BYE BYE COE

[Ingenius]

of cos. i am the one collecting and marking them anyway.

[Mustank]

all these push from ownership costing to usage costing is bullshiit talk cork lah

garmen dare to push for aggresive decentralisation of city centre or not?

[Rainbow76]

Seriously..stop suggesting using money to solve the problem..it will not solve while making the white more rich..

at the end of the day..money they get from all these tax..end up where???

the road still so terrible..uneven..sink hole here and there..housing still expensive..public transport still expensive..when the haze happen..no single $ been used to allocate for company to compensate them if they close their office due to health risk, like construction work..N95 never give it free to all the Singaporean..instead distribute to hospital/clinic and sell back to us.. utility bill will not have any subsidize during this haze time frame...

So why we should allow them to tax us as if they are solving the problem but in actual fact is the $ they more interested

[Porkerchong]

just another idiotic suggestion to squeeze motorists dry.

i support COE and remove all money sucking ERP.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Porkerchong

[Ingenius]

Since it is school holiday an the haze is cleared, let me explain why solely mileage based pricing won't work. Without the coe component, the $ per km will have to be substantially high to make up for the lost revenue form the coe (whic in part goes to infrastructure and subsidising other sectors like education and defence). Cars will become much cheaper, e.g. $20k for a b&b car, and many more people will buy cars and some will buy their second or third car for whatever reasons.

 

Now, if that drive to orchard road is going to cost like $30 or $50 per trip, will you want to drive your cheap car ? mostl likely not. then it become prohibitive while owning a car. also, car parks will be full to the brim and in the long term, parking cost will definately increase. and people will also take taxi, taxi charges will also increase due to spike in demand. another problem is, with coe one can take a loan for car including coe, but without coe, one has to pay cash for the mileage cost. and this can be substantial per month. so the bottom line is, a total mileage based car pricing scheme doesnt work, and believe me, people will kpkb after it is implemented (which they initially yearn for it so much).

 

also, one car per household wont work, because it will create a black market ... i think i save that for next time.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Ingenius

[1fast1]

This is like the 123948619349129th thread begun on the same damn subject. Change the channel already.

[Ronleo]

why so many ideas just to cover up the root cause..solve the root cause..you solve everything..be it housing, public transport and cars..

 

i say..reduce the population back to 2.5M..send all those FT and PR back to their countries..we can do it with 2.5M in the 80s and do very well..why we need so many ppl here to feed the GDP and make those white become rich while us suffer from their happiness!!!!

 

 

But can keep it at 3m??? We got ard 3m Singapore Lang....

[Ryu]

why so many ideas just to cover up the root cause..solve the root cause..you solve everything..be it housing, public transport and cars..

 

i say..reduce the population back to 2.5M..send all those FT and PR back to their countries..we can do it with 2.5M in the 80s and do very well..why we need so many ppl here to feed the GDP and make those white become rich while us suffer from their happiness!!!!

 

Best!

[Pocus]

.......

 

ARF for cars below engine power 100HP 100% Cars between 100-150HP 125% Cars between 150-200HP 150% cars between 200-250 200% 250 and above 300%

 

appreciate your valuable comments .

 

Tagging cars with HP is the most BS thing in the world. This goes to show how much a person knows about cars and it's technology.

 

Cars are ever improving with technology and if you study the horsepower advancement of cars over the decades

 

1980s: a 1.0 car manages 45bhp average (nissan pulsar)

1990s: a 1.0 car manages 55bhp average (nissan march)

2000s: a 1.0 car manages 65bhp average (kia picanto)

2010s: a 1.0 car manages 80bhp average (Ford Fiesta)

 

1980s: a 1.6 car manages 75bhp average (Toyota civic MK3)

1990s: a 1.6 car manages 95bhp average (Ford laser)

2000s: a 1.6 car manages 110bhp average (Toyota Altis)

2010s: a 1.6 car manages 130bhp average (Hyundai Elantra )

 

By 2020 We may be getting 1.6l car with easy 150bhp of more, then the whole ARF by BNP system have to revamp again?

 

Leave BHP alone!!

[Ingenius]

why so many ideas just to cover up the root cause..solve the root cause..you solve everything..be it housing, public transport and cars..

 

i say..reduce the population back to 2.5M..send all those FT and PR back to their countries..we can do it with 2.5M in the 80s and do very well..why we need so many ppl here to feed the GDP and make those white become rich while us suffer from their happiness!!!!

You are wrong my fren. Your solution to reduce the population is only solving the sympton of the problem, not the root cause. if going by your logic, why not discourage birth rate, and further reduce our population, even to say 1m ? or lesser ? then the congestion problem will be solved, car and housing demand will drop drastically, and prices will all fall down to record low rate. everyone happy right ? if only it is so easy.

 

then what happens to our economy ? you think about it. look around, which country is not adopting a migration policy to take in foreign workers and talents ? it's all about the economic pie and growth so that the nation and its people can prosper. protectionism and nationalist policies are short sighted popular measures which will hurt in the long term.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Ingenius

[Jman888]

This is like the 123948619349129th thread begun on the same damn subject. Change the channel already.

 

 

of course there are brilliants, stupid, silly, funny, ridiculous, outright dumb, ideas came out over the past 10 years and 123948619349129th threads :D

 

wonder if the LTA ever look at them [rolleyes]

[Watwheels]

LTA already asking for feedback but ppl always mistake MCF for LTA.

[Maseratigood]

Thanks for sharing you idea

 

Good that you take an interest in this even you may not be a driver, cars / traffic jams affect most people anyway.

 

Not sure if you are new to internet forums and the mannerism... take it easy

[Newdrive]

Taxis are not considered as private transport as such Taxi companies need to arrange the parking .

 

i just LOL-ed at your reply.

 

dun u know taxi owners (those with ppl sharing cost) will park at a common carpark (usually both of them stay within the vicinity so convenient for both) then pass on to another taxi driver to take over shift?

 

how u want Taxi companies to centralise parking? at one common place? that means those taking over shift must take transport to this centralised parking place to take over the taxi?

 

u think public bus ah? Taxi company only loans out the car and provides servicing at authorised WS and discounted petrol top up at designated place. Anything else, they dun care one.

[Ingenius]

create ERP gantries on the entrance of all major roads and pricing will be as follows:-

 

1. 0630am-0730am $ $5.00 per day

2. 0730am-0930am $ 20.00 per day

2. 0930am-1030am $ 15.00 per day

3.1030am-1130am $ 10.00 per day

4.1130am-1830pm $ 5.00 per day

5.1830pm-0630am $ 3.00 per day

 

Look at the above erp pricing, for someone who drives around the whole day he can easily clock over a hundred dollars a day, and each month a few thousand dollars, and each year .. then people will start to kpkb again saying that those who needs the car for work is hit most, and also the total cost is even more than coe time. people like ts will then start to think of some new reverse ideas again. and has he even thought of the escalating cost for business ? this will in turn have a spiral effect on cost and pass to consumers..

 

 

Edited June 26, 2013 by Ingenius

[Vhtfhwlego]

Fast drivers should be given incentive to speed but pay back twice the amount if met with accident.

Slow drivers should pay more as they take up more time on the road & triple the amount if met with accident.

[Vhtfhwlego]

Fast drivers should be given incentive to speed but pay back twice the amount if met with accident.

Slow drivers should pay more as they take up more time on the road & triple the amount if met with accident.

[Vhtfhwlego]

Fast drivers should be given incentive to speed but pay back twice the amount if met with accident.

Slow drivers should pay more as they take up more time on the road & triple the amount if met with accident.