Thursday, September 4. 2008ERPTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
to be honest i think buses shldnt even have to pay ERP..
ERP is meant to be a usage-based taxation system to quantify the negative externalities imposed by traffic jams that would simply mean, a. users who cause traffic jams would pay the price of it (erp) b. since it now costs more to create traffic jams (drive your vehicle into town), less traffic jams would be created. let’s apply this logic to buses, a. do buses create traffic jams? b. do buses have a CHOICE to decide when they wanna go into town? point a is hardly a reality to be observed in the near future. as for point b, if they had a choice, buses (or bus companies) would have 2 options to follow, 1. pass on the costs to bus commuters in order to maintain (assuming) profits 2. lower the frequency of bus journeys into ERP areas during ERP hours obvious as it is to the discerning reader, point 1 is contradictory to erp’s purpose since it DOESNT HELP IN ANYWAY to reduce traffic jams point 2 will alleviate jams, but in the long run, it goes against the govt’s policy of switching to public transport so why are buses paying erp to begin with?
I, on the other hand, think that it is not particularly wrong for buses to pay for ERP. The point of the ERP is to reduce congestion. Buses take up far more space on the road compared to cars. If there was ONE person on the bus, the person would have to pay 4 dollars to pass through the gantry since he is taking up more space than a car. However, the thing is that there is more than 1 person in a bus. There are say 20 people in a bus. And if you divide 4 dollars by 20, you realise that you pay much less per person for a bus to pass through the ERP. As such it is actually still cheaper for each person to pass through the ERP when in a bus.
Considering the objective of the ERP to reduce congestion, it is unfair to allow buses to go through the ERP for free. It just doesn’t make sense because if there were less than twice the number of people in a bus compared to on a car, you SHOULD pay more than people taking car since you are now taking up more road space and transporting less people. Thus if you speak of efficiency, placing a 4 dollar charge on buses actually still promotes efficiency.
Hehe... my point is that the ERP’s objectives are flawed.
Reducing congestion is good. Reducing congestion, while getting more people through, is better. =)
“It just doesn’t make sense because if there were less than twice the number of people in a bus compared to on a car, you SHOULD pay more than people taking car since you are now taking up more road space and transporting less people.”
On what basis do you use 2 times for a bus compared to a car? Plus are there even cases where a bus carries only 1 or 2 people during ERP peak periods? I already established previously that the number of buses at any given one time in any particular location is controlled by timetables. Buses do not and will never have the independent freedom to decide when they want to make a journey.
are we referring to buses in general or merely Sbs? Don’t other buses exist on the roads?
|
MeGreetings to you, brain surgeon.
Hi there. Welcome to the mind of an INT{J,P}, CDIS. I hope you can find your way around without getting lost. The pensieve is messy to the untrained eye. That's life isn't it. The fun part of life is to untangle the mess you've gotten yourself into. Disclaimer ShoutboxBoycott
WishlistAmazon.com WishlistCalendar
QuicksearchTop Referrerssg.search.yahoo.com (2)
hk.search.yahoo.com (1) www.google.co.uk (1) Top Exitsen.wikipedia.org (155)
www.apple.com (18) www.todayonline.com (13) happycitizen.blogspot.com (12) www.mrbrown.com (12) iphoting.iphoting.com (9) blog.guykawasaki.com (7) video.google.com (7) www.channelnewsasia.com (7) www.engadget.com (7) TechnoratiMy del.icio.us
Google Reader43 ThingsLibraryThingLicenseAdSense |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||