Government Intervention in COE's again

toiletsiao

Well-Known Member
Government intervention to support car prices!

SINGAPORE: Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew has said that Singapore's annual vehicle growth cap would be cut further from next year.

Mr Lui did not say how much lower it will go. The quantum, he said, would be announced in October.

Mr Lui said this in an interview with the local media ahead of the opening of the new Parliament sitting next week.

The annual allowable vehicle growth rate now stands at 1.5 per cent.

One way Singapore manages its vehicle growth population is through the vehicle quota system.

Under it, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) determines the number of new vehicles allowed on the roads.

It takes into account the prevailing traffic conditions and the number of vehicles taken off the roads permanently.

The last time the quota was cut was in 2009, when it was halved from three per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Explaining the reason for the upcoming cut, Mr Lui said one consideration is the fact that Singapore's road network will be considerably scaled down in future.

"In the recent decade, I think the roads have grown by about one per cent and going forward, we think it probably will grow only about 0.5 per cent per annum, this is the road network," Mr Lui said.

"You can't allow it (the vehicle quota) to grow at the rates in past years simply because the road networks are not expanding as what we have done before.

"And there is also a limit to what we can do with regard to congestion pricing. So it's really trying to find a balance to these two measures".

Mr Lui ruled out the possibility of a zero-per cent population growth for vehicles.

"It is a combination of both ownership measures as well as usage measures that is most ideal," he said.

"You could theoretically bring it down to zero or even below zero but I think it will bump up against the aspirations of some who want to own a car.

"Notwithstanding whatever it is, we try to improve on the public transport system and there are those who feel that they really need a car.

"They have elderly, sickly parents around and it is a lot more convenient, so we understand all that."

One expert said any drastic cuts would not make sense given that the average speed on expressways last year was about 62 kilometres per hour (km/hr).

It was 28 km/hr along arterial roads and within the CBD.

In 2002, the average speed on expressways was 64.8 km/hr. It was 63.3 km/hr in 2010.

Along arterial roads and within the CBD, the average speed was 24.6 km/hr in 2002.

In 2010, the speed improved to 28 km/hr.

Associate Professor Anthony Chin, director of the Economic Executive Programme at the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, said: "Are we saying that 62.3 km/hr is not acceptable? That we have to cut ownership?

"Secondly, do we understand usage behaviour well enough to just go for this blatant cut in the ownership?"

"It's not just a question of ownership but it's the usage, because we are now tackling the usage problem -- congestion is a usage problem.

"You can own cars but if everybody uses it at the same time, at the same location, well, you don't need a professor to tell you that you will get traffic congestion because you are just loading it into the system."

Assoc Prof Chin added: "At this particular moment, the road speeds seem to be acceptable, unless you are saying that in the future, that this road space will not grow by one per cent and you don't do anything, you don't do any traffic management, you don't do any of these policies that would affect the behaviour of the motorist.

"Then I would agree that you would have to cut -- that makes sense, does it not? If the space is not going to grow by so much and you want to maintain these speeds, then of course something's got to give."

Industry players said the cut in vehicle growth will very likely push up car prices.

Tan Chong Motor general manager of sales and marketing Ron Lim said: "Based on vehicle population numbers of 925,772 as at end-August 2011, 1.5 per cent vehicle growth would translate to 13,887 Certificates of Entitlement (COEs).

"Thus, every 0.5 per cent cut will translate to 4,629 fewer COEs.

"Given the total COE number to be released is dependent on the growth allowed and the replacement of deregistered vehicles, even if we assume de-registration numbers remain constant, as per numbers from January-June 2011, every 0.5 per cent cut in the population growth will translate to a cut in COE numbers by around 10 per cent compared to the current COE quota.

"This situation occurs due to the already record low number of COEs released currently.

"All these only point to higher COE prices which will further impact purchases, causing further delay in people replacing their vehicles, thus, not addressing the whole purpose of curbing vehicle population growth.

"As the reduction of COEs will be across the board, businesses will also be impacted due to higher operating costs from commercial vehicles.

"Thus, overall, this will mean an even tougher time for the auto retail industry and eventually higher ownership cost to car buyers and business."

But there is some good news for motorists -- evening Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) surcharge at some gantries such as along the CTE, Chinatown and Boat Quay areas may be tweaked.

Mr Lui said the tweak will involve the timing of evening ERP, not doing away with the surcharge.

He said: "This is something I have asked LTA to study -- whether it's possible to tweak the timings a little bit during the evening period.

"Frankly, I think there are some drivers who are prepared to pay a certain amount for ERP in order to have a smoother drive home, particularly in the evenings.

"There are some who would say, 'why should I pay?' I think there is room for some re-look into the evening peak ERP, not to do away with it, but to tweak the timings."

Details will be announced in October.

-CNA/wk





Vehicle growth rate to be cut - Channel NewsAsia
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

The only way is to send PRC n foreigners back!!! Erp system don't work at all!!! And why should anyone pay to go home!!! Stupid government !! We should b
Vote them out?!!
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

Well, try harder 5 years later then... long long wait
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

wanan change car, quickly change now.
may be can make a profit
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

tmr COE bidding......see how the market reacts
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

GE over liao ... what to expect?
btw, last night news also reported all "employment" applications and transactions fees are revised UP!
hawker food rising soon :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

Evoque ftw!!
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

he hasn't identify a porky that suits his taste ma ...
coe $20k or $70k, people still buy car ... mw says :lol:
my wishful thinking of coe correction in the next 2 years to change car up lorry liao ... fk !
miw is spending all nights thinking what people thinks and screw them

hitmee;688832 said:
mw says for 2 years le
from 19k coe to 70k........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

Soon the cheapest car that u seen on the road is the F10 range with COE hitting 150K and beyond...
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

High Coe high selling price but low OMv

Is this related to screw urself thread?
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

This simply doesn't make sense.
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

when gov see nobody change car due to high coe, sekali come up with an idea of 5-7 years coe or 2-tier ... screw you harder
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

Dont u dare to propose this to the gov or I will screw u..

wt_know;688872 said:
when gov see nobody change car due to high coe, sekali come up with an idea of 5-7 years coe ... screw you harder
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

no chance to change car in 2012 liao ... :angry:

going to cut off the roof to make a new bmw model 4 doors cabrio
topless mtl ac323 says

zorro;688873 said:
Dont u dare to propose this to the gov or I will screw u..
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

toiletsiao said:
"Secondly, do we understand usage behaviour well enough to just go for this blatant cut in the ownership? It's not just a question of ownership but it's the usage, because we are now tackling the usage problem -- congestion is a usage problem.

"You can own cars but if everybody uses it at the same time, at the same location, well, you don't need a professor to tell you that you will get traffic congestion because you are just loading it into the system."
Precisely !!!

From an egalitarian standpoint, taxing ownership creates a class divide between who can and who cannot afford. You might have a family of 4 (family "A") having 6 cars, with a possible 4 on the road at any time. Another family of 6 (family "B") might not be able to afford an MPV now. And along the way, some EXTRA tax money goes into the coffers with no solution of 2 more extra cars on the road (3 more from the family A and 1 less from B) and 6 more commuters in the train. Lose lose scenario for both road users and public transport commuters.

If usage is a problem, how about taxing heavily - BOTH ownership AND consumption - the second and third cars within the same household? So in the same example, the family A's second and third cars should be subjected to incremental COEs and exponential ERPs. Then it makes sense for the same family to do everything together - drop kids in school, send wife to work and then drive to work ALL IN ONE CAR. Else, you have to pay A LOT MORE for owning and driving the second car.

Controversial suggestion, perhaps, but this beats relentless increase of ERPs and COEs without a concrete solution.

Flame suit on........
 
Re: Government Intervention in COE's again

good point raised on ownership and usage. not finger-pointing, but still dun understand why gov counter-measures are always one-dimensional..'too many cars ah, orh, cramp down on new car quota, congest there, orh, fatten the lanes loh...swee bohz?'

variable-message signs to me, are just bunch of useless light bulbs telling u why u and the rest of motorists got stuck in a jam.they dun suggest multiple alternative routes which are less congested earlier enough.

more often than not, when stuck in a jam, u turn to left/right and admire in distance the 'few cats' flying happily on the opposite of the roads..eh, what happened to idea of having reversible lanes?

at times, u find urself being 'escorted' by optimus prime type heavy vehicles surrounding u when going to work..or crawling painfully in front on the ramp or steep slopes..how about restricting these jumbo vehicles during peak hr? Or, allow certain range of car plate numbers to be on the roads at various period peak hours?

are we relying on bunch of scholars in transport ministry who have no real sense of realisms or only just good at giving textbook solutions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
82,734
Messages
1,019,262
Members
73,743
Latest member
good88compink

Latest posts

Ad | 📈Learn Trading Strategies, Lessons and Setups
Back
Top