Cars in Singapore are expensive

Avatar

Murali

Murali did his undergraduate degree in molecular biology with a minor in biophysics from the National University of Singapore (NUS). He then changed direction and did his Masters in Philosophy also at NUS. Now, he is currently pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Warwick.

Related Post Roulette

54 Responses

  1. Avatar Fnord says:

    My own two cents is that we can do better by making people pay at the margins than in a lump sum in the beginning.

    Sounds like the right principle.

    Traffic is particularly heavy in the morning and evening rush hours. What we could do is double or even quadruple the ERP charge** for using a road but then auction permits that reduce or waive the toll over a selected set of hours. Different people would select a different band of hours depending on their needs.

    I suppose auctions have the advantage of being self-adjusting. But it seems like to would be simpler to have ERP charges be time-dependent, charging a higher fee in rush hour.Report

    • Avatar Murali in reply to Fnord says:

      That is the current practice, but I want to create multiple mini rush hours each of which is less heavy than the daily cluster fish that we actually get.Report

      • Avatar Murali in reply to Murali says:

        i.e. I want it to be the case that it is cheaper for some cars to go during the 7-8 window, while it being cheaper for other cars to go during the 8-9 window and so on. If I can redirct some of the morning traffic to the early afternoon that would be great too, but I think there is a time-related stickiness to the demand for road space.Report

        • Avatar greginak in reply to Murali says:

          Do you believe that employers would change their hours or allow employee flexibility if your plan was put in place? If employers didn’t modify their hours it wouldn’t likely help with congestion much.Report

          • Avatar Fnord in reply to greginak says:

            I can see mechanisms to make it potentially work. But…

            That is the current practice, but I want to create multiple mini rush hours each of which is less heavy than the daily cluster fish that we actually get.

            If I understand this correctly, it’s already the practice to charge more during the busiest times, and it’s not sufficient to shift traffic from the 7-8 peak to the (currently) somewhat less busy 6-7 and 8-9 blocks. Is that right? Because if that’s true, then there does seem to be a mechanism that’s making it difficult to shift times, and that same mechanism would likely apply to any other congestion pricing scheme.Report

          • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to greginak says:

            Other flexibility as well. The one that comes immediately to mind is child care. At least when I was in need of that, there was little flexibility available. If I had had to work, say, a 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM shift, I would have been screwed — because I had to pick up the little people by 6:00 PM. School has the potential to create the same sort of problem.Report

  2. Avatar greginak says:

    Does building and/or subsidizing mass transit count as a solution? What kind of mass transit does Singapore have? Do people there use it or is there a stigma against it?

    On a slightly separate note i would take sequels. The more sequels the higher the tax. Put all that money into buses or trains. That would serve a positive social purpose by limiting sequels and supporting mass transit.Report

    • Avatar Murali in reply to greginak says:

      Singapore does have an extensive public transport system And it is growing. We’re not as car crazy as AmericansReport

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Murali says:

        Probably has more to do with density than with preferences. New Yorkers aren’t as “car-crazy” as Americans, either.Report

        • Avatar greginak in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          to a degree yeah. But SoCal folks like their cars a lot and they do have significant traffic problems. NY is an old city constrained by rivers which leads to its density while LA could spread out all of the place.Report

        • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          If statistics are anything to go by, Americans are getting less car crazy as well. Has anybody figured out why we became car crazy in the first place and why we decided to ditch transit for the most part?Report

          • Avatar Kimsie in reply to LeeEsq says:

            1) Racism
            2) it USED to be mondo cheap.
            3) Have you tried climbing 5 stories while bringing home groceries??? (not a hypothetical, there are places in Pittsburgh where this is “normal business”)Report

            • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Kimsie says:

              America was turning into a car-friendly nation a generation or two before the Civil Rights movement. As soon as the car appeared and became a viable product for the masses, we took to it. Until the recent spat of light rail construction, the cities that didn’t build a mass transit system between the 1890s and 1910 just decided to focus on cars.Report

          • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to LeeEsq says:

            Urban planning expert Donald Shoup blames building codes. He argues that mandatory minimum parking lot sizes created a vicious circle: When you require buildings to have a certain amount of parking, the buildings are further apart from each other. When that happens, you need more cars, and when you have more cars, you need more parking.

            His answer is in part to abolish the mandatory minimum parking requirements, which I think is a good idea.Report

            • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Jason Kuznicki says:

              Heh. In my job in New Orleans at Gravier and St Charles, I would routinely drive up twelve stories to find a parking spot in my building — and I had a parking pass. Trying to make a 19th Century city plan work in the 21st takes some vertical engineering.Report

            • Avatar zic in reply to Jason Kuznicki says:

              Agree 100% with this.

              Also, eliminating requirements for restaurants/shops to provide parking, typically based on seats/size.

              Instead of ‘parking’ requirements, I’d prefer to see ‘green space’ requirements; and not necessarily on the building site, but within a radius of the building, accessible to the public, or in areas identified as requiring soft surface. (A for instance, someone wanting to build a sky scrapper in NYC could provide part of that greenspace via the shore front, shown to be at risk of flooding, purchasing a houselot already damaged during Sandy and turning it into soft-scape parkland.)Report

            • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jason Kuznicki says:

              I agree with this, get rid of mandatory minimum parking. Still, does anybody know when the first mandatory minimum parking lot regulations appeared? Suburbs as we know them, with their strict land use and building code requirements became widespread after WWII but proto-types appeared in the interwar period even if most people still lived in more traditional towns and cities, which really only started their steep decline after 1960.*

              *Most of the rust built cities like St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland reached their peak population in 1960 and started a fast and furious decline afterwards. A different set of policies might have saved American urbanism. German cities updated their tram systems into light rail systems during this period rather than rip them up like American, Canadian, and British cities did. It probably would have been a lot bettr if we followed the German model.Report

            • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jason Kuznicki says:

              I agree with this, get rid of mandatory minimum parking. Still, does anybody know when the first mandatory minimum parking lot regulations appeared? Suburbs as we know them, with their strict land use and building code requirements became widespread after WWII but proto-types appeared in the interwar period even if most people still lived in more traditional towns and cities, which really only started their steep decline after 1960.*

              *Most of the rust built cities like St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland reached their peak population in 1960 and started a fast and furious decline afterwards. A different set of policies might have saved American urbanism. German cities updated their tram systems into light rail systems during this period rather than rip them up like American, Canadian, and British cities did. It probably would have been a lot bettr if we followed the German model.Report

  3. Avatar Patrick says:

    There’s two “autostart” parameters in that embedded link, they were both set to “true”. I set them both to “false”, and it still autostarts. I blame the source of the video.Report

  4. Avatar Lyle says:

    Note that Bloomberg I believe proposed an entry charge for the south part of Manhattan and got shot down. Singapore has an electronic road pricing scheme that is the dream of all the high tech folks to charge for road usage. (However out were I live on a road that might have 1000 vehicles per day, its hard to see how you pay for it) My Idea has been a base per mile charge, and then a additional charge for certian (typically urban) roads.Report

  5. Avatar Kazzy says:

    Recently I shared a story about tutoring a student wherein I encouraged him to challenge some begged questions in an essay prompt.

    Just yesterday, I took that same student to another level. Despite being only 9, he’s a bit of a gear head. I know nothing about cars. Ignoring this crucial of factors when deciding what topics to try to talk to me about to avoid doing his homework, he brought up some fancy car… a Lamborghini or Ferrari or something. He explained that it was a concept car, literally one-of-a-kind, and made to commemorate a special anniversary of sorts. The result of these factors was that the car cost $50,000,000.
    “Sounds like artificial scarcity,” I said.
    “What do you mean?”
    “Well, it is easy to make something seem super valuable if you only make one of it.”
    “But it’s a really cool car. Look… racing stripes!”
    “Artificially scarce racing stripes!”
    “Can we go back to doing homework?”Report

  6. Avatar Brandon Berg says:

    The only fair thing to do is to have a “progressive” car tax ranging from -20% of income for the poor to 20% of income for the very wealthy.Report

  7. Avatar Christopher Carr says:

    After more than a hundred years is the superiority of well-maintained and reliable subway-based transit still in doubt?Report

  8. Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

    There was a Cato Unbound about this.

    I think Donald Shoup is basically right:

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/04/04/donald-shoup/free-parking-or-free-markets

    I argue for a market-based solution to parking problems… I recommend… (1) setting the right, demand-based price for curb parking, (2) returning the parking revenue to pay for local public services, and (3) removing minimum parking requirements.

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *