Transportation Policy in Singapore
The island state of Singapore has a rather appealing transportation policy:
(1) Taxes – gasoline costs about twice as much as in the United States (this is fairly typical outside the United States), and cars themselves cost 2-3 times as much. SUVs are rare.
(2) Every car in Singapore is fitted with an automatic card reader. This provides the convenience of automatically charging in every single parking lot in Singapore, but is also used for congestion charging – driving into certain areas at certain hours incurs an automatic fee.
(3) People who purchase cars can receive a considerable discount (close to 20 percent, I think) for getting red license plates. These plates allow the person to drive on weekends and after 6pm on weekdays. To drive at any other time, the person makes an automatic on-line payment.
(4) The government has pledged to expand the metro system so that every Singaporean will live less than 10 minutes walking distance from a metro station.
This is just an example of what can be done when thinking about a sensible transportation policy – as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these types of policies can facilitate a greater sense of community. Of course, Singapore’s government is fairly authoritarian, which possibly also shows the limits of democracy – and yes, recent events in the United States have some influence over this conclusion.
Comments are closed.
How does a system like that deal with non-urban areas? How about jobs that are not 9-5 Monday through Friday? Should we regulate what temperature you can heat and cool your house? How about cross country drives? If I do not drive to work for a month, can I drive to Chicago for a vacation?
What would be the goal of that new system? To reduce the amount of gasoline consumed, or to reduce dependence on imported oil?
How to be taxed to death. Can anyone say Draconian?
Paying twice the amount for gasoline and cars as a tax, and being “allow[ed]” to drive on nights and weekends, making “automatic” online payments is… “sensible”?
Huh?
These types of policies can also facilitate a revolutionary war. And, if it took recent events to influence your conclusion, what planet have you been on?
Please, no more “examples of what can be done when thinking…”
Singapore is the third most dense country in the world, with 18,189 people per square mile — an astonishing 213 times more dense than the United States. It would be simply impossible for the United States to put a subway within 10 minutes of every American; it would probably take more resources than exist on earth to accomplish such a task. Put it this way: If the United States had the population density of Singapore, we would have to have 64 billion people living here. Needless to say, that isn’t going to happen any time soon (I hope).
That’s not to say that the United States couldn’t have a much greater preference for public transportation (and I’d fully support this), but we’re never going to be within light years of Singapore’s policy. It isn’t a relevant comparison.
219 times more dense, sorry. So our population would have to be nearly 68 billion to be like Singapore.
“Thinking about a transportation policy”? Thinking? About a policy?
Seriously, Americans would find all those charges offensive. But transportation–especially in an urban setting–is very costly and the Americans receive, usually without knowing it, a tremendous about of cross-subsidies; the “freeways” really aren’t free. Singapore just assigns costs to users, which is the only sensible thing to do.
“This is just an example of what can be done when thinking about a sensible transportation policy – as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions,”
The MRT in SG is quite efficient, though outside of a handful of US cities I don’t think it offers a good model. Heck, one can drive across Singapore in 30 minutes or so.
I’m well aware that Singapore is a city state with a high population density. But most Americans live in or near large urban areas. So yes, a metro within a 10 minute walk might is a bit far-fetched, but there is no reason why the US cannot build a decent public transit system in the major cities. This isn’t cheap of course, but the gasoline tax is far too low…
Singapore is a tyranny that canes people for chewing gum in public. I don’t think they are a good model to emulate.
Doug
Congratulations, you have given us an authentic ad hominem argument. “They do wrong with X, therefore they are wrong about Y.”
Interesting that many commenters responded (as I thought they would) from the perspective of American individualism. But what is more in line with Catholic social teaching? I keep going back to Aquinas’s definition of law – an ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has care for the community. I would contend that Singapore’s transportation policies serve the common good. But Americans start from a very different perspective. They see law in a Hobbesian sense, guaranteeing the right of each individual to be king of his castle and minimizing any external constraints.
The only way that public transportation will be made profitable, and therefore viable, in this country, is when it is made too expensive for the average American to commute to and from work, etc., by private automobile. I lived in New York City for twenty years without owning a car. The main reason: safe parking was both scarce and prohibitively expensive. I save both time and lots of money by getting around the city using subway, buses, and the occasional taxi. I could rent an automobile for occasional longer trips several times a year for what it would have cost me to insure my own vehicle.
But none of this translates into midwestern, suburban living. Cities by buses and people won’t use them. Soon the buses are gone. I’ve seen this over and over again. Regular routes are impossible. Shuttle services are good only for the patient, and only for shopping expeditions. You can’t carry by hand a week’s worth of groceries for a family; you’d need to do your food shopping daily–to name only one factor of contemporary American life making public transportation problematic. People aren’t going to incur the expense of owning cars to use them only on the weekends to go to the supermarket. And so it goes.
There are a lot of elements of Singapore’s transportation policy that work well, and it would make sense to try and adapt them at least for a few major urban centers (New York, DC, Chicago, etc.) Now if only we could emulate their health care system.
“But what is more in line with Catholic social teaching?”
MM, once again you conflate Catholic social teaching with your own policy opinions. Subsidiarity states in principle to handle the problems at the lowest level. You advocate government fixing everything. I’d wish you’d stop misrepresenting Catholic social teaching by equating “solidarity” with “government runs everything. Any policy must uphold ALL aspects of social teaching. Running behind “solidarity” as justification for any government control.
I have yet to see you defend any of your policies from a sbusidiarity standpoint.
Colin,
Two points.
First, I am not referring to the actual policies themselves but the underlying principles by which decisions are made – that is where American individualism goes astray.
Second, subsidiarity has nothing to do with government and everything to do with the dignity of the person. And besides, many of the transport policy initiatives under discussion here would be implemented at lower government levels. “Hands off” liberatarianism has nothing to do with subsidiarity.
Now if only we could emulate their health care system.
Which, by the way, doesn’t depend on incredible population density to nearly the same extent (if at all).
“Second, subsidiarity has nothing to do with government and everything to do with the dignity of the person.”
That’s incorrect, or perhaps more inaccurate. By this definition solidarity has nothing to do with government either. Both principles (solidarity and subsidarity) are general principles. Government policy is the art of practical application.
My point being is that any government policy must respect both. There is a healhty tension between the two in real life. Policies must both serve the common good AND respect individual rights. To put one in opposition to the other is to violate both.
As a person who grew up with public transportation, in New York City, I can testify how liberating it is for children. As a young child, the city of New York was at my feet, and we had a certain independence from the adults. The Museum of Natural History, Coney Island, and all of the other attractions of the city, were a subway token away. On my street, only a very people had cars.
Subsidiarity and solidarity, as basic principles of relations between social groups, is also a principle of gov’t; THE principles, in fact, when combined with a care of the common good.
The shape of our cities is governed by the current high subsidies to the automobile and the highway system. The “free” ways exert a centrifugal force on cities, since the costs are not fully borne by the cost-causers. That is, taxes paid by the central city subsidize the movement to the suburbs.
It is the high tax burden that is one of the primary causes of the fleeing of states like NY and CA. Half the jobs I interviewed for in ’08 were because the jobs went to Texas, cost of living is much cheaper here and salaries are still paid in NY terms.
The flight from the blue states is not due to people having cars. It is the inability (and in some cases unwillingness) to balance their own budgets.
Policies must both serve the common good AND respect individual rights.
On subsidiarity and solidarity, the only thing that I would like to add is that the primary consideration isn’t necessarily individual rights, or even the rights of society – but the rights of the family, which is the basic unit of society. The family, most especially in the Holy Family, is the primary mode in which we model the Holy Trinity. As such, the final and primary goals of all social action should ultimately be, in some way, centered on the family.
As such, the final and primary goals of all social action should ultimately be, in some way, centered on the family.
Does this mean there needn’t be any public transportation near rectories, seminaries, convents, and homes for the aged?
Yes. Because we all know that priests and nuns don’t have mothers.
Colin, I think the difference in cost of living between the various areas has very little to do with taxes.
Yes. Because we all know that priests and nuns don’t have mothers.
If having mothers makes priests and nuns families, then how do you make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the rights of families?
Henry, if you think that totalitarian methods are acceptable to achieve the desired social goal, well you’re entitled to that opinion. I think that gentler methods are in order, particularly in light of the costs that would be imposed upon the working poor by following the Singaporean model. I, for one, will continue to use plug-in electric vehicles for myself and my older sons, and talk them up to anyone who will listen.
To get to Mass on Sunday, though, we drive a 20 year old 16 passenger van because I have a large enough family to require that. The Singaporean model would mean that we would not be able to attend Mass as a family. That’s the trouble with totalitarian models. They try to make all the square pegs fit into the round holes, and it doesn’t work. They will keep pounding them in, eventually breaking the square pegs.
David,
Individuals, of course, have rights. But as Henry Carlson has so eloquently pointed out in some previous posts, the human person is not merely an inividual. Our personhood, imaging the Holy Trinity, is best expressed in a community – and the primary community that expresses this is the family.
Our personhood, imaging the Holy Trinity, is best expressed in a community – and the primary community that expresses this is the family.
Steve,
I apologize (but only a little bit) for getting into this. It just seems to me that it is a cliché to say the family is the “basic unit of society.” Family to you seems to me a married couple with children. I have no problem with the idea that intact families are extremely important to a stable society and ought to be encouraged and supported. But I think saying “the final and primary goals of all social action should ultimately be, in some way, centered on the family” is going way too far, since there are huge issues that can’t be framed in terms of how they help the nuclear family. And I just don’t get the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity to the family. I think probably the best family arrangement for everyone involved is the extended family, and I am not sure the rise of the nuclear family, which coincides with the industrial revolution, was a great development for human beings.
Does anyone know whether Mary, Joseph, and Jesus lived together in a house by themselves as a nuclear family? I have a feeling this was not the norm in first-century Palestine.
David,
Isn’t this a post related to transportation policy? How did we get into this? :)
I’m afraid I also must apologize. As I thought about a response, I don’t think I can do the subject justice in a brief post – probably due to my own insufficiencies, and lack of time. If anyone else wants to take a stab…
One thing though. I agree with your extended family comment. From a Catholic perspective, I don’t think the “Trinitarian family” is only defined in the modern, industrialistic sense. The most direct sense is husband, wife and children, but it certainly extends.
John,
“I think the difference in cost of living between the various areas has very little to do with taxes.”
Misstated my point. Sorry about that. Meant to say, “aside from taxes, other factors such as lower cost of living…”.
But the tax burden is one of the main reasons the exodus from NY and CA are taking place.
Colin, companies do not move because of taxes; they move because they feel they can do better somewhere else. Taxes may be a factor, but is the sole or dominant factor only when ceteris paribus applies. Which is rarely. Manufacturers moved from the North to the South, for example, because labor rates were lower and unions less prevalent. The companies may have convinced the local officials that low taxes drew them, but that was only to get concessions from the local buffoons in government.
Oh, and by the way (and to bring this back to the question of transportation) such movements are only possible when transportation charges are low, which is accomplished by subsidizing the transportation system. This allows manufacturers to move away from their consumer base to remote areas.
doug wrote:
Maybe Henry’s gotten tired of responding, but I find it interesting how, after the transparently ad hominem argument against Singapore’s transit system, doug drops the “T” bomb and then lets us know how he gets his Large Catholic Family to Mass every Sunday.
Doug’s Mass attendance is not relevant to US transportation issues because so few Americans attend religious services, and services aren’t held all at the same time. The real issue is our daily commute to work. Furthermore, the US Transportation “system,” with it’s individualistic approach to transit, burdens a large family like doug’s by denying them the opportunity and flexibility to ride public transit to Mass together or individually. SMRT rides cost $0.60US to $1.10US each. For all of 2010, transit costs to Mass in Singapore for a family of 16 would be $2042 or less: fares both ways, 52 Sundays plus six Holy Days of Obligation. And there’d be no need to garage, maintain or fuel the large vehicle.
It’s absurd to think that doug’s Large Catholic Family would have any problem getting to Mass without a 16-passenger van in a large city with an efficient transit system like Singapore. Even more absurd is the idea that Singapore’s approach to government would somehow disadvantage doug and his Large Catholic Family materially or spiritually. Although their divorce rate has increased, Singapore’s rate (30 percent) is still well behind the US rate. Singapore’s abortion rate is not as low as in European countries, but significantly lower than the US rate, both as a rate per woman and as a ratio to live births. Suicide and mercy killing are not permitted. Religious bullying is prohibited.
I disagree with the idea that efficient transit systems can be had only if we abandon democratic principles. The problem isn’t Democracy, but our unreadiness to advance from individualism and see ourselves moving forward together; we demand instead that each of us “choose” transit individually. I wonder if doug and the many Americans who think like he does have any idea what their Pro-Choice position on transport costs us all?
Please, doug,… if you’re listening: Don’t take my comments as an endorsement of Singapore’s government policies. They have one of the highest capital punishment rates in the world, much higher even than Texas did under GW Bush’s governorship, and their strict standard of enforcing severe punishment is at odds with all that country’s many religious traditions. I’m happy not to be a citizen of Singapore, but I do hope we can find ways to evolve the community-friendly aspects their lives have.
Frank, I’ve used and will continue to use public transit. I’m not against it in any way, and I think it should be encouraged. What I object to, however, is the wish to force everyone into public transportation. It requires either subtle or overt coersion to make everyone use it. As a Catholic, I believe it is wrong to force others to do my will, and it is wrong for others to force me to do theirs. But to respond to your assertion that an efficient public transportation system would be able to get my family to church on Sunday, I would point out a couple of things.
1. There are limits to efficiency, both physical and financial. Unless the church lies near the bus line coming from my house, one or more transfers would be required. These drastically increase the amount of time required. Back when we had only one child we attempted to use the bus for all of our transportation needs. The need to make multiple transfers meant we spent three or more hours on the bus every day for a combination of trips that took about thirty minutes by private automobile, and this in a city with an efficient system, as the cost of babysitting services near work and school were outside of our reach. There is a high cost associated with convenience of location. This time is essentially wasted. To have the government force us to waste such a large amount of time to meet their desired social engineering goal is essentially unjust.
2. It is not safe to try to corral multiple children on busy streets while each parent carries a baby or toddler. These risks escalate if one parent is trying to transport all of them. In addition, it takes time to get a large number of children settled in. Invariably, to remain on schedule the bus driver will simply take off causing us to lose our footing while carrying children. In Eugene, Oregon, some of the buses will only remain at a stop for a certain number of seconds before taking off. A few years ago a toddler was left alone on a busy street when his father, carrying a baby and stroller, got on the bus, and the toddler pulled away from his father back onto the sidewalk. The door closed and the bus took off, refusing to stop and let the father off until the next scheduled stop. A similar thing happened on the light rail line in Portland recently. The alternative would be to pay the artificially high costs associated with private vehicle use, essentially penalizing someone for having a large family.
The logistics of moving a large family are very different from those involved in moving a small family, and as children get older and begin to engage in activies as teenagers, the need for transport increases. This gets even more complicated with government regulations. As an example, we had a minivan that could carry eight people. The state, however, changed their rules regarding car seats and expanded their use to include children up to the age of ten if they did not meet certain height and weight requirements. The use of car seats meant that a bench with a capacity of three could now only fit two, due to the size of the child car seats. This reduced our capacity to only six people in the car, two adults and four children because four, rather than two, now required car seats. An unintended effect of this regulation was that either a larger, less fuel efficient vehicle is required, or else two vehicles would be required.
Government regulations for social engineering always have unintended effects that are unjust, and they are flawed in principle. Their essential purpose is to limit human liberty through coercive means because someone thinks that they are smarter and more ethical than everyone else, and this justifies their imposition of their will on the rest. As a Catholic, I find this both frightening and offensive. We should encourage, educate, and come to a consensus as a people, even if it takes more time and effort. And that is why I oppose the Singaporean model.
Doug:
Your description of transporting your family sounds difficult indeed, even with a large private vehicle. Bus transfers greatly increase travel time, especially if your local transit network offers infrequent service because of budget cutbacks. But I have to wonder why it is that you and/or your wife carry this burden alone? In a healthy community you don’t carry the burden alone. Nor should you, because it is, as you pointed out, risky. The difficulties you describe sound more like the result of poor community support, characteristic of an individualistic society like ours, than a problem with government forcing you into impractical behavior.
What you call a “wish to force everyone into public transportation” is a highly extrapolated judgment. Furthermore, “someone thinks that they are smarter and more ethical than everyone else, and this justifies their imposition of their will on the rest” is a statement of resentment rather than reality. There is no need to “make” anyone use public transit, let alone “everyone” as you say. Nobody coerced me or you (presumably) to use public transit; it was either more pleasant, cheaper, or more in line with our values (take your pick).
Frank, my comment about about coercion to use public transportation was directed at the suggestions that gas taxes be raised, the cost of cars increased, and a government charge to drive at times other than weekends and evenings without a special license plate. Those are coercive in nature. They threaten the driver with government sanctions if they do not comply, and impose artificial economic hardship in order to use a private vehicle with the aim of getting people to use public transit to avoid that hardship.
I agree that there’s no need to make anyone use public transport, but that’s not what the Singaporean model accomplishes. Law should liberate and protect, rather than restrict and threaten.
I feel blessed to live in Oregon where laws actually encourage private choice of transport. As an example, an electric scooter with a motor rated at 1000 watts or less and capable of no more than 24 mph can use bike lanes or streets with a speed of 25 mph or less without the need to obtain a license or insurance. They are not allowed to exceed 15 mph, though. It’s treated similar to a bike. Likewise, electric assist bicycles with a motor of 1000 watts or less are allowed to to anywhere a bike can go. This is quite safe and reasonable. These are a great boon to environmentally friendly transport. A charge from empty on the scooter we have puts in about 0.8 watts of power. costing about a nickel to charge, but allows a realistic range of about 12-15 miles. Our electric assist bike costs half that amount to use. These satisfy the bulk of our transportation needs, with my teens and myself using them.
For some reason, other states in the U.S. impose stupid restrictions on them which discourage their use. The batteries are 90% recyclable, with the lead being entirely recoverable. Adding waterproof ski pants, parka, and sweater, it’s comfortable to commute in any inclement weather. When it gets really cold, a neoprene face mask cuts the cold quite well. I commuted in 10 degree weather on the electric bike and actually got a little too warm due to the pedaling. If it is potentially icy out, then I hop on the bus.
When we need to transport the whole family, we break out the 20 year old beast that I picked up for $1700. In some countries such as Japan, this vehicle would be mandated to be junked and replaced with a newer vehicle. We can’t pay $30,000 for a new van, especially one that would be used once or twice a week.