3 ms·
Singapore is a different case, because it's such a small country. Between the size of the island and the climate (hot/humid) they can't afford uncontrolled grow
by michaelochurch 12y ago
Singapore is a different case, because it's such a small country. Between the size of the island and the climate (hot/humid) they can't afford uncontrolled growth of car usage. It's also a place (like Manhattan) where you don't need a car.
Frankly, I think car usage should, ideally, cost 2-3 times what it costs in the U.S. to account for all the externalized costs. (Those taxes could be used to modernize the train system and public transportation.) That wouldn't be practical, unfortunately, as the country is set up now.
- hiharryhere 12y agoPublic transport and trains don't do anything to help the many folks living outside cities. Singapore is very different to downtown Texarkana. Try telling bill the farmer that his truck is gonna cost 3x more to run this year to help fund light rail in The city. Singapore and the US is an apples to pork chops comparison.
- xmodem 12y agoAustralia has a system whereby "bill the farmer" (and miners) can claim a tax credit for fuel excise taxes, whereas inner city drivers can't. The UK has a system where inner city drivers have to pay congestion taxes. Both of these systems make some progress towards limiting congestion and subsidising public transport in dense areas without hurting those outside the cities. Personally I think they should both go a lot further.
- waps 12y agoPlus there are many ways the Singaporean government gives advantages to the very wealthy. Providing them with roads that everybody pays for but they don't have to share is but one of many.