Singapore - The High Cost Of Owning A Car

[naomi24]

A certificate to own a car in Singapore now costs S$106,000.... and that's without the cost of the car.  A Singapore Dollar equates to about 60 pence.  The city-state introduced the 10-year certificate of entitlement (COE) system in 1990 as an anti-congestion measure.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67014420

 

Let's hope Mr Khan doesn't get wind of this scheme!

[ToraToraTora]

Naomi: "But that's you.  What about me?  I live in the middle of the countryside - I can see just two houses from my home - there is no public transport - not even a pavement or a street light. "

I mean it would make no difference to the whole transport situation. Millions would have to do it to have an impact. I didn't mean that I could do without a car ( I can but that's not the point I was making).

" There is no way I could manage without transport so what do I do under your scheme? " - there would be a regular buses everywhere like there used to be. Subsidised and cheap. Paid for by the motorists that choose to keep being such. I would restore the rail network (not in the same places but where it is needed today) etc. There would be a vast clean, cheap ,efficient public transport system.

[youngmafbog]

//There would be a vast clean, cheap ,efficient public transport system.//

Good luck with that and Brother Lynch.

[ToraToraTora]

"The people's flag.....etc....🎵🎶

[naomi24]

TTT, //there would be a regular buses everywhere like there used to be//

 

TTT, I don't think there's ever been buses where I live - regular or not - and the cost of providing them to replace cars - which unlike any public transport system are available 24 hours a day - would be prohibitive.  Socialism is all very well in theory but it ignores reality.  I thought you knew that.

[ToraToraTora]

There's no 100% solution to please everyone Naomi.

[naomi24]

No there isn't, TTT - but the other aspect of this is that under Singapore's scheme, only the relatively comfortably off can afford to run a car.  The less wealthy just have to lump it.  That doesn't seem right to me.  Not at all.  

[ToraToraTora]

depends what your priorities are.

[New Judge]

That doesn't seem right to me.  Not at all.  

 

No it isn't right naomi. Not at all.

Like it or not, present day lifestyles mean that people have to travel for all sorts of reasons. Some of those are of necessity, others are because it's "nice to do". As I said when commenting on "15 minute cities", many of the current plans would see society return to pre-industrial days when most people rarely, if ever, strayed from the locality where they were born. Everything they did was done within that locality and all their needs were met either from within it or not at all. The Singapore idea is a step towards that.

There are many places in the UK where living any sort of reasonable lifestyle without a car would be nigh on impossible. Yes you can have your groceries and other goods delivered. But many small settlements have no doctors' surgery, no dentist, many have no shops or just one corner shop. Hospitals are thin on teh ground. Even in some of the larger towns, travel is still a necessity. I have a relative who lives in a large town in West Dorset. But he has to travel 20 miles for anything but the most basic of shopping. He and his wife had to travel 40 miles to Exter for Covid jabs (his nearest bus is two miles away).

The idea that most people can live without a car is one promulgated by others who have absolutely no idea what circumstances are like in these places. 

Humans will continue to move about for all sorts of reasons and they will continue to burn fossil fuels (one way or another) to achieve that. The sooner that is realised, the sooner we can develop some realistic transport strategies which may help reduce carbon emissions, but they will not be eliminated.

[jourdain2]

Thank's for that N. J..  The village I live in has no shop.  The Doctor's Surgery is 7 miles away over country roads. Nearest village with a shop is 5 miles.  Nearest petrol 6 miles. I  have an old spinal injury with limits walking to about a mile on a decent day (not grumbling - glad I can walk!) and OH is 90. 

There is a bus to one town, 10 miles away to the east, on Wednesday at 9.50 a.m., it returns at 2.00 p.m..  It is a 12-seater mini-bus.  Same bus then runs on Friday at the same times to a town 10 miles in the other direction.  Neither goes anywhere near the Doctors'.  Secondary school children are bussed into their schools.

Not sure how people are supposed to manage without a car. We certainly can't even think about affording an electric car and  wouldn't want one anyway.

There are a couple of youngsters in the village who can't get a job - because they can't get to one, because they can't afford to learn to drive and if they could they couldn't afford a car. Needless to say - it's a good few miles to a railway station as well.

I can't see how public transport could sort out all the varied needs.

[ToraToraTora]

No one is suggesting banning cars. We all prioritise according to our needs. If one really must have a car then that option is there and always will be. Whenever this kind of discussion occurs we always get the cases like those above, well no one is suggesting 100% of anything to anything.

[naomi24]

TTT, but with a scheme like this less wealthy people are prohibited from owning a car at all.  Is that acceptable? 

[ToraToraTora]

In the same way that less wealthy people do not have a private jet? Sevants? Chauffer? etc There is already the motability system that could be extended and adapted for genuine cases.

[ToraToraTora]

servants...I wish they'd get the spell check enabled again.

[naomi24]

//In the same way that less wealthy people do not have a private jet? Sevants? Chauffer? etc //

 

That's not the same though, TTT.   Cars aren't a luxury.  They're a normal part of everyday life.  

[tomus42]

If we had a public transport system like the one ttt is proposing, there'd be no need for the govt to price motorists off the road. People wouldn't feel the need to jump in the car to do everything. 

People in Naomi's situation would still use the car, but the rest if us with a viable alternative wouldn't need to. At the moment the viable alternative isn't there.

[New Judge]

If we had a public transport system like the one ttt is proposing, there'd be no need for the govt to price motorists off the road. People wouldn't feel the need to jump in the car to do everything. 

But they would.

Where I live there is very good public transport to most of the things people need. I live a six minute walk from the bus stop. There are buses every 7 to 8 minutes during the day all week and every 15 minutes on Sunday. Buses run from about 5:30am to almost 1am. There are also good train connections to many destinations.

But I see my neighbours drive to shops (walking distance) to pick up a small amount of shopping. They will drive to local restaurants in the evening when they are just 5 to 10 minutes away on a bus. They drive to the local hospital, pay a fortune to park (if they can find a space) when the bus would drop them at the front door. Many of those who work locally drive to work. Those who commute by train will drive to th elocal station (twelve minutes walk).

It will take a lot more than decent public transport to get people out of their cars. I know because we have it where I live and people still drive to make journeys they could easily do on public transport or even on foot. 

[tomus42]

Fair enough NJ. Keep piling on the taxes is probably the way to go then. Clear the riff raff off the the road so you, me, Naomi and ttt can roll on through unhindered.