LTA to explore easing tight COE supply

[Blowndiffuser]

I don't think the COE's sole purpose is to control congestion. Rather its aim is to control car population which will indirectly control congestion. The ERP system is the one that is targeted at controlling congestion. Did you pass your A level economics? I know I did with a distinction. Lousy goods at high prices? You sure? Not necessarily true. This is probably the view you got from sitting at the coffee shop for too long. You might want to read your lecture book again.

 

Bro, I think you misunderstood what I meant. Of course COE is an indirect measure of controlling congestion, but that is its ultimate aim, right? That's why I was saying since ERP is a more direct way of controlling congestion, it's a more precise tool than the COE, and hence greater emphasis should be made on fine tuning the ERP system.

 

Also, of course few things are absolute, esp in economics. If you've followed the debate on public transport vis Spence (1975), and subsequently Basso et Jara Diaz vs Van Reeven, you'll see that while higher prices depend on demand characteristics, private transport operators tend to provide frequency of rides below the social optimum, unless they are allowed to charge sky-high prices. Yep, met these economists at a Kopitiam...

 

Anyway, no need to be so antagonistic, right? I'm displeased with local policies, not you. Plus, no need to flaunt your 'distinction' in A level economics

[Achee]

I think coe is a good system if managed properly. If the coe yoyo between 5k to 100k then it is definitely poorly managed. For example, controlling coe at 100,000 a year around 2009 and controlling at 25,000 now is really a poor management. Why such a big swing?

 

Back in 2008/ 2009 when COE was just a few thousands, many people bought cars not because they really needed one but they found that it was more affordable than taking taxis.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Achee

[Chrispie]

Time for erp to increase.. Lui respond, machiam make public happy.. Then more cars, more jam.. Implement more erp.. More revenue for 900mil mrt overhaul.. Just a lame conspiracy theory

 

 

IT IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS IF GOVT IS TO FINANCE THE MRT OVERHAUL!

 

SMRT is a private corporation. When they are making money, its released to the shareholders. And when its time to maintain the fleet and track, taxpayers to pay? what logic is that?!

[Chrispie]

i wonder why govt doesnt impose a levy on the ADDITIONAL cars a family/individual buys.. if they wanna cool property mkt by imposing additional stamp duties, then they can also try doing that for COE?

[Jolie888]

Ah boy,

Target was 0.5% p.a. growth, not 5%! If it was 5% the 39.9% will be shouting for joy!

 

Japanese cars cannot sell? Too bad, that's business and you have to continue to remain competitive with viable products. Mourn their demise? For what?

 

Jap car ADs just have to drop their high margins!

A Subaru BRZ at $190K when a Merc C180K could be had (past tense) for $150K?

 

In our example, 10,000 new cars will continue to be sold, keeping the car market here very much alive, together with the support industries. Yes, even cars lesser than 10 yrs old will need after market maintenance & support, especially after the warranty period. 10 years is a very long time, with a total support base of 100,000 cars on a moving-average basis. Why even worry about COE-cars (>10 yrs)?

 

COE prices going further north? It won't hurt a lot (yes, in the target 6.5m people, i do mean A LOT of very high networth) of people here, as they continue to buy and add/replace their cars. Those who feel the pinch are really the marginal owners that the govt had originally set out to weed away in the first place.

 

My dear, before they hit 5% growth the COE already $90+k .. If 0% or even negative growth as u mentioned earlier.. I can't imagine wat would be the COE price.

 

U also mentioned "The car dealers will all remain in business - only selling less per year." i think this may only sound right on luxury brand cos pple who can afford them wouldn't mind a 'little' increase in COE cos they are prepared to spend. However, it would rather be ridiculous to apply on japanese cars when the COE paper cos more than the value of the car. u think they can sustain over time? Put urself in their shoes, how to operate their business like that? Ever try walking into any Japanese car dealership nowadays? Quiet like library leh. Mazda is a good example, now acquire by another dealership already lo.

 

Also, if all cars on the road are new cars(cos nt worth it to renew COE) all car supported businesses will decline also mah.

 

I reckon u got ur point there but jus a little extreme ... Cheers :)

 

[Fastfive1]

Bro, I think you misunderstood what I meant. Of course COE is an indirect measure of controlling congestion, but that is its ultimate aim, right? That's why I was saying since ERP is a more direct way of controlling congestion, it's a more precise tool than the COE, and hence greater emphasis should be made on fine tuning the ERP system.

 

Also, of course few things are absolute, esp in economics. If you've followed the debate on public transport vis Spence (1975), and subsequently Basso et Jara Diaz vs Van Reeven, you'll see that while higher prices depend on demand characteristics, private transport operators tend to provide frequency of rides below the social optimum, unless they are allowed to charge sky-high prices. Yep, met these economists at a Kopitiam...

 

Anyway, no need to be so antagonistic, right? I'm displeased with local policies, not you. Plus, no need to flaunt your 'distinction' in A level economics

 

The reason why you feel the public transport system sucks and you're paying a high price for it is because of price discrimination. The reason why we adults are paying a higher price for transportation is so that we can, for a lack of a better word, "subsidize" students public transport fare. The reason for price discrimination is to make public transport affordable for students especially when most students have a lower purchasing power compared to us adults. Sure I may agree that public transport is sometimes rather unpredictable but to say that it is lousy is unfair. It does get us where we need to go just slower than private transport, though this may not always be the case. I took the bus from my house to my JC for 2 years and it was perfectly fine. Sure there were instances where the bus was late and i had to jump into a cab to get to school on time. But i would like to look at things this way, i can sleep on the bus, i can do some last minute work on the bus, i get to look at pretty girls on the bus.

 

I think that public transport is fine just the way it is. If you're sick of it, then perhaps you can drive or take a cab. There is a good reason why public transport is called public transport. It is meant for the masses to use. Besides if you do study economics, you would know that nationalizing public may actually breed more inefficiency.

 

To address your last point, you said any JC Economics student. However I feel that that is an unfair statement. There are lots of factors to consider before saying that everyone will agree that monopolies will provide "lousy goods at high prices". The thing about monopolies is that their output is large enough to reap cost savings through economies of scale enabling them to pass on these cost savings to consumers. I'm sure if you were to ask other bus operators with a very small fleet of vehicles to provide a similar service with similar service standards, they will charge a higher price due to a lack of economies of scale. As i mentioned earlier, the current public transport bus operators charge different prices to different groups of people making the bus service available to the working population and the non-working population. Students and the elderly are given concessions allowing them to pay a lower price for transportation because most of them are not working and have lower purchasing power. I am aware that there might be a lack of incentive for the public transport operators to improve (dynamic efficiency) but so far they have been finding ways to improve themselves. They decided to invest in eco buses, making these buses wheel chair accessible, etc. All these are improvements in service quality.

 

While you may be displeased with local policies, you need not make every JC economics student appear to be so narrow minded. I'm certainly not one of them.

[Jolie888]

Oh yah Ah Boy, one other thing:

The after-market workshops that support Jap-only brand cars today, will have to re-tool their workshops, re-skill their mechanics and value-add their knowledge base to maintain modern Euro engines.

 

There will continue to be a captive market for Merc, BMW, Audi, Volvo and VW that are still being sold by container loads each month.

 

With ingenuity and entrepreneurial positioning, the after-market companies will not go bust.

One reason being, conti cars are not as reliable. A workshop specializing in VW/Audi DSG-mechatronic and/or turbo engine repair / tuning will be kept busy 24/7, 365 days a year ... that I can assure you.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Jolie888

[Notxer]

Ah boy,

Target was 0.5% p.a. growth, not 5%! If it was 5% the 39.9% will be shouting for joy!

 

Japanese cars cannot sell? Too bad, that's business and you have to continue to remain competitive with viable products. Mourn their demise? For what?

 

Jap car ADs just have to drop their high margins!

A Subaru BRZ at $190K when a Merc C180K could be had (past tense) for $150K?

 

In our example, 10,000 new cars will continue to be sold, keeping the car market here very much alive, together with the support industries. Yes, even cars lesser than 10 yrs old will need after market maintenance & support, especially after the warranty period. 10 years is a very long time, with a total support base of 100,000 cars on a moving-average basis. Why even worry about COE-cars (>10 yrs)?

 

COE prices going further north? It won't hurt a lot (yes, in the target 6.5m people, i do mean A LOT of very high networth) of people here, as they continue to buy and add/replace their cars. Those who feel the pinch are really the marginal owners that the govt had originally set out to weed away in the first place.

 

Obviously neither u are in the car industry nor u are in the low-mid threshold income holder. Tats why u dun feel the pinch.

 

Why Japanese cars are more expensive than a entry level conti is becos of the rising yen and depreciating euro over these few years. There's nothing much the local dealers can do to remain competitive. Well, perhaps they can bring in more low cc car, below 1600cc, like Volkswagen.

 

Also seems like u are implying only the rich can afford a car lor. Pple who really need a car for family or wrk related will be cast out if they can't afford lo.

 

Of cos u are entitle ur opinion la.. But ur thinking is a little too optimistic over the current situation. What we are sharing now is only the short term effect n within the car industry. We have not touch on the long effect on the whole industry ie all other related industries. Yes, you think as long as there is a substantial number of cars circulating the market will be enough to keep businesses going. But I reckon in this dynamic market, chain reaction is bound to happen.

 

Lastly, jus to re-emphasize u may be right n I may be wrong or jus diff perspective that we are sharing. Peace n no hard feelings.

 

Ps pardon me for any spelling mistakes, damn diff to type using iPhone.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2012 by Notxer

[Jolie888]

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion too.

And I'm typing from an i-Phone too.

 

I am not in the car industry and will be indifferent if some of the Jap car ADs were to go out of business - save for the big three: Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infinity and Honda/Accura ... yes, just watch for the latter to come here, to fight with the luxury marques in our diminishing COE and high price market.

 

Then there will mainly be Merc, BMW, Audi, maybe Volvo/VW, Lexus, Infinity and Accura ... plus a few other top niche brands (e.g. Porsche) to fight the high COE stakes.

 

And yes, the end game is this: cars in Singapore will be reserved for the well-to-do, not necessarily only the rich, the high networth FTs (2m more of them are coming!) and rich PRs. Like it or not, you have to compete with these people for future COEs ... whether it's at 0.5%, or -1% p.a. growth.

 

That is the stark reality of Singapore's future, as we grow to 6.5m, but with our land size not growing by much.

 

And that goes for private property prices too!

Once you invite all these people here, they have to stay somewhere right? Not hotels, or HDB flats!

 

Obviously neither u are in the car industry nor u are in the low-mid threshold income holder. Tats why u dun feel the pinch.

 

Why Japanese cars are more expensive than a entry level conti is becos of the rising yen and depreciating euro over these few years. There's nothing much the local dealers can do to remain competitive. Well, perhaps they can bring in more low cc car, below 1600cc, like Volkswagen.

 

Also seems like u are implying only the rich can afford a car lor. Pple who really need a car for family or wrk related will be cast out if they can't afford lo.

 

Of cos u are entitle ur opinion la.. But ur thinking is a little too optimistic over the current situation. What we are sharing now is only the short term effect n within the car industry. We have not touch on the long effect on the whole industry ie all other related industries. Yes, you think as long as there is a substantial number of cars circulating the market will be enough to keep businesses going. But I reckon in this dynamic market, chain reaction is bound to happen.

 

Lastly, jus to re-emphasize u may be right n I may be wrong or jus diff perspective that we are sharing. Peace n no hard feelings.

 

Ps pardon me for any spelling mistakes, damn diff to type using iPhone.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Jolie888

[Warthog]

Keep the solutions simple. If LTA wants 900000 vehicles on the road with a 0.5% vehicle population growth, do not hope to achieve it overnight. Keep yearly adjustment cap to 10-20%, any shortfall or extras to carry over the following year. In this way, we can minimise the wild swings in COE prices. After achieving the desired outcome over a period of time, LTA can reduce to yearly adjustment cap to 5-10%. Hope some LTA officers can bring this suggestion up. Wild swings in COE prices hurts everbody - customers, dealers, agents, government votes and only benefits speculators.

[Blowndiffuser]

The reason why you feel the public transport system sucks and you're paying a high price for it is because of price discrimination. The reason why we adults are paying a higher price for transportation is so that we can, for a lack of a better word, "subsidize" students public transport fare. The reason for price discrimination is to make public transport affordable for students especially when most students have a lower purchasing power compared to us adults. Sure I may agree that public transport is sometimes rather unpredictable but to say that it is lousy is unfair. It does get us where we need to go just slower than private transport, though this may not always be the case. I took the bus from my house to my JC for 2 years and it was perfectly fine. Sure there were instances where the bus was late and i had to jump into a cab to get to school on time. But i would like to look at things this way, i can sleep on the bus, i can do some last minute work on the bus, i get to look at pretty girls on the bus.

 

I think that public transport is fine just the way it is. If you're sick of it, then perhaps you can drive or take a cab. There is a good reason why public transport is called public transport. It is meant for the masses to use. Besides if you do study economics, you would know that nationalizing public may actually breed more inefficiency.

 

To address your last point, you said any JC Economics student. However I feel that that is an unfair statement. There are lots of factors to consider before saying that everyone will agree that monopolies will provide "lousy goods at high prices". The thing about monopolies is that their output is large enough to reap cost savings through economies of scale enabling them to pass on these cost savings to consumers. I'm sure if you were to ask other bus operators with a very small fleet of vehicles to provide a similar service with similar service standards, they will charge a higher price due to a lack of economies of scale. As i mentioned earlier, the current public transport bus operators charge different prices to different groups of people making the bus service available to the working population and the non-working population. Students and the elderly are given concessions allowing them to pay a lower price for transportation because most of them are not working and have lower purchasing power. I am aware that there might be a lack of incentive for the public transport operators to improve (dynamic efficiency) but so far they have been finding ways to improve themselves. They decided to invest in eco buses, making these buses wheel chair accessible, etc. All these are improvements in service quality.

 

While you may be displeased with local policies, you need not make every JC economics student appear to be so narrow minded. I'm certainly not one of them.

 

Well my post was about the pros and cons about nationalizing the public transport system. I actually agree with most of your post. I think we can agree to disagree about whether nationalization is the most appropriate step from here.

 

As for JC economics students, perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best but it was not my intention to construe them in a bad light.

 

However, you really shouldn't make personal attacks - insinuating that others have never studied economics and are just some coffeeshop uncle spouting nonsense. In fact, a coffeeshop uncle who has been reading in detail economics papers may be more informed than students who accept what their textbooks say wholesale. If you have a disagreement, express it in a polite manner lah...

 

[Help1]

this is not the medicine to treat the root cause, is merely delay the treatment, eventually, ppl will got hit by the high COE. this is just a delay tactic by MOT and LTA just to pacify the ground complaints and to slow down the inflation otherwise the govt has to think of a rescue package for singaporeans to offset inflation etc etc....

[Fastfive1]

Well my post was about the pros and cons about nationalizing the public transport system. I actually agree with most of your post. I think we can agree to disagree about whether nationalization is the most appropriate step from here.

 

As for JC economics students, perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best but it was not my intention to construe them in a bad light.

 

However, you really shouldn't make personal attacks - insinuating that others have never studied economics and are just some coffeeshop uncle spouting nonsense. In fact, a coffeeshop uncle who has been reading in detail economics papers may be more informed than students who accept what their textbooks say wholesale. If you have a disagreement, express it in a polite manner lah...

 

I don't think it was pros and cons. From what i gather it's more about the cons of the current privatization of public transport and how nationalization might be the key to solving it. But let's leave it at that.

 

Well the thing is that your statement seemed to suggest that all JC economics students will tell you the same narrow minded thing. Clearly this is not the case. Furthermore as a JC economics student, I feel that that view is wrong because i did mention earlier that it depends on a number of factors.

[Roadie]

Any policy changes must take into account those who got their COE with the knowledge that COE supply would decrease. Those who got their COE earlier should not suffer loss just because those who have yet to get their ride start complaining

 

The frequent tinkering of policies are causing lots of unhappiness and uncertainty. I urge LTA and HDB especially to think more broadly and not just listen to those who makes the most noise.

 

You are probably one of those who bought a COE recently.

Tough luck...but I dont think you will get much support.

 

[Warthog]

You are probably one of those who bought a COE recently.

Tough luck...but I dont think you will get much support.

 

Totally agree. You make your decisions and abide by them. In life, regretting is the way of a sore loser. Just accept it, and move on.

[Wson]

If taxi Coe has it own category, I will be very happy if Im taxi companies,

Think about it, How many players are there completing in this categories?

 

If taxi go in to it's own category, they will par-kart and get $1 COE everytime.

 

If they go into current CATs, they will compete with consumers and push up price.

 

How about

1) taxis companies should not be allowed to bid at all

2) taxis should not be part of any COE quota

3) taxi COE prices just tag on to whatever the CAT-A or CAT-B price for that period based on car CC.

4) LTA can control number of taxis that each company can register per year to keep number of taxis on road in control.

 

Eg, if NTUC want buy 100 taxis this coming COE, they just register with LTA the 100 cars (eg 2000cc cars) but they don't need to bid, and then if in the end CAT-B = $100K, NTUC just pay LTA $10000K.

[Achee]

If taxi go in to it's own category, they will par-kart and get $1 COE everytime.

 

If they go into current CATs, they will compete with consumers and push up price.

 

How about

1) taxis companies should not be allowed to bid at all

2) taxis should not be part of any COE quota

3) taxi COE prices just tag on to whatever the CAT-A or CAT-B price for that period based on car CC.

4) LTA can control number of taxis that each company can register per year to keep number of taxis on road in control.

 

Eg, if NTUC want buy 100 taxis this coming COE, they just register with LTA the 100 cars (eg 2000cc cars) but they don't need to bid, and then if in the end CAT-B = $100K, NTUC just pay LTA $10000K.

 

There are several taxi companies in Singapore, namely Comfort, SMRT, Prime, Premier, Citycab etc. if all taxi companies want 100 taxis and dun mind to pay $100k, then LTA should give which taxi companies?

[Wson]

There are several taxi companies in Singapore, namely Comfort, SMRT, Prime, Premier, Citycab etc. if all taxi companies want 100 taxis and dun mind to pay $100k, then LTA should give which taxi companies?

 

4) LTA can control number of taxis that each company can register per year to keep number of taxis on road in control.

 

Also, the companies don't know how much they will need to pay, they are at mercy of us consumers, if we siao siao bid until Cat-B=$200K, that company must fork out $200K/car hor

Edited May 6, 2012 by Wson