Why COE system is outdated??

[2012]

Agree. +1

 

ERP will not reduce the number of cars on the roads.

It will just spread the same mad number of cars wider, circulating across all arterial roads ... toward those w/o ERP gantries.

ERP will only just keep more cars on the roads, longer. Pure stoopidity IMHO!

Impact on economic efficiency, GHG emission and costly fuel consumption.

 

In addition, having to put more metal on the ground with costly electronic sensors ... will just be a waste of tax payers' money!

 

The LTA would still favor the COE knob.

Revenue-generating and yet has the ability to 'disappear' cars from our roads when needed!

 

ERP makes me reduce the frequency or alter the time in the days i use my cars

(my personal experience)

Edited August 2, 2012 by 2012

[2012]

I support scrapping COE as it is an outdated model. Instead, ERP should be constructed in all major roads on this island. ERP should starts from $10 as long as rolling 3 mths average speed drop more than 10km/h of legal speed. It will help to control traffic but ppl aspiration to own car. No car park? That's each & every individual problem.

Yes, limited road space calls for regulated use of it through ERP. Parking charges will take care of limited parking space. These two will serve to manage use of road space n parking facilities. COE is reduntant. People can put their money (currently spent on buying COEs) into better use eg investments, savings, etc etc.

[CH_CO]

Personally , i disagree , i do find COE very effective in curbing the car population and in turn , reduce car emissions by reducing the car population. I am pretty sure once the COE system is removed , ERP would be so expensive that people will start to whine as jam due to the higher numbers of car on the road. How much car emissions would that generate?

 

Yes , people might find it a waste for paying COE , but if one can't afford even the basic COE , why bother to drive? What is the difference between , having a higher COE and ERP everywhere? To me it is the same , if i intend to drive i intend to pay for comfort , similar to how one decides on how "big" his house or how one chooses a smaller condo in town if i work in town as compared to a much larger HDB in the outskirts. Reasons due to lesser time spent travel = more time for other stuff(personal comfort).

 

To me i will comment based on the first post on the points

 

1.Favors the wealthy - To me , wealth is created , even if all start from the same starting line, the wealthy will still remain wealthy after some time. It will always be the losers which whine.

 

2. No segregation of user groups - To me , it is just fine , it is segregation alright but not to some people's favor. It is called segregation between the ones able to afford and the ones barely making it. To me , it is always the ones which can afford would be paying more for their higher CC cars. So what is the problem ? Another example of sour grapes?

 

3. This one i cannot comment as i do not know where the money goes to.

 

4.May lead to bad driving behavior - This i beg to differ , the ones that are typically the bad drivers are the ones driving budget cars . Once these people are removed , lesser cars on the road , chances are the one being able to afford the cars on the road are more "educated" and "civil" ones , of course at times there are still bad eggs that are rich , but the lesser cars there are on the road , the more road for u to move out of their way.

 

5. Drastic changes in COE prices every fortnight cause instability - Huh ? What instability? You change cars like u eat ? Food prices might affect stability but car prices?? I seriously not sure what is this doing here.

 

6) No vintage car scene in Singapore - Huh vintage car? Won't that create more car emission and slower car speeds? For those driving vintage/sports car , if want to keep the car just buy it under red plate. What is the problem ?

 

To me , got time to waste to post multi post here no time to try to think of ways to make money to cover that difference in COE only to complain it is not fair, there is not much i can say about those people. Not happy , join politics and rough it out with them. Complain here got use meh?

Edited August 2, 2012 by CH_CO

[Timbuktu]

Personally , i disagree , i do find COE very effective in curbing the car population and in turn , reduce car emissions by reducing the car population. I am pretty sure once the COE system is removed , ERP would be so expensive that people will start to whine as jam due to the higher numbers of car on the road. How much car emissions would that generate?

 

Yes , people might find it a waste for paying COE , but if one can't afford even the basic COE , why bother to drive? What is the difference between , having a higher COE and ERP everywhere? To me it is the same , if i intend to drive i intend to pay for comfort , similar to how one decides on how "big" his house or how one chooses a smaller condo in town if i work in town as compared to a much larger HDB in the outskirts. Reasons due to lesser time spent travel = more time for other stuff(personal comfort).

+1

Very well put.

Exactly my sentiments for COE and against ERP, point for point.

 

COE = controls ownership and car population most effectively.

Improves transport, logistical, commercial and economic efficiencies.

Avoid costs (tax payers', our money really) to build more expensive gantries and car parks.

Favors the asthetics - avoiding social eyesores like tailing traffic jams, steel jungle of gantries and even-taller MSCPs.

Reduces total emissions and fuel consumption.

Keeps SGD circulating within SG.

 

ERP = no control of ownership and car population.

More cars imported - Net SGD outflow worsens ... that's bad

Retains more cars circulating on the roads, longer.

Inefficiencies will hurt the country commercially and economically.

Tax payers' monies used to erect more gantries and bulid more/taller MSCPs - again even more SGD outflow.

Turns Singapore into an ugly steel-gantry jungle with bad traffic jams snaking along all peripheral roads not 'monitored' by gantries.

With more cars on the roads longer, total emissions and fuel consumption worsens.

Again, fuel consumption goes up, SGD outflow worsens.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Timbuktu

[Timbuktu]

No car park? That's each & every individual problem.

Actually this will still favor the rich.

Landed homes which can park more than 2-3 cars within the compound, under car porches, or in garages, yet with free roadside parking in front of the gate/house somemore.

 

Condo dwellers will be restricted by MCST rules.

The newer ones are usually 1:1 allocated.

Or 'extra' slots need to be regularly balloted.

 

HDB will see fist fights when more people rush to buy season parking, already sucked dry.

 

I would like to see the fun and chaos, if that happens!

 

 

[Timbuktu]

1.Favors the wealthy - To me , wealth is created , even if all start from the same starting line, the wealthy will still remain wealthy after some time. It will always be the losers which whine.

Exactly.

 

[Timbuktu]

2. No segregation of user groups - To me , it is just fine , it is segregation alright but not to some people's favor. It is called segregation between the ones able to afford and the ones barely making it. To me , it is always the ones which can afford would be paying more for their higher CC cars. So what is the problem ? Another example of sour grapes?

The sour grapes and whiners are either the marginalized, who want rhe govt to bend rules to disallow the rich to own more than one car - so that they can get their car on the cheap, ..... or opposition supporters whose only agenda is to make a big fuss on any new govt policy.

Stir sh!t in MCF, spoken another way.

 

Most things in life is segregated by affordability.

You want a better cut of beef, better-tasting fish, drum stick chicken rice, more hum or add egg ... you just pay for more!

Want True Religion and not Denizen, or Giordano? Pay more.

Prada or Tods, not Bata? Pay more.

Condo, not HDB? Pay more.

Landed, not condo? Pay more.

D.9/10 address? Pay more.

 

Want car, but don't want to pay more?

How can?

Take public transport can?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Timbuktu

[Tigershark1976]

If traffic shift to another road, then put a gantry there and ewverywhere.

 

You're totally wrong to say my intent is becqause I won't be affected. Oh please. Everybody will be affected, including the rich. If I have to, I'll just walk. I have a choice not to drive.

 

Your problem is that you're mixing a simple technical problem with a political solution. Nothing ever gets done that way. Set an objective, craft the soultion and be damned roll out the pain.

 

Any other way, is politics.

 

 

You cant really blame Expertz on how he see things... Like my earlier reply to you (post 87), what you think its right, could wrong for others. What you think its workable, mght be a disaster for the rest. So who should the Gov listen to??? Like I said, no matter what they do, someone will be unhappy.

 

[Tigershark1976]

The sour grapes and whiners are either the marginalized, who want rhe govt to bend rules to disallow the rich to own more than one car - so that they can get their car on the cheap, ..... or opposition supporters whose only agenda is to make a big fuss on any new govt policy.

Stir sh!t in MCF, spoken another way.

 

Most things in life is segregated by affordability.

You want a better cut of beef, better-tasting fish, drum stick chicken rice, more hum or add egg ... you just pay for more!

Want True Religion and not Denizen, or Giordano? Pay more.

Prada or Tods, not Bata? Pay more.

Condo, not HDB? Pay more.

Landed, not condo? Pay more.

D.9/10 address? Pay more.

 

Want car, but don't want to pay more?

How can?

Take public transport can?

 

 

FULLY AGREE! this is 1 of a more reasonable post I have seen so far....

 

Many complain for the sake of their own benefits, and when challenged, they will tell you that its not for their self advantage. Its all about fairness....

And talking about fairness... if a beggar on the street also complain why cant he afford a car, the gov also have to entertaint?

 

Sometimes, I really feels that some singaporean had gone a bit too far... Always use their vote to threathen.... I sincerely hope that these plp can just wake up their mind.... What more??? work harder, and earn more.... instead of wasting time kpkb and wait for miracle...

[Kar_lover]

my suggestion is no different from the current system but it'll allow banks to charge more than 10% interest when people decide to borrow $$ to pay off road tax. this money will then be recycled into the economy and will benefit everybody

 

also 60k is just an indicator price. govt can always take the average price of COE over the past 10 years and add in 1% increase every year. the end result is the same as the current COE system. cars will not be any cheaper but there will be added benefits as i've stated.

 

of course if you are rich enough to afford to pay 10k per year on roadtax then naturally you'll be happier to pay 80k to buy a COE under the current system

 

I don't think banks will charge 10% for loans for road tax. Interest rates are not arbitrarily decided by them. There is some basis of calculation based on central bank rates, etc (i don't know the details) which has other economic implication on the economy (fiscal policies). Even at current times when demand for property loans are so high, yet interest rates for property loans are very much lower than say 10 years ago. If interest rates could be controlled to achieve govt's agenda, wouldn't the govt have simply increased the interest rates for private property, eg. first private property enjoy market rate interest, second property add 5% to the market rate, third property add 10%. This would make having multiple condos as investment less viable.

 

Yep, I know that $60k is just an indicative figure. Even with the addition of 1% every year, it is still vague. Vague because at any given road tax figure, say $70k or $80k or whatever, we don't really know how many new cars will be added on the roads. The COE on the other hand is a fixed quantity. 500 COEs means 500 new cars (a large portion of which comes from deregistered cars elsewhere). And the net additional new cars is only the allowed growth figure which is 1% next month and 0.5% from Feb onwards. With thie COE system, govt can later on go for negative growth. There is a CERTAINTY by using COEs.

 

Also, following the road tax system, everyone can keep changing cars as long as they can keep paying the road tax (bearing in mind the initial purchase price of cars without COEs will cost much much less, eg. a $100k korean car will only be about $40k without COE). Someone can buy a new car every year (he is still paying the same high road tax plus whatever 1% increment) and his previous cars will go to the used market for sale (if he can't afford to pay high road tax for 2 or more cars). The problem is those used cars are still "in the system". And can remain in the system for a long time (not much impetus to scrap cos no COE to recover). With affluent Singapore, there could then be many used cars in the market that remain in the system. This will depress the used car market and prices of used cars will plummet allowing "marginal owners" who under the current system cannot secure $100k loan to buy the korean car as mentioned earlier but will be able to secure a long term $40k loan for the car and a short term of say $20k (2 years x $10k) loan for the road tax. His total loan is only $60k. So in other words, new cars can keep entering the market without the old cars leaving while the "old cars" are picked up by marginal buyers. The overall population of cars cannot be controlled.

 

Whereas with COE system where there is a fixed quantity, if ppl don't scrap their car and the car remains in the system, then there will be no replacement COEs and the number of new COEs will be much less (curtailing the expanding car population). ONLY when someone scraps his car will a new replacement COE be issued. Hope you understand or correct me if i am wrong.

 

Moreover, i don't know how workable it will be for banks to give loans for $10k per year road tax cos road taxes are paid for on per year basis. So are the loans for 1 year tenor and taken once every year? That will create a lot of paper work every year. Or take up a few years loan at one go and banks will then disburse the money to LTA every year? That would create additional work for the banks. The banks would have to check with us every year if we want to continue. A lot of hassle given the hundreds of thousands of car owners.

 

COE monies can already be recycled back to the economy now. In fact it is better (for the economy) cos the whole lump sum can be recycled at one go rather than in "installments" of yearly road taxes.

[Kar_lover]

i'm 100% against the idea of ERP.

ERP shifts traffic from 1 road to another. a driver who makes a detour to avoid paying ERP which keeps his car on the road for a longer period.

what we want is for the driver to reach his destination as soon as possible so that traffic will be free flowing.

 

the reason why you feel ERP is good is because you are not affected by it much.

if we scrap COE and used ERP to maintain traffic control, you'll end up having to past thru 10 or 15 ERP grantries in a single drive from the east to the west. when this happens, there'll once again be outrage at the number of ERPs and the govt will have to solve yet another problem.

i think that'd be like simply sweeping your problems under the bed and waiting for s--t to hit the fan

 

I am with you here.

 

I think the way to go would be to strike a balance between the 2 main issues of cars - ownership and usage.

 

For ownership, i think once growth hit 0% (assuming will be Aug 2013) then stop there. No more reduction. The "clawback" should also be permanently scrapped. Afterall we have already built the road system to cope with the "mistake" made several years back fo too many COEs. It is already quite clear MOT/LTA is trying their best to prevent COEs from going too high (i know many will say it is already too high now) since the keep tweaking the COE whenever it hits new highs.

 

Next we tackle usage. I do agree there should be more ERP gantries (not to the extent of "everywhere" but just a bit more where it is usually jammed such). Example is the first ERP gantry on east-bound PIE is after Lornie exit. But the stretch from Jurong Town Hall/Bt Batok or Bt Timah is usually jammed in the evenings. So there should be one more gantry just after the Bt Batok or Bt Timah exit which (under current conditions) only operate during evening peak hour. And yes, ERP rates should go up a bit, maybe double of what it is now for a start. With higher cost of usage, there will be some owners who will end up taking train to work (i already have a few friends doing this and they are not even working in CBD). Just that the circle line made it so convenient for them, they can save petrol and parking, etc. Not to mention car mileage remains low.

 

Lastly, i said before some time back but i think it's worth repeating - the $17k rebate for OPC has become meaningless with the current elevated COE levels. OPC rebate should be fixed at, say 40%-50% of prevailing COE. At $100k for COE, a $40k-$50k saving is significant enough for those who want to have a car maybe for the family during weekends or driving up north for holidays and also in special emergency cases where they still have to option to pay a day rate for day use to consider getting OPC and take train to work during normal days. Note that the day use rate will have to be increased in tandem with the higher rebate (which was discussed before but i won't go into details here). This may be the best usage control tool. HDB can even chip in by lowering the season parking for OPC cars by say 20%....or increasing non-OPC cars season parking by 20%.

 

[Expertz]

If traffic shift to another road, then put a gantry there and ewverywhere.

 

You're totally wrong to say my intent is becqause I won't be affected. Oh please. Everybody will be affected, including the rich. If I have to, I'll just walk. I have a choice not to drive.

 

Your problem is that you're mixing a simple technical problem with a political solution. Nothing ever gets done that way. Set an objective, craft the soultion and be damned roll out the pain.

 

Any other way, is politics.

 

you should be a multi million dollar minister because our ministers think like you. - extremely short term

 

once you start to realize that ERP only shifts traffic from 1 road to another and you'll end up putting hundreds of thousands of ERP gantries, even inside carparks to reduce traffic in car parks.

after a few short months singaporeans will complain that ERP is not doing anything and the traffic condition is just as bad, govt has no means to justify putting ERP within HDB estates.

 

the problem will just snowball until the roads will be clogged because everybody can afford to buy 3 or 4 cars and eventually there will be so many cars on the roads you'll have to erect ERP gantries 10m from each other.

 

if you still can't see the flaws in your suggestion then i really don't have anything more to say

 

[Expertz]

I support scrapping COE as it is an outdated model. Instead, ERP should be constructed in all major roads on this island. ERP should starts from $10 as long as rolling 3 mths average speed drop more than 10km/h of legal speed. It will help to control traffic but ppl aspiration to own car. No car park? That's each & every individual problem.

 

singaporeans think like you

no car park? park road side. not my fault because govt nvr provide enough carpark

then summon nobody wanna pay but 1 single person can own 4 or 5 cars now because cars are cheap.

we can already afford to pay 100k for a 20k honda fit, why can't we just buy 5 once COE is scrapped?

 

then how are you going to solve this problem?

reintroduce COE?

[Expertz]

ERP makes me reduce the frequency or alter the time in the days i use my cars

(my personal experience)

 

problem is, without COE the govt will eventually have to put up ERP gantries everywhere.

even just outside your car park.

 

how are you going to alter timing or reduce the frequency of your car use when there is going to be 24hr ERP plus 5 or 6 terminals for a single trip to the market?

 

 

ERP is good for protecting the traffic within a particular area

[inlinesix]

singaporeans think like you

no car park? park road side. not my fault because govt nvr provide enough carpark

then summon nobody wanna pay but 1 single person can own 4 or 5 cars now because cars are cheap.

we can already afford to pay 100k for a 20k honda fit, why can't we just buy 5 once COE is scrapped?

 

then how are you going to solve this problem?

reintroduce COE?

Doesn't this sound like a cry baby?

[Mothorrr12]

yes i agree that having a car is a want and convenience to me. it's true only ppl who can afford it can buy it.

[Girl_powerful]

Start charging on usage! Make it harder for each household to own more than 1 car.

[Timbuktu]

once you start to realize that ERP only shifts traffic from 1 road to another and you'll end up putting hundreds of thousands of ERP gantries, even inside carparks to reduce traffic in car parks.

after a few short months singaporeans will complain that ERP is not doing anything and the traffic condition is just as bad...

 

the problem will just snowball until the roads will be clogged because everybody can afford to buy 3 or 4 cars and eventually there will be so many cars on the roads you'll have to erect ERP gantries 10m from each other.

Agree ... we do share similar views on this topic.

Exactly the same key issues as I had raised, on why ERP-only will not work!

 

LTY and his team at MoT would probably have alewdy debated and modeled this at great length and have come to realize that COEs are here to stay, gives them the most control in terms of limiting the number of cars allowed and generates revenue too ... in the form of additional "taxation" for those who really can (or think that they can) afford a car.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Timbuktu