My View on Distance Fares

I read with interest the recent reports on distance fares. As an ordinary public transport user, I would like to share my views as follows.....

Distance fares remove the common overheads in each fare charge  incurred in the same trip and therefore facilitate transfers that might help to save travel time and reduce hassle. Distance fares complement the hub-and-spoke model which our public transport system is being based on.

With distance fares, there are instances when my journey costs more but overall, I feel that I have benefited. For example, to get to NUS, I used to take bus services 30, 51 or 143 from my house and alight at the bus-stop (number 16089) after Clementi Road. Then I had to walk about 200m to Kent Ridge terminal to enter NUS compound. With the introduction of distance fares, I realise it would not cost me more if I were to alight along my journey and transfer to bus service 189, which would bring me to Kent Ridge terminal directly. That would shave 5 minutes off my total travel time and save 19 cents per trip under the previous fare system, besides removing the need to walk 200m under the hot sun.   

I also feel equipped to make informed decisions and reap the benefits of distance fares with the online fare calculator, my favourite IRIS (Intelligent Route Information System, which is supposed to facilitate planning of bus travel and hence avoid “unnecessary wait at the bus stops, though I’m concerned with the inaccuracies that surfaced recently) and the digital bus arrival time boards at crowded bus-stops. I look forward to greater saving in travel time and expenses.

That said, the communications could have been better. That could have been more examples given to explain why fares for some commuters would increase as a result, than an over emphasis of the benefits of the distance fares. After all, unlike the complex subway systems in countries like Japan and France, our current transport system does not allow that many transfer opportunities that will enable a high percentage of commuters to reap the benefits immediately. The 3% fare rebate for travel on MRTs and buses, which ended on 3 July 2010, had probably contributed to more commuters having the perception of an increase in fares.  The timing could have be better managed.

Lastly, the inclusion of time factor for fare charges in the Circle Line (Circle Line fare anomalies) further complicates the distance-based principle. Was that necessary? With its revelation, one wonders if there are other hidden principles in the fare charges that the public are yet to be informed of. 

WRITTEN BY KHOO CHOON YEN