2015 Oct, 2nd COE Bidding Exercise

[ST69]

I don't mean no harm but some people here need to have a broader view than on their moral high horses.

 

There are your mum and pop stores that have to have a mode of transport someway or another to survive in running their businesses.

 

if you set your cost of usage so high then whats left will be your big corporations and we all know where cost will head with those big corp running the show. 

 

Exactly right....that's where our tpt minister need to find the right balance. 

You can always exclude goods and heavy vehicles from being charged ERP. Afterall, I don't think that's unfair. Your meat/cupboard/cement etc has to get from the ports to the factories etc.

 

But private car ownership should be the one targeted heavily. I dont see why petrolheads like myself, who hardly drives into the so-called "town/CBD areas or zones", should be made to pay an incredulous sum of money for 10yrs when most of my driving is done outside those zones, for late night car meetups and some spirited driving, or for road trips up north.

 

Usage-based charges are the only way forward, and the correct one. This COE scheme is outdated and doesn't make much sense at all, except to rob drivers blind.

 

Though I think its unlikely that COE will be removed. Its still an important revenue stream, esp when so much will be spent on tpt infras.

[ST69]

wont one, dont forget many rich peeps keep vintage, sports, collector cars >10 yrs old

 

 

Sg system favours who ?

 

this is what you wld call a 'rhetorical question'? or you just became a singaporean? 

[Baal]

Yep. I see more & more pqp on the road these days from esp from SKT onwards.

Altis, Wish, Bengcer, Civic VTI, Oddy.  Pretty sure many Civic FD owners will renew if they cant afford another brand new.

Push to $100 a pop.  That should not happen.  Management style is look at what is impossible & lower by 1-2 notches, so that employees can meet KPI, with immense struggle. 

[flashbang]

No way COE will be removed. There are 2 considerations in place. COE to restrict the total number of cars. When you drive to your destination, your car needs a place to park. Currently we already see the old open air HDB carparks replaced with MSCP to save space. Do you want to drive 10 stories up to find a parking lot?

 

ERP is to reduce congestion on the roads, so that you can get to your destination in a reasonable amount of time. No point driving if you're stuck in a jam all the time.

 

That said, I notice CTE is usually very empty in the mornings. LTA should consider reducing the ERP so more people will use it. Else it is pushing traffic to outer roads and creating congestion in more areas.

[valian]

You can always exclude goods and heavy vehicles from being charged ERP. Afterall, I don't think that's unfair. Your meat/cupboard/cement etc has to get from the ports to the factories etc.

 

But private car ownership should be the one targeted heavily. I dont see why petrolheads like myself, who hardly drives into the so-called "town/CBD areas or zones", should be made to pay an incredulous sum of money for 10yrs when most of my driving is done outside those zones, for late night car meetups and some spirited driving, or for road trips up north.

 

Usage-based charges are the only way forward, and the correct one. This COE scheme is outdated and doesn't make much sense at all, except to rob drivers blind.

 

This is where you will realize that it's a thankless job up there. While what you said makes sense, it's gonna be tough to implement. By removing goods vehicles from being charged ERP, what you are creating here is a cheaper alternative to private transport. Similar to when diesel is dirt cheap, you will have $2 company's with vans everywhere 

 

Anyway, COE does need a review, that i fully agree.

[Hotshot85]

No way COE will be removed. There are 2 considerations in place. COE to restrict the total number of cars. When you drive to your destination, your car needs a place to park. Currently we already see the old open air HDB carparks replaced with MSCP to save space. Do you want to drive 10 stories up to find a parking lot?

 

ERP is to reduce congestion on the roads, so that you can get to your destination in a reasonable amount of time. No point driving if you're stuck in a jam all the time.

 

That said, I notice CTE is usually very empty in the mornings. LTA should consider reducing the ERP so more people will use it. Else it is pushing traffic to outer roads and creating congestion in more areas.

 

Well, we would also have to take into consideration that not all 6.9 million will be able to afford to buy a car anyway, even without COE. There are also people who don't like to drive at all too.

 

Furthermore, if we exclude HDB season parking in our own estate, when one drives to wherever he/she intends to go, parking isn't free either. Parking rates could be increased at the carpark's management discretion, which can indirectly fund building a bigger carpark. Even in the estates, higher MSCPs can be built too. Obviously, the season parking rate would have to increase to match the extra cost of building it.

 

How about dual - or - triple tier expressways and major roads too? Adding all these options together, it is highly possible to still let the vehicle population increase.

 

IMHO, realizing an efficient public transport system (for those who do not wish to drive, or cant afford to, no matter why) plus adequate private transport infrastructure isn't too far-fetched nor unreasonable. In most depictions of civilisations in the future, traffic travels in many vertical tiers. If the Government could force the majority of people to give up landed housing in favor of staying in high-rise buildings, why can't the same be done for transport? Artificially controlling the vehicular population through exorbitant prices is a very caveman way of doing things, and we wouldn't be forging ahead to the future, but rather, we would just be stuck forever in the present.

 

Edit: I think everyone here agrees that the COE scheme isn't really doing much to control vehicle population anyway. Someway, somehow, people are still able to afford cars. I'm just thinking of alternative non-draconian methods where most people could still benefit.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Hotshot85

[Hotshot85]

This is where you will realize that it's a thankless job up there. While what you said makes sense, it's gonna be tough to implement. By removing goods vehicles from being charged ERP, what you are creating here is a cheaper alternative to private transport. Similar to when diesel is dirt cheap, you will have $2 company's with vans everywhere 

 

Anyway, COE does need a review, that i fully agree.

 

Could we not exclude $2 companies from the equation? That way, only legit companies that have a true reason to need trucks and such, can apply for this "benefit". Kangoo vans type of goods vehicle will not be made available for those registering under a $2 company, maybe only pickups and such since they're not as comfy?

 

I dont think alot of people would choose to do so, just to get a pickup and bring their family and elderly out. Safety, comfort and "face" reasons would come into play, in a pickup VS Kangoo scenario.

 

Edit: Yes, its a thankless tough job. BUT, they should be made to work hard to earn our mandate, and not sit around and say "let's just charge everyone alot for everything", pat their backs, and sit back and shake legs. 

Edited October 23, 2015 by Hotshot85

[Matrix0405]

Well said

 

Since COE is not much difference between Cat A vs B, why dont the said "poor" ppls take this opportunity to get the Cat B option? if 57k vs 59k is not fair, why not 70k vs 80k then Martix will feel that it is fair

 

Just based on history, when COE getting lower, the gap will be even closer vs when COE is higher. Nothing wrong about it.

 

As to the close gap between A & B, Not saying it is fair or unfair, not saying it is right or wrong. Saying it is system/outcome of a policy veering off the road. The reason for have these 2 cat are clear. When you have A = B or A > B, it is a red flag.  This is also what drove LTA to drive Merc & gang out of A. 

[edwin15]

Could we not exclude $2 companies from the equation? That way, only legit companies that have a true reason to need trucks and such, can apply for this "benefit". Kangoo vans type of goods vehicle will not be made available for those registering under a $2 company, maybe only pickups and such since they're not as comfy?

 

I dont think alot of people would choose to do so, just to get a pickup and bring their family and elderly out. Safety, comfort and "face" reasons would come into play, in a pickup VS Kangoo scenario.

 

Edit: Yes, its a thankless tough job. BUT, they should be made to work hard to earn our mandate, and not sit around and say "let's just charge everyone alot for everything", pat their backs, and sit back and shake legs. 

 

 

Very difficult to tell which company is legit and which is not. Let's say we set company capital at 60k. Oops, we are back to COE prices.

[Mkl22]

If they see it coming and still go ahead with the implementation ??? This is precisely why I said that LTA is making a fool of themselves.

 

 

 

why do they need to make a fool of themselves when they are already are. when have that bunch over there done anything right. cock ups followed by more cock ups.  i wonder when the next cock up will be. its when and not if...

[Mkl22]

 

Edit: I think everyone here agrees that the COE scheme isn't really doing much to control vehicle population anyway. Someway, somehow, people are still able to afford cars. I'm just thinking of alternative non-draconian methods where most people could still benefit.

 

says who. COE is indeed controlling the car population. the reason why there are more cars now , was due to policy to allow more ownership to make people happy in 2004-2008.

the car population is capped and that is the purpose of COE. But the problem we see is usage not the population of vehicles.

 

having the cars sit at home and only used in the middle of the night does not cause any jams. Right now the problem is that it is still relatively cheap to use the car after you have paid the price and bought it. i believe that once carpark charges are high enough outside of residential areas, the number of people driving to work will reduce and so will jams. but then increasing carpark charges wont benefit the government alone, increasing ERP and having GNSS ERP will.

 

so there you have it, the will of our government is to reduce usage, but at their benefit.

[Hotshot85]

says who. COE is indeed controlling the car population. the reason why there are more cars now , was due to policy to allow more ownership to make people happy in 2004-2008.

the car population is capped and that is the purpose of COE. But the problem we see is usage not the population of vehicles.

 

having the cars sit at home and only used in the middle of the night does not cause any jams. Right now the problem is that it is still relatively cheap to use the car after you have paid the price and bought it. i believe that once carpark charges are high enough outside of residential areas, the number of people driving to work will reduce and so will jams. but then increasing carpark charges wont benefit the government alone, increasing ERP and having GNSS ERP will.

 

so there you have it, the will of our government is to reduce usage, but at their benefit.

 

 

My apologies! I had meant traffic/congestion. Although, higher vehicle population indirectly translates to higher road usage because everyone wants to drive into CBD, send their kids to school in the morning etc etc.

 

The part in bold was what I'm mainly addressing, there's no need for COE at all if that's the case. Higher usage charges during the day, regardless of form or implementation, will reduce jams overall. 

[flashbang]

Well, we would also have to take into consideration that not all 6.9 million will be able to afford to buy a car anyway, even without COE. There are also people who don't like to drive at all too.

 

Furthermore, if we exclude HDB season parking in our own estate, when one drives to wherever he/she intends to go, parking isn't free either. Parking rates could be increased at the carpark's management discretion, which can indirectly fund building a bigger carpark. Even in the estates, higher MSCPs can be built too. Obviously, the season parking rate would have to increase to match the extra cost of building it.

 

How about dual - or - triple tier expressways and major roads too? Adding all these options together, it is highly possible to still let the vehicle population increase.

 

IMHO, realizing an efficient public transport system (for those who do not wish to drive, or cant afford to, no matter why) plus adequate private transport infrastructure isn't too far-fetched nor unreasonable. In most depictions of civilisations in the future, traffic travels in many vertical tiers. If the Government could force the majority of people to give up landed housing in favor of staying in high-rise buildings, why can't the same be done for transport? Artificially controlling the vehicular population through exorbitant prices is a very caveman way of doing things, and we wouldn't be forging ahead to the future, but rather, we would just be stuck forever in the present.

 

Edit: I think everyone here agrees that the COE scheme isn't really doing much to control vehicle population anyway. Someway, somehow, people are still able to afford cars. I'm just thinking of alternative non-draconian methods where most people could still benefit.

The reality is that carpark space doesn't have a good ROI. $4 per hour x 24 x 30 = 2880 per month only, assuming it's fully occupied throughout the month. Might as well save the space for shop rental which is a more consistent source of revenue and also enhances the quality of the shopping mall.

[Showster]

Carparks are supporting infrastructure for the main ROI.

 

Imagine Vivocity without carparks. Only for shoppers taking buses and MRTs (which automatically excludes a huge group of parents and kids). The revenue will go down to 30% (drop 70%) in a year.

 

 

The reality is that carpark space doesn't have a good ROI. $4 per hour x 24 x 30 = 2880 per month only, assuming it's fully occupied throughout the month. Might as well save the space for shop rental which is a more consistent source of revenue and also enhances the quality of the shopping mall.

 

[Wondertree]

His KPI is really to make the public transport world class and I think he has the determination to do it.

As a car owner, I am scare that my operating cost will keep on increasing.  But we have to be realistic and mentally be prepared since we are in a land with ever increasing population and yet the land areas cannot keep growing forever. 

If $100 per ERP entry, I am quite sure there will be no cars. lol 

 

That, sir, is the inevitable future. COE has been proven only effective in reducing the growth of congestion, but not easing congestion itself. 

 

The only effective measure, ceteris paribus, is to tax road usage, so drivers would stop having the 'use car to its fullest extent' mentality.

[Showster]

I have this weird theory linked to what PM said about allaying worries over fulfilling aspirations.

 

2005-2009 policies featured generally low prices favouring fulfilling people's aspirations for cars and housing.

 

But the GE results in 2006 and 2010 elections based on fulfilling aspirations were disastrous. The Govt might have learned the hard way that making these aspirational goods more readily attainable might not be ideal, because they lost voters at all three ends of the spectrum. The affluent couldn't feel the exclusivity of the goods they had (crowding for e.g.), the middle income always struggled to deal with the costs of owning and using such goods (petrol and parking costs), and the less affluent constantly felt low in morale at the inability to afford even at these comparatively low costs.

 

It might be a switch of gear, with PM Lee recently commenting that the focus nowadays is on allaying worries of the mass for the future. A left shift if you will to allow aspirational goods to "float" a little out of affordability to allay the worries of all 3 groups.

 

 

 

Well, we would also have to take into consideration that not all 6.9 million will be able to afford to buy a car anyway, even without COE. There are also people who don't like to drive at all too.

Furthermore, if we exclude HDB season parking in our own estate, when one drives to wherever he/she intends to go, parking isn't free either. Parking rates could be increased at the carpark's management discretion, which can indirectly fund building a bigger carpark. Even in the estates, higher MSCPs can be built too. Obviously, the season parking rate would have to increase to match the extra cost of building it.

How about dual - or - triple tier expressways and major roads too? Adding all these options together, it is highly possible to still let the vehicle population increase.

IMHO, realizing an efficient public transport system (for those who do not wish to drive, or cant afford to, no matter why) plus adequate private transport infrastructure isn't too far-fetched nor unreasonable. In most depictions of civilisations in the future, traffic travels in many vertical tiers. If the Government could force the majority of people to give up landed housing in favor of staying in high-rise buildings, why can't the same be done for transport? Artificially controlling the vehicular population through exorbitant prices is a very caveman way of doing things, and we wouldn't be forging ahead to the future, but rather, we would just be stuck forever in the present.

Edit: I think everyone here agrees that the COE scheme isn't really doing much to control vehicle population anyway. Someway, somehow, people are still able to afford cars. I'm just thinking of alternative non-draconian methods where most people could still benefit.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Seohster

[Wondertree]

I don't mean no harm but some people here need to have a broader view than on their moral high horses.

 

There are your mum and pop stores that have to have a mode of transport someway or another to survive in running their businesses.

 

if you set your cost of usage so high then whats left will be your big corporations and we all know where cost will head with those big corp running the show. 

 

That's exactly why we have Cat C coe. Cat C ERP rate could be reduced, too.

[flashbang]

Carparks are supporting infrastructure for the main ROI.

 

Imagine Vivocity without carparks. Only for shoppers taking buses and MRTs (which automatically excludes a huge group of parents and kids). The revenue will go down to 30% (drop 70%) in a year.

Yes, hence it doesn't make sense to build more and more lots to support an increasing car population. There is a max that developers will allocate to car parks.