mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2007-11-19 15:48:00 |
|
"Solutions" that come with a price
One cannot help but observe that our talented leaders often come up with solutions to our problems--at our expense. When we encounter frustrating traffic conditions, the solution is to implement ERP. And if that doesn't solve the problem, increase the number of ERP gantries together with the charges. Actually that still doesn't solve the problem. The number of vehicles on the roads will still be increasing. Even if you manage to ease massive jams at certain places, maybe youjust spreading the jam over a larger area of the slice of bread without ensuring that the bread is relatively jam-free. (Lame metaphor perhaps, but at least Molly doesn't charge you more for better metaphors.)
And if you have problems getting a cab during peak hours, the solution is to implement a peak-hour surcharge and to constantly stretch the definition "peak hour". Seven-thrity to nine. Seven to ten. Six to twelve. Six in the morning to twelve midnight. Peak hour, peak charges. Wee hours, peak charges too. And so? It's still difficult to get a cab during peak hours. It's even difficult to get through a line that allows you to book a cab (and, yes, that means you have to pay yet another surcharge). But that's a solution. And peak hour and booking surchrages went up last year. Why? I thought they were solutions to a problem and not meant to help taxi companies make more profit? The solution no longer works because people have become inured to paying the surcharges?
Well, never mind. Now Seng Han Thong is proposing yet another surcharge. The location surcharge...
Now, Molly doesn't really see how the excessive demands can result in soliciting and over-charging. If there is a huge demand (in fact, a demand that exceeds the supply), then there is no need for taxi drivers to solicit customers. And if there is an under-supply, taxi comapnies had better ensure that there is an adequate supply of taxis. Molly happens to be of the opinion that you should increase the supply to meet the demand (I don't know how that is going to be done, I have to admit). You don't decrease the demand to meet the supply. (That's what surcharges and other taxi price hike do to solve problems. They suppress the demand temporarily to deal with an undersupply.)
In any case, I can't see how excessive demand or undersupply should affect the behavior of taxi drivers if they simply pick up customers as they come along. Individual taxi drivers are not concerned about that kind of economics. The basic problem is still that of dishonesty or perhaps what drives them to dishonest behavior.
Seng also says:
If taxi drivers are tempted by the money to solicit customers or to impose dishonest pricing on unsuspecting passengers, an additional surcharge isn't going to stop them - because it's not going to be as lucrative.
"Allowing" taxis to charge a more affordable rate at HDB estates indeed. What do you mean by "allowing"? If I'm a taxi driver, why would I want to be "allowed" to charge a lower fare when I can earn a surcharge elsewhere?
One thing Seng has got right is perhaps the fact that taxi drivers are concerned about their operational costs. "He said taxi drivers' biggest concern was the rapidly rising operating costs, which had increased to some S$780 a month." (CNA)
But imposing a surcharge may not be a solution. If an additional surcharge causes a temporary drop in demand (as the drastic fare hike last year did), then taxi drivers may be further driven to make money through dishonest means.
Why are operational costs of cabbies "rapidly" rising? Are taxi companies squeezing a lot out of them to begin with? (This is not a rhetorical question.) And why should commuters be pay for a non-solution that may create other problems?
One cannot help but observe that our talented leaders often come up with solutions to our problems--at our expense. When we encounter frustrating traffic conditions, the solution is to implement ERP. And if that doesn't solve the problem, increase the number of ERP gantries together with the charges. Actually that still doesn't solve the problem. The number of vehicles on the roads will still be increasing. Even if you manage to ease massive jams at certain places, maybe youjust spreading the jam over a larger area of the slice of bread without ensuring that the bread is relatively jam-free. (Lame metaphor perhaps, but at least Molly doesn't charge you more for better metaphors.)
And if you have problems getting a cab during peak hours, the solution is to implement a peak-hour surcharge and to constantly stretch the definition "peak hour". Seven-thrity to nine. Seven to ten. Six to twelve. Six in the morning to twelve midnight. Peak hour, peak charges. Wee hours, peak charges too. And so? It's still difficult to get a cab during peak hours. It's even difficult to get through a line that allows you to book a cab (and, yes, that means you have to pay yet another surcharge). But that's a solution. And peak hour and booking surchrages went up last year. Why? I thought they were solutions to a problem and not meant to help taxi companies make more profit? The solution no longer works because people have become inured to paying the surcharges?
Well, never mind. Now Seng Han Thong is proposing yet another surcharge. The location surcharge...
MP Seng Han Thong has suggested an additional sum for busy places like clubs, pubs, hotels, shopping malls and Raffles Place.Additionally, Seng believes that "[t]axi companies need to impose surcharges at taxi stands in the CBD (central business district) and Orchard Road areas during peak hours, and at lobbies of hotels, major tourist attractions and nightspots."
The root cause of soliciting, refusing to pick up passengers and overcharging lay in the pricing mechanism, he said, and errant cabbies resorted to such behaviour because demand for taxis exceeded the supply at certain times and places. (CNA)
Now, Molly doesn't really see how the excessive demands can result in soliciting and over-charging. If there is a huge demand (in fact, a demand that exceeds the supply), then there is no need for taxi drivers to solicit customers. And if there is an under-supply, taxi comapnies had better ensure that there is an adequate supply of taxis. Molly happens to be of the opinion that you should increase the supply to meet the demand (I don't know how that is going to be done, I have to admit). You don't decrease the demand to meet the supply. (That's what surcharges and other taxi price hike do to solve problems. They suppress the demand temporarily to deal with an undersupply.)
In any case, I can't see how excessive demand or undersupply should affect the behavior of taxi drivers if they simply pick up customers as they come along. Individual taxi drivers are not concerned about that kind of economics. The basic problem is still that of dishonesty or perhaps what drives them to dishonest behavior.
Seng also says:
Only location surcharges can address the problem of balancing the demand and supply of taxi services at specific places and time, while allowing taxis to charge a more affordable rate at other places such as HDB estates and neighbourhood shopping malls.Oh wow. That's the only solution! Or is that the only solution you can think of? If you have a location surcharge, won't you simply be attracting taxi drivers to go to specific locations? Won't it aggravate the problem of errant taxi-drivers who "choose" passengers and perhaps allow them to do so legitimately to some extent? Won't it make it even more difficult for me to get a taxi when I'm at surcharge-free location? Mind you, at peak hours, it is already difficult for me to get a cab at these other locations. (Then what? I start complainng and you start the Unpopular Location Surcharge in future, just like how you set up more and more ERP gantries?)
If taxi drivers are tempted by the money to solicit customers or to impose dishonest pricing on unsuspecting passengers, an additional surcharge isn't going to stop them - because it's not going to be as lucrative.
"Allowing" taxis to charge a more affordable rate at HDB estates indeed. What do you mean by "allowing"? If I'm a taxi driver, why would I want to be "allowed" to charge a lower fare when I can earn a surcharge elsewhere?
One thing Seng has got right is perhaps the fact that taxi drivers are concerned about their operational costs. "He said taxi drivers' biggest concern was the rapidly rising operating costs, which had increased to some S$780 a month." (CNA)
But imposing a surcharge may not be a solution. If an additional surcharge causes a temporary drop in demand (as the drastic fare hike last year did), then taxi drivers may be further driven to make money through dishonest means.
Why are operational costs of cabbies "rapidly" rising? Are taxi companies squeezing a lot out of them to begin with? (This is not a rhetorical question.) And why should commuters be pay for a non-solution that may create other problems?
