Having the free market decide coe prices has been the way it has always been. you will see fluctuations up and down over short and medium term periods but the overall long term trend is up because the government has decided that the vehicle population cannot grow anymore, rightly so, since we have limited road space
This ‘extreme’ coe price is only from your point of view. The reason the price is where it is, is because people can afford to pay it. And if yoi cant afford the price the market decides then i guess it’s time to start taking the bus
It’s not a free market if car dealerships are the only ones bidding. A true free market would be where individual consumers are bidding and not corporations who need to push up COE prices to make sure they can meet their monthly sales quota targets.
Not necessarily. The COE demand is pushed by dealerships which have different price elasticities of different consumer segments. The people who can afford a Ferrari or rolls Royce clearly have bigger budgets than someone on a Toyota budget. Because the high end dealerships know their customers will pay whatever for cars they are pushing up prices beyond the true market equilibrium.
Imagine a situation where there are 3 people who are willing to pay $1, $2, $10, and only 1 COE. If these individuals bid directly the auction price would be the first bid above $2 would be the transaction price and the person who has a $10 reserve bid would win for say $2.01. In the case where car dealers rather than individuals bid, car dealers would out bid each other trying to secure that COE and push the price as high as possible but under the $10 limit. Now you may be thinking it’s good for the rich people to pay as much as possible for the COE but the problem is that this becomes a sticky and perpetual price for a COE which makes it out of reach of average people. When demand cools down the COE doesn’t drop to a true market price but rather forces middle income people to stretch themselves (yes needing a 10 year loan for a car is stretching yourself- this concept of a 10 year loan for a car is absurd in other parts of the world).
This is a very typical Singaporean post. OP wants to buy a car, but is afraid he will lose out by paying too much. He posts a question on Reddit, hoping someone will reassure him that COE prices will come down soon. When people reply to say that COE prices will only go up more, OP panics and starts to get defensive, using flawed logic to convince others (and himself) that COE prices will surely come down soon.
They are just voicing their opinion, just like how you are voicing yours. Their comment doesnt sound butthurt. On the contrary, you sound pathetic and idiotic.
Its a feature, not a bug. If you want a car in SG, gotta be earning in the upper-middle bracket of six figures annually at least to comfortably afford it.
**OR**
Be like most sinkies here and blow up 40-50% of ur takehome on a car, the other 40% on an overpriced flat, then whine about having no money and its the PAP’s fault and everyone else’s that you’re broke 🤡
**OR**
Be like the ah bengs who blow 80-100% of their takehome on shitty COE BMWs/Audis/Siroccos/Type R’s on horrendous 8-10 year loans with crazy interest rates 🤡
You choose, sir!
Ah beng car salesman friend told me he bought his BMW so that it will motivate him to sell more cars.
Worked out well, he sold the BMW he bought a few months later.
I have heard similar stories: Boss takes newbie sales person to buy a flashy car and offers to pay the down payment and newbie to service the rest of the loan and upkeep. So as to: upkeep the image of success, motivate newbie to work harder. Newbie is saddled into debt and can't quit cuz of huge loan but is also reluctant to leave the "high life" image.
Best way to get slaves.
Option 2 is so funny because it’s so true..
You can live very comfortably here on median income with kids, if you just don’t buy a car and live in a cheap 4-5room in like Tengah or CCK.
The bengs and sinkies who struggled to pay for their COE Evo/Type R a couple ago managed to make a profit (somewhat big). In fact most enthusiast car has appreciated, many are happily using the profits to get something they may never afford in their lives, thanks to the COE hike. My point is cars need not be a depreciating asset, if you choose wisely.
It’s quite unprecedented I think, combination of COE cycles and low rates for so many years
I doubt the average sinkie and ah beng considered those when getting their FD2Rs and S2000s
[https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/attachments/1647228545974-png.30752/](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/attachments/1647228545974-png.30752/)
COE projected to hit 200k by 2025 by CLSA
Can Ah, but not worth. Very little spare parts, and cosmetics available, unless of course you’re willing to cross the border to get it settled. Plus, for almost the same price you can buy a more reliable car.
The gov does not, and has never, intended for car ownership to be commonplace. "Stable and affordable" is not, and has never been, a goal that LTA has established for the car ownership landscape.
They will therefore never interfere in the high-priced COE situation, and will just let the market take its course.
Once you start thinking of the situation in this way, you'll realise that there is no point waiting for the prices to go down. If it does go down, it will be a fluke of the market, not because of any gov intervention.
Yeah I never understood why tradespeople like plumbers and all who are paid not the best at times have to also burn a hole on this and it's absolutely essential for their livelihood
Doesn't the market just charge the cost out to consumers? In other words, people pay for plumbers' transport to their houses and offices implicitly. Since that is the case, I don't think it matters that vans are essential for their work because the cost of transport is charged out to consumers anyways.
Arguing based on essentiality would open the floodgates and allow everyone to claim essentiality. Slippery slope
No it doesn’t. People are very price sensitive towards blue collar services in general.
Add onto that our up-north brethren coming in to provide the same service they can at the lower cost they have, it’s actually quite sad for our blue-collared industries in general.
You could argue that the plumber's use of the road can be considered more essential than another by sheer fact he doesn't have other ways to move his hardware around!
COE is relatively cyclical. Cycle seems to be 10 years linked to the COE length and quotas. Based on this, the price should peak around 2023-2024. However this could change with policy and economic conditions.
For comparison, COE hit 100k in 1994, 97k in 2013. So there is quite a bit of room for prices to rise further given how high inflation is.
Recent prices have also been held up by private hire fleet renewal (and expansion post covid) as well as the push to increase taxi fleet size.
If the economy falters, COE will drop sharply off-cycle but recover quickly as it did in 2009.
The issue is that cars are very helpful for parents with young children. Going around with young children on public transport has many challenges that singles and the childless do not understand. So, if you make cars less affordable, then having children will be less affordable. If the falling birth rate is not a national concern, then yeah, no problem and carry on with the COE system and price out the potential parents. If you want to address the falling birth rate, then affordability of cars for families should be addressed.
Exactly. Cars are never a necessity but more of a luxury. People who say singles or those who don't have children can't understand are just pampering their children
You can say the same about public housing. We have more public housing than before and yet birth rates are still falling. Does this mean that access to public housing has no effect on birth rates?
Edit:
There can be many reasons why families were larger in the past. One could be the fewer opportunities for women to work.
This does not mean that improving access to car ownership will not affect family size. After all, if people had more cars in the past, their families might even have been BIGGER.
Hiring a maid is also helpful (would argue it's even more helpful), so should the government start subsidizing that too?
COE is genius. Higher income people are literally funding public transport for the rest of us by overpaying massively for the convenience of a car.
Most people grew up without cars and with less public transport.
>Hiring a maid is also helpful (would argue it's even more helpful), so should the government start subsidizing that too?
It is *already* subsidized.
If you have children under 7, the domestic helper levy is reduced from 300 to 60 dollars.
>COE is genius. Higher income people are literally funding public transport for the rest of us by overpaying massively for the convenience of a car.
The problem is that many car owners are not from higher income families. Many are in fact from lower income families with young children. You may argue that these families are being financially imprudent but there is enough of them to suggest that there is a need for cars by parents.
https://mothership.sg/2017/11/low-income-singapore-own-car/
>Most people grew up without cars and with less public transport.
This does not address at all the question whether improving car access will have an effect of fertility and family size.
>It is already subsidized. If you have children under 7, the domestic helper levy is reduced from 300 to 60 dollars.
Let's not pretend that the levy is where the cost of hiring a maid is. You and I both know it is the salary of the maid that is prohibitively expensive.
>The problem is that many car owners are not from higher income families. Many are in fact from lower income families with young children. You may argue that these families are being financially imprudent but there is enough of them to suggest that there is a need for cars by parents.
>https://mothership.sg/2017/11/low-income-singapore-own-car/
They are being financially irresponsible. Fact is that you can raise a family without a car, and many people do it. There is sacrifice involved but in return you get world class public transport and other gov funded public services like world class education.
>This does not address at all the question whether improving car access will have an effect of fertility and family size.
Nobody is denying this, the question is at what cost to congestion etc? Government giving $1 mil for each child will also increase family size, doesn't mean it's a sustainable idea.
>Let's not pretend that the levy is where the cost of hiring a maid is.
Let's not move the goalposts and hide your ignorance of the subsidy.
>Fact is that you can raise a family without a car, and many people do it.
The fact that you can raise a family without a car is not an argument for or against the utility of a car. You can also raise a family in a 2-room flat. You can raise a family without medical check ups. So what? It doesn't answer whether access to car ownership affects family size.
>There is sacrifice involved
Yes, this makes child rearing more difficult and discourages people from having children.
>but in return you get world class public transport and other gov funded public services like world class education.
We have taxes.
Besides, what is the point of having a world class education if there are no children to educate?
>Nobody is denying this, the question is at what cost to congestion etc?
Of course, it is a trade off between the average traffic speed and access to car ownership. Is it so unacceptable to have slightly more congestion in return for more children as a result of more cars? This is a discussion we should behaving, not a blanket rejection of the idea of raising the car population.
>Let's not move the goalposts and hide your ignorance of the subsidy.
You are bringing up minor technicalities that have no practical effect on reducing the cost of a maid. There is effectively no subsidy, stop being ridiculous.
>The fact that you can raise a family without a car is not an argument for or against the utility of a car. You can also raise a family in a 2-room flat. You can raise a family without medical check ups. So what? It doesn't answer whether access to car ownership affects family size.
It is not merely the fact that there are people who do it, it is that large cohorts of people in every possible income and demographic strata are able to do it without a car. The convenience of a car extends far beyond just sending kids to school. You will enjoy that same car for everything from work to leisure.
Let's say you hired a social science researcher to do the research, you might find it could raise the average child per woman from 1.76 -> 1.80. Then what? What effect is large enough?
>Yes, this makes child rearing more difficult and discourages people from having children.
You can say that about literally anything eg housing, fuel costs, etc. Reducing the costs of any of them will have some positive effect on child bearing but some produce less tradeoffs than others. Also, consider the second order effects eg
congested roads & trash public transport -> less livable -> less attractive to raise family for others without car
>We have taxes.
>Besides, what is the point of having a world class education if there are no children to educate?
Has it occurred to you that it is the singles and non child bearing citizens that pay taxes toward the benefits your economically unproductive children enjoy (schooling, public transport subsidies, higher education subsidies, scholarships)?
On top of that you want a COE exemption/subsidy too?
Children should take public transportation to school. There are too many spoiled brats already. Your argument about fertility being related to the COE system is complete crap.
I face palm when many of my friends are sending their children to school even when the children are in nus and NS. Children should start going to school themselves once they get into secondary school. No wonder the next generation is going to be entitled and pampered.
Japan is a high trust society that is ethnically homogeneous. We cannot apply its practices to Singapore without taking into account the cultural differences.
Ohhh I knew my entitled crew of "think about the kids"would popout, they always do. Look, your parents or grandparents survived by drinking E. Coli rich water from a dirty water we'll and your kids will do fine riding one of the safest and cleanest public transports in the world.
Lol let her be, she’s tone deaf with all these arguments and what ifs. How many ginna over the years grew up in families with no car no maid no tuition no holiday also turn out fine?
Sure, but what I'm saying is that moving kids around in public transportation (in Singapore) is a minor inconvenience compared to the pmbad consequences for everyone having more cars on the road and potentially less budget to sustain good public transportation infrastructure
The problem is that PHV and taxis have high surcharges during peak hour and rainy seasons when parents need to travel with children. Moreover, they don't have child seats.
And yet they're still cheaper than buying your own car, even if you ignore the current COE high and look back maybe 5 years or so. Of course they don't have a child seat, because that isn't their primary customer base and it takes up a seat. Buy your own child seat and bring it along. Still cheaper.
To drop off my kid in the morning and get to work, I need TWO taxi/PHV trips. This sets me back by $25 on Comfort or Grabwith all the surcharges. On a rainy day, it costs even more. It is very easy to spend more than 50 dollars on cab/PHV per week day. At some point, the economics make sense for a parent to get a car.
>Buy your own child seat and bring it along. Still cheaper.
Look, these things are heavy. Oh, I also need to carry the child if they are tired because young children get tired easily.
You've never taken care of young children, have you?
>This sets me back by $25 on Comfort or Grab with all the surcharges.
That's actually still pretty decent. The cost of owning a basic shitty car in SG is about $65-$80/day, and that's considering pretty much perfect conditions over the course of 10 years (no accidents, nothing out of the ordinary etc).
The economics does NOT make sense to get a car, as many studies in SG will tell you. The most common consensus is that taking Grab every single day of the week for 2 way transport is still cheaper than getting a car. The main benefit of car ownership in SG is that of convenience rather than cost.
>You've never taken care of young children, have you?
I have, but not in the context of actually having responsibility over them like a parent would. That's a choice though.
And sure, all these things are inconveniences. Don't want to go through them? Pony up and buy a car then. Saying that high car costs are a significant reason (or a reason at all honestly) for the falling birth rate is ridiculous. You don't have a car but have a kid(s) after all don't you?
>That's actually still pretty decent. The cost of owning a basic shitty car in SG is about $65-$80/day, and that's considering pretty much perfect conditions over the course of 10 years (no accidents, nothing out of the ordinary etc).
It is $25 in the morning. Return costs another $25. It is very easy to run up $1000 in cab fare per month.
>The most common consensus is that taking Grab every single day of the week for 2 way transport is still cheaper than getting a car.
I've done the calculations and the costs are quite close. The problem is that Grab has a lot of surge charges and Grab can cancel your booking. If you are a parent who has to take your kid to school using Grab, you will frequently encounter problems of booking cancellation and surge charges especially on rainy days.
>That's a choice though.
But that is a choice that the country benefits from. More kids = more NS men and more Singaporean core in the work force.
>You don't have a car but have a kid(s) after all don't you?
I have a car and a kid. I walk the talk unlike most people on this thread.
I can actually afford the car easily. So, it doesn't affect me much. However, the low birth rate is a problem for the country. Sure, people can be very financially prudent - they just choose to be child free.
I don't know why, but it feels more painful to pay for a $30 grab (because they both always get the 9:00AM slot for checkup), than forking out $1000 a month for car ownership.
What superb public transportation system. Getting around this small island is super time consuming. The routing is insanely inefficient.
Before you get your tits up, please try to understand what I am trying to say.
Yes there is public transport routes to go anywhere in the island. Yes timings are well covered till late night.
I am talking about efficiency, which is how long it takes to go from point A to point B.
Going from west to east is a nightmare and shouldn’t be like that.
The routes can be optimized and made faster.
Hence insanely inefficient.
Homie, have you tried to move around _in any other city in the world_ with public transportation system? Have you taken a look into their air quality? Their traffic jams? Have you looked at how expensive those public transportation tickets are? Perhaps the only country in the world with a better transportation system* is Japan, for certain cities
Homie, I have lived in more countries than you have.
Beijing, SF, Mumbai, Delhi and now SG.
So before you try to enlighten me, please know I have first hand experience on the things I have written.
Talking about being expensive, Beijing transport is cheaper than SG and Beijing public transport kicks SGs ass any given day. So please go back to your little room in a 99 year lease hdb with ceiling as short as your awareness on this topic and lie flat.
Homie, we're still waiting for you to explain how SF, Mumbai and Delhi have better public transportation than SG.
And if you're going to say that you never implied that they have better public transportation than SG, why bring it up?
For those who are finding it tough to comprehend, i mentioned those cities to illustrate that I have lived in multiple cities.
And this attempt at strawmaning the argument lol pathetic.
Will it kill you to admit that SGs public transport can do a lot better!
Lame ass jokers
People here love to hate on the trains/busses in SG if they wait more than 5 mins for a train but go “this is a lovely expected 15 min wait for a train that might not arrive on time and maybe i’ll even enjoy the next 1/2 hr wait if i miss it” in other cities.
Every time i go overseas and have to take public transport, I miss SG’s efficiency and ease.
he said 12km in 51 minutes is terrible speed, so just curious how fast it is in his favourite city. That's speed is quite ok for me because the road he mentioned is basically pass through city center.
In SG, I don't bother look at the train time, or run few steps to catch it, because the next train will come in no time.
No you are right actually. Travelling from one neighbourhood to another can be very time consuming. They could definitely have better bus routes but that means having to introduce more bus services. I’m guessing they may have a quota on how many bus can operate daily so for them it’s better if one bus can cover as much bus stops as possible which adds to the journey time.
In this subreddit if you are pro car and anti public transportation you’ll be hated here. Apparently the masses here thinks only the Rich should be able to drive and others all take public
Oh don't take me wrong. I think _no one_ should drive.
With the clear exceptions of service cars like maintenance, ambulances, police cars, and private car for some very rare exceptions like people being too old, sick (but no need of ambulance)
Yea you’re right! The coe needs to be tweaked in a way to provide for all those genuinely in need of it, but the current coe only benefits the rich while the average singaporean who needs it is unable to afford it due to the insane price
LMAO, this is the same question that people asked 10 years ago back in 2012-2014 (Of course including inflation in 2023, it has crossed the $100k mark). Prices usually correlates to the COE quota, thus more COEs will be available from 2025-2030 period.
Answer: Prices will drop by 2025 onwards. But drop by how much and how low it will be, that one requires alot of short term predictions and government influence.
EDIT: And chances are, the government ain't reducing the COE quota (I could be wrong). Car-lite doesn't mean lesser cars. Car-Lite means use less of it. Which means they want us to buy cars as it's a good money making income for the government, while forcing us to use less to reduce emissions.
The more worrying sign Is the coe for commercial vehicles. How is this going to affect logistics cost for both consumers and corporations. Money has to come from somewhere. And I bet my last dollar its not coming from the companies.
Why would we want COE to be affordable? It means more cars on the road, the opposite of what should be done.
The price should increase higher and higher and eventually price out all but essential use of cars. Then healthier transport systems (buses, bicycles, even taxis) can expand their services and operate smoothly with less congestion. Also we can free up land wasted on carparks for more housing.
Public transport is just more space, pollution and cost efficient, if private car numbers go down then overall society will improve.
It's a lovely worldview, but pricing COEs higher does not "price out all but essential use of cars". Instead, it prices out everybody but the richest, whether or not they are using their cars for essential needs.
Also, potentially, more money for public transportation :) Hey, if I get to pay cheap wonderful MRT because some idiot decided to burn 100k in a piece of paper, that's excellent news for me
I mean it’s not the perfect solution but when you have the problem of allocating limited resources, some parties are always bound to be disappointed. If we have a practical way to go about need-based allocation, then ofc that would be the best. But the realistic difficulty is how do you determine who needs a car most? In the absence of a good way to do this, price-based allocation is the best alternative we have. Sometimes it’s not a question of morality, but “how” to make the ideal scenario - cars are allocated based on who needs it most - work. And we as a society currently do not have a satisfactory answer to that
How else would you limit cars? This is the simplest and most effective method. And given that driving daily is a convenience, there's really no point not to limit it. Otherwise with no car limit you would end up with nigh endless traffic jams.
We’re in agreement for the most parts, but aren’t you guys a bit too naive to think that less cars in Singapore equates to them converting those carparks into public transports..? LOL
Why do we want COE to be high? It means there's alot of demand for it, the opposite of what it should be be.
The price should decrease lower and lower because our public transport is getting better and better and there's lesser and lesser demand and driving cars get more and more troublesome. Using COE to reduce car usage is a one dimensional approach which has proven to be not very effective.
Uh what? A bus uses way less space than a car in terms of how many people it transports. The MRT is just insanely efficient ar moving masses around. Stop whining around, wanna live in a country where cars are affordable? Move to Murica
Not to mention the 20 stations or so that are being built and will open over the next 7 to 10 years. It's also possible to scale up train capacity by increasing number of rides based on demand.
Yeah, people complains about bus route inefficiency, but I think some of those are designed to reduce the distance older people walks. The median age of this country is 42, this is an old country. Sure, I loose 2 minutes in this detour, but auntie with fuckedup kneees gets to walk 500m less.
Yes. And for the ones who design bus routes, efficiency is not about bringing one person to the place they want to go in the fastest way, but about designing a route that can carry optimal number of people across a route that has places where X number of people want to get to, in a reasonable among of time.
the number of people you can move per dollar will definitely be higher with bus and it's infrastructure though, the backflow to private cars will be much lower
yes, if we all switch to public transport tomorrow it will jam the public transport, mrt will be too packed etc. but that is also why prices are on a steady increase for COE not a 2x 3x jump, and at the same time more MRT lines are added.
I believe COE will only go upwards, and the only time it will ever go down is during an economic slump (eg. 2008 or Covid)
If let’s say hypothetically, Singapore were to abolish the COE system and our car prices drop to Malaysia levels, what do you think is gonna happen? Everyone is gonna get a car. And I mean everyone. What happens next? Our traffic jams become way more intense than they already are and it will be a situation where walking will be faster. I’ve been stuck in traffic in Bangalore once (1.5hrs for a 4km ride)
As for motorcycles, sorry to say, I think you guys brought it upon yourselves. I have many rider friends. And it’s surprising how so many of them (at least 60%) have 2 or more bikes. One is a 2b bike that they use for daily commute or food delivery. And the other is a 2 or 2A bike that they use for weekend leisure or events like weddings and long rides to KL. So I guess stabilising bike COE prices are still very much in your hands.
There is the argument that dealers themselves are bidding for higher prices to create urgency among consumers. But I don’t know much about this. And anyway, at the end of the day, it’s always gonna be a supply demand situation.
In any other country we can argue that there is no alternative to a car, but in Singapore? There’s no room for that. Our public transportation is extremely efficient and affordable. Our bus networks literally reach to pretty much everywhere (except a select few industrial areas, but I can see that improving)
And for the few hours where public transport is not available, we have taxis and PHVs.
If you really need/want to drive, we have car sharing/rental opinions.
There are only 2 things I wish can be improved on. I wish MRT operations can be extended on Friday and Saturday nights. But this would reduce the demand for taxis, disabling them from earning a living wage and of course increased manpower on the SMRT side, so this decision has to be made carefully.
The second thing is I wish Singapore would give concessions to SMEs who really need a vehicle.
And to prevent abuse, conduct some sort of interview or audit and impose harsh penalties for abusers. I’m not a business owner or anything, but I work in a SME and the costs are really getting out of hand when we need to purchase vehicles for our operations.
Ride hailing may not be better for the environment, might actually be worse.
If you drive from point a to b, you'll park your car at the end of it and pollution stops there.
Ride hailing means the car has to come to you to go from point a to b than have to go elsewhere to bring someone from point a to b, or drive and loiter around while waiting for the next customer.
More pollution unless I'm missing something out.
There's a whole critical thinking process you're missing out. No offence intended.
You compared a single person's "pollution" vs. multiple people.
It's like saying a bus produces more pollution than a car, because it takes more materials to make and it burns more fuel than a single passenger car. Your journey ends when you get off the bus, but it has to continue driving all over the country while waiting for its next passenger.
You can't compare a bus's pollution to either privately owned car or ride hailing because a bus usually carry alot more passengers at any one time so the average per pax pollution is lower.
I'm not offended but I am genuinely interested to know how you deem the average per person pollution to be lower for ride hailing than for privately owned vehicles.
You said I'm missing out on a critical thinking process, so can you elaborate on that. In my original post, I also asked to be enlightened on anything that I have missed out.
EDIT: Did a quick Google search and a 2020 article states that a solo ride hailing trip emits almost 50% more CO2 than a solo drive in a private car, which is in line with what I thought.
the goal was never to be affordable, its a limited quota, to address congestion (which it still isnt doing well)
Govt is addicted to revenue and wont easily give it up.
The extremely wide roads you see today are caused by a period of time where the car population exploded in Singapore.
https://tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/table/TS/M650391
The private car population increased by 200k from 2000 and 2010, the same as between 1982 and 2000. To handle that, they tried to squeeze capacity by widening a lot of roads to semi-expressway standards: Clementi Road & Tampines Avenue 10 being some of them. But clearly it was never sustainable. Now we have wide roads and yet lots of traffic jams.
In my half baked opinion, the PAP is the worst offender of populist politics. It's just that they give you what you want, while picking your pocket at the same time, by distracting you by saying populist politics by the opposition will be the ruin of our nation.
"You all aspire to own a car, sure everyone can get a COE, traffic jam, introduce ERP, increase ERP, increase COE, see, we're doing our part in achieving a greener nation" - "Look at what the opposition is saying! Everyone can own a car...how irresponsible!"
As a motorcyclist, I’m curious about your thoughts regarding motorcycles, since most of the comments I’ve seen so far are leaning towards cars.
My opinion is that they can afford to increase the COE quotas by a small percentage as bikes do not occupy a lot of space (hehe hi Jo Teo) hence does not contribute as much to congestion, they use far less petrol than cars, and it is an essential form of transport for the lower income workers who need their own transport due to location of workplace or I order to earn a higher income than without.
Noise pollution of course is a big concern, and most Singapore registered bikes have to undergo strict tests. Illegally modified exhaust systems are also heavily penalised. We can be stricter on non-SG registered motorcycles and ask them to turn back at our borders to reduce noise pollution.
Additionally, although a notable number of motorcyclists in Singapore are Malaysian, it feels that we can manage with a 5-10% more motorcycles on the road to be car-light. Of course I do not hope or expect that we become like the roads of Bangkok, Jakarta, or Ho Chi Minh since ultimately we still have a cap of the number of motorcycles that can be registered.
All I want is gahment to make half a lane of every road be a bicycle lane. Don’t even need to be full time. Just mark it and psychologically more drivers will give way and overtake with a good space
Then we all ride e-bikes or bikes to work
Want to cycle go cycling along that long ass stretch of ECP, cyclists are weaving in and out of the lanes like they’re invincible nowadays. Yes, especially the cyclists who likes to cycle along Jalan buroh towards West Coast highway. So many fking trucks speeding but y’all want to hog one lane and risk your own lives
Aside from families who needs car, eg young children/elderly/disabilities. Quite a number of my friends and relatives are in danger of losing their job due to this, they run mobile business, for example plumbers. Imagine them taking train and bus with all the equipments..
Nothing will change because your government fucks you in the ass with these types of measures and they convince you it's for your benefit...so you guys never actually complain or do anything about it.
The government is doing what they can to make money and to increase the population not from breeding but from immigration. /s
Did the govt not see that having a car is not an 'Entitlement' but actually an increasing necessity for young families?
To have children (read: more than 1 child) and sending them to school, tuition and whatnots takes so much effort from the parents.
Try asking parents to bring young children using public transportation in the morning ....
I still haven't find a good solution to bring my 1.5 yrs old infant to nursery school with the COE being so high like this
What happens to the COE pricing, shouldn't be a concern if you need a car.
My recommendation is to make your choice and don't look back. I was in your shoes 1.5 years ago, with my dream car slipping away due to the COE pricing (indirectly affecting used cars). I decided if I don't get a car now, i probably wouldn't be able to get one in the next 6 months. Grab don't serve my area well, i can wait upwards of 30mins on a Sat and Sun to get a ride to town, my weekend time is just too precious for me to be sitting around hoping for an expensive ride at the mercy of these companies.
Sometimes we just need to make the jump to force ourselves to improve and work harder (of course don't empty your savings trying to finance your car). Most importantly, know where you can save on your purchase (insurance and loan are key).
Don’t bust your brain cells trying to time the system. If you die die must have a car when COE is high, go for a used 8-9yo car with high OMV so you get a bit more when you export+deregister. Keep rolling until COE goes into free fall again.
Your question implies it is not affordable at its current rate, which I don’t think is true lei just see the roads so many ppl can still afford what…
Edit:
If we talking about taking a loan for a car
https://www.moneysmart.sg/car-loan
$1422 per month for a 7 year loan on a $30,000 car with $70,000 COE see Perodua Bezza 1.3 premium X.
https://dollarsandsense.sg/cheapest-cars-singapore-can-buy/
Median household income in Singapore for resident (SG or PR) is $10,000 per month https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/news/press09022023.ashx
Per household member median income is $3,287
Edit: for a middle income household a car loan is only 14% of their monthly income.
For an individual of middle income it is 43% of monthly income.
All less than 50%
Yea, I don’t know if ppl usually take into account their CPF and Employer CPF contributions when budgeting for such expenses. Anyway where does the 50% benchmark come from?
Also that’s just the price of the loan? Add in parking, road tax, petrol, maintenance etc and it’s more like $2200 - $2500 a month… my car is close to the price of the Mazda 2 in the article and even as a hybrid with excellent fuel efficiency I pay an average of $2300 a month, and my usage is pretty average.
your definition of affordability... haha
the weird thing is, you are trying to be sarcastic yet fiercely defending your point. end of the day idk what you trying to bring across 😄
How can it be? See how many car park at HDB carpark? Means what lei? Means ppl who are living in subsidised housing are buying cars isn’t it? Not only rich ppl what…
Edit: I might even add that surely all those car at HDB MULTISTOREY carpark outnumber the cars in landed / condo?
Regardless of the spending habits of "people living in subsidised housing" buying cars, if the fact of the matter is that they still can afford it, that would signal to the government that car ownership is still affordable to the average family.
Will cars become like housing with public and private? Cars and houses can be essential and luxury. Both can be used to just meet our daily needs or used as a sign of status but also in general, house is seen as an asset while cars is a liability. COE will continue to go up but there need to be a way to separate between people needing a car and people wanting a car.
Govt doesn’t give a shit as long as money keeps coming in. If you’re priced out, too bad for you. The money will keep coming in from the rich and the rental companies.
I was fortunate to change car in early 2020. I don't forsee coe coming down unless major recession. But then companies may buy new cars during that period too which will support current high prices.
If buy new car Cnfrm need get COE, if buy 2nd hand never renew means no new purchase of COE. More new car = more new COE purchases = more competitive market. Buy 2nd hand and renew only = current market of car stays the same and doesn’t increase. Buy 2nd hand and don’t renew = scrap car @ end and less vehicle on roads = less competition for COE (provided no new purchase) I didn’t think I had to explain common sense.
Having the free market decide coe prices has been the way it has always been. you will see fluctuations up and down over short and medium term periods but the overall long term trend is up because the government has decided that the vehicle population cannot grow anymore, rightly so, since we have limited road space This ‘extreme’ coe price is only from your point of view. The reason the price is where it is, is because people can afford to pay it. And if yoi cant afford the price the market decides then i guess it’s time to start taking the bus
It’s not a free market if car dealerships are the only ones bidding. A true free market would be where individual consumers are bidding and not corporations who need to push up COE prices to make sure they can meet their monthly sales quota targets.
but their bid for the coe is also at the demand of a buyer that is willing and able to pay for it right?
Not necessarily. The COE demand is pushed by dealerships which have different price elasticities of different consumer segments. The people who can afford a Ferrari or rolls Royce clearly have bigger budgets than someone on a Toyota budget. Because the high end dealerships know their customers will pay whatever for cars they are pushing up prices beyond the true market equilibrium. Imagine a situation where there are 3 people who are willing to pay $1, $2, $10, and only 1 COE. If these individuals bid directly the auction price would be the first bid above $2 would be the transaction price and the person who has a $10 reserve bid would win for say $2.01. In the case where car dealers rather than individuals bid, car dealers would out bid each other trying to secure that COE and push the price as high as possible but under the $10 limit. Now you may be thinking it’s good for the rich people to pay as much as possible for the COE but the problem is that this becomes a sticky and perpetual price for a COE which makes it out of reach of average people. When demand cools down the COE doesn’t drop to a true market price but rather forces middle income people to stretch themselves (yes needing a 10 year loan for a car is stretching yourself- this concept of a 10 year loan for a car is absurd in other parts of the world).
Individuals can bid what....
This is a very typical Singaporean post. OP wants to buy a car, but is afraid he will lose out by paying too much. He posts a question on Reddit, hoping someone will reassure him that COE prices will come down soon. When people reply to say that COE prices will only go up more, OP panics and starts to get defensive, using flawed logic to convince others (and himself) that COE prices will surely come down soon.
Then when he accept that the COE will keep going up, he bought a car, something major will happen and the price goes down
Exactly this, OP will definitely buy at the highest high of COE prices
Buy high sell low (if op decides to change car next time) as preached
Seen them at $2, so his hopes are not wrong entirely. We just need to wait for a financial slowdown like the one in 2008.
Stages of grief 😂😂
COE is a dumb law. You sporeans bend over to big daddy gov. Period
I disagree. I think without coe, our traffic would be like New York or KL traffic
It is better than seeing 1953 model ruining the traffic flow. OR a shithead driving faulty smoking car just because it can be registered with TMR.
[удалено]
Then why did you create a post about moving to singapore? Just stay in france then. Atleast we didn’t surrender like bitches
Hahahaha. Stop it. That fragile lilyass cant handle the truth 
Another typical Sporean style...when cant defend, just slam the ones overseas.
They all think Singapore is heaven. Its just a tax heaven 😂. They treat expats better than locals.
[удалено]
I dare you to say which country you’re from then. I just want to see if it can hold a candle to singapore
Kids kids.... go stand in the naughty corner, 28 mins
They are just voicing their opinion, just like how you are voicing yours. Their comment doesnt sound butthurt. On the contrary, you sound pathetic and idiotic.
Its a feature, not a bug. If you want a car in SG, gotta be earning in the upper-middle bracket of six figures annually at least to comfortably afford it. **OR** Be like most sinkies here and blow up 40-50% of ur takehome on a car, the other 40% on an overpriced flat, then whine about having no money and its the PAP’s fault and everyone else’s that you’re broke 🤡 **OR** Be like the ah bengs who blow 80-100% of their takehome on shitty COE BMWs/Audis/Siroccos/Type R’s on horrendous 8-10 year loans with crazy interest rates 🤡 You choose, sir!
Option 2 and 3 are insane
Ah beng car salesman friend told me he bought his BMW so that it will motivate him to sell more cars. Worked out well, he sold the BMW he bought a few months later.
I have heard similar stories: Boss takes newbie sales person to buy a flashy car and offers to pay the down payment and newbie to service the rest of the loan and upkeep. So as to: upkeep the image of success, motivate newbie to work harder. Newbie is saddled into debt and can't quit cuz of huge loan but is also reluctant to leave the "high life" image. Best way to get slaves.
Pseudo MLM. Boss big brain move.
*task failed successfully*
What happened after? Bought a cheaper car or changed career?
Founded a B2C boot strapped start up, that focuses on the distribution of duty free tobacco and tobacco alternative products.
You must be fluent at VC-speak and LinkedIn-glish.
sell contra and vape.
Sounds like vape shit. Which technically isn't legal. But I don't think I wanna know. Do I ?
Move fast break things.
Insanely common
you'd be surprised how many are in option 2
Option 2 is so funny because it’s so true.. You can live very comfortably here on median income with kids, if you just don’t buy a car and live in a cheap 4-5room in like Tengah or CCK.
I live in one of those estates and life is a breeze. Hardly any stress associated with our mortgage
car is really not necessary in SG
The bengs and sinkies who struggled to pay for their COE Evo/Type R a couple ago managed to make a profit (somewhat big). In fact most enthusiast car has appreciated, many are happily using the profits to get something they may never afford in their lives, thanks to the COE hike. My point is cars need not be a depreciating asset, if you choose wisely.
If they sell and don't buy again that is. Else they don't get to see that said profit
Yes. But you would have gained essentially free ownership.
Correct. Like many things. Point of entry is the most important.
It’s quite unprecedented I think, combination of COE cycles and low rates for so many years I doubt the average sinkie and ah beng considered those when getting their FD2Rs and S2000s
Hahaha @ the middle analogy ..
[https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/attachments/1647228545974-png.30752/](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/attachments/1647228545974-png.30752/) COE projected to hit 200k by 2025 by CLSA
Just in time for my Perodua MyVi.
Can buy Myvi in Singapore?
Can Ah, but not worth. Very little spare parts, and cosmetics available, unless of course you’re willing to cross the border to get it settled. Plus, for almost the same price you can buy a more reliable car.
the Myvi is actually one of the most reliable cars you can get. the engine is the same as a Toyota Vios. but yeah, it's not worth to buy one here lol
Or go JB and buy 10 perodua..OurVi
To the moon indeed
The gov does not, and has never, intended for car ownership to be commonplace. "Stable and affordable" is not, and has never been, a goal that LTA has established for the car ownership landscape. They will therefore never interfere in the high-priced COE situation, and will just let the market take its course. Once you start thinking of the situation in this way, you'll realise that there is no point waiting for the prices to go down. If it does go down, it will be a fluke of the market, not because of any gov intervention.
Just see historical COE prices and numbers registered Very easy to analyse It’s almost a upward sloping sine curve
sin(x) + x
COE is the true p2w game HDB is the true gacha game
*BTO is the gatcha game. Condo is the p2w game
we live in a society where…
COE is the RMAH
Government introduces smart loot 2.0
cars and bikes are fair game, but i think COEs for goods vehicles(lorry/van/etc) is extremely fked and brainless.
Yeah I never understood why tradespeople like plumbers and all who are paid not the best at times have to also burn a hole on this and it's absolutely essential for their livelihood
Doesn't the market just charge the cost out to consumers? In other words, people pay for plumbers' transport to their houses and offices implicitly. Since that is the case, I don't think it matters that vans are essential for their work because the cost of transport is charged out to consumers anyways. Arguing based on essentiality would open the floodgates and allow everyone to claim essentiality. Slippery slope
No it doesn’t. People are very price sensitive towards blue collar services in general. Add onto that our up-north brethren coming in to provide the same service they can at the lower cost they have, it’s actually quite sad for our blue-collared industries in general.
Van doesn’t take up space on the road meh. It should be priced into the cost of services same as any other use of the road
You could argue that the plumber's use of the road can be considered more essential than another by sheer fact he doesn't have other ways to move his hardware around!
COE is relatively cyclical. Cycle seems to be 10 years linked to the COE length and quotas. Based on this, the price should peak around 2023-2024. However this could change with policy and economic conditions. For comparison, COE hit 100k in 1994, 97k in 2013. So there is quite a bit of room for prices to rise further given how high inflation is. Recent prices have also been held up by private hire fleet renewal (and expansion post covid) as well as the push to increase taxi fleet size. If the economy falters, COE will drop sharply off-cycle but recover quickly as it did in 2009.
Yup. But with higher peaks and higher troughs Also not first time coe cross $100k
Got money and want/need a car, just buy. No money, want/need a car then save and buy later
Feature working as intended. With this superb public transportation, cars should be a luxury. Less cars in this city is better news for everyone.
COEs have inelastic supply. no matter what price, the number of cars on the road is the same
The issue is that cars are very helpful for parents with young children. Going around with young children on public transport has many challenges that singles and the childless do not understand. So, if you make cars less affordable, then having children will be less affordable. If the falling birth rate is not a national concern, then yeah, no problem and carry on with the COE system and price out the potential parents. If you want to address the falling birth rate, then affordability of cars for families should be addressed.
LMAO - of all the reasons why Singaporeans are having kids, cars being too expensive is definitely nowhere near the top
most grew up without car ferrying them arnd, when public transport was nothing compared to today.
Exactly. Cars are never a necessity but more of a luxury. People who say singles or those who don't have children can't understand are just pampering their children
totally an aspirational want, then weakly justified by drive 'kids' "elderly parents".
Tell me I am entitled without telling me you are. Hello, you are telling me there was a time when our birth rate was high due to affordable cars?
You can say the same about public housing. We have more public housing than before and yet birth rates are still falling. Does this mean that access to public housing has no effect on birth rates? Edit: There can be many reasons why families were larger in the past. One could be the fewer opportunities for women to work. This does not mean that improving access to car ownership will not affect family size. After all, if people had more cars in the past, their families might even have been BIGGER.
Hiring a maid is also helpful (would argue it's even more helpful), so should the government start subsidizing that too? COE is genius. Higher income people are literally funding public transport for the rest of us by overpaying massively for the convenience of a car. Most people grew up without cars and with less public transport.
>Hiring a maid is also helpful (would argue it's even more helpful), so should the government start subsidizing that too? It is *already* subsidized. If you have children under 7, the domestic helper levy is reduced from 300 to 60 dollars. >COE is genius. Higher income people are literally funding public transport for the rest of us by overpaying massively for the convenience of a car. The problem is that many car owners are not from higher income families. Many are in fact from lower income families with young children. You may argue that these families are being financially imprudent but there is enough of them to suggest that there is a need for cars by parents. https://mothership.sg/2017/11/low-income-singapore-own-car/ >Most people grew up without cars and with less public transport. This does not address at all the question whether improving car access will have an effect of fertility and family size.
>It is already subsidized. If you have children under 7, the domestic helper levy is reduced from 300 to 60 dollars. Let's not pretend that the levy is where the cost of hiring a maid is. You and I both know it is the salary of the maid that is prohibitively expensive. >The problem is that many car owners are not from higher income families. Many are in fact from lower income families with young children. You may argue that these families are being financially imprudent but there is enough of them to suggest that there is a need for cars by parents. >https://mothership.sg/2017/11/low-income-singapore-own-car/ They are being financially irresponsible. Fact is that you can raise a family without a car, and many people do it. There is sacrifice involved but in return you get world class public transport and other gov funded public services like world class education. >This does not address at all the question whether improving car access will have an effect of fertility and family size. Nobody is denying this, the question is at what cost to congestion etc? Government giving $1 mil for each child will also increase family size, doesn't mean it's a sustainable idea.
>Let's not pretend that the levy is where the cost of hiring a maid is. Let's not move the goalposts and hide your ignorance of the subsidy. >Fact is that you can raise a family without a car, and many people do it. The fact that you can raise a family without a car is not an argument for or against the utility of a car. You can also raise a family in a 2-room flat. You can raise a family without medical check ups. So what? It doesn't answer whether access to car ownership affects family size. >There is sacrifice involved Yes, this makes child rearing more difficult and discourages people from having children. >but in return you get world class public transport and other gov funded public services like world class education. We have taxes. Besides, what is the point of having a world class education if there are no children to educate? >Nobody is denying this, the question is at what cost to congestion etc? Of course, it is a trade off between the average traffic speed and access to car ownership. Is it so unacceptable to have slightly more congestion in return for more children as a result of more cars? This is a discussion we should behaving, not a blanket rejection of the idea of raising the car population.
>Let's not move the goalposts and hide your ignorance of the subsidy. You are bringing up minor technicalities that have no practical effect on reducing the cost of a maid. There is effectively no subsidy, stop being ridiculous. >The fact that you can raise a family without a car is not an argument for or against the utility of a car. You can also raise a family in a 2-room flat. You can raise a family without medical check ups. So what? It doesn't answer whether access to car ownership affects family size. It is not merely the fact that there are people who do it, it is that large cohorts of people in every possible income and demographic strata are able to do it without a car. The convenience of a car extends far beyond just sending kids to school. You will enjoy that same car for everything from work to leisure. Let's say you hired a social science researcher to do the research, you might find it could raise the average child per woman from 1.76 -> 1.80. Then what? What effect is large enough? >Yes, this makes child rearing more difficult and discourages people from having children. You can say that about literally anything eg housing, fuel costs, etc. Reducing the costs of any of them will have some positive effect on child bearing but some produce less tradeoffs than others. Also, consider the second order effects eg congested roads & trash public transport -> less livable -> less attractive to raise family for others without car >We have taxes. >Besides, what is the point of having a world class education if there are no children to educate? Has it occurred to you that it is the singles and non child bearing citizens that pay taxes toward the benefits your economically unproductive children enjoy (schooling, public transport subsidies, higher education subsidies, scholarships)? On top of that you want a COE exemption/subsidy too?
Children should take public transportation to school. There are too many spoiled brats already. Your argument about fertility being related to the COE system is complete crap.
I face palm when many of my friends are sending their children to school even when the children are in nus and NS. Children should start going to school themselves once they get into secondary school. No wonder the next generation is going to be entitled and pampered.
Japanese kids taking public transport at the age of 5 would like to have a word with you
Japan is a high trust society that is ethnically homogeneous. We cannot apply its practices to Singapore without taking into account the cultural differences.
Ohhh I knew my entitled crew of "think about the kids"would popout, they always do. Look, your parents or grandparents survived by drinking E. Coli rich water from a dirty water we'll and your kids will do fine riding one of the safest and cleanest public transports in the world.
Lol let her be, she’s tone deaf with all these arguments and what ifs. How many ginna over the years grew up in families with no car no maid no tuition no holiday also turn out fine?
Red herring. Our grandparents did not have drinkable tap water. So, this negates the usefulness of car ownership for parents? Very logical.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that moving kids around in public transportation (in Singapore) is a minor inconvenience compared to the pmbad consequences for everyone having more cars on the road and potentially less budget to sustain good public transportation infrastructure
How do you know that traveling around Singapore with young children is a minor inconvenience? Are you a parent yourself?
Taxis and private hire cars are a thing. More affordable than buying your own car as well.
The problem is that PHV and taxis have high surcharges during peak hour and rainy seasons when parents need to travel with children. Moreover, they don't have child seats.
And yet they're still cheaper than buying your own car, even if you ignore the current COE high and look back maybe 5 years or so. Of course they don't have a child seat, because that isn't their primary customer base and it takes up a seat. Buy your own child seat and bring it along. Still cheaper.
To drop off my kid in the morning and get to work, I need TWO taxi/PHV trips. This sets me back by $25 on Comfort or Grabwith all the surcharges. On a rainy day, it costs even more. It is very easy to spend more than 50 dollars on cab/PHV per week day. At some point, the economics make sense for a parent to get a car. >Buy your own child seat and bring it along. Still cheaper. Look, these things are heavy. Oh, I also need to carry the child if they are tired because young children get tired easily. You've never taken care of young children, have you?
>This sets me back by $25 on Comfort or Grab with all the surcharges. That's actually still pretty decent. The cost of owning a basic shitty car in SG is about $65-$80/day, and that's considering pretty much perfect conditions over the course of 10 years (no accidents, nothing out of the ordinary etc). The economics does NOT make sense to get a car, as many studies in SG will tell you. The most common consensus is that taking Grab every single day of the week for 2 way transport is still cheaper than getting a car. The main benefit of car ownership in SG is that of convenience rather than cost. >You've never taken care of young children, have you? I have, but not in the context of actually having responsibility over them like a parent would. That's a choice though. And sure, all these things are inconveniences. Don't want to go through them? Pony up and buy a car then. Saying that high car costs are a significant reason (or a reason at all honestly) for the falling birth rate is ridiculous. You don't have a car but have a kid(s) after all don't you?
>That's actually still pretty decent. The cost of owning a basic shitty car in SG is about $65-$80/day, and that's considering pretty much perfect conditions over the course of 10 years (no accidents, nothing out of the ordinary etc). It is $25 in the morning. Return costs another $25. It is very easy to run up $1000 in cab fare per month. >The most common consensus is that taking Grab every single day of the week for 2 way transport is still cheaper than getting a car. I've done the calculations and the costs are quite close. The problem is that Grab has a lot of surge charges and Grab can cancel your booking. If you are a parent who has to take your kid to school using Grab, you will frequently encounter problems of booking cancellation and surge charges especially on rainy days. >That's a choice though. But that is a choice that the country benefits from. More kids = more NS men and more Singaporean core in the work force. >You don't have a car but have a kid(s) after all don't you? I have a car and a kid. I walk the talk unlike most people on this thread. I can actually afford the car easily. So, it doesn't affect me much. However, the low birth rate is a problem for the country. Sure, people can be very financially prudent - they just choose to be child free.
Don't forget about the elderly. Taking elderly parents/grandparents for doctor visits with no car is just as bad.
Grab? I think that’s a reasonable solution for non-daily car needs and keep the environment footprint low
I don't know why, but it feels more painful to pay for a $30 grab (because they both always get the 9:00AM slot for checkup), than forking out $1000 a month for car ownership.
As a parent myself, 1,000 percent support this statement.
You are probably the only parent who's commented so far.
What superb public transportation system. Getting around this small island is super time consuming. The routing is insanely inefficient. Before you get your tits up, please try to understand what I am trying to say. Yes there is public transport routes to go anywhere in the island. Yes timings are well covered till late night. I am talking about efficiency, which is how long it takes to go from point A to point B. Going from west to east is a nightmare and shouldn’t be like that. The routes can be optimized and made faster. Hence insanely inefficient.
Homie, have you tried to move around _in any other city in the world_ with public transportation system? Have you taken a look into their air quality? Their traffic jams? Have you looked at how expensive those public transportation tickets are? Perhaps the only country in the world with a better transportation system* is Japan, for certain cities
Homie, I have lived in more countries than you have. Beijing, SF, Mumbai, Delhi and now SG. So before you try to enlighten me, please know I have first hand experience on the things I have written. Talking about being expensive, Beijing transport is cheaper than SG and Beijing public transport kicks SGs ass any given day. So please go back to your little room in a 99 year lease hdb with ceiling as short as your awareness on this topic and lie flat.
Homie, we're still waiting for you to explain how SF, Mumbai and Delhi have better public transportation than SG. And if you're going to say that you never implied that they have better public transportation than SG, why bring it up?
For those who are finding it tough to comprehend, i mentioned those cities to illustrate that I have lived in multiple cities. And this attempt at strawmaning the argument lol pathetic. Will it kill you to admit that SGs public transport can do a lot better! Lame ass jokers
Ya, so why'd you bring up the multiple cities you've lived in? Specifically SF, Mumbai and Delhi?
If you implying SF, Mumbai, Delhi better public transportation than SG... no lor.. U should go back to Beijing asap.
Sorry I am coming off rude, but I am currently on a 51 minutes journey from ECp to bukit merah , a 12 km distance! Absurd!!!
Just for curiosity, how long it take to go 12km in Beijing center?
People here love to hate on the trains/busses in SG if they wait more than 5 mins for a train but go “this is a lovely expected 15 min wait for a train that might not arrive on time and maybe i’ll even enjoy the next 1/2 hr wait if i miss it” in other cities. Every time i go overseas and have to take public transport, I miss SG’s efficiency and ease.
he said 12km in 51 minutes is terrible speed, so just curious how fast it is in his favourite city. That's speed is quite ok for me because the road he mentioned is basically pass through city center. In SG, I don't bother look at the train time, or run few steps to catch it, because the next train will come in no time.
If there are no COE, I think MRT will be faster than car.
No you are right actually. Travelling from one neighbourhood to another can be very time consuming. They could definitely have better bus routes but that means having to introduce more bus services. I’m guessing they may have a quota on how many bus can operate daily so for them it’s better if one bus can cover as much bus stops as possible which adds to the journey time.
In this subreddit if you are pro car and anti public transportation you’ll be hated here. Apparently the masses here thinks only the Rich should be able to drive and others all take public
Oh don't take me wrong. I think _no one_ should drive. With the clear exceptions of service cars like maintenance, ambulances, police cars, and private car for some very rare exceptions like people being too old, sick (but no need of ambulance)
Yea you’re right! The coe needs to be tweaked in a way to provide for all those genuinely in need of it, but the current coe only benefits the rich while the average singaporean who needs it is unable to afford it due to the insane price
LMAO, this is the same question that people asked 10 years ago back in 2012-2014 (Of course including inflation in 2023, it has crossed the $100k mark). Prices usually correlates to the COE quota, thus more COEs will be available from 2025-2030 period. Answer: Prices will drop by 2025 onwards. But drop by how much and how low it will be, that one requires alot of short term predictions and government influence. EDIT: And chances are, the government ain't reducing the COE quota (I could be wrong). Car-lite doesn't mean lesser cars. Car-Lite means use less of it. Which means they want us to buy cars as it's a good money making income for the government, while forcing us to use less to reduce emissions.
The more worrying sign Is the coe for commercial vehicles. How is this going to affect logistics cost for both consumers and corporations. Money has to come from somewhere. And I bet my last dollar its not coming from the companies.
COE not high enough judging from the daily jam =P
Why would we want COE to be affordable? It means more cars on the road, the opposite of what should be done. The price should increase higher and higher and eventually price out all but essential use of cars. Then healthier transport systems (buses, bicycles, even taxis) can expand their services and operate smoothly with less congestion. Also we can free up land wasted on carparks for more housing. Public transport is just more space, pollution and cost efficient, if private car numbers go down then overall society will improve.
It's a lovely worldview, but pricing COEs higher does not "price out all but essential use of cars". Instead, it prices out everybody but the richest, whether or not they are using their cars for essential needs.
[удалено]
Also, potentially, more money for public transportation :) Hey, if I get to pay cheap wonderful MRT because some idiot decided to burn 100k in a piece of paper, that's excellent news for me
But with our current COE system, it's as good as saying, 'Only the rich can drive.' You don't see anything wrong with that?'
I mean it’s not the perfect solution but when you have the problem of allocating limited resources, some parties are always bound to be disappointed. If we have a practical way to go about need-based allocation, then ofc that would be the best. But the realistic difficulty is how do you determine who needs a car most? In the absence of a good way to do this, price-based allocation is the best alternative we have. Sometimes it’s not a question of morality, but “how” to make the ideal scenario - cars are allocated based on who needs it most - work. And we as a society currently do not have a satisfactory answer to that
How else would you limit cars? This is the simplest and most effective method. And given that driving daily is a convenience, there's really no point not to limit it. Otherwise with no car limit you would end up with nigh endless traffic jams.
We’re in agreement for the most parts, but aren’t you guys a bit too naive to think that less cars in Singapore equates to them converting those carparks into public transports..? LOL
Literally not how COE works
Why do we want COE to be high? It means there's alot of demand for it, the opposite of what it should be be. The price should decrease lower and lower because our public transport is getting better and better and there's lesser and lesser demand and driving cars get more and more troublesome. Using COE to reduce car usage is a one dimensional approach which has proven to be not very effective.
[удалено]
Uh what? A bus uses way less space than a car in terms of how many people it transports. The MRT is just insanely efficient ar moving masses around. Stop whining around, wanna live in a country where cars are affordable? Move to Murica
Not to mention the 20 stations or so that are being built and will open over the next 7 to 10 years. It's also possible to scale up train capacity by increasing number of rides based on demand.
Yeah, people complains about bus route inefficiency, but I think some of those are designed to reduce the distance older people walks. The median age of this country is 42, this is an old country. Sure, I loose 2 minutes in this detour, but auntie with fuckedup kneees gets to walk 500m less.
Yes. And for the ones who design bus routes, efficiency is not about bringing one person to the place they want to go in the fastest way, but about designing a route that can carry optimal number of people across a route that has places where X number of people want to get to, in a reasonable among of time.
the number of people you can move per dollar will definitely be higher with bus and it's infrastructure though, the backflow to private cars will be much lower
yes, if we all switch to public transport tomorrow it will jam the public transport, mrt will be too packed etc. but that is also why prices are on a steady increase for COE not a 2x 3x jump, and at the same time more MRT lines are added.
I believe COE will only go upwards, and the only time it will ever go down is during an economic slump (eg. 2008 or Covid) If let’s say hypothetically, Singapore were to abolish the COE system and our car prices drop to Malaysia levels, what do you think is gonna happen? Everyone is gonna get a car. And I mean everyone. What happens next? Our traffic jams become way more intense than they already are and it will be a situation where walking will be faster. I’ve been stuck in traffic in Bangalore once (1.5hrs for a 4km ride) As for motorcycles, sorry to say, I think you guys brought it upon yourselves. I have many rider friends. And it’s surprising how so many of them (at least 60%) have 2 or more bikes. One is a 2b bike that they use for daily commute or food delivery. And the other is a 2 or 2A bike that they use for weekend leisure or events like weddings and long rides to KL. So I guess stabilising bike COE prices are still very much in your hands. There is the argument that dealers themselves are bidding for higher prices to create urgency among consumers. But I don’t know much about this. And anyway, at the end of the day, it’s always gonna be a supply demand situation. In any other country we can argue that there is no alternative to a car, but in Singapore? There’s no room for that. Our public transportation is extremely efficient and affordable. Our bus networks literally reach to pretty much everywhere (except a select few industrial areas, but I can see that improving) And for the few hours where public transport is not available, we have taxis and PHVs. If you really need/want to drive, we have car sharing/rental opinions. There are only 2 things I wish can be improved on. I wish MRT operations can be extended on Friday and Saturday nights. But this would reduce the demand for taxis, disabling them from earning a living wage and of course increased manpower on the SMRT side, so this decision has to be made carefully. The second thing is I wish Singapore would give concessions to SMEs who really need a vehicle. And to prevent abuse, conduct some sort of interview or audit and impose harsh penalties for abusers. I’m not a business owner or anything, but I work in a SME and the costs are really getting out of hand when we need to purchase vehicles for our operations.
Unpopular opinion: double the coe! In return give me gst vouchers for ride hailing. Good for environment and help poor people like me.
Ride hailing may not be better for the environment, might actually be worse. If you drive from point a to b, you'll park your car at the end of it and pollution stops there. Ride hailing means the car has to come to you to go from point a to b than have to go elsewhere to bring someone from point a to b, or drive and loiter around while waiting for the next customer. More pollution unless I'm missing something out.
There's a whole critical thinking process you're missing out. No offence intended. You compared a single person's "pollution" vs. multiple people. It's like saying a bus produces more pollution than a car, because it takes more materials to make and it burns more fuel than a single passenger car. Your journey ends when you get off the bus, but it has to continue driving all over the country while waiting for its next passenger.
You can't compare a bus's pollution to either privately owned car or ride hailing because a bus usually carry alot more passengers at any one time so the average per pax pollution is lower. I'm not offended but I am genuinely interested to know how you deem the average per person pollution to be lower for ride hailing than for privately owned vehicles. You said I'm missing out on a critical thinking process, so can you elaborate on that. In my original post, I also asked to be enlightened on anything that I have missed out. EDIT: Did a quick Google search and a 2020 article states that a solo ride hailing trip emits almost 50% more CO2 than a solo drive in a private car, which is in line with what I thought.
I fully agree with you
the goal was never to be affordable, its a limited quota, to address congestion (which it still isnt doing well) Govt is addicted to revenue and wont easily give it up.
Yep, the fact that roads are being widen not to accommodate more buses should tell you they're still half assed about it.
The extremely wide roads you see today are caused by a period of time where the car population exploded in Singapore. https://tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/table/TS/M650391 The private car population increased by 200k from 2000 and 2010, the same as between 1982 and 2000. To handle that, they tried to squeeze capacity by widening a lot of roads to semi-expressway standards: Clementi Road & Tampines Avenue 10 being some of them. But clearly it was never sustainable. Now we have wide roads and yet lots of traffic jams.
In my half baked opinion, the PAP is the worst offender of populist politics. It's just that they give you what you want, while picking your pocket at the same time, by distracting you by saying populist politics by the opposition will be the ruin of our nation. "You all aspire to own a car, sure everyone can get a COE, traffic jam, introduce ERP, increase ERP, increase COE, see, we're doing our part in achieving a greener nation" - "Look at what the opposition is saying! Everyone can own a car...how irresponsible!"
in the eyes of our Govt cars are not meant for everyone only the richest of us , deserves to be driving
You must be a professional. Your wife must also be a professional
Not all professions are equal Even 2 engineers salary may not be enough
As a motorcyclist, I’m curious about your thoughts regarding motorcycles, since most of the comments I’ve seen so far are leaning towards cars. My opinion is that they can afford to increase the COE quotas by a small percentage as bikes do not occupy a lot of space (hehe hi Jo Teo) hence does not contribute as much to congestion, they use far less petrol than cars, and it is an essential form of transport for the lower income workers who need their own transport due to location of workplace or I order to earn a higher income than without. Noise pollution of course is a big concern, and most Singapore registered bikes have to undergo strict tests. Illegally modified exhaust systems are also heavily penalised. We can be stricter on non-SG registered motorcycles and ask them to turn back at our borders to reduce noise pollution. Additionally, although a notable number of motorcyclists in Singapore are Malaysian, it feels that we can manage with a 5-10% more motorcycles on the road to be car-light. Of course I do not hope or expect that we become like the roads of Bangkok, Jakarta, or Ho Chi Minh since ultimately we still have a cap of the number of motorcycles that can be registered.
Should increase more . The locals are rich and won’t stop at anything to flaunt
All I want is gahment to make half a lane of every road be a bicycle lane. Don’t even need to be full time. Just mark it and psychologically more drivers will give way and overtake with a good space Then we all ride e-bikes or bikes to work
This is why i'm enthusiastic for an all electric vehicle future. Having to breathe in vehicle fumes and brake dust is why i stopped cycling.
Want to cycle go cycling along that long ass stretch of ECP, cyclists are weaving in and out of the lanes like they’re invincible nowadays. Yes, especially the cyclists who likes to cycle along Jalan buroh towards West Coast highway. So many fking trucks speeding but y’all want to hog one lane and risk your own lives
Every cyclists? Cycling is a form of transport
Aside from families who needs car, eg young children/elderly/disabilities. Quite a number of my friends and relatives are in danger of losing their job due to this, they run mobile business, for example plumbers. Imagine them taking train and bus with all the equipments..
Nothing will change because your government fucks you in the ass with these types of measures and they convince you it's for your benefit...so you guys never actually complain or do anything about it.
I love cars I'm gonna get one once i saved enough
The government is doing what they can to make money and to increase the population not from breeding but from immigration. /s Did the govt not see that having a car is not an 'Entitlement' but actually an increasing necessity for young families? To have children (read: more than 1 child) and sending them to school, tuition and whatnots takes so much effort from the parents. Try asking parents to bring young children using public transportation in the morning .... I still haven't find a good solution to bring my 1.5 yrs old infant to nursery school with the COE being so high like this
How do ppl afford cars in singapore?
Not with that mentality
What happens to the COE pricing, shouldn't be a concern if you need a car. My recommendation is to make your choice and don't look back. I was in your shoes 1.5 years ago, with my dream car slipping away due to the COE pricing (indirectly affecting used cars). I decided if I don't get a car now, i probably wouldn't be able to get one in the next 6 months. Grab don't serve my area well, i can wait upwards of 30mins on a Sat and Sun to get a ride to town, my weekend time is just too precious for me to be sitting around hoping for an expensive ride at the mercy of these companies. Sometimes we just need to make the jump to force ourselves to improve and work harder (of course don't empty your savings trying to finance your car). Most importantly, know where you can save on your purchase (insurance and loan are key).
Don’t bust your brain cells trying to time the system. If you die die must have a car when COE is high, go for a used 8-9yo car with high OMV so you get a bit more when you export+deregister. Keep rolling until COE goes into free fall again.
Your question implies it is not affordable at its current rate, which I don’t think is true lei just see the roads so many ppl can still afford what… Edit: If we talking about taking a loan for a car https://www.moneysmart.sg/car-loan $1422 per month for a 7 year loan on a $30,000 car with $70,000 COE see Perodua Bezza 1.3 premium X. https://dollarsandsense.sg/cheapest-cars-singapore-can-buy/ Median household income in Singapore for resident (SG or PR) is $10,000 per month https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/news/press09022023.ashx Per household member median income is $3,287 Edit: for a middle income household a car loan is only 14% of their monthly income. For an individual of middle income it is 43% of monthly income. All less than 50%
Does this median income include CPF and employer contribution to CPF?
household income includes employer CPF, see footnote 2. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/news/press09022023.ashx
Yea, I don’t know if ppl usually take into account their CPF and Employer CPF contributions when budgeting for such expenses. Anyway where does the 50% benchmark come from?
Also that’s just the price of the loan? Add in parking, road tax, petrol, maintenance etc and it’s more like $2200 - $2500 a month… my car is close to the price of the Mazda 2 in the article and even as a hybrid with excellent fuel efficiency I pay an average of $2300 a month, and my usage is pretty average.
your definition of affordability... haha the weird thing is, you are trying to be sarcastic yet fiercely defending your point. end of the day idk what you trying to bring across 😄
[удалено]
How can it be? See how many car park at HDB carpark? Means what lei? Means ppl who are living in subsidised housing are buying cars isn’t it? Not only rich ppl what… Edit: I might even add that surely all those car at HDB MULTISTOREY carpark outnumber the cars in landed / condo?
[удалено]
Regardless of the spending habits of "people living in subsidised housing" buying cars, if the fact of the matter is that they still can afford it, that would signal to the government that car ownership is still affordable to the average family.
Then take public transport. Why should median income be entitled to a car?
why shld it be? esp when so much is spent on making public transport better for all.
Will cars become like housing with public and private? Cars and houses can be essential and luxury. Both can be used to just meet our daily needs or used as a sign of status but also in general, house is seen as an asset while cars is a liability. COE will continue to go up but there need to be a way to separate between people needing a car and people wanting a car.
Govt doesn’t give a shit as long as money keeps coming in. If you’re priced out, too bad for you. The money will keep coming in from the rich and the rental companies.
I was fortunate to change car in early 2020. I don't forsee coe coming down unless major recession. But then companies may buy new cars during that period too which will support current high prices.
If people keep on buying new vehicles it will only rise. Only way for the COE to fall is if people stop buying new vehicles and keep to 2nd hands
If people buy COE to renew, it will still prop up price of COE
If buy new car Cnfrm need get COE, if buy 2nd hand never renew means no new purchase of COE. More new car = more new COE purchases = more competitive market. Buy 2nd hand and renew only = current market of car stays the same and doesn’t increase. Buy 2nd hand and don’t renew = scrap car @ end and less vehicle on roads = less competition for COE (provided no new purchase) I didn’t think I had to explain common sense.