Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#61

Post by tixocloud »

darklajid wrote: post #23
microcolonel wrote: post #10

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).

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

I proposed this in a business class once where our task was to solve Toronto's congestion problem. I cited many numerous instances where this has worked in many cities with far greater population density and car usage than Toronto - I received a poor grade and was told my idea of taxing the roads are stupid.

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#62

Post by zimpenfish »

bradfa wrote: post #14
microcolonel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idunno, just have ingress and egress scanners around the hot zones. ingress detected -> start accounting for higher rate, egress detected -> start accounting for lower rate. Driving a vehicle outside the legal parameters (i.e. without paying the access fee) will carry classic Singaporean sentencing rules.

Are you suggesting a system like London's congestion charge? https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge

Which, sadly, hasn't really done much to combat congestion or pollution. The only real solution is reducing the number of cars - unfortunately never going to happen in London.

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#64

Post by nopzor »

swyx wrote: post #37
mc32 wrote: post #3

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 questio…

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?

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.

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#65

Post by nopzor »

darklajid wrote: post #23
microcolonel wrote: post #10

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).

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

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!

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#66

Post by fwn »

icebraining wrote: post #44
orless wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a father of two boys (8 and 5 yo) and we live in a small village (Ober-Erlenbach) next to a sattelite city (Bad Homburg) close to a big city (Frankfurt). We could not get along without a car (actually we own two cars). The younger child goes to a kindergarten on the opposite end of Bad Homburg. That's 40 minutes with the bus one direction. No, there was no option of a kindergarten closer to our house. There was n…

You're right. That said, ideally the government could work to reduce those exceptional needs, like having more kindergartens or providing transport for medical care.

...which is what some government's do through the provision of an environment in which people can afford to own cars.

The argument that there are currently great reasons for automotive mobility isn't affected by the notion that a set of imagined circumstances could enable people to stop being reliant on cars in the future.

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#67

Post by [deleted] »

fwn wrote: post #66
icebraining wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. That said, ideally the government could work to reduce those exceptional needs, like having more kindergartens or providing transport for medical care.

...which is what some government's do through the provision of an environment in which people can afford to own cars. The argument that there are currently great reasons for automotive mobility isn't affected by the notion that a set of imagined circumstances could enable people to stop being reliant on cars in the future.

[deleted]

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#68

Post by icebraining »

fwn wrote: post #66
icebraining wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. That said, ideally the government could work to reduce those exceptional needs, like having more kindergartens or providing transport for medical care.

...which is what some government's do through the provision of an environment in which people can afford to own cars. The argument that there are currently great reasons for automotive mobility isn't affected by the notion that a set of imagined circumstances could enable people to stop being reliant on cars in the future.

Yes, I fully agree, that's why I started my post with "you're right".

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#69

Post by microcolonel »

zimpenfish wrote: post #62
bradfa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting a system like London's congestion charge? https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge

Which, sadly, hasn't really done much to combat congestion or pollution. The only real solution is reducing the number of cars - unfortunately never going to happen in London.

No, the solution is to increase the charge until congestion is at the desired level. That's the whole point of charging for access: if you are supplying more than you'd like to, charge more until you're supplying just what you want.

If you only want a certain number of cars driving in the city with good reason, then charge the amount which gives you that number.

Perhaps the reason London hasn't set the prices correctly, is that they want maximum revenue instead of a truly limited supply.

Re: Singapore to Stop Adding Cars in February 2018

#70

Post by nunez »

piva00 wrote: post #52
nunez wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that this only really works with small towns that are extremely densely populated. This falls short for much of the US whose towns are extremely spread out and sparsely populated.

How can you say that for a city like Tokyo? Yes, the US has a problem with sprawling cities and suburbs, driving is part of the culture but it's a myth that it only works for small cities, one that I've seen repeated here and on reddit far too many times.

I was incorrect about Tokyo being small, but it is quite densely populated (>15k people/sq.mi. at 893 miles in sq area, hence a good candidate for pub trans) and in most examples of pub trans, the bigger its coverage area, the more expensive it becomes to maintain (and to use for its customers).

Also, the “problem” of sprawling cities isn’t a problem for everyone. There’s no way in hell that I’ll move back to a cramped rat race of a city like NYC, and I am sure I’m not alone in feeling this way.

Post reply on HN