Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Night Parking Charges Double....

Here is a good exercise in critical thinking. Read the article below on the upward revision of night parking charges.

URA claims that it is helping residents who are SPT (Season Parking Ticket) holders to get parking lots by increasing the parking charges so fewer non-SPT cars will park at their carparks. See how helpful URA is. They are good guys - or so they claim. But think hard about this. If a non-SPT holder needs a parking lot in the vicinity because he is visiting his girlfriend or works the graveyard shift, he won't have any other choice except to park there even if they double the charges to $4. There is a simple way to solve this and that is to have more parking lots set aside for SPT holders by painting them red. The ideal solution would be for the URA to build more parking lots to meet the increased demand for parking in a particular area.

URA's solution helps nobody but itself to make more revenue. Still they have to invent a reason to make themselves out to be the good guys.

-----------------
Revised night charges for URA and HDB carparks
NIGHT parking charges at HDB and URA carparks will increase from S$2 to S$4 starting November 1 to better manage the higher demand.

The changes will apply to carparks with the Night Parking Scheme (NPS), which provides overnight parking facilities for non-resident motorists and visitors.

"Currently, most NPS carparks are heavily utilised due to higher parking demand," said URA and HDB in a statement." This has resulted in residents with Season Parking Ticket (SPT) facing difficulties in getting a parking space when they return home at night."The new charges will help "safeguard the interests of SPT holders," they said.The current night parking half-hourly charge for areas without the NPS will remain at S$0.50.The new S$4 night parking coupons will be available for sale from October 15. Motorists holding the S$2 night parking coupons can continue to use them by displaying two S$2 coupons.

40 comments:

vic said...

first thought that comes to mind, they really have shit for brains. they think we singaporeans are fools and we are gonna believe that excuse ?!?@? omigod!

Sibeh Dulan said...

Lucky... the worse thing is it solves nothing.

For eg... half of my time is spent at my gf's place and half of it at my place. So... assuming that after this new implementation I am not going to park at my gf's place anymore... yeah... the policy makers managed to solve the parking problem at my gf's place.

But then, they have forgotten the problem back at my backyard. Now, I will be parking at home every night.
And guess what... both the carpark at my place and my gf's place have been equally congested currently.

So at the end of the day, after all the "migration" between carparks all over Sinapore... we are back at where we begin... the same number of cars in each carpark...
What genious to think of this policy.. hahaha!

Hey to those policy maker... I think your master will give you a pat in the back... when everyone thought the excuses that you guys give wont get any lamer, you guys managed to prove all doubters wrong again.
No wonder you guys are world class... for always exceeding expectation!
Absolutely superb!

Anonymous said...

with increasing numbers of cars on the road despite using COE to stop, the problem lies in controlling the car population and not by just raising the charges.
and without effective transportation here with latest fare adjustemt which forced to made transfer, there will be again unbalance in car ownerships.

Anonymous said...

Unbalance in car ownership! I like this one. dt

Rojakgirl said...

*sighs* Any measure taken by the government is bound to be half-hearted.

Like this plan. Parking charges are already high enough in certain places and they still want to impose on people's suffering. This will really hit certain people hard who're dependent on cars, for various purposes. Like wheelchair bound people can actually take the bus or mrt due to overcrowding? Or those who live in areas where bus frequencies suck and it takes a long time to get the "nearest" MRT/LRT station? Also, transit fares have increased and so has the average cost of living. So, if you can't park the car anywhere at night 'cos of higher costs, doesn't that defeat the purpose of owning a car?

And then I recalled how they tried to "allay" the issue of too many cars, a long time ago. Solution: more carparks. Well, building more carparks will not really fix the problem of "increasing car ownership within Singapore". Carparks take time to plan, construct and build. Furthermore, there is the issue of capacity. If the total amount of car ownerships constantly tests the limit of total parking spaces in Singapore, then by the time the carpark is built, won't it just be another temporary measure? Within a few months to a year or 2 later, things would just return to "square one". In the worst case, people would be forced to park their car 20 to 30 minutes away. Or even to engage in illegal parking. (Which is what you can see in certain places where the TP is happily summoning away.)

Then, I recall that quite some time ago, they increased the number of parking lots by making them narrower and narrower which totally screwed over those with larger cars. In the end, those whose cars were unable to fit into the smaller lots had to take up 2 to 3 parking spaces. How did that actually make things any better?

Rojakgirl said...

Btw, why doesn't our dear URA learn how to use Simcity, so as to somewhat help them in congestion planning and so on?

Surely it's a fairly cost-effective and cheap way of laying out an entire city, as opposed to ... I dunno, blowing millions on some meetings and stuff?

Anonymous said...

This shows they lack integrity in they way they deal with the public.

Anonymous said...

1) increase gst to help the poor - PM
2) increase ministers' pay so that so that your daughter will not be maids in foreign countries. - MM
3) adjust the bus fare (which in effect increases it) to help you lower your cost of transport

singaporeans deserved the government they vote for.

Anonymous said...

Definitely this measure is not helping anyone except URA revenue. Again it is the PAP mindset now. Vote the PAP out else it is too late.

Anonymous said...

Much as I dislike the government policies, I think that not all of the measures are without justification. I think they are trying to close a loop hole on the charges. Taking an alternative view of this issue, if a resident or non resident choose not to pay for the season parking, he can theoretically park his car for 2 dlrs a night, or for under 50 dlrs for a full month. Occasional parking to visit gf might as well do a season ticket.

Not unless they raise the SPT, then the need for uproar, which I think they will becos parking fees have been untouched for years.

Anonymous said...

How ingeneious! They are using the same template as ERP. The excuse for ERP is to change traffic patterns, but the real reason is to increase garmen's revenue. The excuse for doubling night parking charges is to change parking patterns, but the real reason is to increase garmen's revenue. If a hammer works, then let's make every problem a nail.

Ser Ming said...

If you're not a SPT holder, you can only park at the 'white' marked parking lots while the SPT holders can just park safely into the 'red' ones, isn't it?

So if there are increase in SPT holders, make more 'red' lots?! Isn't that simple?

Unless it's not working in this manner anymore?

Anonymous said...

"Much as I dislike the government policies, I think that not all of the measures are without justification. I think they are trying to close a loop hole on the charges. Taking an alternative view of this issue, if a resident or non resident choose not to pay for the season parking, he can theoretically park his car for 2 dlrs a night, or for under 50 dlrs for a full month. Occasional parking to visit gf might as well do a season ticket.

Not unless they raise the SPT, then the need for uproar, which I think they will becos parking fees have been untouched for years.

3/8/10 08:20"

Dear Anon,

you got to be kidding. The $2 night label is from 1000 pm till 0700 am the next morning. There could be some, but I reckon not many, flat owner will want to save some money and restrict himself and subject his car to "Fatimahs". Btw, these days, the Fatimahs are super on, so not worth the risk. One ticket a month + your so-called $50 worth of overnight parkings will set you back more than buying a season label.

I just ave a feeling you are one of those trolls on the prowl..

Anonymous said...

The so called error in issuing more COEs last 2 yrs incidentally leads to more revenue generating. Note that carpark charges might be increased after GE. They create a problem and lets everybody else pay for their mistakes.

Taishan said...

Creating an artificial shortage that the charges could be raised.
The same trickery over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Today's ST published the comments from MP Lee Bee Wah (stained from the pingpong saga) & MP Cynthia Lee (from the marginal win at Aljunied GRC). Note that both of them doubted if this scheme will work.

Methinks this is one of pinky Loong's inane political PR maneuvers to :

1. Create a obviously trifle problem

2. Get his weak MPs to pass fair comments against the idea so that they appear to be working

3. Get one of his most unpopular MPs, MBT , who is in-charge of HDB, to step in to bin this scheme.

End result : No change for the public from status quo but this should generate some positive PR exposure for his weaklings to boost their chances at the coming GE.

Anonymous said...

It all boils down to the infrastructures not being ready for the sudden population increase. But rather than stopping the flow or embarking on a major and targeted project to catch on the shortfall, we have the YOG, the floods and such "helpful" policies that seemed to pretend to "listen" to the grounds but in actual fact, is just punishing the very people who're already suffering and fleecing them for more money at the same time! It appears that the solution to all problems must involve profits, otherwise, its "not possible". Like the required engineering to prevent floods...they can't tax god for parking clouds right?

Anonymous said...

They should have raised parking fines.

Too many assholes parking without coupon or season parking.

Anonymous said...

"End result : No change for the public from status quo but this should generate some positive PR exposure for his weaklings to boost their chances at the coming GE."

3/8/10 09:45

Very likely so.
Making Singaporeans feel that 'chiakliowbees' good for nothing mps can sympathise with the people.

Alan Wong said...

It's so ridiculous. Those in charge must have brains just like the pigs.

They are just taking the convenient shortcut of increasing the charge by 100% and then think that maybe it can solve the problem.

So if the demand is already insufficient, where the hell do our URA/HBD Officers expect the excess cars to park if the parking lots are inadequate ?

Anonymous said...

I think this increase is just the beginning. Recall a week or two back, there was an article in msm that our parking charges are among the lowest in the world. So, across the board increase in car park charges will coming soon "to help residents in their car-park woes." :-)

Anonymous said...

"first thought that comes to mind, they really have shit for brains. they think we singaporeans are fools and we are gonna believe that excuse ?!?@? "



No excuse and brains are needed when the country is under the thumb of a dictatorship.

Anonymous said...

And MRT is getting worse than ever. First was the train, now you can't even get on platform at Jurong East station. This is very serious. The SMRT CEO is just dreaming. Please take a look at this: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/what_bugs_me/422894/mission_impossible_ll_now_you_cant_even_get_on.html

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon,

you got to be kidding. The $2 night label is from 1000 pm till 0700 am the next morning. There could be some, but I reckon not many, flat owner will want to save some money and restrict himself and subject his car to "Fatimahs". Btw, these days, the Fatimahs are super on, so not worth the risk. One ticket a month + your so-called $50 worth of overnight parkings will set you back more than buying a season label.

I just ave a feeling you are one of those trolls on the prowl..

3/8/10 09:05


Anon 09:05
Im not a troll. Fatimahs are hardly seen at where I stay and the parking of $2 as you indicate is 10pm to 7am. Im just saying the $2 is disproportionate and they are plugging the pricing difference.

Again, we'll never know. There are some who goes home to parents for dinner and pick up the kid and by the time they come back its already 10.

Guess what with the costs of everything rising, Im mentally prepared for parking rates. BTW the papers say the last adjustment was 24 years ago. Thats justification.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3/8/10 12:18

If no enforcement, then no point raising parking fees. In fact, it will enforce MORE people not to put coupons. They are penalising the good people who pay for their parking.

Better to increase enforcement and raise parking fines.

Kaffein said...

You spoke my exact thoughts. How can increasing the fees for night and overnight parking solve anything? People will still park because they need to park. It not even addressing the issue at hand. It's a very low-down blow below the belt to penalise a certain group of public.

What they should have done is study in which areas have complaints come up that require more STP parking lots and address them by redrawing the STP parking lots, or build more carparks.

Don't you think this is just a sorry excuse to raise fees. So typical of a government agency.

Kaffein

Anonymous said...

for heaven sake, it is time for all government agencies, stat board, etc to communicate within themselves instead of each doing their own things....root cause for such problem is too many cars and not enough parking lots....why too many cars??? relevant parties not controlling well.....why not enough parking lots??? relevant parties simply bo chap the increase in number of cars....they just build what they think is enough......

Pushed to a corner said...

Public Transport:
MRT - Crush load
Bus - long waiting and travelling times (eg. took 2.5 hrs to reach Jurong East from Hougang on bus)
Taxi - overpriced and hard to get one

So switched to car and hit with all these ERP, parking fee increases.

Travel less:
Live near MRT, COV 30 to 60k. Good land reserved for condos.

Xtrocious said...

No difference from ERP what..

The problem has always been the lack of roads...

Same thing here - the real issue is the shortage of carpark lots...

Until the authorities are willing to acknowledge that, there will not be a viable solution...sigh

Anonymous said...

Instead of issuing less COEs and or build more carparks and the least of all, assign more (carpark)lots to residents, they came out with a no brainer, solve nothing solution of increasing night parking charges.

Are cars owners asked for suggestions, feedbacks to help in finding solutions to their problems?

If the increase in charges and fees can solve problems, no sensible Singaporeans will protest or majority would support the measure(s). Singaporeans are not unreasonable, in fact most are obedient and loyal.

patriot

Anonymous said...

How do you allocate scarce resources? By pricing it based on market demands of course.

What about those who need the resources more than others? Refer to Singapore Inc Chapter 1 - Pragmatism.

And don't get me started on the mass import of labour that depress wages (reduce cost pressures) and increase the market price of everything else.

no country for poor man said...

The order to increase cost of overnight parking came from above. The underlings have no choice but to implement it. They then try to spin a story to justify the increase. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Their job is done and they collect their pay at the end of the month. That's how things work around here.

Anonymous said...

I guess the gov will be asking us to sell our cars and convert to using world class public transport as there not much they can do with parking issue due to limited land.

Anonymous said...

URA is right. If URA increase the number of reserved lots, visitors will have fewers lots regardless of the price that they are willing to pay. So it makes sense to raise the price for night parking while not increasing the number of reserved lots.

It is a easy to suggest that URA just build more carparks. It is also easy to suggest that the car population be reduced.

In the latter case, I think it is necessary to raise parkings charge at every opportunity at a way to control car ownership and usage.

Our problem is that every car owner believes that they are entitled to cheap parking because they have already paid a bomb for their cars. It's time to change this mindset.

lim said...

@anon 4/8/10 11:47:

>> "Our problem is that every car owner believes that they are entitled to cheap parking because they have already paid a bomb for their cars. It's time to change this mindset."

I like this statement.. So can we say that all the degree holders who paid a bomb to get their degrees cannot expect a good paying job..

All those home owners who paid hundreds of thousands, or millions for their homes cannot expect to "park" their homes for 99 years, 999 years, or forever without a huge increase in property taxes, then..

Anonymous said...

@anon 4/8/10 11:47:
does not deserve any response, the comment was made without thinking.

Anonymous said...

It will only bring up the cost of everything without solving any problem while the same group of people who seem to be the cause in the first place due to their policies are reaping the benefits.

They are becoming more & more of a problem rather than ones supposedly tasked to solve it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...4/8/10 11:47

Broadly, surely the no. of parking lots made available must match / exceed the no. of parking lots. Else, there will always be X no. of cars having to park illegally.

How to control car ownership (no. of cars) if people who can afford it are allowed to buy it in the first place.

If is only after the buying of cars that one begins to realise the parking problems (as owner) while on average travelling & convering this country. By then, the no. of cars is locked in.

As far as car ownership is concerned, the affordability to have a car (hence determining the no. of cars on the road unless there is a quota) is independent & from the space contraint that we have deciding on the no. of parking lots which may or may not be built.

Anonymous said...

Someone is thinking of setting up companies to sell carparks.

If HDB and URA allows such rulings, these companies can be setup and run private areas for renting those private estate to those who stay in HDB flats.

The issue is whether to get URA approval.

escorts barcelona said...

Hey, there is so much worthwhile info above!