[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by vb-san

What works in Singapore probably quite unique because it’s small and easy to manage. To implement these measures even in Tier 1 city in India will be next impossible.
[/i]

Compared to Bengaluru, for instance, the size of Singapore is nearly the same. I refer to this:

When the size/population of Singapore is compared with an Indian city on a similar scale, it is easier to bring about policy changes rapidly and effectively there. For a country like ours, the usual political and cultural differences will always come in the way of progress.

Build the efficient public transport first and disincentivise usage of private vehicles next is the best strategy.

[silverado]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

Currently, vehicle owners must hold a "Certificate of Entitlement" which is auctioned by the government every month. This certificate costs about US$ 30,000 and is valid for a 10-year period. As of 2016, there were over 6 lakh cars in the city.

COE is much higher than 30K,Below is link for reference
It was as high as 60k SGD for premium cars at some time
http://www.sgcarmart.com/news/writeup.php?AID=70

Originally Posted by rshnvjy

(and which is valid only for 10 years after which it needs to be renewed for a hefty sum, or the car scrapped).

Finally, unlike every single city in India, the public transport system 'just works'.

They have some arrangement by which 10 year old car can be sold elsewhere.

Underground digging is to double the network by 2020, its amazing some stations are 5-6 levels below ground.

Originally Posted by smartcat

I guess there won't be Team-BHP-Singapore.com anytime soon. What a terrible place for car lovers.

We need to read up on Singapore's history. I wonder how this sliver of land managed to remain independent when it shares land border with Malaysia.

Not a great place if you want to own and enjoy a car, since rules are very strict, parking is a hassle and there is nothing like a long drive to be enjoyed in country.

Geographically Singapore is located at a really prime location, 40% of ships pass Singapore Port due to its location in Malacca straits which is the main channel for Chinese ships going to Europe and beyond.

Shipping is one of the reasons for Singapore's growth in last 51-52 years since its independence from Malaysia.

[blackwasp]

Originally Posted by silverado

COE is much higher than 30K,Below is link for reference
It was as high as 60k SGD for premium cars at some time

I posted the cheapest one - CAT A which is standing at SG$ 41,617, equivalent to US$ 30,578. Though it will only go up for higher categories as you have rightly mentioned. CAT B is at US$ 36,000. And it shoots up for other bus / truck and open categories.

It shows us that, whatever be the price, someone or the other is wiling to pay such a high sum for a vehicle that will be rarely going out of the city. Thankfully, with Singapore's excellent pubic transport system, majority of the public don't feel the need for the individual car ownership.

[deehunk]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

Thankfully, with Singapore's excellent pubic transport system, majority of the public don't feel the need for the individual car ownership.

The public transport system provides connectivity between important locations and is time consuming as I have heard from my BIL. He has stopped using the public transport and is using a bi-cycle for his commute to office just to save time.

[blackasta]

We went to Singapore for a quick 4 day trip last year. The MRT + Bus system is excellent, and we bought the unlimited tourist pass and used that for the entirety of our stay there. All points of interest are accessible via public transport.

If we had such a functional public transport system here in my hometown, I doubt whether I would have taken my car to office everyday.

Considering the limited real estate Singapore has, I guess the move makes sense.

The streets there are indeed congested, although everyone maintains good lane discipline. And bus lanes are separate & it is adhered to.

Only time we took a cab was on the last day, when we had to catch an early morning flight back.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by SajiNSalin

If the public transport in a city is decent and the stations are reasonably close, it makes a lot of sense to avoid car use. Delhi airport to Connaught place is a comfortable half an hour ride on the airport metro, compared to a several hours by car. Cities like Delhi, Bengaluru, Mumbai, etc. are choked with vehicles and there is no good solution in sight. Probably the govt should invest heavily in public transport.

Delhi has excellent public transport. More than 20 billion $ have been spent on Delhi Metro. It has a network of 218 kms with another 100 plus km to be ready in the next 12 months. Currently there are 164 metro stations in Delhi. Delhi Metro is also as modern and as efficient as the Singapore one but is much larger. Singapore does have a better bus network. Delhi also has around 10,000 modern buses but because of the higher population, they are often crowded. In addition only about 25% of Delhi buses are air conditioned. Delhi does have a smart card to pay for transport as well.

[landcruiser123]

Smart move. The country is too small and unlike USA, India and China- they can't keep expanding highways.

Originally Posted by smartcat

We need to read up on Singapore's history. I wonder how this sliver of land managed to remain independent when it shares land border with Malaysia.

I'm currently reading "From Third World to First: The Singapore Story from 1965-2000" by LKY. (Lee Kuan Yew)

Singapore was expelled from the Malaysian Federation as the Chinese majority were seen as a threat to Malay dominance. (Mods, please forgive me if this post violates the rules of the forum)

At some point in the book, LKY mentions that there can only be a 3% increase in the number of cars as the infrastructure can't grow rapidly. He was a smart man who chose his team smartly and built a nation.

[SajiNSalin]

Delhi has shown the way forward in public transportation with the best Metro available in India. But much more needs to be done so that the general public do not feel the need to use cars for commuting. The airport to Connaught place metro is outstanding and offers fast and comfortable ride to the heart of Delhi. If only more of the lines were of similar comfort level, we can avoid vehicle use within Delhi.

Other Indian cities need to follow suit with an efficient, comfortable and expansive public transport network. Though more costly, underground metro will avoid the legal hassles of acquiring land and congestion on roads. London tube, Berlin Ubahn are very good examples of these.

Singapore has anticipated the future problems and is taking early action to continue the comfortable public transport they already have. India needs to have a wakeup call to initiate extensive public transport systems. These problems are already on us and will only worsen with time.

[rshnvjy]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

Delhi has excellent public transport. More than 20 billion $ have been spent on Delhi Metro.

Again, like I mentioned in my previous post, merely spending money on a metro system will not get anyone anywhere. The Delhi Metro (or in fact, any metro in India) has not been profitable for quite some time. The Delhi Metro has been consistently losing money since 2010. I am no economist but the fact remains that for a metro system to be profitable, it needs to integrate well with other forms of transport. Simply having a bus network and a train network doesn't mean it will be convenient for commuters.

This is the same for the Kochi metro where there are very few buses leading up to the actual stations from peripheral areas. Instead, most buses ply straight into Kochi, parallel to the metro which results in most commuters opting for the bus resulting in reduced ridership for the metro, defeating the whole point of spending money on this system.

In Singapore or any city with a well-planned public transportation grid, the buses merely complement the trains. Sure, there are a few parallel and alternative routes and this is merely to give choice to the commuters. Most bus routes act as feeder lines for the rail network in order to ensure connectivity to and from stations to neighbourhoods and points of interests. Of course, due to this, the Singapore MRT and Hong Kong MTR both have a total farebox recovery ratio (profit vs. operation costs) of over 125%. The Hong Kong MTR approaches a recovery ratio of 186% according to their most recent reports.

Edit - I just checked out the ridership info for the Delhi Metro vs. Singapore MRT and here it is :

Delhi population : 18.98 million as of 2012
Delhi Metro ridership : 2.76 million/day in 2016-2017

Singapore population : 5.607 million as of 2016
Singapore MRT ridership : 3.1 million/day in 2016-2017 and this excludes the smaller Light Rail Transit system (LRT)

This is a strong indicator of how Delhi can improve and integrate better, regardless of having longer lines and/or more stations.

[no1lives4ever]

Since we are talking public transport now, we need to take into account how singapore's integrated bus + mrt system works. You are charged for 1 ride, that can have multiple bus and mrt segments. In many parts of the world, they have a version of this method where you pay a single fare and then you are allowed to use any supported public transport system for next 1-2 hours. This integration makes a huge difference to how people view and use the public transport systems.

Today in Delhi if I have to go somewhere, i will typically use a combo of battery rickshaw, metro and auto/uber/ola. Buses are not a part of the journey or planning for most people, rather than being a part of a combined bus + metro system. In a lot of big cities with you will be able to plan your ride as a combo of bus and rail transport and use a single ticket/pass for the entire journey.

In addition to these whole ride pricing scheme, another thing that can really help decongest Indian cities is to provide fixed cost monthly passes for an integrated public transport. I am sure that most Indians would want to save money and use the public transport system for any non commute trip if they already have a monthly pass in place.

We cant look at metro systems as profit centres. Government already spends money on the road infrastructure and pays for that from the taxes. If they also used the same logic and instead spent money on combined local transport system comprising of trams, metro, bus systems, cycle tracks, roads for buses and roads for cars, then that can become a major game changer. As of now I am only hoping.

As far as Delhi metro is concerned, it is quite extensive, but even with the completion of Phase 3, there will be major population areas of the city living > 5km away from a metro station. The bus network in Delhi runs as a totally independent network with many bus routes from 1980s, of which many make no sense in today's world where we have a metro system in place. In Delhi public transport is divided between people who use cabs, autos, metro and buses. There is no integration between the bus and metro services. There are metro feeder buses, but not in most parts of the city.

[hangover]

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

Smart move. The country is too small and unlike USA, India and China- they can't keep expanding highways.

I'm currently reading "From Third World to First: The Singapore Story from 1965-2000" by LKY. (Lee Kuan Yew)

Singapore was expelled from the Malaysian Federation as the Chinese majority were seen as a threat to Malay dominance. (Mods, please forgive me if this post violates the rules of the forum)

At some point in the book, LKY mentions that there can only be a 3% increase in the number of cars as the infrastructure can't .

Yeah, those singaporeans are an odd lot.

In 1950 when the British gave them and Malaysia freedom, they refused. They begged to be a part of Malaysia at least. Until they got booted out in 1953.

I bet Malaysia regards it as their own Sewards folly.

When Singapore introduced the odd even days type permission for cars like Delhi, the car population doubled overnight. People simply bought 2 cars. One for each day.

In his book does Lee talk about land reclamation? That Island is now 25% bigger than it was in 53. No jokes.

As a tourist you will agree that their public transport is very economical. I saw a figure of $2 somewhere. What they don't have you know is that a citizen pays less than half of that. Cheaper than dirt cheap.

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by hangover

As a tourist you will agree that their public transport is very economical. I saw a figure of $2 somewhere. What they don't have you know is that a citizen pays less than half of that. Cheaper than dirt cheap.

OT: Just would like to know more about this... I have not seen such a differentiation in my 15+ years here.

[zulfi hansi]

Alright, I do not expect the public transport will be as good as Singapore in Bangalore in my lifetime. IMHO the only option which can be practically implemented is to impose congestion TAX (please note that any Govt. in India will be very happy to impose any new tax). All Bangalore (and surrounding areas) registered vehicles should be paying at least 50 K to 100 K every year to keep using the roads, make entry tax mandatory for all cars coming into the city issuing user licence of number of days the car will be in the city, any deficit can be recovered when the car is going out of the city. Conduct periodic checks for defaulters, imposing no fine but seize the car and release only when the tax deficit and for the next 6 months is paid. Weekend user passes can also be issued for those who don't use the car daily and want to use it only on weekends. No car to be transferred if found deficient in tax remittance. Taxis should pay at least 100 K every year. Make monthly payments system so that it is easier on the pockets.

I know implementation is difficult but we need to learn from other cities in the world, on how they are going about this system.

Bottom line, cost of transport will go up, but that's the price which needs to be paid.

And off-course make Govt. accountable to spend the money from this tax only on transport infrastructure within the city.

[deehunk]

Zulfi, your suggestion is good. Any such decision will lead to a legal battle in the court. Some kind of permit system can be introduced on a trial basis. Road widening cannot go on forever just to meet the requirements of ever increasing vehicle population.

[Nissan1180]

I've been in Singapore for 2 years now. Initially, the idea that cars are not good for the environment and public transport is the best way forward clicked with me. Then I started using it extensively, and it is not pleasant. I'm single, so I do not have to worry about handling kids, but many parents do. It is not pleasant to have to stand in the train with a kid on your shoulder because all seats are full and no one has the courtesy to release a seat for you. Trains are extremely crowded during the peak hours. If I could afford it, I'd prefer a cab or Uber any day, but I can't. Not for daily travel. An average middle aged professional might earn somewhere around $250 a day and his cab bills could exceed $60 a day if he uses it daily. That's the reason why everyone prefers public transport, despite the inconvenience it causes. I agree that it is very well connected and almost every locality has a bus stop. But, if you're wearing formals, perhaps a suit, would you really like to walk for 1 kilometer from the bus stop to reach your home when it is almost 38 degree C and 85% humidity outside? I wouldn't.

At the moment, public transport discussions are focused on connectivity. Very few people think about the comfort of the people who use the service. In the future, when self driving cars become common, it would be nice to have autonomous Taxis that ply on fixed routes, run on electricity and are priced slightly higher than the current transport options. That may happen in the next 15 years. Till then, visitors, residents have to sweat it out.