城市的进展状况。如果这个 国家的德士司机，衣着邋遢，说话粗言恶语，这就反映其人民没有品味，政府管理不到位。优秀德士司机的一言一行会把自己的国家推销给世界，甚至会直接吸引来 外国投资者。
今年市面行情好，各种物价在上涨，许多行业在加薪，有些行业的花红都要达到5至8个月。德士司机们也要养家糊口。物价涨了，成本费用都增加了，德士涨价在所难免。
但是，德士司机的表现也应该与表现挂钩。德士行业既然是服务行业，缺乏职业道德，服务态度极差，对顾客横眉竖眼的德士司机们，和好师傅们应该有所区别，否则，就显不出优胜劣汰的意义。德士业也可以引进表现花红。
德士公司应该花大力气研究一套优胜劣汰的机制。当局对一些害群之马除了缉拿之外，别无良策。笔者认为，德士公司与其花时间精力研究复杂的涨价程序，让老 百姓雾里看花，不如研究出一套行之有效的透明的管理监督办法，及时发掘自己公司里真正的优秀德士先生，并加以褒扬。甚至把他们塑造成“明星德士”，在“明 星德士”车壳上有一个明确标志，让公众优先选择，并给予明星德士司机实质性的租金回扣。这应会是比单纯的涨价更积极的奖励德士司机的措施。
这次改革车资结构，康福德高提出，要提升德士服务至优质服务。既然如此，我觉得应把以下作为切入点：
一是如何将德士变为具有竞争性的职业。现在有一个很普遍的说法是，德士是无奈的选择，是事业萎缩后的退守大本营。当上司机后就天高皇帝远，按时交租，双 手紧握方向盘就得过且过过日子了。因此德士司机素质要提高，首先要考虑到如何加强考核？如何进行入行后的职业道德和职业技术培训？这些都是重要的考虑方 向。
二是提高德士司机的服务素质。目前是时间烧着德士司机的屁股，钱烧着轱辘。乘德士是要快上车快下车，快点交钱，快点关车门，否则就 来不及了，乘客稍微一慢动作，感觉就很不好意思，眼睁睁看着德士司机的不耐烦，也无法责怪他们。应当解除这方面的压力，对德士司机加强培训，让他们明白， 乘客只要按规定乘车付费，就应该提供优质服务。而不是你想赚钱，就让乘客当冤大头。
总之，在百货价格上涨的当儿，车价涨是没得商量的，毕竟一分价钱一分货，但我们可以讨论如何提高优质服务吗？
德士车资起价的经济学思考
早报 ● 毛卫
德士车资到底该不该起价? 这是近日来的一个热门话题。支持者认为，柴油费用增加，起价天经地义。而反对者认为，起价后搭客肯定减少，这样反而会使德士师傅更难赚到钱。
想当初康福德士只调高一毛钱的起程车资都要经过长时间的考虑才实施，而这次的车资起价幅度很大，动作又快，真是出人意料。不过，康福公司除了说明车资起价是因为柴油涨价，并公布了新的车资结构外，未能对公众解释新车资起价幅度的合理性，实在缺乏说服力，另人遗憾。
我认为，如果不了解车资起价所带来的方方面面的具体影响，而只讨论德士车资应不应该起价是没有多大意义的。仅仅从价值层面上作判断无助于正确决策，因为每个人的价值观不同，“公说公有理，婆说婆有理”，是争不出什么结果的。最好是让事实和数据来说话。
一名德士公司老总说，车资起价后，公众在经过一段适应期之后，搭客人数是不会减少的。
而我觉得，车资起价到底对各方利益有什么影响，起价后搭客人数会减少还是不变，如果减少的话会减少多少，这些要有具体数字，不能想当然地推论。
要解决这个问题必须先了解德士服务的市场需求弹性。所谓需求弹性是指某种商品在价格变动之后，需求量会如何跟着变动。
根据经济学原理，当某种商品需求富有弹性时（需求弹性大于1），价格上升后由于需求量减少更多，总收益减少；当某种商品需求缺乏弹性时，价格上升后，由于需求量减少并不多，总收益增加。例如，如果德士车资上调20%，搭客人次减少20%，那么德士服务的需求弹性就是1，起价不起价没什么两样。如果德士车资上调20%，搭客人次减少10%，那么德士服务的需求弹性就是0.5，说明车资起价会使德士师傅收入更高。如果德士车资上调20%，搭客人次减少 30%，那么德士服务的需求弹性就是1.5，说明车资起价反而会使德士师傅收入减少，事与愿违。明白这一简单的经济学原理对我们确定德士车资调整幅度有着重要意义。
一些研究消费的经济学家或者市场调查机构都会经常计算各种商品或劳务的需求弹性，并将这些具体数值提供给企业作为调整价格的主要依据之一。如果康福公司能针对以前车资起价的数据资料进行具体的计算与研究，分析新加坡德士服务的市场需求弹性，在此基础上制定出合理的车资调整幅度，相信会对公众有很大的说服力，也可以减少决策的失误。
·作者是旅居新加坡的中国人
德士车资到底该不该起价? 这是近日来的一个热门话题。支持者认为，柴油费用增加，起价天经地义。而反对者认为，起价后搭客肯定减少，这样反而会使德士师傅更难赚到钱。
想当初康福德士只调高一毛钱的起程车资都要经过长时间的考虑才实施，而这次的车资起价幅度很大，动作又快，真是出人意料。不过，康福公司除了说明车资起价是因为柴油涨价，并公布了新的车资结构外，未能对公众解释新车资起价幅度的合理性，实在缺乏说服力，另人遗憾。
我认为，如果不了解车资起价所带来的方方面面的具体影响，而只讨论德士车资应不应该起价是没有多大意义的。仅仅从价值层面上作判断无助于正确决策，因为每个人的价值观不同，“公说公有理，婆说婆有理”，是争不出什么结果的。最好是让事实和数据来说话。
一名德士公司老总说，车资起价后，公众在经过一段适应期之后，搭客人数是不会减少的。
而我觉得，车资起价到底对各方利益有什么影响，起价后搭客人数会减少还是不变，如果减少的话会减少多少，这些要有具体数字，不能想当然地推论。
要解决这个问题必须先了解德士服务的市场需求弹性。所谓需求弹性是指某种商品在价格变动之后，需求量会如何跟着变动。
根据经济学原理，当某种商品需求富有弹性时（需求弹性大于1），价格上升后由于需求量减少更多，总收益减少；当某种商品需求缺乏弹性时，价格上升后，由于需求量减少并不多，总收益增加。例如，如果德士车资上调20%，搭客人次减少20%，那么德士服务的需求弹性就是1，起价不起价没什么两样。如果德士车资上调20%，搭客人次减少10%，那么德士服务的需求弹性就是0.5，说明车资起价会使德士师傅收入更高。如果德士车资上调20%，搭客人次减少 30%，那么德士服务的需求弹性就是1.5，说明车资起价反而会使德士师傅收入减少，事与愿违。明白这一简单的经济学原理对我们确定德士车资调整幅度有着重要意义。
一些研究消费的经济学家或者市场调查机构都会经常计算各种商品或劳务的需求弹性，并将这些具体数值提供给企业作为调整价格的主要依据之一。如果康福公司能针对以前车资起价的数据资料进行具体的计算与研究，分析新加坡德士服务的市场需求弹性，在此基础上制定出合理的车资调整幅度，相信会对公众有很大的说服力，也可以减少决策的失误。
·作者是旅居新加坡的中国人
德士车资调高第一天
早报 071218
● 陆彩霞、林晓玲、吴淑贤、佘慧娴、陈颖温联合报道
蔡家增（摄）
市区内 人龙不减 各有需要
灰蒙蒙的下雨天，虽然再过几分钟就是下午5时的繁忙时间，乘客得多付费，但是新达新加坡家乐福（Carrefour）超市外的德士站，还是出现长长的人龙。
繁忙的购物商场似乎不受康福德高德士车资上涨的影响。人们满载而归后，搭德士回家自然是最轻松、最方便的选择，因此人龙当中多数是提着大包小包的购物者。
人多德士也多
据记者现场观察，不论是在繁忙时间或之前，该德士站都是人多、德士也多的情况。
记者沿着人龙逐一询问，发现多数人对德士车资上涨的情况了解不多。一些人以为只是几角钱的增幅，而忘了计算3元市区附加费和总车资35%的繁忙时段特收费。
准备搭德士到朋友家的郭珮榕（13岁）听记者问起德士车资上涨的事，一脸茫然，透露自己不晓得有这么一回事。不过，当她知道可能需要付多几元附加费后，仍然坚持不改搭公共交通工具。
她说：“平时很少搭德士，现在因为赶时间，所以不搭不行。”
另一对受访夫妇也表示他们很久才搭一次德士，所以起价也无所谓。潘金灶（55岁，建筑业）和妻子昨天带了来自槟城的6名亲戚到市区一带观光和购物，因为人多，所以他们认为搭德士比较方便。
不会挑德士
潘金灶说：“亲戚们不是本地人，替他们买车资卡太麻烦了。搭德士较方便，反正难得一次，多几块钱也无所谓。我们也不会挑别的德士公司的德士来搭，轮到我们的时候是哪辆德士就上哪辆吧。”
记者询问的另一些乘客，也同样表示不会挑德士搭，现场也没有出现乘客拒搭起价德士的现象。
结果，因为轮到这对夫妻和他们的亲戚上车的时候，恰巧就是两辆Premier公司的银色德士，上车前的潘太太，不忘向记者直呼：“好幸运！”
一些人可以报公账
此外， 记者另一个有趣发现是，原来有不少搭德士的人，都可以报公账。一名提着一袋袋圣诞礼物的周姓乘客（24岁）说：“我是受老板吩咐到这里来买东西的，所以德士费自然是向公司讨回啦。”
另一些人则认为，提着一袋袋物品挤地铁和巴士太麻烦，宁愿多花点钱搭德士。
要去红山的张万亮（25岁）告诉记者，虽然他估计德士费会从以前的6、7元涨到10元左右，但为了方便，他还是不介意多花钱。
市区边缘 繁忙时段 德士照样排队
市区附加费从1元涨至3元，有人因此担心，德士将一窝蜂涌入市区载客，造成司机拒绝在市区边缘德士站接载乘客的问题。
不过，记者昨天走访了远东广场（Far East Plaza）这个边缘德士站，发现不但没有发生德士“空城计”的情况，德士站还一度出现车等人的现象。之后，尽管排队等候德士的人龙长了，德士“车龙”也不短。
根据新车资结构，星期一至星期六，下午5时到午夜时分的市区附加费为3元。康福德高在公布新结构时指出，调高市区附加费是为了鼓励德士司机在繁忙时段进入市区接载乘客，解决长期以来晚上市区德士短缺的问题。
此外，康福德高也将为所有空车进入市区，但无法在15分钟内载到客的司机，提供公路电子收费（ERP）回扣。
这些调整因此使人担心，德士司机可能会为了提高利润，而直接进入市区内载客。
根据记者观察，昨天下午4时多，远东广场的德士站已出现一条车龙，德士缓缓驶入，接载乘客。下午5时40分，市区附加费已投入运作，德士站出现了德士等乘客的现象。
天空下细雨 人龙很快出现
不过，这种情况持续不久，随着天色转暗，加上天空仍下着绵绵细雨，人龙很快就出现，乘客接踵而来，每次约有20多人等候德士，德士也一辆接着一辆载客驶出德士站。
一些受访的德士司机指出，他们是因为载送乘客到远东广场，所以就索性在德士站接载下一趟乘客，而不是专程把空车驶入市区，赚取附加费。
另一名陈姓德士司机（50多岁）则说：“要进入市区载客，我们还得先自掏腰包缴付ERP费用，况且，进了市区也不一定载到客人，倒不如在这里载客。”
尽管在边缘德士站截德士能省却3元附加费，不过，在市区内等候德士的乘客受访时却表示，他们会在容易截德士的德士站等候。
在幸运商业中心（Lucky Plaza）德士站等候德士的李姓乘客（38岁，金融业）说：“哪里方便，我就在哪里搭德士，我不会因为省那3元附加费，而走到另一个德士站截德士。”
市区午夜前后情况改观 过去人等德士 如今德士等人
康福德高属下德士改在午夜后收附加费的首日，属于市区范围内的乌节路在午夜前后出现德士等人的现象。
本报昨夜到乌节路幸运商业中心(Lucky Plaza)观察，看见大厦前的德士站在11时30分左右有10辆空着的德士，却没有搭客。
其中一名排队的城市德士司机黄永和（54岁，驾驶德士已20多年）说：“以前的情况不是这样的，以前是人等车，现在是车等人”。
他也说，入夜时候组屋区搭客较少，他特地从组屋区驾到乌节路载客。
一些德士司机透露，幸运商业中心是乌节路最“旺”的搭客接送地点，车队中一些司机是老远从蔡厝港和裕廊东来到这里。
“没想到载不到客”
一名黄姓城市德士司机表示，市区附加费从1元涨至3元，并延长收费时段，让他认为有利可图，无需等到午夜后才到市区载客，怎知却载不到客。
德士车队当中，几乎全是康福德高属下三家公司的德士，只有一两辆其他公司的德士。
记者访问了车队里的一名SMRT德士司机。这名司机告诉本报，虽然公司还未起车资，但他并没有感觉到昨天的生意有明显增加。
但他反映说，德士等人的情况并不寻常，但他认为可能是星期一较少人迟归的关系。
德士司机也告诉记者，虽然他的市区附加费只有1元，但在12时之前已开始收午夜附加费。
搭客挑还没起价德士
记者在访问这名司机时，有3名男女不搭排在前头的一辆康福德士和城市德士，反而选搭这辆SMRT德士。
记者问其中一人为不搭前面的德士，对方回答说：“因为前面的比较贵。”
为解决午夜德士供求问题，康福德高企业属下三家德士公司康福德士、城市德士和黄顶德士于2005年统一深夜附加收费（late night surcharge）结构，以分段收费制取代午夜过后一律为计程表车资50%的做法。
当时，三家公司提前从晚上11时30分起收取深夜附加费，从11时30分到隔天凌晨12时59分分三个阶段从计程表收费的10%逐步增加到35%，凌晨1时到早上6时的附加费依旧是50%。
当中，城市德士早在2004年1月12日推行这种深夜附加费制。
他们有话说
乘客
加得太高了 要少搭德士
邓彩爱(28岁，教师）经常乘搭德士，平均每个星期搭四次。她只在工作日和周末出门赶时间时搭德士。德士费都是她自掏腰包付的，不是由校方付。
“老师总是必须到校外上其他课程，而地点又不靠近学校。为了赶得及上课时间，我还是别无选择，必须搭德士。
“我觉得这次起的价钱很不合理，让我难以接受。繁忙时间的附加费已经从以前的一元增加到两元，现在又增加到德士费总数的35%，而且按时收费也从$0.10提高到$0.20，太高了。”
德士收费调高后，邓彩爱告诉记者，她将改变搭德士的习惯，打算多乘搭公共巴士，少搭德士。
吴培宗（17岁）
“有时候，我一个星期会乘搭超过10趟德士，我通常是在赶时间，或在下雨的情况下，乘搭德士。现在车资起价了，我会尽量减少搭德士的次数。”
陈木娥（58岁，店主）
“我时常得为店铺添货，得把大量货品搬回店。我以前会搭德士，现在则会把货物放在推车里，改搭地铁和巴士。如果要搭德士，多一些人一起搭才划算。”
司机
有人乘客载不完 有人找不到乘客
德士车资调整前，司机沈福华平均一天能载到30名乘客，记者昨天下午5时多在DFS Galleria Scottswalk商场外碰到他时，他已经载了33名乘客。
沈福华上午7时开工至傍晚6时，他受访时眉开眼笑地说：“今天载送的乘客人数增加了，因为对需要搭德士的人来说，车费起价并非什么大问题。”
他还指出，乘客都知道德士车资起价的消息，因此，他都无需多向客人解释。
随着乘客人数多了，他的收入肯定也增加，不过，由于他还没有时间点算一天的收入，因此还不晓得究竟增加了多少。
除了街上接载的客人多了，沈福华还指出，昨天的德士电召数量也比往常多。他认为，这和即将来临的哈芝节和圣诞节多少有点关联。
他说：“也许现在是年底佳节期间，所以客人比较多，不论如何，收入增加了，我真的感到非常高兴和满足。”
薛雅荣（康福德高司机）
“乘客人数和以前差不多一样，我估计收入增加了10多20元。到头来还是一样的，再过一两个月，公司就会起车租，油价也会上涨。”
蔡亚礼（62岁，康福德高司机）
“车资提高后，乘客人数下降了20%，所以收入和以前没什么差别。我从上午8时开工，只接了约五个乘客，他们大多数都是搭短程，电召德士的人也少了。”
戴照声（50岁，得运德士司机）
“乘客没有因为康福德士提高车资而增加，相反的，乘客人数减少了。或许公众以为所有德士都提高车资，所以少搭德士。”
● 陆彩霞、林晓玲、吴淑贤、佘慧娴、陈颖温联合报道
蔡家增（摄）
市区内 人龙不减 各有需要
灰蒙蒙的下雨天，虽然再过几分钟就是下午5时的繁忙时间，乘客得多付费，但是新达新加坡家乐福（Carrefour）超市外的德士站，还是出现长长的人龙。
繁忙的购物商场似乎不受康福德高德士车资上涨的影响。人们满载而归后，搭德士回家自然是最轻松、最方便的选择，因此人龙当中多数是提着大包小包的购物者。
人多德士也多
据记者现场观察，不论是在繁忙时间或之前，该德士站都是人多、德士也多的情况。
记者沿着人龙逐一询问，发现多数人对德士车资上涨的情况了解不多。一些人以为只是几角钱的增幅，而忘了计算3元市区附加费和总车资35%的繁忙时段特收费。
准备搭德士到朋友家的郭珮榕（13岁）听记者问起德士车资上涨的事，一脸茫然，透露自己不晓得有这么一回事。不过，当她知道可能需要付多几元附加费后，仍然坚持不改搭公共交通工具。
她说：“平时很少搭德士，现在因为赶时间，所以不搭不行。”
另一对受访夫妇也表示他们很久才搭一次德士，所以起价也无所谓。潘金灶（55岁，建筑业）和妻子昨天带了来自槟城的6名亲戚到市区一带观光和购物，因为人多，所以他们认为搭德士比较方便。
不会挑德士
潘金灶说：“亲戚们不是本地人，替他们买车资卡太麻烦了。搭德士较方便，反正难得一次，多几块钱也无所谓。我们也不会挑别的德士公司的德士来搭，轮到我们的时候是哪辆德士就上哪辆吧。”
记者询问的另一些乘客，也同样表示不会挑德士搭，现场也没有出现乘客拒搭起价德士的现象。
结果，因为轮到这对夫妻和他们的亲戚上车的时候，恰巧就是两辆Premier公司的银色德士，上车前的潘太太，不忘向记者直呼：“好幸运！”
一些人可以报公账
此外， 记者另一个有趣发现是，原来有不少搭德士的人，都可以报公账。一名提着一袋袋圣诞礼物的周姓乘客（24岁）说：“我是受老板吩咐到这里来买东西的，所以德士费自然是向公司讨回啦。”
另一些人则认为，提着一袋袋物品挤地铁和巴士太麻烦，宁愿多花点钱搭德士。
要去红山的张万亮（25岁）告诉记者，虽然他估计德士费会从以前的6、7元涨到10元左右，但为了方便，他还是不介意多花钱。
市区边缘 繁忙时段 德士照样排队
市区附加费从1元涨至3元，有人因此担心，德士将一窝蜂涌入市区载客，造成司机拒绝在市区边缘德士站接载乘客的问题。
不过，记者昨天走访了远东广场（Far East Plaza）这个边缘德士站，发现不但没有发生德士“空城计”的情况，德士站还一度出现车等人的现象。之后，尽管排队等候德士的人龙长了，德士“车龙”也不短。
根据新车资结构，星期一至星期六，下午5时到午夜时分的市区附加费为3元。康福德高在公布新结构时指出，调高市区附加费是为了鼓励德士司机在繁忙时段进入市区接载乘客，解决长期以来晚上市区德士短缺的问题。
此外，康福德高也将为所有空车进入市区，但无法在15分钟内载到客的司机，提供公路电子收费（ERP）回扣。
这些调整因此使人担心，德士司机可能会为了提高利润，而直接进入市区内载客。
根据记者观察，昨天下午4时多，远东广场的德士站已出现一条车龙，德士缓缓驶入，接载乘客。下午5时40分，市区附加费已投入运作，德士站出现了德士等乘客的现象。
天空下细雨 人龙很快出现
不过，这种情况持续不久，随着天色转暗，加上天空仍下着绵绵细雨，人龙很快就出现，乘客接踵而来，每次约有20多人等候德士，德士也一辆接着一辆载客驶出德士站。
一些受访的德士司机指出，他们是因为载送乘客到远东广场，所以就索性在德士站接载下一趟乘客，而不是专程把空车驶入市区，赚取附加费。
另一名陈姓德士司机（50多岁）则说：“要进入市区载客，我们还得先自掏腰包缴付ERP费用，况且，进了市区也不一定载到客人，倒不如在这里载客。”
尽管在边缘德士站截德士能省却3元附加费，不过，在市区内等候德士的乘客受访时却表示，他们会在容易截德士的德士站等候。
在幸运商业中心（Lucky Plaza）德士站等候德士的李姓乘客（38岁，金融业）说：“哪里方便，我就在哪里搭德士，我不会因为省那3元附加费，而走到另一个德士站截德士。”
市区午夜前后情况改观 过去人等德士 如今德士等人
康福德高属下德士改在午夜后收附加费的首日，属于市区范围内的乌节路在午夜前后出现德士等人的现象。
本报昨夜到乌节路幸运商业中心(Lucky Plaza)观察，看见大厦前的德士站在11时30分左右有10辆空着的德士，却没有搭客。
其中一名排队的城市德士司机黄永和（54岁，驾驶德士已20多年）说：“以前的情况不是这样的，以前是人等车，现在是车等人”。
他也说，入夜时候组屋区搭客较少，他特地从组屋区驾到乌节路载客。
一些德士司机透露，幸运商业中心是乌节路最“旺”的搭客接送地点，车队中一些司机是老远从蔡厝港和裕廊东来到这里。
“没想到载不到客”
一名黄姓城市德士司机表示，市区附加费从1元涨至3元，并延长收费时段，让他认为有利可图，无需等到午夜后才到市区载客，怎知却载不到客。
德士车队当中，几乎全是康福德高属下三家公司的德士，只有一两辆其他公司的德士。
记者访问了车队里的一名SMRT德士司机。这名司机告诉本报，虽然公司还未起车资，但他并没有感觉到昨天的生意有明显增加。
但他反映说，德士等人的情况并不寻常，但他认为可能是星期一较少人迟归的关系。
德士司机也告诉记者，虽然他的市区附加费只有1元，但在12时之前已开始收午夜附加费。
搭客挑还没起价德士
记者在访问这名司机时，有3名男女不搭排在前头的一辆康福德士和城市德士，反而选搭这辆SMRT德士。
记者问其中一人为不搭前面的德士，对方回答说：“因为前面的比较贵。”
为解决午夜德士供求问题，康福德高企业属下三家德士公司康福德士、城市德士和黄顶德士于2005年统一深夜附加收费（late night surcharge）结构，以分段收费制取代午夜过后一律为计程表车资50%的做法。
当时，三家公司提前从晚上11时30分起收取深夜附加费，从11时30分到隔天凌晨12时59分分三个阶段从计程表收费的10%逐步增加到35%，凌晨1时到早上6时的附加费依旧是50%。
当中，城市德士早在2004年1月12日推行这种深夜附加费制。
他们有话说
乘客
加得太高了 要少搭德士
邓彩爱(28岁，教师）经常乘搭德士，平均每个星期搭四次。她只在工作日和周末出门赶时间时搭德士。德士费都是她自掏腰包付的，不是由校方付。
“老师总是必须到校外上其他课程，而地点又不靠近学校。为了赶得及上课时间，我还是别无选择，必须搭德士。
“我觉得这次起的价钱很不合理，让我难以接受。繁忙时间的附加费已经从以前的一元增加到两元，现在又增加到德士费总数的35%，而且按时收费也从$0.10提高到$0.20，太高了。”
德士收费调高后，邓彩爱告诉记者，她将改变搭德士的习惯，打算多乘搭公共巴士，少搭德士。
吴培宗（17岁）
“有时候，我一个星期会乘搭超过10趟德士，我通常是在赶时间，或在下雨的情况下，乘搭德士。现在车资起价了，我会尽量减少搭德士的次数。”
陈木娥（58岁，店主）
“我时常得为店铺添货，得把大量货品搬回店。我以前会搭德士，现在则会把货物放在推车里，改搭地铁和巴士。如果要搭德士，多一些人一起搭才划算。”
司机
有人乘客载不完 有人找不到乘客
德士车资调整前，司机沈福华平均一天能载到30名乘客，记者昨天下午5时多在DFS Galleria Scottswalk商场外碰到他时，他已经载了33名乘客。
沈福华上午7时开工至傍晚6时，他受访时眉开眼笑地说：“今天载送的乘客人数增加了，因为对需要搭德士的人来说，车费起价并非什么大问题。”
他还指出，乘客都知道德士车资起价的消息，因此，他都无需多向客人解释。
随着乘客人数多了，他的收入肯定也增加，不过，由于他还没有时间点算一天的收入，因此还不晓得究竟增加了多少。
除了街上接载的客人多了，沈福华还指出，昨天的德士电召数量也比往常多。他认为，这和即将来临的哈芝节和圣诞节多少有点关联。
他说：“也许现在是年底佳节期间，所以客人比较多，不论如何，收入增加了，我真的感到非常高兴和满足。”
薛雅荣（康福德高司机）
“乘客人数和以前差不多一样，我估计收入增加了10多20元。到头来还是一样的，再过一两个月，公司就会起车租，油价也会上涨。”
蔡亚礼（62岁，康福德高司机）
“车资提高后，乘客人数下降了20%，所以收入和以前没什么差别。我从上午8时开工，只接了约五个乘客，他们大多数都是搭短程，电召德士的人也少了。”
戴照声（50岁，得运德士司机）
“乘客没有因为康福德士提高车资而增加，相反的，乘客人数减少了。或许公众以为所有德士都提高车资，所以少搭德士。”
车资调高首日 半数受访德士司机：乘客没减少
早报 071218
● 吴淑贤
市场老大康福德高昨天实施德士新收费制度，但由于晚上下雨，又适逢佳节期间，受访的德士司机认为，暂时很难看出车资起价是否对生意有影响。
本报昨天向40名康福德高德士司机进行的调查显示，一半的德士司机认为乘客人数并没有因车资调整而显著减少。17名受访的德士司机也认为，随着车资的调高，他们的收入也有所增加。
36岁的李纹佃说，昨天他的乘客和平日一样多，感觉不出这是德士车资调高的第一天。他说，通常圣诞节前后，出外购物的人较多，乘搭德士的人也会增加。
他说：“昨天，我发现有更多人和朋友一起乘搭德士，这样每人付出的车资会比较少。昨天傍晚下雨，我接到两三名电召德士的搭客，所以生意还不错。”
驾驶德士多年的刘国全（55岁）说，他发现早上乘搭德士上班的乘客减少，不过不会特别担心收入受影响。
“就好像过去德士车资的调整一样，乘客过了一两个月就会慢慢习惯新的车资，必要时还是会搭德士的。”
在新德士车资结构下，市区附加费从过去的1元涨至3元，以解决晚上市区德士短缺的长久问题。记者昨天傍晚走访新达城、珊顿道和乌节路的德士站，发现德士站的人龙依旧，德士却增加不少，市区德士短缺的情况似乎有所改善。
据记者观察，在凯联大厦的德士站，乘客等候德士的平均时间为4分钟。在德士车资调整前，陆路交通管理局进行的调查显示，从傍晚5时到6时之间，该德士站的平均等候时间是5分钟。
电召德士搭客 减少约两成
康福德高集团联络总监陈爱玲受访时表示，昨早电召德士的搭客减少约两成，公司已预料德士需求会在车资调整初期减少。她也指出，由于昨天只是新车资结构实行的第一天，目前谈其影响还言之过早。
对于其他竞争对手目前仍未起价，她表示并不担心公众会改搭其他公司的德士。
陈爱玲说：“本地德士市场的需求是足够的，或许有人会挑还未调整车资的德士，不过仍会有人急需要搭德士。”康福德高拥有1万5000辆德士，占全岛德士总数的约七成。
大多数受访的公众表示，他们不会改搭仍未起价的德士。销售经理李迪能（39岁）说，他通常是因为赶时间才搭德士，所以没时间选择要搭哪一家公司的德士。
有的公众则会减少搭德士的次数，有的则照搭不误，甚至没有发现德士车资已调高。
17岁的学生廖月敏说：“过去两年，我天天都搭德士上学，可是现在起价后就会多乘坐巴士或地铁。我们毕竟是学生，没有收入，所以德士起价对我们有一定的影响。”
许恬甜（23岁，学生）则说，要是记者没有告诉她，她还不知道昨天是德士车资调高的第一天。昨早，她从里峇峇利的住家电召康福德高的德士到珊顿道，并没有发现车资比过去高。
“虽然德士车资起价了，我还是会每天搭德士上学。搭德士又快又方便，而我也习惯这样的生活方式了。”
● 吴淑贤
市场老大康福德高昨天实施德士新收费制度，但由于晚上下雨，又适逢佳节期间，受访的德士司机认为，暂时很难看出车资起价是否对生意有影响。
本报昨天向40名康福德高德士司机进行的调查显示，一半的德士司机认为乘客人数并没有因车资调整而显著减少。17名受访的德士司机也认为，随着车资的调高，他们的收入也有所增加。
36岁的李纹佃说，昨天他的乘客和平日一样多，感觉不出这是德士车资调高的第一天。他说，通常圣诞节前后，出外购物的人较多，乘搭德士的人也会增加。
他说：“昨天，我发现有更多人和朋友一起乘搭德士，这样每人付出的车资会比较少。昨天傍晚下雨，我接到两三名电召德士的搭客，所以生意还不错。”
驾驶德士多年的刘国全（55岁）说，他发现早上乘搭德士上班的乘客减少，不过不会特别担心收入受影响。
“就好像过去德士车资的调整一样，乘客过了一两个月就会慢慢习惯新的车资，必要时还是会搭德士的。”
在新德士车资结构下，市区附加费从过去的1元涨至3元，以解决晚上市区德士短缺的长久问题。记者昨天傍晚走访新达城、珊顿道和乌节路的德士站，发现德士站的人龙依旧，德士却增加不少，市区德士短缺的情况似乎有所改善。
据记者观察，在凯联大厦的德士站，乘客等候德士的平均时间为4分钟。在德士车资调整前，陆路交通管理局进行的调查显示，从傍晚5时到6时之间，该德士站的平均等候时间是5分钟。
电召德士搭客 减少约两成
康福德高集团联络总监陈爱玲受访时表示，昨早电召德士的搭客减少约两成，公司已预料德士需求会在车资调整初期减少。她也指出，由于昨天只是新车资结构实行的第一天，目前谈其影响还言之过早。
对于其他竞争对手目前仍未起价，她表示并不担心公众会改搭其他公司的德士。
陈爱玲说：“本地德士市场的需求是足够的，或许有人会挑还未调整车资的德士，不过仍会有人急需要搭德士。”康福德高拥有1万5000辆德士，占全岛德士总数的约七成。
大多数受访的公众表示，他们不会改搭仍未起价的德士。销售经理李迪能（39岁）说，他通常是因为赶时间才搭德士，所以没时间选择要搭哪一家公司的德士。
有的公众则会减少搭德士的次数，有的则照搭不误，甚至没有发现德士车资已调高。
17岁的学生廖月敏说：“过去两年，我天天都搭德士上学，可是现在起价后就会多乘坐巴士或地铁。我们毕竟是学生，没有收入，所以德士起价对我们有一定的影响。”
许恬甜（23岁，学生）则说，要是记者没有告诉她，她还不知道昨天是德士车资调高的第一天。昨早，她从里峇峇利的住家电召康福德高的德士到珊顿道，并没有发现车资比过去高。
“虽然德士车资起价了，我还是会每天搭德士上学。搭德士又快又方便，而我也习惯这样的生活方式了。”
SMRT taxi driver made customer's day with kind act
Dec 18, 2007
THE following e-mail highlights my recent journey with an SMRT taxi, of which the experience exceeded my expectations despite the initial dissatisfaction.
My partner and I boarded the taxi with registration number SHB5507S near Neptune Court, on Sunday, Dec 16, around 2.15pm.
The intended alighting point was Simei Street 1, which I mentioned to the driver upon boarding. Being weekend travellers from Kuala Lumpur, we were not familiar with the routes, but were happy that the driver asked us if it was okay to use the CTE, of which we duly acknowledged while stating that we preferred the fastest route. As the journey progressed, the meter fare and travel time exceeded our initial estimates. We then realised that the driver had taken us towards the Sin Meng area. At this point, the fare was already about $12+, as compared to $8 when we travelled earlier in the afternoon (Simei-Neptune Court).
Upon clarification that we intended to go to Simei and not Sin Meng, the driver was unable to provide us with a travel time estimate, but assured us that he would get us there in the fastest time. At this point our itinerary was in disarray as we had spent over 20 minutes in the taxi, and were due to board a bus out of Singapore at 4.30pm from Novena Square.
Upon finally arriving at our destination in Simei, the meter fare was around $23. The driver apologised for the inconvenience, and offered to accept a fare similar to what we had paid for the past journey. We offered $10, but he refused and took only $8.
We were comforted by this act of genuine kindness, and acknowledge that even though it was an inconvenience, it could have very well been an honest error.
We would like to thank the driver for making the journey a memorable experience, and for getting us to our destination safely. Many a time, we hear stories of unfriendly and dishonest taxi drivers, but not on this encounter. I believe this SMRT experience under the circumstances is a worthy benchmark to emulate.
It is definitely a 'uniquely Singapore experience', and we look forward to riding with SMRT again on our next visit.
Praveen Rajan Nadarajan
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
THE following e-mail highlights my recent journey with an SMRT taxi, of which the experience exceeded my expectations despite the initial dissatisfaction.
My partner and I boarded the taxi with registration number SHB5507S near Neptune Court, on Sunday, Dec 16, around 2.15pm.
The intended alighting point was Simei Street 1, which I mentioned to the driver upon boarding. Being weekend travellers from Kuala Lumpur, we were not familiar with the routes, but were happy that the driver asked us if it was okay to use the CTE, of which we duly acknowledged while stating that we preferred the fastest route. As the journey progressed, the meter fare and travel time exceeded our initial estimates. We then realised that the driver had taken us towards the Sin Meng area. At this point, the fare was already about $12+, as compared to $8 when we travelled earlier in the afternoon (Simei-Neptune Court).
Upon clarification that we intended to go to Simei and not Sin Meng, the driver was unable to provide us with a travel time estimate, but assured us that he would get us there in the fastest time. At this point our itinerary was in disarray as we had spent over 20 minutes in the taxi, and were due to board a bus out of Singapore at 4.30pm from Novena Square.
Upon finally arriving at our destination in Simei, the meter fare was around $23. The driver apologised for the inconvenience, and offered to accept a fare similar to what we had paid for the past journey. We offered $10, but he refused and took only $8.
We were comforted by this act of genuine kindness, and acknowledge that even though it was an inconvenience, it could have very well been an honest error.
We would like to thank the driver for making the journey a memorable experience, and for getting us to our destination safely. Many a time, we hear stories of unfriendly and dishonest taxi drivers, but not on this encounter. I believe this SMRT experience under the circumstances is a worthy benchmark to emulate.
It is definitely a 'uniquely Singapore experience', and we look forward to riding with SMRT again on our next visit.
Praveen Rajan Nadarajan
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Cabby made a big scene although it was the taxi phone operator who made destination mistake
ST Dec 18, 2007
WITH reference to the recent announcements on increases in cab fares, I would like to recount a dreadful encounter I just had with a cab driver.
I would like to know if the relevant cab operators have a response in terms of how standards of service may also be corrected to correspond with the higher rates passengers have to pay.
I was waiting in line at the cab stand at Clarke Quay in River Valley Road on Oct 13 at around 10pm. As the queue was very long, I tried calling three different lines (some of which got disconnected even after they have established my pick-up location and destination) to book a cab. It was only about an hour later that I managed to get a booking from SMRT but my nightmare had only just begun.
By the time the cab driver called me on my mobile phone, I was already reaching the start of the queue but thought I would just leave the line to honour the booking. Imagine my dismay when I realised that the operator had gotten my destination wrong. Faced with an unhappy situation of either being taken to a place which is less than a quarter of the way to my home or rejoining the queue, I decided to call the cab operator, refusing to leave the cab until the mistake had been resolved.
The cab driver, who should have tried to resolve this problem, being part of the organisation that had made the mistake, was evidently unhappy about my choice of action and barked at me to get off his cab, alternating his rants with orders to get the cab operator to call him. He also made it a point to state that his commitment was to his next appointment and not to me, a customer whose time his organisation had wasted.
I spent at least 20 minutes on the phone with the cab operator, who, in all fairness, tried to resolve the problem. Throughout the entire time, I was subjected to yellings from the cab driver, who went as far as to open the passenger door and shout at me to get out. He stopped at times to argue with the bystanders (most of whom were foreigners) who had tried to intercede on my behalf. 'Whatever it is,' some of them had reasoned, 'it is only right that you take the young lady home since it's already so late.' These were unfortunately returned with unnecessary insults from the enraged driver, who had given retorts like 'Who are you? Tony Blair?'.
I thought the issue was finally resolved when the operator finally secured a replacement booking for me, after which the driver flashed me a gleeful grin prior to driving off. In an uncanny coincidence the next day, I was harassed by an anonymous crank call, from a disturbingly familiar voice, making spitting noises into the phone.
I am rather shaken by the incident, having been hollered at in the presence of least 50 other passengers for something that had resulted from a mistake by the service provider. I was also deeply disgraced that many of the foreigners who had witnessed the scene would be taking away this episode as part of their memories of Singapore. Last, I find it very distressing to consider what other types of disturbances I may be subjected to in the aftermath of the incident, given that the cab driver now has my phone number.
Most of us are resigned to the inevitability of hikes in cab fares but I think it is only fair to consumers that the increments are matched by a commitment to raise or, in the very least, maintain a minimum level of service standards and integrity among staff.
Hopefully, the operators will not disappoint and respond that consumers would have to contribute to the retraining of staff by paying X amount more per Y km from whichever day moving forward. I am, by the way, still awaiting an explanation from SMRT with regard to this incident.
Ng Kian Pin (Ms)
WITH reference to the recent announcements on increases in cab fares, I would like to recount a dreadful encounter I just had with a cab driver.
I would like to know if the relevant cab operators have a response in terms of how standards of service may also be corrected to correspond with the higher rates passengers have to pay.
I was waiting in line at the cab stand at Clarke Quay in River Valley Road on Oct 13 at around 10pm. As the queue was very long, I tried calling three different lines (some of which got disconnected even after they have established my pick-up location and destination) to book a cab. It was only about an hour later that I managed to get a booking from SMRT but my nightmare had only just begun.
By the time the cab driver called me on my mobile phone, I was already reaching the start of the queue but thought I would just leave the line to honour the booking. Imagine my dismay when I realised that the operator had gotten my destination wrong. Faced with an unhappy situation of either being taken to a place which is less than a quarter of the way to my home or rejoining the queue, I decided to call the cab operator, refusing to leave the cab until the mistake had been resolved.
The cab driver, who should have tried to resolve this problem, being part of the organisation that had made the mistake, was evidently unhappy about my choice of action and barked at me to get off his cab, alternating his rants with orders to get the cab operator to call him. He also made it a point to state that his commitment was to his next appointment and not to me, a customer whose time his organisation had wasted.
I spent at least 20 minutes on the phone with the cab operator, who, in all fairness, tried to resolve the problem. Throughout the entire time, I was subjected to yellings from the cab driver, who went as far as to open the passenger door and shout at me to get out. He stopped at times to argue with the bystanders (most of whom were foreigners) who had tried to intercede on my behalf. 'Whatever it is,' some of them had reasoned, 'it is only right that you take the young lady home since it's already so late.' These were unfortunately returned with unnecessary insults from the enraged driver, who had given retorts like 'Who are you? Tony Blair?'.
I thought the issue was finally resolved when the operator finally secured a replacement booking for me, after which the driver flashed me a gleeful grin prior to driving off. In an uncanny coincidence the next day, I was harassed by an anonymous crank call, from a disturbingly familiar voice, making spitting noises into the phone.
I am rather shaken by the incident, having been hollered at in the presence of least 50 other passengers for something that had resulted from a mistake by the service provider. I was also deeply disgraced that many of the foreigners who had witnessed the scene would be taking away this episode as part of their memories of Singapore. Last, I find it very distressing to consider what other types of disturbances I may be subjected to in the aftermath of the incident, given that the cab driver now has my phone number.
Most of us are resigned to the inevitability of hikes in cab fares but I think it is only fair to consumers that the increments are matched by a commitment to raise or, in the very least, maintain a minimum level of service standards and integrity among staff.
Hopefully, the operators will not disappoint and respond that consumers would have to contribute to the retraining of staff by paying X amount more per Y km from whichever day moving forward. I am, by the way, still awaiting an explanation from SMRT with regard to this incident.
Ng Kian Pin (Ms)
Why can't our MRT, taxi service just be like Hong Kong's?
ST Dec 18, 2007
I JUST returned from Hong Kong. It was my third trip there. I must say that I am truly impressed by the efficiency of the transport system and the attitude of those in the service industry.
Let's start with their MTR, which is our MRT equivalent. Never once did I have to wait for more than three minutes for the next train to arrive, be it peak or non-peak periods. The public announcement system was loud and clear, even when underground.
I especially liked the fact that, in the train itself, the blinking lights above the train doors helped to tell commuters the next destination, where the interchange was, and which side of the train the doors would open. Thus, it came as no surprise to me that my aunt who has been to Hong Kong a couple of times to stay with my cousin who is working there dares to take the HK MTR alone but not the MRT in Singapore. Here, my uncle has to drive her around.
Next, let's talk about the taxis in Hong Kong. Not a single taxi driver expressed his displeasure at having to drive me to my hotel, which is a good 15-minute if I had walked from the nearest KCR, that is, the Shatin train station, even though the meter never even once jumped. I paid HK$15 (about S$3) which was the flag-down rate. I also boarded a taxi at about 11pm after shopping at Tsim Sha Tsui, which is on the main island, back to my hotel which was in New Territories and not on the main island. The taxi driver told me to hop on though it was clearly out of the way. And guess what? The whole trip cost HK$89 (less than S$20) for a good half-an-hour ride. You might say that these taxi drivers were the minority but this is my third trip there and not once have I been rejected because of distance or destination. The same cannot be said about taxi drivers in Singapore. There were also no booking and peak-period charges.
I arrived back in Singapore late at night and had to take a cab back to my Bedok flat. The taxi driver (a Silvercab) was clearly very unhappy. He grumbled and complained that he had waited very long to pick up passengers and it was just his luck that it was me. He went on and on about Singaporeans being very stingy about tipping taxi drivers, unlike foreigners, and that we should not expect taxi drivers to help us with our luggage, as after all they were not like porters who actually received tips for carrying our luggage. He certainly gave me the impression that he expected more than just the metered fare and that he should be duly compensated for picking a passenger like me who lives so near the airport as he had waited very long and that he had also helped me with my luggage. Seriously, if I were not alone, I would have given it to the taxi driver big time. Talk about service.
Last Thursday night, my two friends and I tried to get a cab outside Robinsons, Raffles City, at about 10pm. Not a single cab turned into the taxi queue except those with the 'on-call' signs. Needless to say, we also had to call one. We called Comfort, Smart and SMRT. None responded. Where did all the taxis go? I cannot imagine what will happen when the new charges kick in. Why can't we have a flat rate, say $5 or $6, and do away with all the confusing booking, peak period and call-booking charges? Oh, for goodness' sake, stop quoting examples from cities like Sydney and London whose fares are much higher. Don't forget the costs and standard of living in these countries are also much higher. Why not compare ourselves to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Shanghai, China? In the end, my friends and I went to take the bus or the MRT after trying in vain to call a cab for 45 minutes.
In Hong Kong, the staff in the service industry were friendly and efficient. They often took the initiative to check with other outlets for a particular size, colour or any items that they did not have without being asked unlike in Singapore. I have also not seen staff standing around talking to other staff or busy texting their friends while at work. All these are quite rampant in Singapore.
The saddest part is I noticed recently that foreigners were the ones who rendered better service in Singapore like the buffet restaurant at Roxy Mercure Hotel opposite Parkway Parade. The manager and the waiters, mostly foreigners, were polite and attentive. They smiled and were more genuine than many of the other retail outlets where the staff put on their plastic smiles and shout the usual greetings.
If Singapore wants to be world-class, something has to be done before we lose out.
Soh Bee Pheng (Ms)
I JUST returned from Hong Kong. It was my third trip there. I must say that I am truly impressed by the efficiency of the transport system and the attitude of those in the service industry.
Let's start with their MTR, which is our MRT equivalent. Never once did I have to wait for more than three minutes for the next train to arrive, be it peak or non-peak periods. The public announcement system was loud and clear, even when underground.
I especially liked the fact that, in the train itself, the blinking lights above the train doors helped to tell commuters the next destination, where the interchange was, and which side of the train the doors would open. Thus, it came as no surprise to me that my aunt who has been to Hong Kong a couple of times to stay with my cousin who is working there dares to take the HK MTR alone but not the MRT in Singapore. Here, my uncle has to drive her around.
Next, let's talk about the taxis in Hong Kong. Not a single taxi driver expressed his displeasure at having to drive me to my hotel, which is a good 15-minute if I had walked from the nearest KCR, that is, the Shatin train station, even though the meter never even once jumped. I paid HK$15 (about S$3) which was the flag-down rate. I also boarded a taxi at about 11pm after shopping at Tsim Sha Tsui, which is on the main island, back to my hotel which was in New Territories and not on the main island. The taxi driver told me to hop on though it was clearly out of the way. And guess what? The whole trip cost HK$89 (less than S$20) for a good half-an-hour ride. You might say that these taxi drivers were the minority but this is my third trip there and not once have I been rejected because of distance or destination. The same cannot be said about taxi drivers in Singapore. There were also no booking and peak-period charges.
I arrived back in Singapore late at night and had to take a cab back to my Bedok flat. The taxi driver (a Silvercab) was clearly very unhappy. He grumbled and complained that he had waited very long to pick up passengers and it was just his luck that it was me. He went on and on about Singaporeans being very stingy about tipping taxi drivers, unlike foreigners, and that we should not expect taxi drivers to help us with our luggage, as after all they were not like porters who actually received tips for carrying our luggage. He certainly gave me the impression that he expected more than just the metered fare and that he should be duly compensated for picking a passenger like me who lives so near the airport as he had waited very long and that he had also helped me with my luggage. Seriously, if I were not alone, I would have given it to the taxi driver big time. Talk about service.
Last Thursday night, my two friends and I tried to get a cab outside Robinsons, Raffles City, at about 10pm. Not a single cab turned into the taxi queue except those with the 'on-call' signs. Needless to say, we also had to call one. We called Comfort, Smart and SMRT. None responded. Where did all the taxis go? I cannot imagine what will happen when the new charges kick in. Why can't we have a flat rate, say $5 or $6, and do away with all the confusing booking, peak period and call-booking charges? Oh, for goodness' sake, stop quoting examples from cities like Sydney and London whose fares are much higher. Don't forget the costs and standard of living in these countries are also much higher. Why not compare ourselves to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Shanghai, China? In the end, my friends and I went to take the bus or the MRT after trying in vain to call a cab for 45 minutes.
In Hong Kong, the staff in the service industry were friendly and efficient. They often took the initiative to check with other outlets for a particular size, colour or any items that they did not have without being asked unlike in Singapore. I have also not seen staff standing around talking to other staff or busy texting their friends while at work. All these are quite rampant in Singapore.
The saddest part is I noticed recently that foreigners were the ones who rendered better service in Singapore like the buffet restaurant at Roxy Mercure Hotel opposite Parkway Parade. The manager and the waiters, mostly foreigners, were polite and attentive. They smiled and were more genuine than many of the other retail outlets where the staff put on their plastic smiles and shout the usual greetings.
If Singapore wants to be world-class, something has to be done before we lose out.
Soh Bee Pheng (Ms)
FIRST DAY OF CAB FARE HIKE - No shortage of taxis at city fringe stands
ST Dec 18, 2007
By Maria Almenoar & Liaw Wy-Cin
THE new city area surcharge of $3 - up from $1 - had cab operators worried that cabbies would avoid taxi stands in the city fringes and head to where the money was.
But this was not the case yesterday. A check by The Straits Times found a steady flow of cabs at two of the 10 city fringe taxi stands, located within 500m of the central business district (CBD).
At Far East Plaza, for example, there was even a queue of about 12 taxis at about 6.15pm, with no passenger in sight, although the drivers could have earned an extra $3 by heading down the road to the taxi stand at Lucky Plaza, within the CBD.
Between 5.30pm and 7.30pm, the average waiting time for a cab was about five minutes at Pacific Plaza and 10 minutes at Far East Plaza, both in Scotts Road - just outside the city area.
But as it was just Day 1 of higher fares,the Land Transport Authority said that it would monitor the city fringe for some time and then work with taxi companies if there is a problem.
ComfortDelGro started its new city surcharges yesterday, along with increased metered fares, flag-down rates and peak-period premiums.
Passengers will have to pay about 10 per cent more on their fares during non-peak hours, but 18 to 49 per cent more during peak hours.
Four other cab companies - SMRT Taxis, Trans-Cab, Premier and Smart - are following suit within the next two weeks.
Prime Taxis will be increasing only its city surcharge.
mariaa@sph.com.sg
wycin@sph.com.sg
Monday, 17 December 2007
Saturday, 15 December 2007
No taxis in sight, but one appears in a jiffy when call booking is made
Dec 15, 2007
ON DEC 8, at about 8.20pm, my family members and I joined the tail end of a long taxi queue at Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal.
Immediately behind me were a couple of Caucasian expatriates and one commented on the length of the queue and lack of taxis.
The other responded: 'You are new here, my friend. This is a classic case of taxis in Singapore'.
He whipped out his cellphone and, less than a minute later, a taxi appeared. Triumphantly, he announced after checking its registration, 'That's our taxi', and off they went to two different locations in Orchard Road.
I do not normally depend on taxis for transport but, on this occasion, I needed one. With family and luggage in tow, tired and hungry after the ferry ride, we needed a taxi badly.
Granted the ferry terminal is way out, save for Maxi cabs, few taxis will venture there for fares. But in this case, I was utterly amazed at the speed in which the call was responded.
This is indeed a 'classic case' of Singapore taxis that even foreigners speak off. If this practice of taxis deliberately lurking nearby for calls is not corrected, Singapore taxis' classic image will spread far and wide.
David Tan Hwee Lin
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
ON DEC 8, at about 8.20pm, my family members and I joined the tail end of a long taxi queue at Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal.
Immediately behind me were a couple of Caucasian expatriates and one commented on the length of the queue and lack of taxis.
The other responded: 'You are new here, my friend. This is a classic case of taxis in Singapore'.
He whipped out his cellphone and, less than a minute later, a taxi appeared. Triumphantly, he announced after checking its registration, 'That's our taxi', and off they went to two different locations in Orchard Road.
I do not normally depend on taxis for transport but, on this occasion, I needed one. With family and luggage in tow, tired and hungry after the ferry ride, we needed a taxi badly.
Granted the ferry terminal is way out, save for Maxi cabs, few taxis will venture there for fares. But in this case, I was utterly amazed at the speed in which the call was responded.
This is indeed a 'classic case' of Singapore taxis that even foreigners speak off. If this practice of taxis deliberately lurking nearby for calls is not corrected, Singapore taxis' classic image will spread far and wide.
David Tan Hwee Lin
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
Friday, 14 December 2007
Taxi companies should look into drivers' conduct
ST Dec 14, 2007
I READ with sadness and frustration the news about how cabby Lee Yuet Kong caused the death of a young financial adviser with his bizarre and reckless behaviour on the road.
After many near misses with reckless taxi drivers on the road, my luck ran out and I finally became involved in an accident with one.
A Comfort taxi driver suddenly tried to turn right to enter a carpark when he was on the left lane of a two-lane road. When we got out of our vehicles, he had the audacity to put the blame on me first.
My unfortunate accident is just one example of the many irresponsible and inconsiderate driving antics of our taxi drivers on the road these days. Some other instances I have encountered include taxi drivers swerving to the left suddenly without signalling to pick up a passenger, drifting into my lane without signalling and hogging two lanes at once. People I have spoken to tell me of similar brushes with taxi drivers and the overall feeling is of frustration and helplessness at the situation.
As Comfort Delgro and other taxi operators raise fares again, I beseech them to not just look at improving the takings of their drivers, but also at improving their drivers' road discipline and conduct.
I might have lost my no-claim discount, but I think I am lucky that I have emerged unscathed. Others have not and might not be so lucky.
Mok Wen Kwang
I READ with sadness and frustration the news about how cabby Lee Yuet Kong caused the death of a young financial adviser with his bizarre and reckless behaviour on the road.
After many near misses with reckless taxi drivers on the road, my luck ran out and I finally became involved in an accident with one.
A Comfort taxi driver suddenly tried to turn right to enter a carpark when he was on the left lane of a two-lane road. When we got out of our vehicles, he had the audacity to put the blame on me first.
My unfortunate accident is just one example of the many irresponsible and inconsiderate driving antics of our taxi drivers on the road these days. Some other instances I have encountered include taxi drivers swerving to the left suddenly without signalling to pick up a passenger, drifting into my lane without signalling and hogging two lanes at once. People I have spoken to tell me of similar brushes with taxi drivers and the overall feeling is of frustration and helplessness at the situation.
As Comfort Delgro and other taxi operators raise fares again, I beseech them to not just look at improving the takings of their drivers, but also at improving their drivers' road discipline and conduct.
I might have lost my no-claim discount, but I think I am lucky that I have emerged unscathed. Others have not and might not be so lucky.
Mok Wen Kwang
Extend city area surcharge to more areas
Dec 14, 2007
I AM a taxi driver and I have some concerns about the city area surcharge which I hope ComfortDelGro Corp will look into.
I agree that this measure is the best way to harmonise the demand for and supply of taxis in the Central Business District (CBD).
But not including other areas of high demand on the fringes of the CBD will create more problems.
Too many taxis would be inside the CBD even as demand declined because of the surcharge, while far too few taxis would be serving the fringe areas where demand had not lessened because there is no surcharge.
Within the CBD, taxi drivers would end up waiting for commuters. Meanwhile, commuters at places like Vivocity, Harbourfront, Tiong Bahru, Great World City, Tanglin Mall, Orchard Towers, Liat Tower, Scotts, Newton, Golden Mile, Jalan Sultan, Rochor and Little India would find that the taxi problem had worsened. Taxi drivers would not stop for them. The only way to get a taxi might be to book one or to endure a long wait till the surcharge in the CBD ends at midnight.
So, what can Comfort do?
I suggest that Comfort be bold enough to apply the city area surcharge city-wide. Existing roads can be used as boundary markers. An enlarged city-surcharge area could look something like this: Clockwise, from the west, this boundary starts from Harbourfront Avenue, Telok Blangah Road, Kampong Bahru Road, Lower Delta Road, River Valley Road, Hoot Kiam Road, Grange Road, Orange Grove Road, Stevens Road, Scotts Road, Newton Road, Thomson Road, Balestier Road, Lavender Street and Crawford Street.
I hope Comfort would seriously consider my proposal. In this way, not every empty taxi from outlying areas that goes back to town needs to head straight into the CBD, and commuters who are just outside the CBD won't be complaining that taxis do not stop for them.
Lim Chik Siang
I REFER to the report, 'Will cabs vanish from city fringe?' (ST, Dec 12).
As an added incentive for cabbies to head downtown after dropping off passengers in the suburbs, ComfortDelGro, the largest taxi operator, is moving in the right direction by raising the CBD surcharge from $1 to $3, alongside other fare revisions.
However, the possibility of cabbies skipping the taxi stands along the outskirts of the CBD is cause for worry for people working or living just outside downtown, including tourists staying at hotels in the affected areas.
May I suggest that the new surcharge be extended to areas along the fringe of the CBD where many offices, shopping centres, residential apartments and hotels are located? These areas include:
# Tanglin Road junction with Napier Road.
# Scotts Road junction with Stevens Road.
# Beach Road junction with Crawford Street.
In addition, could the Land Transport Authority impose a $2 levy at Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal and Harbourfront Centre at all times? This would serve as an incentive for cabbies to head to these locations to cater to the long queues, comprising both locals and foreigners, waiting for taxis upon their return from the Indonesian islands.
Poh Soon Leong
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
I AM a taxi driver and I have some concerns about the city area surcharge which I hope ComfortDelGro Corp will look into.
I agree that this measure is the best way to harmonise the demand for and supply of taxis in the Central Business District (CBD).
But not including other areas of high demand on the fringes of the CBD will create more problems.
Too many taxis would be inside the CBD even as demand declined because of the surcharge, while far too few taxis would be serving the fringe areas where demand had not lessened because there is no surcharge.
Within the CBD, taxi drivers would end up waiting for commuters. Meanwhile, commuters at places like Vivocity, Harbourfront, Tiong Bahru, Great World City, Tanglin Mall, Orchard Towers, Liat Tower, Scotts, Newton, Golden Mile, Jalan Sultan, Rochor and Little India would find that the taxi problem had worsened. Taxi drivers would not stop for them. The only way to get a taxi might be to book one or to endure a long wait till the surcharge in the CBD ends at midnight.
So, what can Comfort do?
I suggest that Comfort be bold enough to apply the city area surcharge city-wide. Existing roads can be used as boundary markers. An enlarged city-surcharge area could look something like this: Clockwise, from the west, this boundary starts from Harbourfront Avenue, Telok Blangah Road, Kampong Bahru Road, Lower Delta Road, River Valley Road, Hoot Kiam Road, Grange Road, Orange Grove Road, Stevens Road, Scotts Road, Newton Road, Thomson Road, Balestier Road, Lavender Street and Crawford Street.
I hope Comfort would seriously consider my proposal. In this way, not every empty taxi from outlying areas that goes back to town needs to head straight into the CBD, and commuters who are just outside the CBD won't be complaining that taxis do not stop for them.
Lim Chik Siang
I REFER to the report, 'Will cabs vanish from city fringe?' (ST, Dec 12).
As an added incentive for cabbies to head downtown after dropping off passengers in the suburbs, ComfortDelGro, the largest taxi operator, is moving in the right direction by raising the CBD surcharge from $1 to $3, alongside other fare revisions.
However, the possibility of cabbies skipping the taxi stands along the outskirts of the CBD is cause for worry for people working or living just outside downtown, including tourists staying at hotels in the affected areas.
May I suggest that the new surcharge be extended to areas along the fringe of the CBD where many offices, shopping centres, residential apartments and hotels are located? These areas include:
# Tanglin Road junction with Napier Road.
# Scotts Road junction with Stevens Road.
# Beach Road junction with Crawford Street.
In addition, could the Land Transport Authority impose a $2 levy at Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal and Harbourfront Centre at all times? This would serve as an incentive for cabbies to head to these locations to cater to the long queues, comprising both locals and foreigners, waiting for taxis upon their return from the Indonesian islands.
Poh Soon Leong
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Singapore Taxi Fare Hike
http://ihopeuenjoythis.blogspot.com/2007/12/taxi-fare-hike.html
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 ' 9:37 AM Y
Wake up and smell the coffee! Sometimes it is nice to wake up, blog and have some hot chocolate :) Unfortunately, my topic is the least positive one for your pocket.
Singapore Taxi drivers has been complaning so much that they don't earn much due to:
Increase in ERP charges
Increase in fuel prices
Increase in GST from 5% to 7%
Therefore what the taxi has done to cope with it beforehand is:
Avoid going to town to escape the ERP charges
Hiding in town so we will make bookings
Driving around buildings to skip the ERP charges
and the list goes on...
So what has the taxi companies done?
The fare hike goes like this:
Comfortdelgro decided to raise the starting price by 30cents.
From $2.50 to $2.80 and $2.70 to $3 for the higher end cars. Meter charges have also gone up from 10cts to 20cts for the same distance travelled and waiting time in the car. Midnight charges are going to be at a flat rate of 50%.
CBD charges from $1 to $3.
The other taxi cabs will follow suit by Monday or before Christmas.
Basically what I'm saying is everything is going up by 50%. Taxi driver's life is going to get harder now. Because no one would take cab unless necessary.
For example: You happen to take a cab in town during peak hour. Flag down 2.80 + peak hour 2 + CBD area $3 = $7.80
You pay that amount before the taxi even moves! Imagine if u book one... plus $3.50! This is way too steep.
May i say something mean? It's due to their lack of intelligence that they end up working as Cabbie's. They ask for a fare hike to earn more money. But who are the ones giving them their income?! We the loyal passengers! Dumb da da Dumb de da.
Now we the passengers are going to suffer while the taxi companies are smiling their way to the bank. How dumb can taxi drivers get?
Other solutions would have been:
ask for a decrease in rental
ask for the government to waive ERP charges for them since they are doing a business and not driving for individual use.
ask for their taxi companies provide cheaper fuel for them.
Isn't it common sense that their business will drop drastically from now on? People who take taxis are middle classes income people who don't drive because it's too expensive to drive in Singapore.
Everyone thinks all Singaporeans do are complain of every fare hikes in everything but take no action. Now we're going to take some action...... Not take cabs.
This way i can save close to $150 per month! And my pocket would be slightly happier taking crappy buses!
Singapore just sucks you dry financially.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 ' 9:37 AM Y
just another day
Wake up and smell the coffee! Sometimes it is nice to wake up, blog and have some hot chocolate :) Unfortunately, my topic is the least positive one for your pocket.
Singapore Taxi drivers has been complaning so much that they don't earn much due to:
Increase in ERP charges
Increase in fuel prices
Increase in GST from 5% to 7%
Therefore what the taxi has done to cope with it beforehand is:
Avoid going to town to escape the ERP charges
Hiding in town so we will make bookings
Driving around buildings to skip the ERP charges
and the list goes on...
So what has the taxi companies done?
The fare hike goes like this:
Comfortdelgro decided to raise the starting price by 30cents.
From $2.50 to $2.80 and $2.70 to $3 for the higher end cars. Meter charges have also gone up from 10cts to 20cts for the same distance travelled and waiting time in the car. Midnight charges are going to be at a flat rate of 50%.
CBD charges from $1 to $3.
The other taxi cabs will follow suit by Monday or before Christmas.
Basically what I'm saying is everything is going up by 50%. Taxi driver's life is going to get harder now. Because no one would take cab unless necessary.
For example: You happen to take a cab in town during peak hour. Flag down 2.80 + peak hour 2 + CBD area $3 = $7.80
You pay that amount before the taxi even moves! Imagine if u book one... plus $3.50! This is way too steep.
May i say something mean? It's due to their lack of intelligence that they end up working as Cabbie's. They ask for a fare hike to earn more money. But who are the ones giving them their income?! We the loyal passengers! Dumb da da Dumb de da.
Now we the passengers are going to suffer while the taxi companies are smiling their way to the bank. How dumb can taxi drivers get?
Other solutions would have been:
ask for a decrease in rental
ask for the government to waive ERP charges for them since they are doing a business and not driving for individual use.
ask for their taxi companies provide cheaper fuel for them.
Isn't it common sense that their business will drop drastically from now on? People who take taxis are middle classes income people who don't drive because it's too expensive to drive in Singapore.
Everyone thinks all Singaporeans do are complain of every fare hikes in everything but take no action. Now we're going to take some action...... Not take cabs.
This way i can save close to $150 per month! And my pocket would be slightly happier taking crappy buses!
Singapore just sucks you dry financially.
轻微碰撞刮花 怎可索偿4000余元
早报 071211
● 吴大新
● 吴大新
我是康福德士公司的老司机，为公司服务有十多年了。
2006年12月20日我在碧山小停车场遭遇一场轻微碰撞的小意外，由于双方车速只是5-10公里，我的德士没有损坏，对方的轿车只有两道轻微的刮花，只需$50以下就可以修好。
隔天报案，康福的修车技师说德士没损坏不必修理，只拍照存底。过了将近10个月，康福给我一封信说已经赔偿对方$4581.20。
这样的处理法，让我很惊讶。我想请教康福：
（1）为什么没有咨询我的意见或经过我的同意就直接赔给对方$4581.20(比原来对方仅蒙受的$50的损失多了90倍)？
（2）康福的保险负责人及律师是怎样处理这一事件的。
现在我要求康福公司把Settlement Reports，包括双方律师的公文来往及付款的单据及其他有关的文件的副本，都给我一份，让我仔细审视，好让我明白为什么要赔偿这么多钱。
不赞同德士车资上涨
早报 071212
● 戴金龙
● 戴金龙
康福德高宣布调高车资，同时也调整车资结构，使原本只复杂的车资结构更复杂，此举令人无法苟同。更有甚者，我相信在康福带头下，另外5家德士公司料也会调整车资，这可说完全违背了当局开放德士市场原则。
拥有最多德士的康福德高，往往率先调高车资，并利用协会威胁其他德士公司也跟着调高车资，大有仗着“老大”气势垄断之嫌。令人不满。
我认为，公众或应行使自己的权益，抵制那些调高车资的德士公司，现阶断趁其他德士公司未跟着涨价之前，展现公众的力量，来对康福德高说“不”。或许可迫使一些欲调高车资的德士公司三思。
新加坡德士车资可说相当高且不合理了。如今又再调高和更改其结构，把复杂的车资结构更繁杂化，若用单车资做比较自然还有得比，但若加上林林总总的附加费，可说以昂贵来形容。当局总以澳洲、欧美等地区做比较，却为什么不以靠近的马、印尼、泰做比较呢。
如果说我国的德士盈利并不高的话，那么为什么一开放就有那么多家投入服务。这足于显示德士的盈利是超高的，别忘了康福不也是靠德士业赚了个满堂红，才奠定今日的地位吗？我认为，业者应自我检讨。
德士调高车资，苦了谁？
傅茗芬（49岁）从来不搭德士，但自从母亲张亚家（79岁）在两年前患上肾病后，她每星期三次都得乘德士送 母亲到水车路的肾脏透析基金会（KDF）洗肾中心洗肾，之后同样得乘德士带她回家。
德士大幅度调高车资，她怎么办？
德士大幅度调高车资，她怎么办？
Higher Taxi Fares - Have Your Say
December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 01:53 PM
With cab fares set to go up on Dec 17 - higher flag down rate, higher city, midnight and peak hour surcharges, plus higher distance and waiting time increments on the meter - how will you react as a commuter?
(#2) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:05 PM
Good! If only the cab drivers earn MORE with the new charges.But this is not to be.Sad.
heartlander88
(#3) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:43 PM
What's the point of having our say if it's not going to bring down the price?
The taxi drivers are not earning much, yet this hike is going to kill them!!
We as commuters will be suffering also.
Instead of getting more drivers and taxis, they take this opportunity to raise the price. "Oh... We cannot meet their demands due to shortage of manpower therefore we have to increase the price."
Does this effect has any higher income for the taxi drivers?
The answer is NO!!!
Knightmare
(#4) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:45 PM
I will (a) Stop taking cabs altogether, however inconvenient this may be...we need every one to do this to hurt the taxi industry, so they know everyone means business. You call that simplifying fare structure? I think is way to complicated...Charge more overall, but most of it goes to who?
jordan_tan
(#5) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:48 PM
I am not a frequent cab taker.. but my answer will still be (b). I will take even less often than I usually do.... unless my company is paying for it, of course.
It might be interesting to see how company policies on reimbursement of taxi claims might change as it result of the change in prices.
lobo_respawned
(#6) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 03:31 PM
I will switch to buses and mrt to save money and i will cut down on travels.
goldmansion
(#7) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 03:50 PM
I totally empathise with my friend who drives a cab full time to support his family.He has two kids and his wife is not working.He works no less than 12 hours a day - sometimes even 14 hours - just to earn enough to support his family. This is our Golden Age where our citizens have to work no less than 12 hours to make ends meet.Sad hor.
heartlander88
(#8) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 04:37 PM
Raising the taxi fare is the only thing that TOA knows what to do. They certainly will not want to downward adjust their income, so up goes the prices.
I reckon when fare affordability becomes an issue, the taxi drivers will suffer. Not so much the consumer as those who must take cabs will still do so.
But again, this is Singapore, nothing new nor unexpected. I will simply have to reconsider buying a personal transport.
darkmax1
(#9) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 04:38 PM
When the taxi drivers complain about not earning enough, they raise the price of the fare. Why don't they just bring their rental down?!
darkmax1
(#10)December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 04:49 PM
Bring down the rentals.Let our cab drivers earn more.
(#11) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 05:09 PM
taking cab about 4-5 days a week is for me to have more time with my games. but i guess i'll have to cut down my time on playing games and take bus or trains instead.. sad but it shall become a good practice since the fares is gonna be much higher than affordable..
exodus82
(#12) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 05:40 PM
I choose (b)"Take fewer cab rides, cutting down as much as you can". If I need to take a cab, I will choose the cab company's whose fare has not risen yet.
One of the reason to increase cab fare is due to the fact that the price of crude oil is going to above US$100 soon. My question is, if the price of Oil comes down in future, will the taxi companies reduce the fare then ?.....
So is ComfortDelgro who provides bus services ALSO going to propose an increment in Bus fare when the next review comes up ?....
kalten98
(#13) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 07:03 PM
i am wondering why the options are so limited? why isn't there one that just says i have no problem with the increase? A bit biased right ST? I take cabs every day and I think it is good for those who can afford/don't mind paying so long as I can get a cab. So I choose d) Happy to pay as long as I can get a cab when I need it.
taxiuser
(#14) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 11:25 PM
I say the some senior govt official should resign or at least get a pay-cut over the perenial taxi woes
ronintan
(#15) Yesterday, 12:51 AM
(#16) Yesterday, 01:20 AM
I do agree that fare should be increase but not at this rate at it is too steep or too high. This will further push up the inflation rate for 2008. I do agree that rental should be down as delgro is making more and more profit and having the CEO to suck up all the hard earn money from the driver. Why is it that when COE was down from the peak, the rental was not down???
ericngst
(#17) Yesterday, 11:10 AM
I'll take (b) Take fewer cab rides, cutting down as much as you can.
It's not as if we have any other alternatives when we are in a rush. Other times, I'll probably go for MRT/Buses.
I noticed many cab drivers enjoyed stepping hard on the acceleration pedal to get the speed, won't that suck up more oil?
DancingDuck
(#18) Yesterday, 11:21 AM
I choose c(i) because I have already implemented (b) for many, many years already. I do not own a car because I do not travel often enough to justify it. Private cars are the main cause of our traffic congestions (see the bottom part of this post http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/v...?p=92645#92645 ).
So it is against our national interests to own a private car until such time when the traffic congestions are reasonably resolved.
I was in UK a few years ago on tour with my wife. My wife suddenly noticed that we were going round in circles as she recognized the places and buildings we had already travelled past. We took out a map and realised that the taxi driver was driving us away from our hotel instead of towards it. When we asked the taxi driver why he was not taking us to the hotel, he turned aggressive and told us to get out of his taxi, if we were unhappy with him. We were in a foreign land with heavy luggage. When I asked him how long more before we could reach our hotel, he said soon. After that he sent us to our hotel and the meter had by then clocked up 25GBP. On our return trip to the tour agent's office with the taxi booked by the hotel staff, it cost us only 12.5GBP by meter. Of course at that time, we were fuming mad with the taxi driver and told ourselves that we must email the British tourism authority when we were home to lodge our complaint against the taxi driver. We had taken down the needed information for the
purpose. By the time, when we were on our way back to Singapore, I realize that it is not in our
national interests to help to improve the British taxi service. This is what many tourists would feel when they are fleeced by our taxi service.
The current number one problem in our taxi service is the call booking fees which, almost everyone knows, except perhaps for the decision-makers at ComfortDelgro, are primary causes of the strange disappearing and appearing phenomena of the taxis on our roads and yet after an 'in-depth review' of the taxi industry to address commuters' concernsâ€, ComfortDelgro has grudgingly reduced the peak call booking fee from $4.00 to $3.50. This would have been comical, if national interests are not involved. One could only wonder into what depth ComfortDelgro decision-makers have plunged themselves into. Of course, the depths of misery they have caused taxi commuters need no wondering.
Regarding the need to increase the taxi fare to help off-set the rising costs of the taxi drivers, the first and right thing to do is to publish full details of the average taxi driver’s current income and expenses. Many taxi commuters including me would support the taxi fare increase for such a purpose, if it is reasonable and fair, and compatible with the other sectors of our economy.
What has flabbergasted many taxi commuters is the blatant attempt to profiteer under the cover of the increased costs of taxi driving and on our traffic congestion problems.
From past experience we all know that the fare revamp by the ComfortDelgro would only cause a temporary drop in the demand for the taxis. Temporary because the revamp would also worsens traffic congestions and frustrations at the MRT stations and bus stops. With the expected increase in ERP, COEs, car and road taxes and other anti-congestion charges, many who were be driven like cattle to private cars would be driven back to the taxis. Those who were driven to the MRT and buses would also be driven back to the taxis by the sharply increase in frustrations at the MRT stations and bus stops. So with every of taxi fare increase, the costs of doing business and of living in Singapore are artificially raised.
This is not in our national interests. The taxi service is public transport which should be provided as a best service at the lowest cost possible.
preciousspring
(#20) Yesterday, 11:40 AM
reduce road tax and ERP for public transport
(#21) Yesterday, 12:25 PM
Today 12/12/07 - ST >> Online Forum >> Why not start a cab-sharing scheme? Actually, many weeks ago, I have already started to promote cab-sharing scheme which was included in my website ---> www.cabby.com.sg But the respond so far was not so good. I do not know the reasons……….
onecabby
(#22) Yesterday, 12:40 PM
Allow for HK-style mini-bus services to give commuters additional choice.
AmosQuito1
(#23) Yesterday, 01:34 PM
Can we ever say NO to such changes? Things are done high handedly here in the country, tough life ahead. No rights for us to say no, if we choose the bus or mrt, we need to pack with the crowds. For the less able like the elderly or the sickly, their pockets are burning bigger when they are the ones that need more help.
cruiseskoh
(#24) Yesterday, 01:54 PM
This is a cartel. One goes up, all goes up. Prices will never come down again. This is going to add up to the cost of doing business, as companies will now have to pay for higher cab fees that their staff uses. If cab problems in CBD still persists, are prices going to to be raised further? There are more ways to dealing with the issue that raising prices. We always compare cost of cab in S'pore to HK or London and say that price is cheaper, but in terms of workforce compensation, we will compare to China and India, and say cost of workforce in S'pore is higher, therefore we need to restrain workforce compensation. Only in S'pore you can have the best of both worlds.
creativesti07
(#25) Yesterday, 04:07 PM
I agree with heartlander88, that to increase the income of the taxi drivers, the first step is to reduce their rental. Talk to any driver, and they will tell you that it is about $100 per day for a normal taxi, multiply it by 365 days, and the taxi company will have covered their cost of the vehicle in THREE YEARS. It is profit for the companies from then on, yet they are not willing to lower it to say, $60 per day, to help their drivers.
WHY MUST THEY ALWAYS PASS OFF THE COST TO THE COMMUTERS???
It is common knowledge that Comfort, with near 70% of the fleet, is a near monopoly. The government should limit each company's fleet size to 10,000. This will then be truely an open market. Any company with more than 50% of the market is able to fix the price, so the anti competitive committee or CASE, should really look into this.
(remember Singtel's stake in Indonesia recently!!!)
I will from now on take less taxi trips, unless with my two young kids in tow, or it is raining, or rushing for time. So to the taxi drivers, sorry, you are going to earn less from me from monday onwards.
roypeter07
(#26) Yesterday, 10:44 PM
b) I am not a regular taxi user, but I will make greater effort to cut further the usage of taxi.If I am leaving for the airport with luggage I would then use a cab, if it is only hand carry I would now use the train system which is a very tedious ride.( previously even with hand carry I would get a cab)
Surcharges should be removed but I do support a fair price increase in the flag down rate.
Still dont understand why public transport need to pay ERP rates if any at all? Does this not contribute to the cost of travel? Does the goverment need to recover all their infrastructure cost (with interes)?
rufino1995
(#27) Today, 08:12 AM
Thinking out of the BOX for some suggestions.
Oil prices are skyrocketing to $100+ per barrel, cost are escalating & transferred down the chain, yet we do things as when oil was $36-40 per barrel. I am not sure why diesel engines must keep running wastefully even when the drivers take their break.
Why do Singapore make Taxis ply the streets so ineffectively like cruising empty and picking their fares by chance? Currently when I call for a taxi, they already know my address and location. Why not extend the idea further. Suggestion!
1. Introduce call on demand
2. Prevent empty cruise and wasteful use of resources
3. Run "mobile call on demand" without surcharge to encourage effective and efficient use of taxi.
After all savings is made from empty/wasteful cruising without passengers. Don't get "con" by drivers saying "on call" from Changi to Tuas as an excuse for not picking a fare.
4. No surcharge also applies for fares at official pick up points
5. Levy a nominal surcharge for ad hoc stops along roadsides or when inefficient usage is detected.
This would be akin to instances when you walk into a service center or any organization for that matter without an appointment; you are penalized and wait for the next available slot or pay more to see a senior consultant who is available. So why not for taxis? This can be seen as a luxury tax, as someone has to foot the bill while waiting for their services to be use. Or allow drivers to use their discretion in these instances.
6. As a result of the effective "call on demand service" it will be difficult to hail an empty taxi and
unnecessary empty cruising is curbed and taxis used more effectively saving on the wasteful use of diesel. Pass the savings to commuters or to the drivers instead of keep increasing fares and not plug the waste. Passengers too will not need to spend anxious moments "gambling" to catch a cab
7. Team up with mobile operators for special numbers or discounts. After all a hand phone as a result
becomes a "cannot leave home without it" business. Use GPS services with phone companies if we want to extend the idea/scheme further. Hand phone use was I believe 300% less, than when handphones were first introduced. (Can check with Mobile operators). So take advantage of technology.
8. Have a load factor report for taxis as with the airlines to monitor effectiveness.
This requires a mindset change of operators and drivers as well as traditional commuters and lots of discipline. But I think it will work in such a discipline society like Singapore. The idea need further fine tuning but this is just a suggestion off the cuff and to stir up further imagination for our Taxi woes. Otherwise we walk the same street again next year and the year after and see the same scenes and grumbles till it becomes a national past time and a tourism taxi talk ice breaker. Take a different "street"
With cab fares set to go up on Dec 17 - higher flag down rate, higher city, midnight and peak hour surcharges, plus higher distance and waiting time increments on the meter - how will you react as a commuter?
(#2) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:05 PM
Good! If only the cab drivers earn MORE with the new charges.But this is not to be.Sad.
heartlander88
(#3) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:43 PM
What's the point of having our say if it's not going to bring down the price?
The taxi drivers are not earning much, yet this hike is going to kill them!!
We as commuters will be suffering also.
Instead of getting more drivers and taxis, they take this opportunity to raise the price. "Oh... We cannot meet their demands due to shortage of manpower therefore we have to increase the price."
Does this effect has any higher income for the taxi drivers?
The answer is NO!!!
Knightmare
(#4) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:45 PM
I will (a) Stop taking cabs altogether, however inconvenient this may be...we need every one to do this to hurt the taxi industry, so they know everyone means business. You call that simplifying fare structure? I think is way to complicated...Charge more overall, but most of it goes to who?
jordan_tan
(#5) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 02:48 PM
I am not a frequent cab taker.. but my answer will still be (b). I will take even less often than I usually do.... unless my company is paying for it, of course.
It might be interesting to see how company policies on reimbursement of taxi claims might change as it result of the change in prices.
lobo_respawned
(#6) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 03:31 PM
I will switch to buses and mrt to save money and i will cut down on travels.
goldmansion
(#7) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 03:50 PM
I totally empathise with my friend who drives a cab full time to support his family.He has two kids and his wife is not working.He works no less than 12 hours a day - sometimes even 14 hours - just to earn enough to support his family. This is our Golden Age where our citizens have to work no less than 12 hours to make ends meet.Sad hor.
heartlander88
(#8) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 04:37 PM
Raising the taxi fare is the only thing that TOA knows what to do. They certainly will not want to downward adjust their income, so up goes the prices.
I reckon when fare affordability becomes an issue, the taxi drivers will suffer. Not so much the consumer as those who must take cabs will still do so.
But again, this is Singapore, nothing new nor unexpected. I will simply have to reconsider buying a personal transport.
darkmax1
(#9) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 04:38 PM
When the taxi drivers complain about not earning enough, they raise the price of the fare. Why don't they just bring their rental down?!
darkmax1
(#10)December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 04:49 PM
Bring down the rentals.Let our cab drivers earn more.
(#11) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 05:09 PM
taking cab about 4-5 days a week is for me to have more time with my games. but i guess i'll have to cut down my time on playing games and take bus or trains instead.. sad but it shall become a good practice since the fares is gonna be much higher than affordable..
exodus82
(#12) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 05:40 PM
I choose (b)"Take fewer cab rides, cutting down as much as you can". If I need to take a cab, I will choose the cab company's whose fare has not risen yet.
One of the reason to increase cab fare is due to the fact that the price of crude oil is going to above US$100 soon. My question is, if the price of Oil comes down in future, will the taxi companies reduce the fare then ?.....
So is ComfortDelgro who provides bus services ALSO going to propose an increment in Bus fare when the next review comes up ?....
kalten98
(#13) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 07:03 PM
i am wondering why the options are so limited? why isn't there one that just says i have no problem with the increase? A bit biased right ST? I take cabs every day and I think it is good for those who can afford/don't mind paying so long as I can get a cab. So I choose d) Happy to pay as long as I can get a cab when I need it.
taxiuser
(#14) December 11, 2007 Tuesday, 11:25 PM
I say the some senior govt official should resign or at least get a pay-cut over the perenial taxi woes
ronintan
(#15) Yesterday, 12:51 AM
(#16) Yesterday, 01:20 AM
I do agree that fare should be increase but not at this rate at it is too steep or too high. This will further push up the inflation rate for 2008. I do agree that rental should be down as delgro is making more and more profit and having the CEO to suck up all the hard earn money from the driver. Why is it that when COE was down from the peak, the rental was not down???
ericngst
(#17) Yesterday, 11:10 AM
I'll take (b) Take fewer cab rides, cutting down as much as you can.
It's not as if we have any other alternatives when we are in a rush. Other times, I'll probably go for MRT/Buses.
I noticed many cab drivers enjoyed stepping hard on the acceleration pedal to get the speed, won't that suck up more oil?
DancingDuck
(#18) Yesterday, 11:21 AM
I choose c(i) because I have already implemented (b) for many, many years already. I do not own a car because I do not travel often enough to justify it. Private cars are the main cause of our traffic congestions (see the bottom part of this post http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/v...?p=92645#92645 ).
So it is against our national interests to own a private car until such time when the traffic congestions are reasonably resolved.
I was in UK a few years ago on tour with my wife. My wife suddenly noticed that we were going round in circles as she recognized the places and buildings we had already travelled past. We took out a map and realised that the taxi driver was driving us away from our hotel instead of towards it. When we asked the taxi driver why he was not taking us to the hotel, he turned aggressive and told us to get out of his taxi, if we were unhappy with him. We were in a foreign land with heavy luggage. When I asked him how long more before we could reach our hotel, he said soon. After that he sent us to our hotel and the meter had by then clocked up 25GBP. On our return trip to the tour agent's office with the taxi booked by the hotel staff, it cost us only 12.5GBP by meter. Of course at that time, we were fuming mad with the taxi driver and told ourselves that we must email the British tourism authority when we were home to lodge our complaint against the taxi driver. We had taken down the needed information for the
purpose. By the time, when we were on our way back to Singapore, I realize that it is not in our
national interests to help to improve the British taxi service. This is what many tourists would feel when they are fleeced by our taxi service.
The current number one problem in our taxi service is the call booking fees which, almost everyone knows, except perhaps for the decision-makers at ComfortDelgro, are primary causes of the strange disappearing and appearing phenomena of the taxis on our roads and yet after an 'in-depth review' of the taxi industry to address commuters' concernsâ€, ComfortDelgro has grudgingly reduced the peak call booking fee from $4.00 to $3.50. This would have been comical, if national interests are not involved. One could only wonder into what depth ComfortDelgro decision-makers have plunged themselves into. Of course, the depths of misery they have caused taxi commuters need no wondering.
Regarding the need to increase the taxi fare to help off-set the rising costs of the taxi drivers, the first and right thing to do is to publish full details of the average taxi driver’s current income and expenses. Many taxi commuters including me would support the taxi fare increase for such a purpose, if it is reasonable and fair, and compatible with the other sectors of our economy.
What has flabbergasted many taxi commuters is the blatant attempt to profiteer under the cover of the increased costs of taxi driving and on our traffic congestion problems.
From past experience we all know that the fare revamp by the ComfortDelgro would only cause a temporary drop in the demand for the taxis. Temporary because the revamp would also worsens traffic congestions and frustrations at the MRT stations and bus stops. With the expected increase in ERP, COEs, car and road taxes and other anti-congestion charges, many who were be driven like cattle to private cars would be driven back to the taxis. Those who were driven to the MRT and buses would also be driven back to the taxis by the sharply increase in frustrations at the MRT stations and bus stops. So with every of taxi fare increase, the costs of doing business and of living in Singapore are artificially raised.
This is not in our national interests. The taxi service is public transport which should be provided as a best service at the lowest cost possible.
preciousspring
(#20) Yesterday, 11:40 AM
reduce road tax and ERP for public transport
(#21) Yesterday, 12:25 PM
Today 12/12/07 - ST >> Online Forum >> Why not start a cab-sharing scheme? Actually, many weeks ago, I have already started to promote cab-sharing scheme which was included in my website ---> www.cabby.com.sg But the respond so far was not so good. I do not know the reasons……….
onecabby
(#22) Yesterday, 12:40 PM
Allow for HK-style mini-bus services to give commuters additional choice.
AmosQuito1
(#23) Yesterday, 01:34 PM
Can we ever say NO to such changes? Things are done high handedly here in the country, tough life ahead. No rights for us to say no, if we choose the bus or mrt, we need to pack with the crowds. For the less able like the elderly or the sickly, their pockets are burning bigger when they are the ones that need more help.
cruiseskoh
(#24) Yesterday, 01:54 PM
This is a cartel. One goes up, all goes up. Prices will never come down again. This is going to add up to the cost of doing business, as companies will now have to pay for higher cab fees that their staff uses. If cab problems in CBD still persists, are prices going to to be raised further? There are more ways to dealing with the issue that raising prices. We always compare cost of cab in S'pore to HK or London and say that price is cheaper, but in terms of workforce compensation, we will compare to China and India, and say cost of workforce in S'pore is higher, therefore we need to restrain workforce compensation. Only in S'pore you can have the best of both worlds.
creativesti07
(#25) Yesterday, 04:07 PM
I agree with heartlander88, that to increase the income of the taxi drivers, the first step is to reduce their rental. Talk to any driver, and they will tell you that it is about $100 per day for a normal taxi, multiply it by 365 days, and the taxi company will have covered their cost of the vehicle in THREE YEARS. It is profit for the companies from then on, yet they are not willing to lower it to say, $60 per day, to help their drivers.
WHY MUST THEY ALWAYS PASS OFF THE COST TO THE COMMUTERS???
It is common knowledge that Comfort, with near 70% of the fleet, is a near monopoly. The government should limit each company's fleet size to 10,000. This will then be truely an open market. Any company with more than 50% of the market is able to fix the price, so the anti competitive committee or CASE, should really look into this.
(remember Singtel's stake in Indonesia recently!!!)
I will from now on take less taxi trips, unless with my two young kids in tow, or it is raining, or rushing for time. So to the taxi drivers, sorry, you are going to earn less from me from monday onwards.
roypeter07
(#26) Yesterday, 10:44 PM
b) I am not a regular taxi user, but I will make greater effort to cut further the usage of taxi.If I am leaving for the airport with luggage I would then use a cab, if it is only hand carry I would now use the train system which is a very tedious ride.( previously even with hand carry I would get a cab)
Surcharges should be removed but I do support a fair price increase in the flag down rate.
Still dont understand why public transport need to pay ERP rates if any at all? Does this not contribute to the cost of travel? Does the goverment need to recover all their infrastructure cost (with interes)?
rufino1995
(#27) Today, 08:12 AM
Thinking out of the BOX for some suggestions.
Oil prices are skyrocketing to $100+ per barrel, cost are escalating & transferred down the chain, yet we do things as when oil was $36-40 per barrel. I am not sure why diesel engines must keep running wastefully even when the drivers take their break.
Why do Singapore make Taxis ply the streets so ineffectively like cruising empty and picking their fares by chance? Currently when I call for a taxi, they already know my address and location. Why not extend the idea further. Suggestion!
1. Introduce call on demand
2. Prevent empty cruise and wasteful use of resources
3. Run "mobile call on demand" without surcharge to encourage effective and efficient use of taxi.
After all savings is made from empty/wasteful cruising without passengers. Don't get "con" by drivers saying "on call" from Changi to Tuas as an excuse for not picking a fare.
4. No surcharge also applies for fares at official pick up points
5. Levy a nominal surcharge for ad hoc stops along roadsides or when inefficient usage is detected.
This would be akin to instances when you walk into a service center or any organization for that matter without an appointment; you are penalized and wait for the next available slot or pay more to see a senior consultant who is available. So why not for taxis? This can be seen as a luxury tax, as someone has to foot the bill while waiting for their services to be use. Or allow drivers to use their discretion in these instances.
6. As a result of the effective "call on demand service" it will be difficult to hail an empty taxi and
unnecessary empty cruising is curbed and taxis used more effectively saving on the wasteful use of diesel. Pass the savings to commuters or to the drivers instead of keep increasing fares and not plug the waste. Passengers too will not need to spend anxious moments "gambling" to catch a cab
7. Team up with mobile operators for special numbers or discounts. After all a hand phone as a result
becomes a "cannot leave home without it" business. Use GPS services with phone companies if we want to extend the idea/scheme further. Hand phone use was I believe 300% less, than when handphones were first introduced. (Can check with Mobile operators). So take advantage of technology.
8. Have a load factor report for taxis as with the airlines to monitor effectiveness.
This requires a mindset change of operators and drivers as well as traditional commuters and lots of discipline. But I think it will work in such a discipline society like Singapore. The idea need further fine tuning but this is just a suggestion off the cuff and to stir up further imagination for our Taxi woes. Otherwise we walk the same street again next year and the year after and see the same scenes and grumbles till it becomes a national past time and a tourism taxi talk ice breaker. Take a different "street"
In taxi saga, consumers pay and pay
Thursday • December 13, 2007
Liang Dingzi
THE taxi saga, which stars taxi drivers, their customers, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and taxi companies, continues to play on. The Taxi Operators' Association (TOA) is the special guest star in this never-ending drama.
The story begins with consumers complaining about taxi drivers' errant behaviour, such as overcharging customers, refusing to pick up customers, touting and failing to turn up for scheduled bookings.
Customers attribute the shortage of taxis in Singapore to such unsavoury behaviour. The LTA has been asked to solve the problem.
But the authority claimed that because the industry has been deregulated, the onus is on the taxi companies to make things work. This tactic backfired on the LTA when consumers started questioning its role as a regu- lator.
Consumers have offered many suggestions, such as raising metered fares, rather than having complicated, multi-layered surcharges.
After some heated debate, the LTA finally stepped in to introduce harsher penalties for errant drivers. While there was temporary relief, many people doubted whether the punishments would nip the problem in the bud.
Many members of the public also sympathised with the drivers' struggle to cope with increasing operating costs, largely due to higher fuel prices and Electronic Road Pricing charges. Some suggested that taxi companies should help their drivers by lowering rental fees.
Instead, ComfortDelGro raised fares by 10 to 49 per cent. This fare hike includes higher flag-down rates, higher city area surcharge and a peak-period premium.
The customers seem to be the biggest losers in this saga, having to fork out more money to solve a problem they did not create. Younger people can choose to take the bus or the MRT, but what about seniors or disabled people?
Will higher fares also mean higher rentals sometime in the near future?
Taxi companies have shown that they will not hurt their profit margins by lowering rentals to help their drivers.
In addition, higher fares do not guarantee that more taxis will be available. Even ComfortDelGro has acknowledged that the fare hike could result in a dearth of taxis in the outskirts. So long as there is a shortage of available taxis, drivers can continue to choose their routes and charge higher fares.
Even though there are several taxi companies, the business is far from being competitive. Smart Taxis was quick to copy ComfortDelGro in raising its fares and other operators will likely follow suit.
It would take a bold company to be different. Companies can make a world of difference by finding ways to improve reliability and customer service without laying the burden on the consumer or the taxi driver.
Perhaps the LTA did the right thing when it initially assumed a supporting role in the saga. Its involvement has sheltered the taxi companies from the fracas, as they wait quietly for the right moment to move in.
Unfortunately, the consumers can do little to influence the saga's ending.
The writer is a management consultant with more than 25 years of experience in customer service.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
Buy a car or depend on taxis?
Due to hike, expat may get a car after 14 years here
Thursday • December 13, 2007
Letter from KARA EKEBERG
I am an expatriate. For the past 14 years, my family has decided that the cost of owning a car outweighed that of taking taxis.
As we had another baby recently, we now rely even more on taxis to take us to places.
But with the reported taxi fare hike, the benefits of owning our own car — such as having the freedom to move around, the fact that all of us can fit into one vehicle and not having to wait in long queues while holding bags of groceries — now seem to outweigh the costs. And for the first time since we moved here, we are considering buying a car.
Increasing the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges has not reduced the number of cars on the roads. So, I am not convinced that increasing taxi fares will fix the problem.
I understand that ComfortDelGro intends to offer cabbies an ERP rebate.
Perhaps, a better solution would be to exempt cabbies from paying the ERP charges in order to encourage a fluid movement of taxis around the whole of Singapore, regardless of the time of day.
And although I think that the public transport system here is marvellous and highly accessible, it is very inconvenient for me to get on the MRT train during peak hours with my four children and a pram.
However, I fear it is far too late to have a fuller dialogue on this problem as the taxi operators seem to have made their decision.
Charge higher fares only for those taking taxis from CBD
Letter from LAI YEW CHAN
ComfortDelGro must address the twin concerns of higher operating costs and the lack of taxis in the Central Business District (CBD) during the evening peak hours. But it has done so by putting the burden on consumers.
Why should people taking taxis during the morning peak hours have to pay the same 35-per-cent surcharge when there is no shortage of taxis in the morning?
And why should those taking taxis at non-CBD areas during peak hours have to bear the burden as well?
The shortage of taxis in the CBD during the evening is a result of insufficient cabs going to the CBD. The sensible way to resolve this is not to ignore the needs of commuters in non-CBD areas during the evening peak hours as well.
Taxi companies should charge higher fares during the evening peak hours only to commuters in the CBD.
With the new fare structure, the only fare differential between these two groups of commuters in the evening will be the $3 city area surcharge, which hardly reflects the premium that should be accorded to an available cab in the CBD during peak hours.
ComfortDelGro's decisions may cause it to lose some commuters.
We may not see the effects yet because of the festive season.
But once the dust has settled, we may see an increase in the number of commuters who will be forced to take the bus or the MRT more frequently.
How does hike translate to more efficient service?
Letter from GILBERT GOH KEOW WAH
The latest hike not only jacks up transport costs for many people in Singapore but also makes the city-state an expensive place to live in or visit.
It is not realistic to compare our cab fares with those of cities such as London or Sydney because the cost of living there can sometimes be twice as much as ours.
I don't know how the fare hike will translate into better and more efficient service.
Until cab drivers feel that it is their responsibility to provide better service, commuters will boycott cabs and take them only when it is necessary.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
德士车资调整
早报 071212
● 李静仪
萧紫薇（摄）
另四德士公司也将调高车资
继康福德高后，另外四家德士公司也已向公共交通理事会提呈调整车资的通知，相信最早将在圣诞节前夕开始调高车资。
其中，得运（Trans-cab）和胜达（Smart）向本报证实，它们昨天提交的车资结构调整细节同康福德高的完全一致。
经营3000辆德士的市场“老二”SMRT德士则不愿透露详情，只表示“会在下星期初发布消息”。约有2200多辆车队的Premier德士昨晚也已行动了。
百胜德士 暂时还没跟进
目前，只剩新开业的百胜德士（Prime)暂时还没跟进，它较早前已表明，“三个月内”不会调高起程车资。
百胜老板梁南兴说：“我们今天会通知公共交通理事会，但不会完全‘对号入座’，暂时只会调高市区附加费和调低繁忙时段的电召费。”
政府早在1998年解除对德士车资的管制，但德士公司须在调整车资前两个星期内通知公共交通理事会，并在实施前一个星期通知公众。
这意味着，已在昨天知会公共交通理事会的德士公司，最快要等到两个星期后，也就是圣诞节前夕才能调整车资。
经营2200辆车队的得运总经理陈素金告诉本报，公司将在本月24日清晨6时开始起价，“调整情况将和康福德高完全一样”。
她说：“司机们都希望公司能赶快跟进，因为柴油价格飙升已压得他们喘不过气来，虽然有部分司机担心起价会影响需求，但大多数人相信市场整体还是会有需求的。”
胜达也将在平安夜 或圣诞节调高收费
约有800辆车队的胜达也将在平安夜或圣诞节调高收费。
董事总经理陶仰潜指出：“其实眼下是起价最好时机，因为每年12月到隔年2月都是德士司机收入最丰厚的时候，接下来三个月是佳节时期，需求一般会比较高，等这三个月过后，一些乘客可能就已习惯了新的车资。”
康福德高前天宣布将从下星期一（17日）起调高德士车资，以后繁忙时段的新收费最高可上调将近50%，非繁忙时段大部分收费将上调10%。
根据新车资结构，普通德士的起程车资将调高三角，至2元8角，车程距离收费和按时收费也将调整。
此外，市区附加费将从现有的1元，涨至3元，实施时段也将延长，从星期一至星期六，下午5时到午夜12时。
午夜附加费则不再采用递增式收费制，恢复以往的计算方式，从午夜12时起至清晨6时之前的收费，一律为计程表总车资的50%。
繁忙时段收费则改为计程表车资的35%，不再是一律收费2元。
为鼓励德士司机在繁忙时段进入市区接载乘客，康福德高将为所有空车进入市区，但无法在15分钟内载到客的司机，提供公路电子收费（ERP）回扣。
得运和胜达表示 不会提供ERP回扣
得运和胜达德士表示，不会跟随康福德高提供ERP回扣的做法，这主要是因为系统无法精确追踪德士经过ERP闸门的情况。
康福德高： 分级式收费制较为公平
不少乘客认为康福德高新的车资结构相当复杂，令人难以消化，特别是采用新计算方式的繁忙时段特别收费（peak hour premium）。
政府国会交通委员会副主席王建明日前受访时就表示担心，新车资结构过于复杂，会让乘客更为混乱，最终弄不清楚自己到底需付多少钱，尤其是外国游客。
德士公司是在1996年6月开始收取繁忙时段附加费，当时收费5角，隔年调高到1元，附加费最后一次调整是在去年7月，上调至目前的一律2元。
收费时段为星期一至星期五，上午7时至上午9时30分，星期一至星期六，下午5时至晚上8时，公共假日除外。
类似午夜附加费算法
从下星期一起，这项繁忙时段特别收取的费用将改用类似午夜附加费的算法，改为计程表车资的35%，它会自动算入计程表内。
集团联络总监陈爱玲受询时说，公司是在仔细分析市场情况后，才决定以新的收费方法来取代一律2元的附加费。
她说：“分级式的收费制（tiered pricing）比较公平，车程越远的乘客需支付较高的繁忙时段收费，不像现在，即使你只坐上德士一分钟或半小时，都一律得付2元的繁忙时段附加费。”
陈爱玲指出，根据新收费制，乘客繁忙时段在德士里逗留的时间越长，所需支付的车资就越高，这是公平的，因为繁忙时段的德士需求很高。
至于如何达致35%的数字，她以商业决定为理由，不愿具体说明。
康福德高的统计显示，如果不包括公路电子收费和其他附加费，大约45%的德士车程收费是低于6元。
如果以6元的车资计算，繁忙时段的新收费将为2元1角，比现有的附加费稍微贵一些。
陈爱玲举例解释说，如果乘客是在清晨6时50分搭德士，早上7时零5分到达目的地，他只需为7时开始属于繁忙时段的5分钟车程支付额外35%的收费，如果他在7时15分下车，则得为15分钟的繁忙时段支付较高的车资。
康福德高表示，有关收费详情将一一列在收据上，它将在下星期新车资实施前，吁请司机自动发收据给乘客，让乘客清楚自己支付的费用，以提高透明度。乘客也可自动向司机索取收据。
● 李静仪
萧紫薇（摄）
另四德士公司也将调高车资
继康福德高后，另外四家德士公司也已向公共交通理事会提呈调整车资的通知，相信最早将在圣诞节前夕开始调高车资。
其中，得运（Trans-cab）和胜达（Smart）向本报证实，它们昨天提交的车资结构调整细节同康福德高的完全一致。
经营3000辆德士的市场“老二”SMRT德士则不愿透露详情，只表示“会在下星期初发布消息”。约有2200多辆车队的Premier德士昨晚也已行动了。
百胜德士 暂时还没跟进
目前，只剩新开业的百胜德士（Prime)暂时还没跟进，它较早前已表明，“三个月内”不会调高起程车资。
百胜老板梁南兴说：“我们今天会通知公共交通理事会，但不会完全‘对号入座’，暂时只会调高市区附加费和调低繁忙时段的电召费。”
政府早在1998年解除对德士车资的管制，但德士公司须在调整车资前两个星期内通知公共交通理事会，并在实施前一个星期通知公众。
这意味着，已在昨天知会公共交通理事会的德士公司，最快要等到两个星期后，也就是圣诞节前夕才能调整车资。
经营2200辆车队的得运总经理陈素金告诉本报，公司将在本月24日清晨6时开始起价，“调整情况将和康福德高完全一样”。
她说：“司机们都希望公司能赶快跟进，因为柴油价格飙升已压得他们喘不过气来，虽然有部分司机担心起价会影响需求，但大多数人相信市场整体还是会有需求的。”
胜达也将在平安夜 或圣诞节调高收费
约有800辆车队的胜达也将在平安夜或圣诞节调高收费。
董事总经理陶仰潜指出：“其实眼下是起价最好时机，因为每年12月到隔年2月都是德士司机收入最丰厚的时候，接下来三个月是佳节时期，需求一般会比较高，等这三个月过后，一些乘客可能就已习惯了新的车资。”
康福德高前天宣布将从下星期一（17日）起调高德士车资，以后繁忙时段的新收费最高可上调将近50%，非繁忙时段大部分收费将上调10%。
根据新车资结构，普通德士的起程车资将调高三角，至2元8角，车程距离收费和按时收费也将调整。
此外，市区附加费将从现有的1元，涨至3元，实施时段也将延长，从星期一至星期六，下午5时到午夜12时。
午夜附加费则不再采用递增式收费制，恢复以往的计算方式，从午夜12时起至清晨6时之前的收费，一律为计程表总车资的50%。
繁忙时段收费则改为计程表车资的35%，不再是一律收费2元。
为鼓励德士司机在繁忙时段进入市区接载乘客，康福德高将为所有空车进入市区，但无法在15分钟内载到客的司机，提供公路电子收费（ERP）回扣。
得运和胜达表示 不会提供ERP回扣
得运和胜达德士表示，不会跟随康福德高提供ERP回扣的做法，这主要是因为系统无法精确追踪德士经过ERP闸门的情况。
康福德高： 分级式收费制较为公平
不少乘客认为康福德高新的车资结构相当复杂，令人难以消化，特别是采用新计算方式的繁忙时段特别收费（peak hour premium）。
政府国会交通委员会副主席王建明日前受访时就表示担心，新车资结构过于复杂，会让乘客更为混乱，最终弄不清楚自己到底需付多少钱，尤其是外国游客。
德士公司是在1996年6月开始收取繁忙时段附加费，当时收费5角，隔年调高到1元，附加费最后一次调整是在去年7月，上调至目前的一律2元。
收费时段为星期一至星期五，上午7时至上午9时30分，星期一至星期六，下午5时至晚上8时，公共假日除外。
类似午夜附加费算法
从下星期一起，这项繁忙时段特别收取的费用将改用类似午夜附加费的算法，改为计程表车资的35%，它会自动算入计程表内。
集团联络总监陈爱玲受询时说，公司是在仔细分析市场情况后，才决定以新的收费方法来取代一律2元的附加费。
她说：“分级式的收费制（tiered pricing）比较公平，车程越远的乘客需支付较高的繁忙时段收费，不像现在，即使你只坐上德士一分钟或半小时，都一律得付2元的繁忙时段附加费。”
陈爱玲指出，根据新收费制，乘客繁忙时段在德士里逗留的时间越长，所需支付的车资就越高，这是公平的，因为繁忙时段的德士需求很高。
至于如何达致35%的数字，她以商业决定为理由，不愿具体说明。
康福德高的统计显示，如果不包括公路电子收费和其他附加费，大约45%的德士车程收费是低于6元。
如果以6元的车资计算，繁忙时段的新收费将为2元1角，比现有的附加费稍微贵一些。
陈爱玲举例解释说，如果乘客是在清晨6时50分搭德士，早上7时零5分到达目的地，他只需为7时开始属于繁忙时段的5分钟车程支付额外35%的收费，如果他在7时15分下车，则得为15分钟的繁忙时段支付较高的车资。
康福德高表示，有关收费详情将一一列在收据上，它将在下星期新车资实施前，吁请司机自动发收据给乘客，让乘客清楚自己支付的费用，以提高透明度。乘客也可自动向司机索取收据。
德士调高车资 五德士公司料也调整车资
早报 071211
● 李静仪 蔡慧玲
康福德高宣布调整德士车资结构，包括提高起程车资、车程距离及按时的收费，其他5家德士公司预料不久后会跟进。
经营约3000辆德士的SMRT告诉本报：“我们很快就会通知公共交通理事会有关调整车资的事宜。”
至于是否会“全盘照收”，SMRT发言人受询时，不愿具体透露车资调整的细节。
康福德高上一次调高德士起程车资是在去年7月，当时是从2元4角上调一角，也是过去12年来起程车资首次调高。
其他业者昨天受访时则异口同声地表示，新车资结构“太过复杂”，需时间仔细研究后才决定是否会进行同样的调整。
经营2200多辆德士的Premier公司执行董事林崇武认为，在某种程度上，调高市区附加费将有助于舒缓市区里德士短缺的问题，但或许没办法根除这个问题，因为需求远超出供应。
他说：“我们还在消化资料，还没决定是否要完全照跟，新结构很复杂，特别是把繁忙时段收费改为计程表车资35%的做法，担心会让乘客更为混淆。”
约有800辆车队的胜达（Smart）昨天接到消息后，就第一时间联络计程表供应商，以了解公司采用的系统能否根据康福德高提出的35%繁忙时段收费进行调整。
胜达董事总经理陶仰潜告诉本报：“初步来看，大部分调整包括起程车资、市区附加费和繁忙时段收费，我们应该会照跟，不过还需要多一两天研究才能做最后决定。”
经营2000多辆德士的得运（Trans-cab）合伙人吴绍财则担心，3元的市区附加费可能过高，会影响乘客对德士的需求。
他说：“我们会先跟司机们商量才决定，应该会在一个星期内有答案。”
刚于三个月前开业的百胜德士（Prime)是唯一表示“三个月内”不会调高起程车资的公司。
但它会跟着调高市区附加费和调低繁忙时段的电召费。至于是否会调整车程距离收费和繁忙时段收费，则要先看市场的反应。
百胜老板梁南兴说：“我们没有一定要马上调整车资结构的压力，因为公司的车租是最便宜的，使用的燃料是天然气而非柴油，成本比柴油低一半。”
代表六大德士公司（康福、城市、SMRT、胜达、Premier和得运）的德士师傅协会认为，康福德高的新车资调整公平而且正适其时，它呼吁“其他德士公司尽快跟进”。
政府国会交通委员会副主席王建明则担心，新车资结构太过复杂，让乘客更为混乱，最终弄不清楚自己到底需付多少钱，尤其是外国游客。
他也担心，午夜附加费停止采用递增式的计算方式后，德士在市区外“躲起来”等午夜时分来临的问题会更加严重。
近日在报章发表言论分析德士问题的国大地理系研究员韩松光（26岁）也认为，新调整使原本已够复杂的车资结构变得更难以接受。
他认为，这个配套长期对司机最有利。“短期内或许能有效解决德士供不应求问题，那些不怎么需要搭德士的人可能会转搭巴士或地铁，但我认为，长期的效用或许不大，因为人们已习惯把德士当成公共交通工具，不久就会习惯了新的收费。”
公众：太贵了，难接受
司机：短期内搭客会减少
受访德士司机表示，长远来说，车资调高预料有助减轻柴油价格上升带给他们的压力，但短时间内预计也会导致搭客减少，拉长补短，调高车资短期内或许无法提高他们的收入。
另一方面，公众在得知康福德高德士车资起价的幅度时都感到意外，表示“没有想到会起那么多”。
大多受访公众对起价幅度都表示不能接受，并表示日后会尽量以公共交通取代德士。不过，也有公众表示，如果赶时间还是得搭德士。
会计师林沛珊（25岁）很多时候得工作到晚上10时或11点时，经常搭德士回家，每个月的德士费可达300元。当她听到德士费的各种调整时，惊讶地说：“我原本以为只是（起程车资）起到2元8角而已，但是现在起这么多。偶尔可以跟公司索取津贴还好，没有津贴就得自己出钱，所以当然会受（起价）影响。”
活动策划与行销人员郑力生（28岁）的情况好一些，虽然因为工作常得跑外勤，但需要搭德士时，公司都会补贴车费。至于他私下自己搭德士的次数会不会受车资调高的影响，他说：“以后应该会更少搭了，会改搭巴士或地铁。”
但是也有公众表示，如果真的需要搭德士，还是没有办法避免的。
“圣诞节期间调高车资 可缓冲搭客流失量”
公众的这些反应正是德士司机所担忧的，但司机表示，公司选在圣诞节期间调高车资，相信可以缓冲搭客的流失量。
开德士一年的林圣发就对车资上调表示支持。
他认为物价上涨是必然的趋势，因此他并不太担心客人会减少，因为以往的经验显示，搭客量下跌只是短期的现象。不过，他也说：“希望下次不要起那么多了。”
看到康福德高的德士司机就快可以收取更高的车资，驾SMRT德士的吴克昌并不感羡慕，也不会期盼SMRT公司跟风，调高车资。
他认为，一次过把车资调得这么高一定会让搭客却步，如果起价的幅度不足以弥补搭客的减少幅度，那德士司机将得不偿失。
至于康福德高公司给予空车进入市区后，在15分钟内无法载到搭客的司机公路电子收费（ERP)回扣，以及提高市区附加费，受访司机表示不会因此而空车进入市区。
他们说，如果沿路有客人就会载，不会特意进入市区。而且，他们不清楚索取回扣的程序，如果程序繁琐，将是一个阻力。
公众反应
林沛珊 （25岁，会计师）
“我的工作地点刚好在市区外，但市区的附加费调整就对在市区里面工作的人很不公平。这样谁还要搭德士，而且市区里面的德士本来就很难等。”
陈太太（家庭主妇，育有一对两岁和4岁的孩子）
“起价不太合理，有时候（繁忙时间）要带孩子看医生或逛街，等德士又等不到，可是电召德士，德士就来了，所以有点不明白为什么会这样……以后会跟老公商量叫他开车来载，不然就减少购物的次数。”
郑力生（28岁， 活动策划与行销人员）
“起价起得太离谱了，不大合理。现在我一个月可能搭两三次德士，以后应该会更少搭了，会改搭巴士或地铁。如果是因为公事要搭德士，公司会津贴，所以还好，不会有影响。”
洪梁评 （40岁，售货员）
“大家都是因为赶时间才搭德士，虽然车资起价，但真的赶时间还是需要搭德士啊。”
德士司机反应
吴克昌（一年半经验）
“调高车资，搭客就会减少，可是柴油费还是一直调高，那样不是更惨？最好就是公司调低车租，那样搭客也不会受影响……加那么多，这样普通人怎么坐？”
黄先生（两年经验）
“短期内收入还是会受影响的，但现在是圣诞期间，影响应该不会太大，因为人家如果买很多东西还是要搭德士，但是以后就不知道。”
● 李静仪 蔡慧玲
康福德高宣布调整德士车资结构，包括提高起程车资、车程距离及按时的收费，其他5家德士公司预料不久后会跟进。
经营约3000辆德士的SMRT告诉本报：“我们很快就会通知公共交通理事会有关调整车资的事宜。”
至于是否会“全盘照收”，SMRT发言人受询时，不愿具体透露车资调整的细节。
康福德高上一次调高德士起程车资是在去年7月，当时是从2元4角上调一角，也是过去12年来起程车资首次调高。
其他业者昨天受访时则异口同声地表示，新车资结构“太过复杂”，需时间仔细研究后才决定是否会进行同样的调整。
经营2200多辆德士的Premier公司执行董事林崇武认为，在某种程度上，调高市区附加费将有助于舒缓市区里德士短缺的问题，但或许没办法根除这个问题，因为需求远超出供应。
他说：“我们还在消化资料，还没决定是否要完全照跟，新结构很复杂，特别是把繁忙时段收费改为计程表车资35%的做法，担心会让乘客更为混淆。”
约有800辆车队的胜达（Smart）昨天接到消息后，就第一时间联络计程表供应商，以了解公司采用的系统能否根据康福德高提出的35%繁忙时段收费进行调整。
胜达董事总经理陶仰潜告诉本报：“初步来看，大部分调整包括起程车资、市区附加费和繁忙时段收费，我们应该会照跟，不过还需要多一两天研究才能做最后决定。”
经营2000多辆德士的得运（Trans-cab）合伙人吴绍财则担心，3元的市区附加费可能过高，会影响乘客对德士的需求。
他说：“我们会先跟司机们商量才决定，应该会在一个星期内有答案。”
刚于三个月前开业的百胜德士（Prime)是唯一表示“三个月内”不会调高起程车资的公司。
但它会跟着调高市区附加费和调低繁忙时段的电召费。至于是否会调整车程距离收费和繁忙时段收费，则要先看市场的反应。
百胜老板梁南兴说：“我们没有一定要马上调整车资结构的压力，因为公司的车租是最便宜的，使用的燃料是天然气而非柴油，成本比柴油低一半。”
代表六大德士公司（康福、城市、SMRT、胜达、Premier和得运）的德士师傅协会认为，康福德高的新车资调整公平而且正适其时，它呼吁“其他德士公司尽快跟进”。
政府国会交通委员会副主席王建明则担心，新车资结构太过复杂，让乘客更为混乱，最终弄不清楚自己到底需付多少钱，尤其是外国游客。
他也担心，午夜附加费停止采用递增式的计算方式后，德士在市区外“躲起来”等午夜时分来临的问题会更加严重。
近日在报章发表言论分析德士问题的国大地理系研究员韩松光（26岁）也认为，新调整使原本已够复杂的车资结构变得更难以接受。
他认为，这个配套长期对司机最有利。“短期内或许能有效解决德士供不应求问题，那些不怎么需要搭德士的人可能会转搭巴士或地铁，但我认为，长期的效用或许不大，因为人们已习惯把德士当成公共交通工具，不久就会习惯了新的收费。”
公众：太贵了，难接受
司机：短期内搭客会减少
受访德士司机表示，长远来说，车资调高预料有助减轻柴油价格上升带给他们的压力，但短时间内预计也会导致搭客减少，拉长补短，调高车资短期内或许无法提高他们的收入。
另一方面，公众在得知康福德高德士车资起价的幅度时都感到意外，表示“没有想到会起那么多”。
大多受访公众对起价幅度都表示不能接受，并表示日后会尽量以公共交通取代德士。不过，也有公众表示，如果赶时间还是得搭德士。
会计师林沛珊（25岁）很多时候得工作到晚上10时或11点时，经常搭德士回家，每个月的德士费可达300元。当她听到德士费的各种调整时，惊讶地说：“我原本以为只是（起程车资）起到2元8角而已，但是现在起这么多。偶尔可以跟公司索取津贴还好，没有津贴就得自己出钱，所以当然会受（起价）影响。”
活动策划与行销人员郑力生（28岁）的情况好一些，虽然因为工作常得跑外勤，但需要搭德士时，公司都会补贴车费。至于他私下自己搭德士的次数会不会受车资调高的影响，他说：“以后应该会更少搭了，会改搭巴士或地铁。”
但是也有公众表示，如果真的需要搭德士，还是没有办法避免的。
“圣诞节期间调高车资 可缓冲搭客流失量”
公众的这些反应正是德士司机所担忧的，但司机表示，公司选在圣诞节期间调高车资，相信可以缓冲搭客的流失量。
开德士一年的林圣发就对车资上调表示支持。
他认为物价上涨是必然的趋势，因此他并不太担心客人会减少，因为以往的经验显示，搭客量下跌只是短期的现象。不过，他也说：“希望下次不要起那么多了。”
看到康福德高的德士司机就快可以收取更高的车资，驾SMRT德士的吴克昌并不感羡慕，也不会期盼SMRT公司跟风，调高车资。
他认为，一次过把车资调得这么高一定会让搭客却步，如果起价的幅度不足以弥补搭客的减少幅度，那德士司机将得不偿失。
至于康福德高公司给予空车进入市区后，在15分钟内无法载到搭客的司机公路电子收费（ERP)回扣，以及提高市区附加费，受访司机表示不会因此而空车进入市区。
他们说，如果沿路有客人就会载，不会特意进入市区。而且，他们不清楚索取回扣的程序，如果程序繁琐，将是一个阻力。
公众反应
林沛珊 （25岁，会计师）
“我的工作地点刚好在市区外，但市区的附加费调整就对在市区里面工作的人很不公平。这样谁还要搭德士，而且市区里面的德士本来就很难等。”
陈太太（家庭主妇，育有一对两岁和4岁的孩子）
“起价不太合理，有时候（繁忙时间）要带孩子看医生或逛街，等德士又等不到，可是电召德士，德士就来了，所以有点不明白为什么会这样……以后会跟老公商量叫他开车来载，不然就减少购物的次数。”
郑力生（28岁， 活动策划与行销人员）
“起价起得太离谱了，不大合理。现在我一个月可能搭两三次德士，以后应该会更少搭了，会改搭巴士或地铁。如果是因为公事要搭德士，公司会津贴，所以还好，不会有影响。”
洪梁评 （40岁，售货员）
“大家都是因为赶时间才搭德士，虽然车资起价，但真的赶时间还是需要搭德士啊。”
德士司机反应
吴克昌（一年半经验）
“调高车资，搭客就会减少，可是柴油费还是一直调高，那样不是更惨？最好就是公司调低车租，那样搭客也不会受影响……加那么多，这样普通人怎么坐？”
黄先生（两年经验）
“短期内收入还是会受影响的，但现在是圣诞期间，影响应该不会太大，因为人家如果买很多东西还是要搭德士，但是以后就不知道。”
下星期一起 康福德高德士车资上调一至五成
早报 071211
● 李静仪
从下星期一起，康福德高的德士车资将调高，繁忙时段的新收费最高可上调至49%，非繁忙时段大部分收费将上调10%，预料其他业者不久也会跟进。
为更好地平衡不同时段的德士供求，市场老大康福德高昨天宣布彻底改革德士车资结构，新收费将从本月17日起生效。康福德高拥有1万5000辆德士，占全岛德士总数的约七成。
除了如较早前市场所传言般调高起程车资3角外，它也将大幅度调高市区附加费，以及调整午夜附加费和繁忙时段收费的计算方法。
市区附加费 从1元涨至3元
自1995年推出的市区附加费将从现有的1元涨至3元，实施时段也将延长，从星期一至星期六，下午5时到午夜时分才结束。目前是星期一至星期四，下午5时至8时；星期五和星期六，下午5时至晚上11时30分。
市区附加费过去12年来只调高过一次，在1999年11月，从原先的5角增至1元。
它指出，调高市区附加费是为了鼓励德士司机在繁忙时段进入市区接载乘客，解决长期以来晚上市区德士短缺问题。
目前许多德士司机不愿自付公路电子收费（ERP），空车进入商业区接载乘客。康福德高因此将为所有空车进入市区，但无法在15分钟内载到客的司机，提供ERP回扣。
它表示，将同陆路交通管理局紧密合作，解决因市区附加费调高后，司机可能拒绝在市区外围德士站接载乘客的问题。
对于市区附加费激增两倍是否会影响需求的问题，集团联络总监陈爱玲说：“德士是优质服务，新的车资调整预料将促使需求下降，但这未必是坏事，因为它将确保供求取得更好的平衡。”
此外，在两年半前改为递增式收费的午夜附加费，将恢复以往的计算方式，从午夜12时起至清晨6时之前的收费，一律为计程表总车资的50%。
目前采用的是分段收费制，从晚上11时30分到隔天凌晨12时59分，分三个阶段从计程表收费的10%逐步增至35%，凌晨1时之后增至50%。这是为配合市区附加费将延长到午夜12时的新调整。
过去，经常有乘客投诉接近午夜时分德士突然“消失”。康福德高相信，随着新增的3元市区附加费将一直实施到午夜12时，司机应该不会躲起来有钱不赚。
至于市区以外的地方，它认为，新调整不会导致问题恶化，“以往大部分德士‘消失’的问题都是发生在市区里，市区外向来有足够的供应应付需求”。
目前，上午和傍晚繁忙时段的附加费一律为2元。从下星期一起，康福德高将改用类似午夜附加费的算法，繁忙时段特收费（peak hour premium）将为计程表车资的35%。
这项繁忙时段特别收取的费用将自动算入计程表内，也就是说，以后繁忙时段收费将根据车程长短而定，车程越短收费越低。
起程车资方面，普通德士将从2元5角调高到2元8角，新的现代Sonata德士将从2元7角调高至3元，豪华马赛地德士将调高4角，至3元2角。
车程距离收费和按时收费也将调整，目前是首10公里，每210公尺收1角，超过10公里每175公尺收1角；以后改为首10公里每385公尺收2角，过后每330公尺收费2角。
此外，德士每等候45秒内将收费2角，现在是每等候25秒收1角。
唯一不起反降的是繁忙时段的电召费，将从目前的4元调低到3元5角。非繁忙时段的电召费保持不变，为2元5角。
“德士服务收费 应比巴士及地铁高”
康福德高指出：“车资结构的调整将提高本地的德士服务收费，让德士和其他无法提供点到点个人服务的巴士及地铁区分开来。”
按照新车资结构，在非繁忙时段，超过一半的乘客将需多付10%的车资，其余乘客的收费则预料将上涨18%至49%，视上车地点而定，收费最贵是平日晚上8时后，从市区搭德士。
比方说，如果在下午5时10分从乌节路搭德士到宏茂桥，全程9公里的车程将收费14元3角半，比目前的10元6角半贵了三成左右。
Cold comfort from fare rise
ST Dec 12, 2007
THE revised taxi fare structure decided by ComfortDelGro, as the largest operator, will set the template for an essential city service for at least a number of years. The test is whether the aggregate increase in charges, weighted in favour of trips from the city centre, will make the service more dependable all round. It may turn out that Comfort as the market leader has missed an opportunity to make a bold change to its fare structure that will deliver a service that is reliable and fuss-free for commuters, while also enabling cabbies to enjoy an income level commensurate with the labour and time expended.
The effect of the latest changes remains to be seen. This paper has advocated a big-bang approach by raising the flagdown rate steeply, to a range of between $7 and $10. The trade-off would be the abolition of call booking charges and all surcharges, except the airport charge. Metered charges would be up front and transparent, and cabbies will have no reason to go only where they wish. In our view, the proposed increases seem unlikely to make taxis more readily available. Neither would they dissuade cabbies from aberrant behaviour, such as refusing passengers and preferring to wait for prized call bookings. First, the 30-cent increase in the flagdown rate is too small, although the time- and distance-based extra charges are appropriate. Second, the new fare scheme retains not only the already complex array of surcharges but adds another layer of confusion with percentages of peak-period meter charges. Surcharges are the bane of commuters and taxi drivers. They leave riders flummoxed. Some mistakenly think they have been cheated. They are also the prime cause of abuse by some cabbies. The market will judge if the latest revisions to fares address these concerns. The Land Transport Authority, which has a wider remit in promoting smooth- flowing traffic and encouraging the use of public transport, should conduct an independent evaluation after six months, to decide if the changes meet the needs of commuters, cabbies and taxi companies.
A commendable feature of Comfort's announcement is that it says it will not raise the hire rental for its self-employed cabbies or reduce the diesel subsidy. Disturbingly, it does not say for how long. This commitment should be honoured, and not just for a brief 'introductory' period. While commuters should bear some of the burden of rising fuel and operating costs, taxi operators can and should share the load too, and look for economies elsewhere, as all service providers facing competitive pressures are being pressed to do.
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
THE revised taxi fare structure decided by ComfortDelGro, as the largest operator, will set the template for an essential city service for at least a number of years. The test is whether the aggregate increase in charges, weighted in favour of trips from the city centre, will make the service more dependable all round. It may turn out that Comfort as the market leader has missed an opportunity to make a bold change to its fare structure that will deliver a service that is reliable and fuss-free for commuters, while also enabling cabbies to enjoy an income level commensurate with the labour and time expended.
The effect of the latest changes remains to be seen. This paper has advocated a big-bang approach by raising the flagdown rate steeply, to a range of between $7 and $10. The trade-off would be the abolition of call booking charges and all surcharges, except the airport charge. Metered charges would be up front and transparent, and cabbies will have no reason to go only where they wish. In our view, the proposed increases seem unlikely to make taxis more readily available. Neither would they dissuade cabbies from aberrant behaviour, such as refusing passengers and preferring to wait for prized call bookings. First, the 30-cent increase in the flagdown rate is too small, although the time- and distance-based extra charges are appropriate. Second, the new fare scheme retains not only the already complex array of surcharges but adds another layer of confusion with percentages of peak-period meter charges. Surcharges are the bane of commuters and taxi drivers. They leave riders flummoxed. Some mistakenly think they have been cheated. They are also the prime cause of abuse by some cabbies. The market will judge if the latest revisions to fares address these concerns. The Land Transport Authority, which has a wider remit in promoting smooth- flowing traffic and encouraging the use of public transport, should conduct an independent evaluation after six months, to decide if the changes meet the needs of commuters, cabbies and taxi companies.
A commendable feature of Comfort's announcement is that it says it will not raise the hire rental for its self-employed cabbies or reduce the diesel subsidy. Disturbingly, it does not say for how long. This commitment should be honoured, and not just for a brief 'introductory' period. While commuters should bear some of the burden of rising fuel and operating costs, taxi operators can and should share the load too, and look for economies elsewhere, as all service providers facing competitive pressures are being pressed to do.
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
Taxi fare increase will hurt the infirm badly
ST Dec 10, 2007
IT IS distressing to hear that taxi fares are increasing this month. It seems all expenses are increasing except our pay.
For one group of people, this increase in taxi fares will be hard for them to absorb. They are the people on wheelchairs and the sick who need to take taxis for their visits to hospitals.
For them, besides having to pay for their hefty medical expenses, they now have to find the money to pay for the additional transport expenses.
Despite all the talk about a buoyant economy, the ordinary people in the streets do not feel that their lives are any better than before.
William Tay Kay Chiak
IT IS distressing to hear that taxi fares are increasing this month. It seems all expenses are increasing except our pay.
For one group of people, this increase in taxi fares will be hard for them to absorb. They are the people on wheelchairs and the sick who need to take taxis for their visits to hospitals.
For them, besides having to pay for their hefty medical expenses, they now have to find the money to pay for the additional transport expenses.
Despite all the talk about a buoyant economy, the ordinary people in the streets do not feel that their lives are any better than before.
William Tay Kay Chiak
Why not start a cab-sharing scheme?
ST Dec 12, 2007
YOUR report, 'Cab surcharge raised to meet demand in the city' (ST, Dec 11), stated that taxi fares would cost between 18 and 49 per cent more from next week. A trip from the city to Ang Mo Kio during the evening peak hours will cost about $14.35 from $10.65 now.
This fare adjustment will not be the last one for the next few years to come. Sooner or later, we will see fare increases in other forms of transport.
A small country like Singapore should constantly think of how to make the best use of its limited resources. Taxis and roads are limited resources and we cannot keep on increasing them perpetually without incurring huge opportunity costs to our nation.
One way of making better use of our resources is to share them with our fellow citizens as much as we can. Cab-sharing may well be one of the examples.
Let us start such a scheme during peak hours in the city area and certain busy taxi stands outside the city. Let us assume that passengers who share cabs would have to pay only 60 per cent of the fare. Come next Monday, if we have such a scheme, a passenger would have to pay only $8.60 for a trip from the city to Ang Mo Kio instead of $14.35 during peak hours. The $8.60 he has to pay is 20 per cent cheaper than the current fare of $10.65.
Taxi drivers would earn $17.20 in one single trip, 20 per cent more than otherwise.
With such a scheme, a taxi can take one passenger heading for Ang Mo Kio and another heading for Yio Chu Kang, or even Yishun.
There will be many 'winners' in such a scheme.
The two obvious ones are the taxi commuters and the drivers.
The third winner, taxi companies, would not have to acquire more taxis just to cater for peak hours.
The fourth winner will be all road users in Singapore. There will be fewer taxis competing with them for road space.
The fifth winner will be our Government.
But the biggest winner of all will be our nation we call Singapore.
Ng Ya Ken
YOUR report, 'Cab surcharge raised to meet demand in the city' (ST, Dec 11), stated that taxi fares would cost between 18 and 49 per cent more from next week. A trip from the city to Ang Mo Kio during the evening peak hours will cost about $14.35 from $10.65 now.
This fare adjustment will not be the last one for the next few years to come. Sooner or later, we will see fare increases in other forms of transport.
A small country like Singapore should constantly think of how to make the best use of its limited resources. Taxis and roads are limited resources and we cannot keep on increasing them perpetually without incurring huge opportunity costs to our nation.
One way of making better use of our resources is to share them with our fellow citizens as much as we can. Cab-sharing may well be one of the examples.
Let us start such a scheme during peak hours in the city area and certain busy taxi stands outside the city. Let us assume that passengers who share cabs would have to pay only 60 per cent of the fare. Come next Monday, if we have such a scheme, a passenger would have to pay only $8.60 for a trip from the city to Ang Mo Kio instead of $14.35 during peak hours. The $8.60 he has to pay is 20 per cent cheaper than the current fare of $10.65.
Taxi drivers would earn $17.20 in one single trip, 20 per cent more than otherwise.
With such a scheme, a taxi can take one passenger heading for Ang Mo Kio and another heading for Yio Chu Kang, or even Yishun.
There will be many 'winners' in such a scheme.
The two obvious ones are the taxi commuters and the drivers.
The third winner, taxi companies, would not have to acquire more taxis just to cater for peak hours.
The fourth winner will be all road users in Singapore. There will be fewer taxis competing with them for road space.
The fifth winner will be our Government.
But the biggest winner of all will be our nation we call Singapore.
Ng Ya Ken
Think twice before boarding that taxi
ST Dec 12, 2007
WITH the latest announcement of revised taxi charges, it is high time commuters rely on the more efficient train network.
If you do need a taxi, my advice is to take a train out of the city and then board a taxi at one of the housing estates.
That way, you do not have to pay a multi-tier taxi fare.
Everyone cites increasing operating costs, but do the authorities know that the salary of the man in the street is not increasing at the same pace?
Following the revised charges, if I were to take a cab to Yishun from Raffles Place, I would have to pay the new metered fare and a host of surcharges.
Let's say the fare is $12. I would have to pay an extra $4.20 (35 per cent more for the peak-period surcharge), and $3 for the city-area surcharge, making a total of $19.20.
Then there is the Electronic Road Pricing charge, depending on the number of gantries you pass through.
So for those who work in the city area and need to travel a long distance to get home, it is time to think twice before boarding that taxi.
Chua Kim Choo
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
WITH the latest announcement of revised taxi charges, it is high time commuters rely on the more efficient train network.
If you do need a taxi, my advice is to take a train out of the city and then board a taxi at one of the housing estates.
That way, you do not have to pay a multi-tier taxi fare.
Everyone cites increasing operating costs, but do the authorities know that the salary of the man in the street is not increasing at the same pace?
Following the revised charges, if I were to take a cab to Yishun from Raffles Place, I would have to pay the new metered fare and a host of surcharges.
Let's say the fare is $12. I would have to pay an extra $4.20 (35 per cent more for the peak-period surcharge), and $3 for the city-area surcharge, making a total of $19.20.
Then there is the Electronic Road Pricing charge, depending on the number of gantries you pass through.
So for those who work in the city area and need to travel a long distance to get home, it is time to think twice before boarding that taxi.
Chua Kim Choo
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.
PROBLEMS MAY ARISE
ST 071212
PROBLEMS MAY ARISE
'It's a choice between $3 or nothing for drivers, so this will definitely influence their driving behaviour. We may head to more problems and complaints...' - MP ONG KIAN MIN, deputy chairman of the GPC for Transport
CALLING OVER WALKING
'I will be prepared to wait 10 minutes tops and if there is still no sign of a cab, I'll call one. I'm too lazy to walk into town.' - MARKETING MANAGER GARY LOH
New surcharge 'is fairer'
ST 071212
The complicated fare structure, unpopular with passengers and cabbies, appears to have become even harder to figure out. Why did ComfortDelGro say it had been simplified?
'Replacing the flat $2 surcharge for peak premiums with a tiered pricing is a fairer system. The $2 surcharge is imposed regardless of whether you are in the cab for one minute or for half an hour during peak periods.
'Under the new system, the more time you spend in our cab during peak hours, the more you pay.
'This is fair given the high demand for taxis during these periods. So, for example, if a commuter boards the taxi at 6.50am and alights at 7.05am, he pays extra only for the five minutes starting from 7am. This works out to just $1. If he boarded at 6.50am but alighted at 7.15am, then he pays for the 15 minutes worth of peak travel - during which time the taxi driver could have catered to another customer if it had been a shorter journey.'
But some would suggest that does not make it any easier to figure out how much you have to pay at the end of the trip. How do you respond to that?
'The breakdown will be clearly shown on the meters. So, for example, if a commuter is travelling during peak times, the 35 per cent premium will be shown clearly on the meter at the bottom right corner, like how the midnight surcharges are currently.
'Our meters are tamper-proof so there is little risk of miscalculation. All receipts will have detailed breakdowns and we strongly urge commuters to keep their receipts.'
The complicated fare structure, unpopular with passengers and cabbies, appears to have become even harder to figure out. Why did ComfortDelGro say it had been simplified?
'Replacing the flat $2 surcharge for peak premiums with a tiered pricing is a fairer system. The $2 surcharge is imposed regardless of whether you are in the cab for one minute or for half an hour during peak periods.
'Under the new system, the more time you spend in our cab during peak hours, the more you pay.
'This is fair given the high demand for taxis during these periods. So, for example, if a commuter boards the taxi at 6.50am and alights at 7.05am, he pays extra only for the five minutes starting from 7am. This works out to just $1. If he boarded at 6.50am but alighted at 7.15am, then he pays for the 15 minutes worth of peak travel - during which time the taxi driver could have catered to another customer if it had been a shorter journey.'
But some would suggest that does not make it any easier to figure out how much you have to pay at the end of the trip. How do you respond to that?
'The breakdown will be clearly shown on the meters. So, for example, if a commuter is travelling during peak times, the 35 per cent premium will be shown clearly on the meter at the bottom right corner, like how the midnight surcharges are currently.
'Our meters are tamper-proof so there is little risk of miscalculation. All receipts will have detailed breakdowns and we strongly urge commuters to keep their receipts.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)