In January, Transport Minister Raymond Lim announced a slew of measures to improve bus and rail services. Higher train frequencies, new service standards for buses and better travel information are some of the things already put in place - with the promise of more to come.

Last week, his ministry announced that a distance-based fare structure will be implemented from this year. First, it will remove part of the 'fare penalty' that commuters who make transfers suffer.

Currently, passengers who need to change buses, or change from bus to train or vice versa, have to pay the base fare each time they get on board.

Although they are granted a 25-cent 'fare rebate', it does not cover the base or starting fare of 60 cents or so.

In the new regime, commuters will be charged according to the distance of a journey, door to door, regardless of the number of transfers they require. It makes a lot of sense and will surely go down well with commuters, most of whom rely on public transport.

What is unlikely to go down well is the fact that commuters who make direct trips (that is, without transfers) could well end up paying more. If travelling patterns do not change, six in 10 commuters fall into this group.

The question is: Why should this be so? If the grand plan is to improve the travelling experience for commuters so that more people will switch to public transport, why do this?

As one Straits Times reader commented: 'It is just robbing Commuter A and giving to Commuter B.'

It would in essence dilute the sweetness of the distance-based fare structure.

Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport deputy chairman Ong Kian Min was quoted as saying in yesterday's Straits Times: 'This is not justified...Fares should be maintained for those taking direct services now. I would like to know why the operators cannot absorb the cost first and let the system settle down first.'

The ministry explained that doing away with the transfer 'penalty' had a 'cost burden' (chiefly in the form of lower takings for the transport operators).

The thinking is that this cost should be borne by both commuter and operator, as both sides will benefit from the fare restructuring. Commuters will have more travelling options (unhindered by the cost factor in making transfers), while operators are likely to see a rise in ridership as public transport becomes more attractive.

But from another viewpoint, this cost-sharing may be perceived as a polite way of saying the public needs to help mitigate the financial impact on operators.

SMRT Corp posted net earnings of $150 million for the year ended March 31, 2008, while SBS Transit made $50 million last year (its parent ComfortDelGro netted $223 million).

Even if we deem these figures as modest returns, ridership figures will grow exponentially in the coming years. This would give a significant boost to the operators' earnings.

In fact, daily rail and bus ridership hit a record 4.78 million in the first quarter, fuelled by a growing population as well as the higher costs of taking cabs and driving.

Now that the ministry is tilting the fare structure more in favour of commuters, why dampen the mood with changes that will penalise travellers who do not make transfers?

If the 'cost burden' has to be shared, perhaps the Government should shoulder part of it. It could start by exempting public buses from Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges and road taxes. SBS Transit and SMRT incur an estimated $12 million a year in such taxes. They are likely to pay more in the months to come as more ERP gantries have been set up.

Another sore point has to do with what the Transport Ministry calls 'premium fares' on the North-East MRT Line (NEL). Commuters who use this 20km line linking HarbourFront and Punggol pay five to 25 cents more for their rides.

Thus a commuter in Hougang will pay nearly $200 more a year than his cousin who lives in Bishan (the difference is derived by taking two trips a day and a 25-cent premium per 14km trip, which is the average distance travelled by train).

Again, why? The rationale given when the line opened in 2003, and which the authorities are sticking to, has to do with cost.

We were told it would cost $10 million or more a year to run the fully underground NEL than an equivalent above-ground line. Air-conditioning, screen doors, ventilation and lighting make it costlier. Hence the 'premium fares'.

But to the commuter, there is nothing premium about NEL services. Train doors take longer to open and close; the platform gap is much wider than those on other lines; and the frequency is far lower than trains run by SMRT.

Hence, this differential is an anomaly, a thorn in the side for commuters. Like the transfer penalty, it should be addressed. If not, commuters will have to brace themselves for 'premium fares' when future MRT projects like the Circle Line and Downtown Line - both fully underground - come on-stream.

christan@sph.com.sg