
Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018 - atupem
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-23/singapore-to-stop-adding-cars-on-its-roads-from-february-2018
======
sho
I think that many asian cities have the right approach here. Treat cars as a
luxury good in a space-challenged context and tax them heavily, while making
sure to provide a world class public transport system so as to guarantee no-
one actually _needs_ a car.

While it doesn't have a COE, tokyo does basically the same thing. You will
have to pay $50k upfront for a 10-year car permit in singapore. In Tokyo
there's no upfront cost but good luck getting a car park for less than $500/m
- and you'll have to prove you have one to register the car. Adds up to about
the same amount.

I live 100m from a train station with 2 lines, automated trains come every 3-4
minutes, 8 minutes to my workplace. Bike share outside my door. 3 supermarkets
and hundreds of shops within walking distance. If absolutely necessary,
there's Uber or grab. You don't need a car here. It's a luxury for the rich,
and that's pretty much as it should be IMO.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
> a luxury for the rich

Parents of children under 12 should also be given a pass.

(Unless outsourcing the population is a deliberate tactic, of course.)

~~~
ricardobeat
Kids can walk, when not young enough for a trolley. My 5-year old just cycled
4km with me this weekend.

~~~
mantas
Kids can not only walk, but walk alone too. I was going to elementary school
on my own when I was 7. So did my classmates. I used to cycle all around by
the age of 10.

It sucks that today youngsters are treated as dumb. Even though the world is
getting safer and safer.

~~~
krtkush
Relevant - [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japanese-young-children-solo-
co...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japanese-young-children-solo-commute-
subway-school/)

------
crdb
Lee Kuan Yew actually thought, almost a decade ago, that he didn't go far
enough:

 _“I knew that once people in Singapore could have a car, they’d never give it
up. So, before it got out of control, I said you need a Certificate Of
Entitlement before a car is yours; and the permitted up-tick in number of cars
depends on what the road capacity is. That was the first move. So, you bid for
it. If you issue more entitlement certificates than is prudent, roads are
jammed. Then a younger generation took over and says, well, why not have more
cars and we charge them by the usage on the roads instead of just purchase? I
told them, okay, okay, have a car, have more cars! But once you’ve got a car,
you will never give it up.” [...]_

 _“I was moved on policy-thinking about transit by psychology. They are moved
by maximizing road space. Okay, then you would antagonize more motorists. I
would rather have less cars and get everybody to use the public transport, but
a younger generation thinks this is the way to go and you are in charge, then
go for more cars.”_

I remember being in LA in the 2000s, and not renting a car (the innocence of
growing up in Europe...). I sampled the buses that took 1.5 hours to go from
Beverly Hills to Downtown. I paid $200 for a return cab ride from Santa Monica
to Hollywood at rush hour.

In comparison, if the MRT has a 30 minute delay in Singapore it is national
news [2].

[1] Tom Plate, Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew -
[https://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Lee-Kuan-Yew-
Singapore/...](https://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Lee-Kuan-Yew-
Singapore/dp/9814677612)

[2] [http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/commuters-
hi...](http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/commuters-hit-by-train-
delays-early-friday-morning)

~~~
darklajid
Random anecdote: I commute by MRT. I guess my average wait time is around
three to max five minutes on the platform.

I'm used to public transportation from Germany, but SG's transportation is so
much better and very affordable on top. Cabs, Grab and (no clue, never used it
myself) Uber are cheap when you need an alternative. I had a car for most of
my life in Germany, don't miss it a single bit in SG.

~~~
hnarn
I've used both MRT in Singapore and MTR in Hong Kong extensively and it's
simply the future. Individually owned transit vehicles only makes sense in
rural areas where there are no options. In larger cities, the only thing that
makes sense is public transport. The externalities of individual car ownership
creates so many negative factors in a cramped city environment that I'm
convinced we'll look back at it and laugh in a hundred years. There won't be
individual car ownership (except for collectors) because noone will want the
liability when comparing it to the options.

------
csomar
It is important to note that Singapore/HongKong have world class, reliable and
reachable public transport. The MTR is heavenly. The population is
concentrated in big, tall buildings. Not quite the "lifestyle" but I can see
why banning cars is important here.

Given that the standard of living is high, pretty much everyone will be able
to afford cars if they cost the real market price. This will make movement
impossible even if the populace owned cars just for leisure use.

~~~
swyx
limiting, not banning.

------
xfour
Amazing! This more than anything else seems so sci-fi to me. Reminds me of the
Diamond Age somehow. In the US we have so much space we take for granted
building a new road a new subdivision a new 5acre parking lot. Imagine if
there was no more space. Cars now become a whole lot more of a questionable
use of space.

~~~
tbihl
While the US may have physical space to put cars, most of our towns and cities
nonetheless are slowly going bankrupt from catering to them.

------
King-Aaron
This doesn't surprise me. Already they are trying to economically limit the
number of cars there (as mentioned in the article). Singapore has an extremely
efficient public transport system and a culture that already isn't highly
dependant on cars so I don't see a massive social shift being in order to
accomodate the plan.

------
tappaseater
I spent a week in the South of France recently and the first Sunday morning I
was sitting outside and this whisper of a train came by. No horns, whistles,
smoke, noise. The service runs the coast every 30 mins. I thought about this
joke service here in the Boston area and realized that we'll never have this
in the USA; not this side of the Civil War 2 anyway.

------
mc32
I think it's overall a good move, given 12% of their land is used up by
transport networks and it's a tiny island.

That said, if space is a real constraint, I think they could make a deal with
Malaysia, if they really needed to, but I think their independent streak is
too strong to allow that thought --they once were part of it, pre-
independence. On the other hand there are "autonomous" regions out there.

The question[1] has been considered in some circles, although more fantasy
than anything else due to enormous, maybe insurmountable, cultural and ethnic
differences. One is Sinetic the other Malay --and in the past lead to some
terrible ethnic riots.

[1][https://www.quora.com/What-if-Singapore-combines-with-
Malays...](https://www.quora.com/What-if-Singapore-combines-with-Malaysia-
again)

~~~
swyx
its like a bad breakup. Singapore and Malaysia were married, got into a huge
fight, separated, and after living happily as neighbors for 50 years you want
them to make a deal to cohabitate again?

~~~
nopzor
It's funny to look at the history. When Singapore separated from Malaysia,
many people thought that Singapore wouldn't be able to survive as an
independent nation island state, with no natural resources. Today Singapore
has the last laugh; they're the regional economic superpower.

~~~
swyx
i dunno about superpower. indonesia probably has that title.

------
microcolonel
I never really understood why governments insist on restricting vehicles and
not access to roads. It seems like the scarce resource is efficient road
access, not space for cars (even in sg, where there's not a whole lot of that
either).

~~~
darklajid
Are you aware of the SG ERP [1] system?

It's a toll system, that taxes you for driving on key roads during rush hours.
Say electronic "Drive on this road before 9.30 and you'll be taxed 2.5 dollar"
signs. That feels like a decent idea to me?

1
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing)

~~~
nopzor
It's a great system. The swiftness with which the singapore government
installed electronic sensors _in every single car in singapore_ was also
breathtaking. Bloomberg tried to do an ERP in NYC when he was mayor, but he
couldn't get it through. I wish he had!

------
sohkamyung
The headline is technically incorrect. Cars will still be added as long as an
equal number of cars are removed.

Bloomberg has also updated its headline to read: "Singapore Will Stop
Increasing Car Numbers From February 2018"

~~~
rypskar
Well, technically technically it is correct. Replacing isn't adding. The total
number will stay the same

~~~
sohkamyung
I stand corrected. Let my modify my original statement by saying that 'adding'
seems to imply that no new cars will be allowed in Singapore. Which, of
course, isn't true.

My concern was that without reading the article, few people may know that in
Singapore, most cars are usually removed (retired) from road use after 10
years.

In other words, I think 'stop increasing' sums up the situation better than
'stop adding'.

------
kentkomew
For small cities with the privilege of topography, it's ok. For cities with
population more than 1M+ and heavily complicated topography, it's delusional.

------
dogruck
This is a complicated topic. Here is one example line of thought:

1\. Wow, all of these cars are annoying -- let's restrict them

2\. But, rich people own these cars, and many of them drive into the city to
spend money, which pays the workers

3\. We all agree traffic is annoying, so those rich people sure must prefer to
drive their cars

4\. Hmmm, what will happen if we punish/tax/regulate their cars? Possible
they'll stop coming into the city?

5\. If that happens, what happens to the workers?

My primary point is that it's easy to say, "these cars suck, so let's tax
them" without thinking through all of the ramifications.

~~~
intev
I'm going to branch out from 3. here:

4) Why do they prefer driving these cars? Can we make public transport as good
or even better than driving a car?

5) Let's put in place a plan to improve public infrastructure while
restricting new cars on the road.

6) Once we satisfactorily accomplish 5, we can phase out cars.

My primary point being it's easy to create strawman lines of thought and have
no meaningful conversation. ;)

~~~
dogruck
I completely agree with you, and I think your branch is a good one. Also,
personally, I look forward to the day when cities are essentially free of car
traffic. I envision wide pedestrian boulevards.

Speaking by analogy, most of us rational thinkers accept that we cannot make
conclusions such as "our government needs more money, therefore we must
increase taxes." Maybe, but maybe not.

But I've noticed with cars (or, maybe insects) it seems to be easier to jump
to "let's tax and regulate these bothersome machines away."

------
dayaz36
Wait does this include electric cars? Was not clear from the article

~~~
mantas
Yes. Why would electric cars be exempt? The problem in SG is not pollution,
it's congestion.

