4/17/2013
Can there be a better solution to the transportation problem?
The roads are congested, too many cars and too few roads. In order to ease the congestion, either the roads be increased or the number of cars decreased. All solutions lie in this two permutations. Car ownership, COE, ERP, ARF, parking, petrol taxes etc etc revolve around limiting usage or cars on the road. All the solutions implemented and suggested, including those of Prof Paul Barter, are workable for the same reason and logic. People who want to drive must pay for the convenience.
Is there any better way? No way. The only solution is to control the car population which is directly related to the population and size of the island. If the population continues to grow, 5.5m now and 6.9m in 2030, what would the situation be? It can only be worst. Car ownership and driving on the road is going to be more costly. This is guaranteed.
You need more space or lesser cars. If the population can be reduced to 4m, the strain on the roads will be lesser and the percentage of car owners versus the population can be higher. Bring down the population or increase land space and roads. There is no other solution other than increasing the cost of car ownership or usage. There is nothing clever about it. No matter how one tweaks the formula, it is still about paying and paying. The difference is who and how to pay.
In the 1980 and 1990 singapore is a nice place to be. Knn today everything has changed
ReplyDeleteWell, we pay millions of dollars to our talented Ministers....What is their idea or waiting for us to give them solutions...."What do you think"
ReplyDeleteWith 7 million here, no need to think what the future will be for car ownership
ReplyDeleteIf you embark on the way of usury, financializing the whole society, you would need ever ponzi population growth.
ReplyDeleteThe Sinitic culture and all Abrahamic religion curse money lenders for very good reasons. Lee Kuan Yew is part of banking interest.
The handsome man and woman of Shenton way is our curse. I do not see Singapore can escape population poniz without neutering a large part of banking sector.
I don't think the sg banking centre feeds on the local population. Many of the set up are regional in nature feeding on the Asian population. Sg market is too small to support such a large industry that support a large property sector
ReplyDelete"Can there be a better solution to the transportation problem?"
ReplyDeleteYES!
It starts with voting out the PAP government in GE 2016.
And bringing in new talent into the government of Singapore.
I don't think the sg banking centre feeds on the local population. Many of the set up are regional in nature feeding on the Asian population. Sg market is too small to support such a large industry that support a large property sector
ReplyDeleteBanking sector alone may not have cause population ponzi. Its banking + rentier landlord sector + central bank (mother of all bank ) + PAP.
Everyone savvy with finance would know that FED in log step with the entire world central banks is creating "wealth effect" to transfer $$$ to the rich.
And wealth effect is NOT possible with aging population. Wealth transfer to rich is not possible at our low fertility rate.
If you understand that, you will have no difficulty in understand why PAP persist on population ponzi.
Moreover, LKY is the front man of local banking interest, especially OCBC. While foreign banking interest may have a stake elsewhere using SG as a base, local banker has an interest to put Singaporeans on debt, milking us dry dry.
ReplyDeleteThis is how UOB and OCBC got all their capital to expand aggressively pversea.
They day we do not take up any debt, these bankers will go to the streets begging.
You need a carrot and stick to make things work better. All the paying like COE & other taxes are the stick, where's the carrot?
ReplyDeleteHow about having a very transparent model. Road Taxes are for maintaining the roads. Other vehicular taxes are collected, accounted and published yearly. These are to be given out to all Singaporean households who chose to forgo a car, as a transport subsidy. This will provide more incentives for households to give up car ownership.
Either which way you cut it, there'll always be heavy traffic in Singapore due to obvious factors. (i.e. sheer numbers and scarcity of space)
ReplyDeleteThe best which can be done is to manage the traffic, to reduce congestion; but you'll never get rid of congestion.
If you are going to have millions of people in a small island, then it's very likely that all useable space will be "busy".
Just accept it lah. Many more important things to worry about -- like which sister do you bang first...the older or younger one? Now's that's a real-world cmplex problem!
The price of parking is way under-priced. Parking charges should be at least be double what they are now and most people will leave their cars at home, and COE will come down.
ReplyDeleteMatilar, bang your younger sister first follow by older ones then your mother lor. Talk nonsense. Where got complication knn
ReplyDeleteVeritas, for the local banks, I agreed
ReplyDeleteIs there a better solution?
ReplyDeleteYes there is.
Make travels on public transports free.
Increase Road Tax 5 times for those owning non commercial vehicles and increase cab fares by a 100%.
@1209:
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. $100k for a COE, say $150k for a "nice" car, and the parking is only a few bucks?
Way out of proportion.
Check out one carpark in Sydney's CBD. At time of post 1 AUD = 1.28 SGD.
The Pan Pacific Perth charges $10 for half hour parking.
Get real Singapore! You are still too cheap! Don't believe? Check out parking charges in Hong Kong!
Matilar, we can hardly breath financially and u advocating higher parking? Does Perth charge 100 k Coe and basic jap compact car 150 k. Compare apple with apple lar if not net citizens will slice your balls off on May 1 lor unless u don't bother cause your two tiny already missing?
ReplyDelete>> 1225pm where is your heart?
ReplyDeleteIf parking fees go up, the rich business owners will pass the costs to the consumers and the very poor will eventually pay for it. The very poor already has to pay gst and coe and erp for buying very lousy made plain bread for survival using the very hard earned money from cleaning toilets and collecting cardboard boxes. When will people ever learn to stop voting for conyou party? It is heartbreaking.
Using pricing to control traffic congestion will only make the poor and vulnerable lives even more miserable. The only way is - to stop allowing private cars to be used at certain areas at certain timing. Just ban it like the chewing gum. Once using the car is restrictive, the urge of owning one will be less and the air will be cleaning and the congestion will cease. Money is not a way to solve this problem. Putting in a ban is.
ReplyDeleteThe above will also make businesses move out of concentrated zone to less congested areas where there is no car restriction. But the G will not implement cos they just want to make a lot of money and not aerious in solving any problems. They are evil, greedy and selfish .
ReplyDeleteTHis professor Barter is really very dumb. He does not understand how business works.
ReplyDelete>> 350pm
ReplyDeleteTHe congestion in CBD will really ease if the few big banks relocated to Lim CHu Kang.
@1255:
ReplyDelete>> Matilar, we can hardly breath financially and u advocating higher parking?
Just a reminder to you: I don't give a shit about how hard (you say) your life is. Just so you know, my life is pretty darn awesome. ;-)
>> Does Perth charge 100 k
Of course not. You can buy a good car for around $3-4k. Cars are so cheap, we virtually give them away to good friends and family who need them.
>> if not net citizens will slice your balls off on May 1
Oooooh...I'm so scared leh...ooooooh..
>> unless u don't bother cause your two tiny already missing?
Nope. I have 2, but please don't take my word. Instead, please ask your mum for confirmation: I came so hard in her mouth, my sperm came out of her nose!
Disgusting!
Just a tiny little suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI think it's 'fewer' cars instead of 'lesser'.
Thanks for sharing ur information..............
ReplyDeleteshuttle services