Exactly, if the number of cars on the road was really the driving force behind the government's behaviour, there would be a much easier solution. Limit the number of COE's sold. Have a ballot. Make it so that to buy a new COE, you had to have proof that you de-registered a car. Maybe make taxis exempt from ERP so that they become cheaper compared to owning a car. Fact is that the gov't has the power to act directly, but instead they would rather take from both ends. They want people to buy more cars so that they get both more COE money and more ERP money.sundaymorningstaple wrote: So, this is a good way for the Government to keep their coffers filled to the brim while is giving away goodies to keep the peons voting for the PAP. If they need more money, put up more gantries and raise the rates. No problem. They won't quit driving, they just beach in the kopishop and keep topping up their cashcards.
Traffic control in London? What traffic control? More like a plethora of parking/money making schemes. When it comes to parking most places have controlled zones where locals have to pay an annual levy to park outside their own homes, obtain permits for their own visitors and even people coming to work in the area. While in central London you have pay £5 for the privilege of entering the area.sundaymorningstaple wrote: Traffic control in other countries? Like which ones? London, from what I gather is a mess.
When you get down to it, the problem is that there are just too many people in this tiny country. Expats, locals, everybody - there is just no physical way to fit all of these cars on the road, if Singaporeans owned as many cars as say Americans do, as a percentage of the population. Every bit of land would be road! And as people here get wealthier, more will want cars. At least if you live in London, or LA, or another city, you can still get out of the city when you need to - here there's just no chance other than going to Malaysia. Even our "suburbs" are crammed with high-rise HDBs just to fit all the people in.Strong Eagle wrote:The real problem is that right now the LTA's allowance for new vehicles on the roads every year is all scrapped vehicles plus 3 percent of current vehicle population. So, 2009 will be 103 percent of 2008, 2010 will be 106.1 percent, 2011 will be 1.093 percent and so on.
The problem is that the road availability is not increasing at the same rate. The increase in ERP charges is an attempt (not successful) to try to limit traffic congestion caused by the yearly increase in vehicles.
Actually little chance of this since Singapore's approach is usually offered as a success when discussing traffic problems in other cities. Politically though the idea never gets far (like in New York recently).Aston wrote:I sure hope maybe the traffic control practise from other countries can help in Singapore.
But how many like me actually give up their vehicles? I am an extreme minority. I've often said, common sense is in very short supply on this island. I wasn't kidding. Actually the figures I save are going up everyday considering the constanting increasing ERP rates. But, as pointed out by SE and others above, the growth of car ownership says that there are more drivers and not less. ERP doesn't reduce traffic as all, it just reroutes it for a little while. Just track the rate increases on different avenues into the city from the same general direction of a period of a year and you will see what I mean. Then as the new avenue with the lesser rates get's jammed up LTA will then raise those gantry rates, always one step behind but traffic is still the same for all intents as purposes.cavalier wrote:By the way, SMS, how can you say ERP doesn't reduce traffic? Didn't you recently outline how much you save by not driving? Iif someone drives into the CBD every day, the increased ERP enters into their same computation of the costs and benefits that you evidently made.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests