Is COE really "fair"?

[Cars08]

I never get personal as long as we have constructive discussion.

 

I can understand why you want to manage ownership in order to manager congestion. But ownership per se does not cause congestion. It is the USAGE of the car that causes congestion. A collector with 4 cars in his garage, everyday polish and admire does not contribute to congestion. So we need to manage the use of car by (1) increase cost of petrol (though this may only result in ppl making more trip to JB) (2) increase ERP duration and cost (3) increase parking cost in city area. This is not exhaustive. Just tip of my brain. I was in australia and i rented a car and found that the parking was like AUD$40 for 2 hours!! Anyway the above will make ppl think twice abt driving to town - if its just a simple dinner, not buying anything bulky, he may choose to take public transport rather than incur high parking fee. Also, ppl will plan their route more carefully so as not to waste fuel (i have seen ppl sleeping inside the car with engine running).

 

With regards to car ownership, I define them as follows:

 

1. Existing cars owners with few cars (one gp which you mentioned)

2. Existing cars owners waiting to replace their cars due to expiring COEs

3. Potential car owners hoping to secure a car - be it normal or OPC

 

When I target at curbing ownership, I am looking at Gps 2 and 3 as potential ones they could help free up the road in the short-run. For existing owners with expiring COEs, it will make them re-examine if they can do without a car and consider public tpt (hence impt to improve public tpt service). They will re-think the costs of owning one versus taking public tpt. Of course, you may say those who drive will not give up driving but if the cost is proven to be high, they may think otherwise and take public tpt.

 

For Gp 3, they are the eager ones and waiting for COEs to drop and buy a car. Having a higher discount will encourage them to consider OPC scheme and own a car which under the normal circumstance they will find it too expensive to own one. So keeping it at $17K and consider that it is not much given the high COE price at current, there will be some deterrent effect for this gp of buyers.

 

Increasing ERPs may not be an effective way instead preventing Gps 2 & 3 from coming in will curb the potential number of cars on the road and by reducing the quota more to push up pricing. This is one reason why I think we shld not make OPC cheaper as potentially they may add woes to the currently packed traffic be it on weekends or weekdays. Making public tpt run efficiently will be a better way to go... Perhaps bicycle could also be considered by having a dedicated lane...

[Xtremee]

I disagree with your statement, as i feel that Japan have been coping significantly well in the Global economic crisis.

In the world's economy there exist a Global triad which includes the Americans, Europeans and Japanese, whereby each region is highly depedent on each other.

It is really admirable how Japan manages to cope despite the fall in American and European economy.

ADDED that japan just faced one of the worst earthquake and nuclea meltdown in history.

[Jolie888]

For Gp 3, they are the eager ones and waiting for COEs to drop and buy a car. Having a higher discount will encourage them to consider OPC scheme and own a car which under the normal circumstance they will find it too expensive to own one. So keeping it at $17K and consider that it is not much given the high COE price at current, there will be some deterrent effect for this gp of buyers.

 

I disagree.

 

For many Gp 3 aspring owners (including real people that I know of), if COEs remain high, they will just go buy a normal plate used car.

Liddat they can continue to use their cars anytime, without any restriction and are cheaper than new cars somemore.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Jolie888

[Jolie888]

This is one reason why I think we shld not make OPC cheaper as potentially they may add woes to the currently packed traffic be it on weekends or weekdays.

 

What logic is that?

Why target only at OPC?

 

So you think normal plate cars will not add woes to the currenty packed traffice, be it weekends or weekdays?

But only OPCs will?

 

If one potential OPC owner does not bid for COE, that same COE available will go to a normal car bidder.

And the latter will use his normal car, weekday or weekend, to pack the traffic jams.

 

Ultimately its a zero-sum game on the total amount of COE released by LTA bi-weekly for bidding.

It does not matter to whom the COE goes to, be it OPC, or normal car.

The same number of new cars will be put on the roads each time!

[Cars08]

I disagree with your statement, as i feel that Japan have been coping significantly well in the Global economic crisis.

In the world's economy there exist a Global triad which includes the Americans, Europeans and Japanese, whereby each region is highly depedent on each other.

It is really admirable how Japan manages to cope despite the fall in American and European economy.

ADDED that japan just faced one of the worst earthquake and nuclea meltdown in history.

 

I do agree Japanese way of handling their internal affairs esp quakes and meltdown in a efficient manner admirable...like a soldier ant working hard every nite...it is also a fact that Jap's growth has stagnant for quite a while...nevertheless, Japan is still strong as of nw...but they will need to evolve...

[Curahee]

Lets wait for the usage base charging system to be implemented, its the fairest system. Use how much, charge how much. The problem now is not the ownership, its the usage. Spore car usage is as high as the American, we r juz a small island, how come usage so high? Coz we r very abusive when come to driving... Everyone wanna drive as much as possible to get maximum return on their expensive ride. If charge base on usage, ppl will feel the pinch and think twice before they start the engine to go anywhere they like, free up the space on the road for other more needy user.

[Xtremee]

yes i agree. maybe like a tax on the distance travelled should be the most appropriate!!!

[SLSAMG88]

Hmm sorry shall sidetrack to the topic of immigrants a bit.

 

I shall provide an example of Japan to you, even without significant "imports" they are still able to provide the economical growth and stability of the nation.

 

In my openion with the influx of all these forign talents would tend to result in price increase of commodities which in this situation CARS, however on the other hand due to cheaper salaries these forigners demand, the wage rise is minimal, as such making it more difficult for singaporeans to live in the country.

 

Cant imagine how would the situation would be like when i decide to purchace my first house or car

 

Da fug you talking about?

 

Japan's economy has stagnated for twenty years now.

 

Their population's reluctance to procreate and their lack of immigration policy is the direct cause of their downfall.

 

Commonly known, and I suspect, it is a model Singapore deliberately avoids.

[Cars08]

This is the direction they r moving forward...started in cabs...so maybe using it to test the ground n see what are the issues before implementing...nt easy to determine the amt to charge as...there r many car owners that jus need the car from pt A to B and back to A on a daily basis...I drive more on weekends than weekdays....ultimately..the car population on the road will still be an issue...even w distance based charging method.... the issue is nt abt how much distance u travel but rather, how many cars on the specific road at a particular hr.... fear is jam will affect economic growth... if traffic is smooth..traveling short distance will not deter ppl from driving..... distance based tax may nt work as well if car population on the road is not curbed, be it you call it usage or number of cars per hr per location...

 

[SLSAMG88]

I disagree with your statement, as i feel that Japan have been coping significantly well in the Global economic crisis.

In the world's economy there exist a Global triad which includes the Americans, Europeans and Japanese, whereby each region is highly depedent on each other.

It is really admirable how Japan manages to cope despite the fall in American and European economy.

ADDED that japan just faced one of the worst earthquake and nuclea meltdown in history.

 

You need to add more objectivity to back up your statements.

 

Here is a simple chart which compares Japanese recovery after the GFC compared with the rest of Asia.

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?d...en_US&dl=en

 

Japan is behind Cambodia FFS!

 

That "triad" you are talking about, that's China, not Japan.

[SLSAMG88]

The problem now is not the ownership, its the usage.

 

It's also the ownership.

 

Carparks are a waste of resources in any country, let alone one as small as ours.

 

Where do you leave your car when not in use? In your cupboard?

 

If every Singaporean owned a car, where would they park it? Our streets won't be clogged up people driving here and there, it will be clogged up by illegal parking!!!

[Curahee]

No i doesnt mean letting anyone own a car easily, i mean the usage base system should complement the COE system... two system work hand in hand for a better road traffic. Now they only know how to use COE to control ownership, usage also must control.

[Kar_lover]

It's also the ownership.

 

Carparks are a waste of resources in any country, let alone one as small as ours.

 

Where do you leave your car when not in use? In your cupboard?

 

If every Singaporean owned a car, where would they park it? Our streets won't be clogged up people driving here and there, it will be clogged up by illegal parking!!!

 

 

I did not say that ownership is not a problem. I merely said that road congestion is caused more by usage rather than ownership per se. Yes, high levels of ownership will of course lead to high levels of use. I mean, how many people will buy cars and not use it? Didn't i propose additonal premium for owners having a second car?

 

Let me cite you an example. Say Mr. A owns a car but don't drive it very often or drive it only at those non-jam areas or non-peak hours (maybe he works shift so he goes to work in the afternoon and comes home late at night). He is therefore not contributing to the morning/evening jams. Since COE (along with ERP) was mainly to reduce congestion, Mr. A is unfairly paying the same high COE as those who work normal jobs and directly contributing to the morning/evening jams. As such Mr. A is "subsidising" those who are contributing to the jams. Of course this is just one example. Another example would be a housewife whose kids study in a neighbourhood school so every morning she sends her kids to school without using the highway. Whereas another housewife send her school to those in the bt timah area hence uses the PIE and in particular the Stevens road exit which is always jammed. Both these housewives are paying the same COE although one contributes to jam and the other does not. The only extra the other housewife is paying is the measly ERP which is about $1.00 (depending on timing could even be $0.50).

 

Anyway my point is while i agree with COE as a means to control owenership and therfore congestion but the system has to be supplemented by a "usage control" measures such as those i mentioned earlier. Now COE is the primary tool (ERP remains relatively cheap compared to a $70k COE) which as illustrated above is not an equitable method.

 

 

[Blueblack]

Usage hours of OPC (without e-day license) is from 7pm to 7am. Hence those that you see in the 7-8am rush hour are either paying the e-day license fee or driving illegally. Neither situation justifies scrapping OPC.

 

Then how much should the fine for not displaying the card

[Richard_Peh]

Wow so many suggestion.....why don't we do this sure can control usage,carpark & ownship.

 

1) Usage - Put all highway exit ERP gantry and per exit $10.

2) Carpark - Parking per day $24. No more season parking.

3) Ownship - Same lah COE demand & supply.

 

Sure people will think twice buying car.

 

[JumpySpeedFiend]

Lets wait for the usage base charging system to be implemented, its the fairest system. Use how much, charge how much.

 

I believe the usage based charging system might replace ERP and road tax since it targets the cost for usage. COE however, is about entitlement to ownership. Hence I suspect it will remain.

[Grinch84]

Get it into your head that Singapore is for the rich and the rich only.

 

The rest of us are here to feed off the rich or serve the rich. Consequently policies are tuned to benefit the rich. Don't mention that you have a vote every 5 years. That is simply useless.

 

Threre is no way, you, the simple individual can influence or change the policies to benefit yourself. Everything is for done the rich aand rich only.

 

Soon you will find that cars in Singapore to be at least a 2000cc and when tied up with the new emmissions policy, only the super rich can afford. And after that only 3000cc will roams our roads coupled with policies that suck your monies. The trend is already here. Cars with 1000cc are no longer being bought, at least not in numbers.

 

But take heart. These rich buggers think the ggod times will last forever. Now that the middle income has left the rat race. But eventually the rich will have to compete amongst themselves and some of them will be poor again whenn the resources dwindle down.

 

So do the smart thing and move to where the resource are abundant and policies kinder to you.

 

Second that!!

 

 

again ,its all about the rich and famous and of course, money..

 

eventually, the world will come to an end whereby, everyone will be judged evenly regardless of whether ur a politician,king,president,rich,poor bla bla bla..

 

 

 

 

[SimonTan]

Everytime the MRT break down.

I feel the COE I paid is worth the value.