Big Idea No. 1: A 'less-car' Singapore

[Darthrevan]

In my January 2014 column, I said that Singaporeans should use 2014 to think of new Big Ideas to guide us for the next 50 years. Here is Big Idea No.1 for debate and discussion.

Singapore will never be car-less, but it can and should have fewer cars. On reading this, the reader could be forgiven for thinking: ''Here goes Kishore again on his campaign to improve public transport in Singapore.''

However, this big idea is not about improving transportation. It is about improving the happiness of the Singapore population.

Unhappy Singaporeans

IT IS a well-known fact that the Singaporean population is not the happiest in the world. Singaporeans gripe, naturally and effortlessly. One good example of this was provided by a Straits Times article written after the Prime Minister had spoken to a group of students at the Nanyang Technological University on Jan 30. The article began with the following line: ''Nine out of 15 interviewed were concerned they won't be able to buy a flat and a car.''

The aspiration of the young for a flat is perfectly reasonable. But the aspiration of nine out of 15 for a car is not reasonable. Why not? The simple, direct and blunt answer is that if Singapore tries to squeeze the American dream - designed for a huge, almost boundless continent - into one of the tiniest countries in the world, it will effectively condemn its population to perpetual unhappiness.

High car ownership

ONE little known fact about Singapore is that it has one of the highest car ownership populations in the world for a city. (Repeat: For a city, and not for a country.)

Mr Charles Chow, who blogs on transportation issues, says the following: ''There are roughly 550,000 to 600,000 private vehicles in Singapore. Forty-five per cent of households in Singapore own at least one car. This implies that out of the approximate 1.25 million households in Singapore, about 560,000 households have at least one car. There are 200,000 private dwellings in Singapore and slightly more than one million Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. My simple back-of-the-envelope calculation therefore shows that more than 300,000 HDB or public housing dwellings own at least one car. Since HDB dwellings are heavily subsidised, the fact that they are also given abundant and cheap residential HDB carparks represent a further subsidy.''

Mr Chow also notes the contrast between Singapore and other cities: ''From London to Hong Kong, only the top 10 to 20 per cent of household dwellings come with carparks. Without a carpark, residents just simply cannot buy a car. In Singapore, the Government has so generously provided abundant and cheap residential carparking in the HDB estates over the years. From New York to Tokyo, office buildings are deliberately built with few or no carparks.

''In Singapore, that is not the case. Even middle managers can drive their cars to work and park their cars in office building carparks for the whole day.''

Having lived in New York for 10 years, I can only agree with Mr Chow when he says: ''Anyone who has lived in New York or Tokyo would know that even managing directors of companies, senior bankers and lawyers take public transportation to work. In Singapore, even middle-level executives working in Raffles Place drive to work. Is the Singaporean middle-level executive better paid than a senior banker in New York?''

Car ownership encouraged

IN SHORT, in a country that has designed public policies to restrict car ownership (from the compulsory certificate of entitlement to high import taxes), Singapore has paradoxically ended up creating an environment that actually encourages rather than discourages car ownership. There are three ways in which Singapore encourages car ownership.

Firstly, as the world's only city state, the Singapore Government wisely decided in its early years that the country would strangle itself to death as an economy if it allowed Bangkok-style traffic jams to clog our streets. But while Singapore has succeeded in creating free-flowing traffic, this has paradoxically made it rational to own a car.

This is also why I own a car. I can get from my home in Siglap to my school in Bukit Timah in less than 20 minutes by driving. Any combination of public transport would take at least an hour each way. I save 80 minutes a day by driving. This provides a huge incentive to own a car. (My ultimate dream, however, is to forego owning a car. Instead, I would like to have a driverless electric vehicle - similar to the one the National University of Singapore is testing - appear at my home within 30 minutes of calling. As I learnt in Davos last month, I will be able to achieve this dream in my lifetime.)

Secondly, by ensuring that car prices are among the highest in the world, Singapore has made the car one of the most important status symbols in Singapore. This explains the attraction of European car brands in Singapore.

In most cases, a Japanese or Korean car can do the job of transportation equally well. But it will not enhance one's status. A European brand does. This is how we try to keep up with ''the Joneses'' in Singapore.

Thirdly, as Mr Chow says, our subsidy of carparks in HDB estates makes it much easier and cheaper to own and park a car than it would be in New York, London, Tokyo or Paris. Since this subsidy has become entrenched in our society, it cannot be taken away. Any government that tries to take back perks that a population has become accustomed to is a government that wants to commit political suicide. It would be unfair to ask any government to do this.

Bottom-up approach

ALL this brings me to the most important point that I want to make in this article. Singapore has succeeded in its first 50 years because it had a government that thought carefully over the long term and crafted policies that would enhance the long-term interests of Singapore. This is why Singapore has free-flowing traffic. However, over the next 50 years, a new paradigm will be needed: What is needed now is a society where the people think carefully and advocate policies that are good for Singapore's long-term interests. In short, a bottom-up instead of a top-down approach is needed to solve the car problem of Singapore.

In the first 50 years, Singapore had a government designing various policies to temper the desire for Singaporeans to own cars. Now, society needs to decide that since Singapore is one of the tiniest countries in the world, people should gradually give up the desire to own cars. Most Singaporeans reading this article would scoff at this notion. Let me share some good news here. In most developed countries, people are already using cars less, not more.

Trend towards fewer cars

AN ARTICLE from The Economist on Sept 22, 2012, provides some encouraging statistics. In the leading economies in the world (Japan, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States) ''total vehicle kilometres travelled began to plateau in 2004 and fall from 2007; measured per person, growth flatlined sooner, after 2000, and dropped after 2004 before recovering somewhat''.

According to World Bank data, passenger cars per 1,000 people in the US have been gradually declining since at least 2003, a trend which accelerated somewhat after the onset of the recession in 2008. Equally encouragingly, young people in the developed world are getting driver's licences later in life (or not at all).

This is good news for congestion because, according to a study conducted in the UK, people who learn to drive in their late 20s drive less than if they had learnt in their late teens.

Singaporeans are proud of the fact that the country has gone from ''Third World to First World'' faster than any other nation in human history. Now, for the next 50 years, Singapore has to catch up with the First World in terms of moving away from car ownership as a dream.

In my next article - Big Idea No.2 - I hope to demonstrate it is possible to make Singapore No.1 in the world when it comes to public transportation.

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/big-idea-no-1-less-car-singapore-20140208

[Evillusion]

Instead of making it a disincentive not to drive with erp, coe, high parking charges.....try making it an incentive to go public!

[Super7]

Instead of making it a disincentive not to drive with erp, coe, high parking charges.....try making it an incentive to go public!

Disincentives can make money for gahmen, improvements in public transport cost them money, which choice will they make?

[Evillusion]

Disincentives can make money for gahmen, improvements in public transport cost them money, which choice will they make?

thats whats wrong with our gov....they want their cake and eat it too! Coe is fine but if public service is top notch many will change their tansportation habit!

[Holdenutessv]

 

 

Anyone who has lived in New York or Tokyo would know that even managing directors of companies, senior bankers and lawyers take public transportation to work. In Singapore, even middle-level executives working in Raffles Place drive to work. Is the Singaporean middle-level executive better paid than a senior banker in New York?'

That's because the public transport is like.... you know what.

[Super7]

That's because the public transport is like.... you know what.

 

 

This guy is looking only at making life hard for drivers, but not pushing for better alternatives eg better transport system to replace driving. TALK COCK!!

thats whats wrong with our gov....they want their cake and eat it too! Coe is fine but if public service is top notch many will change their tansportation habit!

 

 

Many more good years to come....

[Tigerwoods]

thats whats wrong with our gov....they want their cake and eat it too! Coe is fine but if public service is top notch many will change their tansportation habit!

 

Big Idea No.1 or No.2 or maybe No.3 already achieved by Hong Kong.

Its no longer Big Idea - Its a KNOWN IDEA - improve the public transport system and capacity (not only more stations planted islandwide but increase passenger capacity/train.

 

Actually if only LTA dares to extend the all station platforms left and right

Above ground and underground, to add 4 more carriages to each train

coupled with their $1B spending on more buses + demarcate the roads to include Motorbikes like Taipei,

 

Many will give up cars and take to public transport.

I would.

But only 1 thing got in the way - bo chi

[Holdenutessv]

This guy is looking only at making life hard for drivers, but not pushing for better alternatives eg better transport system to replace driving. TALK COCK!!

 

"The Straits Times"... Of course talk cock lah.

[Fcw75]

Instead of making it a disincentive not to drive with erp, coe, high parking charges.....try making it an incentive to go public!

How to make it an incentive to go public when our public transport is privatized? Everything to them is about profits and answerable to shareholders.

[Evillusion]

Big Idea No.1 or No.2 or maybe No.3 already achieved by Hong Kong.

Its no longer Big Idea - Its a KNOWN IDEA - improve the public transport system and capacity (not only more stations planted islandwide but increase passenger capacity/train.

 

Actually if only LTA dares to extend the all station platforms left and right

Above ground and underground, to add 4 more carriages to each train

coupled with their $1B spending on more buses + demarcate the roads to include Motorbikes like Taipei,

 

Many will give up cars and take to public transport.

I would.

But only 1 thing got in the way - bo chi

bo chi....hahaha. U referring to 'them' right? Before i bought a car my medium of transport was always the mrt. Then it was always jampacked to the brim during rush hour....now its worst with the influx of you know who. They force the people to take mrt by introducing coe and erp.....but now both mode of transport are burdened and overloaded anytime of the day and night. The only way is to make more lines servicing north east west south and central. They seem to be sitting on their laurels and waiting for things to unravel then increase ticket price using out of the box arguments as sound reasons! People from woodlands going to downtown or Pasi Ris need to make one big loop and switch in-between to other lines thus making unnecessary detour around the already jampacked downtown/jurong station. I am sure many unnecessary trip can be reduced if they want it to!

[Jokerd]

When the top level embrace the idea, then the bottom will follow

[Evillusion]

How to make it an incentive to go public when our public transport is privatized? Everything to them is about profits and answerable to shareholders.

My innuendos not cheem lei! They can do things if they want to but i think they dont want to slaughter the golden goose! coe, erp, mrt are money making ventures....u want a car pay for coe and what not....u dont have the means go public....the profits is either for A or B. Tough luck for us but a golden goose to them!

[MaBoiBoi]

When the top level embrace the idea, then the bottom will follow

 

Tuck Yew did uh. Bus and Mrt For that day, probably no overcrowding, no breakdowns, no delays, no uncle on track, no old aunty to bang on the road

[Camrysfa]

Mr Chow also notes the contrast between Singapore and other cities: ''From London to Hong Kong, only the top 10 to 20 per cent of household dwellings come with carparks. Without a carpark, residents just simply cannot buy a car. In Singapore, the Government has so generously provided abundant and cheap residential carparking in the HDB estates over the years. From New York to Tokyo, office buildings are deliberately built with few or no carparks.

 

 

....hmmm, not correct to compare SG to London city, NY city & Tokyo city.

[Dragonfly1]

Yes you are right. I lived in London for nearly 15 years and there is very limited parking space and the cost of parking is super expensive. Therefore I dont drive in London.

But I have a choice, I have two very young toddlers that I can choose not to venture in London with family.

 

But in Singapore, its a city state, I dont have a choice, its not practical to travel with elderly and yound toddlers in public transport. Taxi also difficult to get in peak times.

 

 

Mr Chow also notes the contrast between Singapore and other cities: ''From London to Hong Kong, only the top 10 to 20 per cent of household dwellings come with carparks. Without a carpark, residents just simply cannot buy a car. In Singapore, the Government has so generously provided abundant and cheap residential carparking in the HDB estates over the years. From New York to Tokyo, office buildings are deliberately built with few or no carparks.

 

 

....hmmm, not correct to compare SG to London city, NY city & Tokyo city.

 

[Tigerwoods]

bo chi....hahaha. U referring to 'them' right? Before i bought a car my medium of transport was always the mrt. Then it was always jampacked to the brim during rush hour....now its worst with the influx of you know who. They force the people to take mrt by introducing coe and erp.....but now both mode of transport are burdened and overloaded anytime of the day and night. The only way is to make more lines servicing north east west south and central. They seem to be sitting on their laurels and waiting for things to unravel then increase ticket price using out of the box arguments as sound reasons! People from woodlands going to downtown or Pasi Ris need to make one big loop and switch in-between to other lines thus making unnecessary detour around the already jampacked downtown/jurong station. I am sure many unnecessary trip can be reduced if they want it to!

Why I say Bo Chi?

Real leaders dare to make tough decisions for change for the common good.

KPI leaders make tweaks to achieve short term goals to get bonus.

[Evillusion]

Why I say Bo Chi?

Real leaders dare to make tough decisions for change for the common good.

KPI leaders make tweaks to achieve short term goals to get bonus.

they are only thinking of their own interest! Doesnt need a rocket scientist to see the limitations of our mrt service. No matter how many trains or how many signal lights they put at the station the train sation can oni have one in each direction and to have too many trains in one line is dangerous (weight limitations). The only way is to construct another line serving Tampines, Pasir Ris, Punggol, Yishun, Woodlands and then cut through straight to Bukit timah area and then goes further south Pasir Panjang area pronto! There is a plan to make a line that cuts through wdlands....but its only in the planning stage! I just hope that they hurry the plans up as there is no better solution. Wonder what kind of crap idea will they come out with should this signal light fails ultimately!

[Jellandross]

how to realize big ideas when the fundamentals (of MRT transport) are weak?

 

just a few simple points to illustrate.

 

train station density, connectivity and diversity - still long way to go. eg. try going from punggol to nearby pasir ris. car ride, 15 mins or less. train ride, forever.

 

train frequency - HK already achieved one train per minute during peak hours a long time ago. wait until SG reach this milestone then talk.

 

train reliability - even newer lines are starting to break down. enough said.

 

i didn't mention bus services because i believe if you have a good efficient train system, bus services should only need to play a supporting role.