LTA’s $556 million misstep: Approving an ERP 2.0 device that cannot meet minimum standards of heat tolerance

In a recent parliamentary session on Wednesday, Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat responded to growing concerns over the new On-Board Unit (OBU) for the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP 2.0) system, defending the device’s implementation and design.

His explanations, while intended to clarify, only deepened public scepticism about the Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) decision-making process.

The minister highlighted the design’s adaptation to Singapore’s harsh temperatures, citing that car footwells—where part of the OBU is to be installed—experience significantly cooler temperatures than dashboards, which can reach up to 52°C.

The separation of the OBU into three components was, according to Minister Chee, a necessary response to prevent overheating risks associated with a single-piece unit.

However, this decision comes at the cost of increased bulkiness and complexity, moving away from the more compact design of the previous generation’s IU system, which notably faced no such overheating issues.

What’s striking here is the evasion of a critical question posed by Mr Louis Chua, Workesr’ Party MP for Sengkang GRC.

Mr Chua asked whether the new OBU meets the Automotive Electronics Council’s AEC-Q100 standard, a benchmark for reliable operations under thermal stress in automotive environments.

The standard, which Mr Chua refers to, AEC-Q100, is a set of qualification test sequences for integrated circuits developed by the Automotive Electronics Council (AEC), an organization based in the USA that sets qualification standards for the supply of components in the automotive electronics industry. The minimum standard for the heat tolerance of the ambient operating temperature range is set from -40°C to +85°C.

Minister Chee circumvented this direct inquiry, offering assurances of various tests conducted by the LTA without confirming if the device actually meets the AECQ 100 standards. This non-answer was not only unsatisfactory but seemed to imply that the device might indeed fall short of this critical benchmark.

This situation prompts a larger question: How did the LTA approve a design that potentially does not meet established industry standards for heat tolerance?

Given the substantial S$556 million value of the tender awarded for developing the ERP 2.0 system, the apparent oversight is not just a minor error but a significant anomaly. This is especially concerning given that the previous generation’s device performed without these issues for over two decades.

Instead of asking the contractor to go back to the drawing board to address the defects, LTA took the stance of catering to the poor design and defending it despite the various complaints raised by members of the public.

We have previously noted that the design, at least since 2016, had been touted as a one-piece device mounted on the dashboard, with LTA’s former CEO promising a smartphone-sized device. It’s puzzling how this design disappeared into thin air.

The frustration of the community and the response from the ministry has opened a can of worms regarding procurement processes and product acceptance standards within the LTA.

With Singaporeans facing the inconvenience of a bulky and potentially underperforming OBU, one must question the due diligence conducted during the tender and development phases. Let’s also not forget the years of delay from its initial rollout date of 2020.

As much as the government led by the People’s Action Party prides itself on financial prudence and operational efficiency, this episode seems to reflect a departure from those principles. The situation not only challenges the integrity of the ERP 2.0 project but also calls into question the overall governance and oversight mechanisms within Singapore’s transport infrastructure management.

It would be perhaps prudent for an independent review or investigation to be initiated, examining the entire process from tender award to product approval.

Such an investigation should aim to ensure transparency and accountability, prevent future lapses, and restore public confidence in the management of national infrastructure projects.