1000 plus ERP to be built in the next 3 years!!???

[dkw]

1. Where did I imply that? .

You implied that it made no difference to pollution whether you rode a bus or drove, which is false.

2. You can only implement something if you can sell it to the population. They couldn't sell it in New York, they couldn't even sell GST in Hong Kong.

There is no "trend" to speak of, one or two cities does not constitute a "trend". .

As noted in a later point, LTA doesn't need to sell this to implement it. If it is a done deal, its a done deal, tough. Hence the difference in governance between us and the rest. Please quote a city which has implemented road pricing and had subsequently reversed it? On the other hand, there are plenty of cities looking at ways of solving their logjams, including road pricing. The implementation and models may be different, but the principle is the same, discourage road use, of which one method is progressive road pricing.

3. I don't agree with their position. There are many other means to regulate congestion into the city, eg. through mandatory car pooling (like we had before 1975), odd/even car days, etc. none of which are designed to swell govt coffers..

Completely disagree. Clunky and difficult to implement. You know how people got around the odd/even system in other countries? They bought 2 cars! With the ERP, you could easily choose to save on road pricing by driving only on alternate days. Car Pooling?? Seriously, you are rushing into the city and you make a detour to pick someone up? Give me the flex of payment anytime, I'll be discretionary about how I use my car.

4. You can check figures yourself in LTA annual report.

You may like to note, a 1% change in income tax level will lose huge political support, maybe even put off some "foreign talent" from coming here.

A 50 cent or $1 increase in ERP can be explained away much more easily, even enable them to score political points among the majority who don't own cars. And yet, 50 cents is such a small amount that drivers really don't alter their habits, so the govt can pocket $$$ without having to raise other fees.

ANGST? What angst? A few letters to the press is "angst"? A few forum postings is "angst"? A few blog postings is "angst"? In Hong Kong, they had huge demonstrations and marches against GST-- that's angst.

So, is the issue here that you disagree with the idea of regulating road use, or are you just reflexly against the idea of paying more money to the g-ment? 2 separate issues, yes?

If the people want a govt that does ERP, so be it. Just because a policy is unpopular doesn't mean it's right. And vice versa.

Here we can agree.

Cheers

 

[waileong]

1. is fair enough. refer to my point that by increasing the cost to driving, this will ensure that the people who place the most value on the convenience of driving will be willing to jump through the hurdle and pay the price.

Wow-- how thoughtful of the govt.... But is it really true?

Increasing the cost of driving just makes it painful for those who need to drive. I assure you, in today's Singapore, people don't generally buy cars for the fun of it. No one enjoys paying high COE, high car prices, high road taxes, high petrol duties, high ERP, high parking charges, high motor insurance, etc.

While there may be the uber rich who drive around in their Porsches, the majority of drivers are practical people-- people who have families they need to ferry around in their MPV, people who live in Jurong and work in Changi, etc.

In other words, the majority who own a car probably need one and really find it hard to make do with public transport.

So any ERP increase does not hurt the tycoons with their multiple sports cars, it hurts those who really need to use a car and for whom public transport just doesn't work.

So how does your ERP policy really work? For whose benefit? For whose suffering?

3. you may want to take note that hong kong has asked for erp before. i recall being in hong kong a while back and noting puzzledly in the newspapers there two or three letters in their forum pointing out happily that singapore had erp, so why didn't they have it too?

Just a few letters to the press does not constitute Hong Kong "asking" for ERP.

There are letters to the press all the time from people who want everything from legalising gay marriages to outlawing public demonstrations.

A country "asks" for something only when its voters vote in a candidate whose platform includes that something.

Show me a candidate who got elected in Hong Kong on an ERP platform and I will agree that they "asked" for ERP.

4. apparently it isn't prohibitive enough. in fact, maybe we should just jack up coe prices to kingdom come and watch the resultant complaints that singapore is the one place in the world where nobody can afford a car.

COE prices are determined by supply and demand. ERP rates are not. There was a time when COE's were over $100k. Now COE prices are down for various reasons, largely because the govt decide to allow more COEs, and also because people realise the irrational exuberance of the early 90's was unfounded.

5. oohz. and you base this on what logic or basis? if i may so point out, so many people here are happily embracing the BMW concept before anything has been solidified yet, this is just the speculation phase. are you quite as certain that the demand curve is as inelastic as you paint it out to be?

Why don't you do a straw poll? An increase of 50 cents or $1 is very small, not small enough to make people wake up half an hour earlier to beat it. Yet, the revenue increase (eg from $2 to $2.50) is 12.5-25%, do you see traffic volumes reduce by 25% when they increase ERP by $1?

6. see 5. and i advise you not to go further down this road.

And why would you advise me to do that? People do deserve what they voted for.

 

[dkw]

And why would you advise me to do that? People do deserve what they voted for.

And one would choose to throw a g-ment out on the account of a 50c increase in ERP? Wow, if it came to that one day, then I guess the people DID deserve what they got :bigeyes:

I hope I deserve an administration that isn't too hung up on what votes they may lose in implementing such policies and stay focussed on the big picture in delivering a sustainable living environment for my children, but I guess not everyone feels the same:cry:

 

[waileong]

You implied that it made no difference to pollution whether you rode a bus or drove, which is false.

I think you should read more carefully. Where does it imply "no difference".

So, is the issue here that you disagree with the idea of regulating road use, or are you just reflexly against the idea of paying more money to the g-ment? 2 separate issues, yes?

I don't think road use should be regulated per se, but if they want to regulate, I don't want them to make money out of it.

The point is simple-- people will adapt. If there are peak hour jams, people will learn to avoid jams, because nobody enjoys being in jams. So it is already to a large extent self-regulatory.

It's kind of like New York-- most people learn not to drive into New York simply because parking is so expensive (not to mention that they could get car-jacked). They may own cars but many people still take the metro because it's faster and more convenient in the city. And if they do drive, they will try to avoid the rush hour when they can. They don't need the govt to implement an ERP system to bring about a "desired" behaviour.

 

[dkw]

I think you should read more carefully. Where does it imply "no difference"..

I am reading Point 2. again. You did not differentiate between a bus rider and car driver. the statement being, "Pollution is not an issue........You are contributing to pollution even if you take a bus", therefore implying that regulation of private vehicle use was irrelevant as bus use was equally polluting. If you are now saying that there IS a difference, then you are agreeing that bus use is more ecologically friendly than car use, and therefore in the interest of balancing environmental needs with transport needs, that if regulation were to be imposed, that private car use would be dealt with more stringently than buses, yes?

I don't think road use should be regulated per se, but if they want to regulate, I don't want them to make money out of it.

The point is simple-- people will adapt. If there are peak hour jams, people will learn to avoid jams, because nobody enjoys being in jams. So it is already to a large extent self-regulatory.

It's kind of like New York-- most people learn not to drive into New York simply because parking is so expensive (not to mention that they could get car-jacked). They may own cars but many people still take the metro because it's faster and more convenient in the city. And if they do drive, they will try to avoid the rush hour when they can. They don't need the govt to implement an ERP system to bring about a "desired" behaviour.

Well, we disagree, as do many metropolitan authorities who unfortunately may or may not have the gumption to implement. Our administration has chose a more pro-active approach (surprise surprise) than others. Unregulated laissez faire has its consequence. Yes, we are all free to choose to sit in a jam. However, businesses need to run, deliveries made, ambulances need clear lanes. People living on the periphery of major highways suffer from traffic congestion, burning fuel in a jam makes us more vulnerable to oil prices. You may prefer to trade 30 minutes on the road vs 50c in ERP, that is your choice, but some people don't have a choice and it is the role of the g-ment to look after all constituencies and our strategic vulnerabilities. If its that vs WL's personal preference for an unregulated approach, I know which side I am coming down on.

If the point is that you don't want them making money out of this, then I suggest you examine your personal motivations for opposing this. Since you had already stated that you won't lose sleep over a 50c increase, then it seems to me to be an emotional knee-jerk response which doesn't really address the main issue.

Cheers

 

[night86mare]

In other words, the majority who own a car probably need one and really find it hard to make do with public transport.

So any ERP increase does not hurt the tycoons with their multiple sports cars, it hurts those who really need to use a car and for whom public transport just doesn't work.

So how does your ERP policy really work? For whose benefit? For whose suffering?

what sort of statement is this? the last i checked a car was supposed to be still a luxury item. i know many, many families who make do without one, who get by without one and survive without one.

so long as public transport is sufficiently efficient, believe me, there will be no pain. saying that just because the majority who own a car will make it hard to make do with public transport means that increasing the cost of driving is a bad idea - you can hardly say that it equates, does it?

and the next few paragraphs are even more ludicrous, you seem to subscribe to vince's way of logic, or rather, his attempt to echo another's way of logic blindly. are you seriously, seriously telling me that just because a person owns sports cars, firstly:

1) it means that he does not really need to use a car
2) and can get by on public transport?

if even a tycoon who can afford to drive his sports car through 800000000 erp gantries, by your warped logic, can get by on public transport SUDDENLY, despite the fact that you seem to think that a car is a necessity (spoilt in some way, no doubt), then pardon me for having to point out that you reek of double standards.

Just a few letters to the press does not constitute Hong Kong "asking" for ERP.

There are letters to the press all the time from people who want everything from legalising gay marriages to outlawing public demonstrations.

the truth is truth, there are always two sides of a story. the fact that there are actually presumably, from your point of view, extremely masochistic people in existence in hong kong, and the fact that you have not bothered to done a search on this.. proves that you're just simply using extremely general statements to try to debunk the point i'm trying to make - that an example that you brought up is not as rosy as you paint it out to be. though you do not state it out explicitly, your argument can be said to be based on the assumption that if there are people unhappy with a certain issue, there has to be a problem. so the converse is true too. i might as well say that just because a few people here complain about such a policy doesn't mean that singapore doesn't want erp. for all you know, we all welcome it with open arms.

COE prices are determined by supply and demand. ERP rates are not. There was a time when COE's were over $100k. Now COE prices are down for various reasons, largely because the govt decide to allow more COEs, and also because people realise the irrational exuberance of the early 90's was unfounded.

rubbish. do you understand economics?

now tell me, if the government is the sole dealer of a certain good, and it increases the supply of the good, and the resultant price drops, this equates to a drop in demand?

if your D curve does not shift, even with a shift in the S curve, the price will drop. hence the first given factor is a fact, the second given factor needs more backing up. the government can easily, easily manipulate coe pricing so long as it is the sole issuer of coes. so in that sense, a coe's pricing may be affected by the people's demand, but it is still within firm control of the government.

one could just as easily debunk your second statement and attribute it to an extraordinary improvement in the public transportation system, or even something as spastic as a release of a report that cars are deathtraps. the point i'm trying to make is, a statement that people realising that the irrational exuberance of the early 90s was unfounded is way too unfounded for me, since no hard evidence can be brought up to back this up, save your writings.

 

[night86mare]

Thank you for writing a long (but irrelevant) essay in my honour - I basically paraphrased a point made by an earlier poster but obviously you only chose to extend your monologue when I am the one doing the posting.

Good Job

a man who quotes another's point of view , and points it out later to absolve and disengage himself from this viewpoint..

well, words cannot say what i think of such an individual. :bsmilie:

unfortunately, that doesn't work in many scenarios, if you paraphrase x's maligning of person y and state in retrospect that you are quoting person y, i am *sure* that whatever short law course you have taken would have easily told you that you can be held liable for that statement despite not being the sole originator. therefore, i apologise if i seem unreasonable for thinking that you should be responsible for paraphrasings that you have written down.

however, i do understand that people do tend to cop out when they have nothing much to offer in rebuttal. it is just too bad that i do think it fair that just as you are entitled to cop out, i am entitled to point out that you are copping out. :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

I didn't absolve myself nor did I not take responsibility for the view stated. I merely pointed out that you choose to engage the point only where I was the author of it, and not when someone else has stated the same point.

a man who quotes another's point of view , and points it out later to absolve and disengage himself from this viewpoint..

well, words cannot say what i think of such an individual. :bsmilie:

unfortunately, that doesn't work in many scenarios, if you paraphrase x's maligning of person y and state in retrospect that you are quoting person y, i am *sure* that whatever short law course you have taken would have easily told you that you can be held liable for that statement despite not being the sole originator. therefore, i apologise if i seem unreasonable for thinking that you should be responsible for paraphrasings that you have written down.

however, i do understand that people do tend to cop out when they have nothing much to offer in rebuttal. it is just too bad that i do think it fair that just as you are entitled to cop out, i am entitled to point out that you are copping out. :bsmilie:

 

[Simon_84]

can a mod please close this thread...is getting worse by the min...