Best way to improve the COE system ?

[Ictruall]

still, just blaming the rich to fuel own desire....

 

....if can, can.....and if cannot, cannot la....

....fact of life and not difficult to understand right ?

 

....and what right and on what grounds to say COE policy by transport ministry totally wrong ?

 

[Scoots]

You are definitely correct here. Some HDB flats do not have a 1-1 ratio for flat units vs carpark lots. Neither do all private apartments have a 1 apartment to 2 car park lot ratio. neither does a landed property have a 1 property to whatever number of car park lots ratio. What this means is that your housing decision will also take into account if its newer HDB flats or older apartments which provide a better car park availability to house ratio.

And by the way, it does not mean if you purchase a more expensive property, you get more car park lots. As I mentioned in a previous post, the person whom purchases say a $1,000 per sq ft private apartment and whom purchases a $3,000 sq ft private apartment, may get the same number of parking spaces. And sometimes, especially if its the really expensive apartments smack in the middle of the CBD, they have even less or no car park lots.

 

See , here's where you weasel out.

 

Since there's not never going to be a 1 car park lot to 1 housing unit ration. This car park "entitlement" that you speak of is not an entitlement at all. Further, how does this reduce road congestion? As your basis so far has been to make ownership affordable but usage expensive. Yet with this complication of housing vs carpark lot thingy, it's actually working against the very basis of your argument

 

You are right in that the price of the dwelling unit does not translate to the number of car park lots in the estate. Therefore it's not logically to have the reverse logic of 1 housing unit being 'entitled' to any number of cars.

 

As long as there's a vacancy and a resident applies and pays for it ...he get's it.

[Scoots]

Don't quite understand your comments. Let me reply to each point:

1. Different cars and drives result in different consumption pattern. Absolutely correct. So if you drive a "greener" car that consumes less petrol and if you drive via less congested routes to your location, you will consume less fuel and pay less. Same if you drive during "off-peak" hours of the day. So like say if you work the night shift in your job, you will definitely face less traffic, consume less fuel, and pay less overall. If you want to drive a high performance vehicle like a 5 litre sports car, you consume more fuel obviously and pay more, it really is up to you if you want to do so.

 

2. Pertaining to different pattern/angles to fuel my own desire to own a car. Urm.... excuse me..... that is exactly the point. We are trying to look at different angles to allow more people to own cars rather than just the rich. Isn't that the whole point?

 

3. Pertaining to working in ministry. I don't work in the government at all. Why would you make such a comment? I don't think based on the proposed ideas I have put out, I could be working in any ministry. I think that is pretty clear because my proposals are basically saying that the COE is a policy that has been put forth by the transport ministry that is totally wrong.

 

Again, the revealing tell tale signs of you being someone who has not thought about the reality but has been spending a lot of your energy thinking out 'solution's to satisfy your own desire but trying to weaving logic around your flawed assumptions

 

1.You totally missed the point and do not know about driving. To make it simpler for you. A car of the same make of the same year, bought as first hand by 2 different persons, can result in different fuel consumption, depending on how light/heavy footed the person is and the type of road he/she travels. If you know this in the first place, all those other 'patterns about working the night shift, 'greener' car...argument becomes moot. shhhhsss

 

2. The topic is "Best way to improve the COE system"... NOT " How to allow every Tom Dick or Harry to own his car". And let's get this straight, what you have put forward all this this has not been how to "allow more people to own cars rather than just the rich." It's sounding more like how things should change so that YOU can own a car cheaper.

 

3.True, my suspicion is only a suspect and quite baseless. But then again, your replies have the distinctive mix of denial, weaselling and selective avoidance that's soOOOoo typical of government bodies. So you can deny, I can suspect... it will get nowhere. Go back to reading your Dragonlance

 

Bottom line:

Much as I like to ride on your wagon, I also accept that it's not reasonable to expect / hope for 'different angles to allow" me to buy that Sentosa Cove house. A car is a luxury item, not a necessity. There is simply no rationale " to allow more people to own cars rather than just the rich".

Edited July 27, 2013 by Scoots

[Ingenius]

Again, the revealing tell tale signs of you being someone who has not thought about the reality but has been spending a lot of your energy thinking out 'solution's to satisfy your own desire but trying to weaving logic around your flawed assumptions

You hit the nail right on the head.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Ingenius

[Paxtharkas]

still, just blaming the rich to fuel own desire....

 

....if can, can.....and if cannot, cannot la....

....fact of life and not difficult to understand right ?

 

....and what right and on what grounds to say COE policy by transport ministry totally wrong ?

 

Not blaming the rich at all. Its the COE policy that is putting those with higher income in a bad light. Do note that in my proposal, the fact is that you will see higher income earners whom choose to drive more, do so. And those with lower incomes or more financial commitments, well, they have to be more prudent about how often they drive. The key in my proposal is that, be it higher income, or lower income, everybody gets to purchase whatever car they desire more affordably than the current COE system. Its just the usage of that vehicle and a driver contributes to congestion that is of focus.

 

The COE system is wrong in my opinion because it curbs ownership. Not usage and traffic congestion, which is what everyone is unhappy about. As I have mentioned many times, there is no difference between a driver whom owns 10 cars and drives one of the 10 cars to work each day versus a driver who owns one car and drives that one car to work each day. Both contribute equally to congestion. But the driver whom owns 1 or 10 cars whom only drives one of them to work say 2 out of 5 working days a week, that person is adding less to congestion. But all in the above examples pay the same COE. Which I believe is wrong.

 

 

[Paxtharkas]

See , here's where you weasel out.

 

Since there's not never going to be a 1 car park lot to 1 housing unit ration. This car park "entitlement" that you speak of is not an entitlement at all. Further, how does this reduce road congestion? As your basis so far has been to make ownership affordable but usage expensive. Yet with this complication of housing vs carpark lot thingy, it's actually working against the very basis of your argument

 

You are right in that the price of the dwelling unit does not translate to the number of car park lots in the estate. Therefore it's not logically to have the reverse logic of 1 housing unit being 'entitled' to any number of cars.

 

As long as there's a vacancy and a resident applies and pays for it ...he get's it.

 

Thank you for your comments. I will reply to each point.

 

Firstly, at present, I believe in older HDB flats there is already no 1 car park lot to 1 flat ratio. Its based on a ballot. Actually in fact in some of the newer private apartments, this is occurring as well. And i believe in some of the newer HDB flats, there are better ratios and of course in some older apartments, an owner may have 3 assigned car park lots.

So basically, the choice of specific home (as in a specific HDB flat or specific apartment) you purchase, will dictate whether you have to ballot or have 1 lot, 2 lots, 3 lots, etc. Not housing choice. I don't understand what the complication is here. Please do elaborate with an example.

 

Secondly, I do not understand your comment "not logically to have the reverse logic of 1 housing unit being entitled to any number of cars". There is no fixed ratio. The number of car park lots you have is dependent on your choice of a specific home. Not housing type.

 

Thirdly, pertaining to your comment on "as long as there's a vacancy and a resident applies and pays for it...he get's it". I believe you are referring here to hdb flats and private apartments. Your comment is not correct. If there is no 1 car park lot to 1 housing unit ratio in that specific property, then it's a ballot from the start. If in that specific property (as in most private apartments) there is a 1 free season car park to 1 housing unit ratio, then the 1st vehicle parking is your entitlement, and if there are any spare non-visitor car park lots left, then the 2nd vehicle parking lot is ballot and paid season parking. And so on and so forth.

 

 

[Paxtharkas]

Again, the revealing tell tale signs of you being someone who has not thought about the reality but has been spending a lot of your energy thinking out 'solution's to satisfy your own desire but trying to weaving logic around your flawed assumptions

 

1.You totally missed the point and do not know about driving. To make it simpler for you. A car of the same make of the same year, bought as first hand by 2 different persons, can result in different fuel consumption, depending on how light/heavy footed the person is and the type of road he/she travels. If you know this in the first place, all those other 'patterns about working the night shift, 'greener' car...argument becomes moot. shhhhsss

 

2. The topic is "Best way to improve the COE system"... NOT " How to allow every Tom Dick or Harry to own his car". And let's get this straight, what you have put forward all this this has not been how to "allow more people to own cars rather than just the rich." It's sounding more like how things should change so that YOU can own a car cheaper.

 

3.True, my suspicion is only a suspect and quite baseless. But then again, your replies have the distinctive mix of denial, weaselling and selective avoidance that's soOOOoo typical of government bodies. So you can deny, I can suspect... it will get nowhere. Go back to reading your Dragonlance

 

Bottom line:

Much as I like to ride on your wagon, I also accept that it's not reasonable to expect / hope for 'different angles to allow" me to buy that Sentosa Cove house. A car is a luxury item, not a necessity. There is simply no rationale " to allow more people to own cars rather than just the rich".

 

Thank you for your comments. Lively debate. But let's try to stop the mudslinging a little.

 

I will reply to each point:

1. Pertaining to a person being light/heavy footed etc. Exactly. That is your choice and your driving style. If you drive less economically, chose a less economical car etc. it is your choice. I think what you are trying to state is that two persons driving a same car may have different fuel consumption even if they travel the same route/distance and so the usage is the same but one is paying more "fuel taxes". Yes you are correct here absolutely. The best way is to charge based on route distance if the concern is only congestion. And I think perhaps in 5 to 10 years time, you will see this happen, I believe studies are already being done here on this.

 

2. No it is not sounding like how I can own a car cheaper. It is how EVERYONE (be you of higher/middle/lower income) can own a car cheaper. As mentioned, it is not owning a car that causes congestion right? It is usage of the car.

 

3. Baseless again. And I think perhaps you would like to meet me for a discussion on this matter. I have no problems with that. Would be nice to hear your views and have a lively debate face to face. Just PM me and we can arrange a time and place.

[Maseratigood]

............ As mentioned, it is not owning a car that causes congestion right? It is usage of the car. .......... [unquote]

 

Actually there's more to it.

 

The more cars are owned by people living on this tiny island, the more space is needed for carparks when the cars are not in use on the roads. Building more carparks could lead to less space left for building wider / more roads for moving cars. Less roads or narrower roads means more congestion given the same number of cars on the roads.

 

Also, the money used in building multistorey carparks should be better utilised to build wider roads etc to ease traffic congestions.

 

Just wish car designers could come up with car which can be hanged up (in carpark) like a roasted duck, thus saving parking spaces. (just kidding)

 

There are actually prototype/concept cars which partially fold themselves up when they are parked (like a leopard curling up before they strike)

 

 

[Joseph22]

Hi. As per my proposal earlier and in my opinion, the best way is to scrap COE completely (and possibly even ARF). Then impose high petrol duties. So everyone can own a car (as long as you have a parking space for it) and it only gets costly when you drive it. If you only drive it occasionally and take public transport frequently, you would avoid paying the equivalent of current COE prices in petrol duties.

okay. my main clutch is why must it be petrol duties?

 

if you are going for pay as u use scheme. dont use petrol duties as ppl can easily go up north to pump petrol.

 

use other form of taxation say GPS instead of tagging to petrol that we pump will have a greater effect.

[Ernestchewjiyang0908021996]

When will they release the coe rule system

[Mustank]

okay. my main clutch is why must it be petrol duties?

 

if you are going for pay as u use scheme. dont use petrol duties as ppl can easily go up north to pump petrol.

 

use other form of taxation say GPS instead of tagging to petrol that we pump will have a greater effect.

 

change from 3/4 to full tank then can go jiu hoo lor

if found less than 3/4, jit tao cheong gong car

petrol $50 per litre

coe free

no road tax

[Joseph22]

change from 3/4 to full tank then can go jiu hoo lor

if found less than 3/4, jit tao cheong gong car

petrol $50 per litre

coe free

no road tax

think Jiu hoo ppl will find a business opportunity.

 

smuggle one whole load of petrol in and sell in singapore.

[Chucky2007]

I'm looking at HK and I don't understand why do we need ERP.

 

In HK, home season parking is at S$200+-$400, office season parking at $200-$600+ depending on location... Petrol is at S$2.50-$3 per litre. Their roads are much smalleR than SG.. and their overall populations are higher than SG. Their import tax similar to our ARF are at 40% of OMV I think. Anyway one brand new XC60 T5 cost around $70k in HK and $240k in SG. Do the maths and anyone would rather pay a higher per litre charge for petrol and higher for parking...

 

COE, ERP is just a milking instruments. I know HK LTA equivalent is not having as much surplus as LTA here.

 

Anyway it's crazy that COE and ERP are at this rate.

[Mustank]

think Jiu hoo ppl will find a business opportunity.

 

smuggle one whole load of petrol in and sell in singapore.

 

How to smuggle one tanker of petrol?!?!!?

[Joseph22]

How to smuggle one tanker of petrol?!?!!?

if i know.. i jio you and we smuggle

[Timex1441]

I'm looking at HK and I don't understand why do we need ERP.

 

In HK, home season parking is at S$200+-$400, office season parking at $200-$600+ depending on location... Petrol is at S$2.50-$3 per litre. Their roads are much smalleR than SG.. and their overall populations are higher than SG. Their import tax similar to our ARF are at 40% of OMV I think. Anyway one brand new XC60 T5 cost around $70k in HK and $240k in SG. Do the maths and anyone would rather pay a higher per litre charge for petrol and higher for parking...

 

COE, ERP is just a milking instruments. I know HK LTA equivalent is not having as much surplus as LTA here.

 

Anyway it's crazy that COE and ERP are at this rate.

but HK has far more diversified n efficient public transport....sg might get there 1 day but we r certainly not there yet

[Vyeron]

change from 3/4 to full tank then can go jiu hoo lor

if found less than 3/4, jit tao cheong gong car

petrol $50 per litre

coe free

no road tax

 

Swee! then everyone can afford an EV coz it will be so cheap. but again, not solving congestion prob. Btw when gahmen is going to implement new rules ? after focus group and feedback fm public, it seems no more news update on it while ppl still debating on "ideas".

 

guess the suggested system should not be too complicated, otherwise will have more chance/loophole for certain party to get benefit from it (gain in term of monetary), its better a common benefit for public in general. why should car buyer or potential buyer get penalize over high COE price while one of the main cause was over-released of COE back few years ago? It is definitely not a good idea to solve issue by asking people to pay more..so u wrong i pay more?

 

not something new but,

1. stabilize annual coe quota.

2. let the buyer bid for themselves, dealer sell car with their own profit.

should be able to see good impact on COE and because its not driven by dealer's sales, but rather on real market force.

 

if coe still high with above? it means thats the price to own a car in Singapore, cheers.

[Maseratigood]

....... not something new but,

1. stabilize annual coe quota.

2. let the buyer bid for themselves, dealer sell car with their own profit.

should be able to see good impact on COE and because its not driven by dealer's sales, but rather on real market force.

 

if coe still high with above? it means thats the price to own a car in Singapore, cheers.

 

Ref 2.

Either buyers do their own bidding plus every successful bidder pays what he bids.

OR

Replace bidding with a draw-lot system. If big ticket items such as HDB flats are distributed using ballot, (and HDB is a more essential basic item than cars to the people!!), it should be Justifiable to be used for cars, considered by some a non-essential thing. Provided the current trains/buses/taxis systems are improved.

There will be rules to prevent seculations/profiteerings etc by imposing ban on transfer of COEs in the first six years etc.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Maseratigood