Slashdot Mirror


Singapore To Stop Adding Cars to City From February 2018 (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Singapore, among the world's most expensive places to own a vehicle, will stop increasing the total number of cars on its roads next year. The government will cut the annual growth rate for cars and motorcycles to zero from 0.25 percent starting in February, the transport regulator said on Monday. "In view of land constraints and competing needs, there is limited scope for further expansion of the road network," the Land Transport Authority said in a statement on its website. Roads already account for 12 percent of the city-state's total land area, it said. Smaller than New York City, land in Singapore is a precious commodity and officials want to ensure the most productive use of the remaining space. Its infrastructure is among the world's most efficient and the government is investing $21 billion more on rail and bus transportation over the next five years, the regulator said.

17 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And again everyone refuses to identify the root cause of the problem here, which is overpopulation.

    Overpopulation is the root cause of all our environmental problems, only one of which is lack of space.

  2. Confused.. by sqorbit · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was confused a bit on how this was managed. I decided to pull up the Wikipedia article on Singapore. Here is the exact quote from Wikipedia "Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government." I'm sure there is someone out there with a higher intelligence that might be able to explain that. I need a aspirin for my headache after reading that twice.

    --
    Sent from my TARDIS
    1. Re:Confused.. by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      or you could just edit the wikipedia article and delete all the difficult words

    2. Re:Confused.. by _merlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are a limited number of private vehicle registrations available. When a registration becomes available (due to someone's registration lapsing, or the number of registrations being increased), they first look at needs-based assignment (e.g. if someone with a disabled family member has made and application), and if it isn't allocated that way they auction it.

      Most of the people buying vehicle registrations at auction for ridiculous prices really don't need a car, they just want it as a status symbol. Raising the price just makes it more exclusive. The city's really to small to handle any more private vehicles, it makes sense to stop increasing the number of vehicle registrations available.

      Building roads on top of roads isn't a solution - how do you get people on and off these stacked roads at their destinations? How does it do to the properties alongside the stacked roads? Singapore is already at a point where the vast majority of people don't need a car at all.

    3. Re:Confused.. by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      I did that once and the result was "Mostly harmless".

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Confused.. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like roads on top of roads.

      Your solution is to block out the sun?

      The problem is supporting cars without destroying the cities. The experience in the US is that it's just not possible, you can do one or the other. Try to shoehorn cars into cities and replan them around cars, and you end up destroying the cities by removing walkability, and significantly reducing the attractiveness of city living. Your "Roads on top of roads" solution has been part implemented by various cities, but it has limits, not least what I just said - you'd be literally blocking out the sun at street level, creating a miserable place to live.

      The solution is to accept that cities aren't a car friendly place, and cars aren't city friendly, and to plan accordingly. Build parking lots on the edges of cities and create good, quality, transit for intracity transportation.

      I don't have a hate-on against cars because they're cars

      It's easier for car nuts to demonize people who like cities as having "hate ons" than address the very real practical issues related to creating "car friendly cities." The fact is, they just don't work. The solution isn't the American "Well ban cities then and force everyone to drive!" BS, it's to create a multitude of spaces and let people decide for themselves what tradeoffs they want. Want to live in a city? Give up the car. Want a car? Live in the suburbs.

      Whenever I suggest giving people choices might be an option, I inevitably get a "UR FORCING ME TO WALK!" rant, which in all honesty, is similar to your own. But the solution isn't to transcend rationality. Yeah, suburbs in SG are out of the question, so in this one instance, cars are just not going to cut it. Maybe the markets can come up with another way to create personal vehicles that'd be compatible with Singapore's unique situation. But for now, no, I don't think anyone's going to say that your right to drive outranks the right of everyone to see sunlight.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Confused.. by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whenever I suggest giving people choices might be an option, I inevitably get a "UR FORCING ME TO WALK!" rant, which in all honesty, is similar to your own.

      People in general don't understand systems that are outside their own personal experience. I frequently talk to American colleagues and they are all dumbfounded when I tell them that I only ever drive to work, and only because it's 40km. I have never driven my car into my own city, I rarely do the shopping with it even when its belting down rain, and short of driving to another country I also don't take it anywhere, and even I often take a train.

      Cities are designed in ways that suit certain modes of transport. My local supermarket is 600m away. The next one (much larger one) is 1.1km in the other direction. I typically go to the much larger one and have the choice of walking (1.3km ~13min) / cycling (1.3km ~5min) or driving (4km ~10min). To get in the city centre I could drive which takes about 35min, or I could cycle which takes about 20min.

      This doesn't make sense to most Americans as American cities are designed primarily with the car in mind. Public transport, bike ways, and general city planning to prevent people having to make long trips for basic needs comes a distant second to big roads, highways, and plenty of available parking in every direction.

  3. Re:What does this mean? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chewing gum is banned in Singapore, I hope you are chewing that gum somewhere else. If not you could face a $700 file.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  4. Dont think commoners would even notice it by Daneel+Olivaw+R.+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lived that for four years, exceptional public transport (dare I say best in the world)... also the taxi fares are dirty cheap.

  5. Re:What does this mean? by Daneel+Olivaw+R.+ · · Score: 2

    bit over-rated, one of those things about which they are not very strict about. Brought them in from Malaysia by mistake, the border police just smiled and let me pass...

  6. Re:What does this mean? by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 2

    Naw, dude. It's medical gum. Brought to you by Wrigley's.

  7. Re:What does this mean? by careysub · · Score: 4, Informative

    It means that are capping the inventory of cars in the city. You can buy a new car, but it must replace an existing car.

    Singapore's road system in entirely built out. All of the island is urbanized. And the effective capacity of a finite, fixed capacity road system is also finite and fixed. They have decided that they have now reached capacity.

    Other urbanized islands do this. The number of vehicles in Avalon, Catalina Island is also fixed.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  8. You don't really need them by mccalli · · Score: 2

    People who have been there or who live there know this - the private car ownership thing is just not the same. It's a reasonably small city, and has excellent public transport or taxis. I've been several times, I've never been in a private car there.

    Don't compare this to the UK or US - it's a completely different situation, and it would seem to make sense to me.

  9. Re:What does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Big deal. I live in California and I cannot..

    - Drink beer on the beach without getting fined.
    - Publicly drink without getting fined.
    - Hang out after hours without getting harassed by police.

    I can do all three in Singapore.

    They may have some crazy laws but California takes the cake.

  10. Copy Paste by XSportSeeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, if you are going to copy paste the article anyways, better put the parts people will be asking questions about:
    "These changes are not expected to significantly affect the supply of permits since the quota is determined largely by the number of vehicle deregistrations, the regulator said. The limit on vehicle growth rate will be reviewed again in 2020."

  11. Re:My guess is... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hardly anyone will notice, since they only have 12~14 cars per 100 people in Singapore (different sources give slightly different numbers) and they have a world-class public transit system which makes car ownership more of a hassle than it's worth.

    Here in Taipei it's similar, but less so... Overall car ownership in Taiwan is about twice that of Singapore, but that includes a ton of rural area, which Singapore lacks. In a big city with excellent public transit, there's really no need for a car. Hell, I even gave away my scooter a few years ago.

    I'd say the bulk of the traffic in Taipei is: a) local "fleet" vehicles like taxis, buses, delivery vans; b) commuters to and from the surrounding 'burbs; c) scooters, motorcycles, bicycles, etc.. Commuters in the 'burbs tend to have a designated parking space at their apartment block, and another designated space at their employer in the city. Commuters who live in the city are far less likely to have a designated parking spot at home*, so they may spend half an hour looking for one when they get home from work. Major PITA.

    OTOH, with public transit you can get all the way across town in under 45 minutes for $1~2 USD, or you can cut that time in half (depending on traffic) by taking a taxi for about $8~12 USD.

    I do enjoy driving -- growing up in Iowa, I drove all the time, from age 14 -- but living in a city like Taipei, I'm quite happy NOT owning a car, or any motor vehicle, for that matter.

    * Due to land availability, a higher percentage of residential housing in Taipei is "old construction" from the days when common folk didn't own cars. Newer construction (say, the last 30 years) tends to always include parking, but there's been more new construction in the open lands outside the city, and since the rent tends to be cheaper, a lot of people live there.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  12. Re:My guess is... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    True. Indeed, I'd say a lot of car owners here in Taipei already see it largely as a status symbol, but I didn't get into that because my post was already getting long. However, I think there's a generational change underway.

    Thirty years ago, Taiwan was still riding the "Asian Tiger" economic high, and getting a car was a huge marker for success. But a lot has happened since then, such as the internet... but more importantly Taipei made some important investments in public transit and city planning. They now have one of the best subway systems in the world (also one of the most expensive), and with dedicated lanes and GPS tracking, the bus system has become even more convenient and reliable. For people who came of age in the last 10 or 15 years, I think the idea of car ownership has moved down a few rungs on the ladder of priorities.

    I could be wrong of course, but even in the West, with the advent of self-driving cars and ride-sharing apps, the rate of car ownership is already starting to decline.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC