| IMPACT |   |
 
|
Policy: Singapore
Policy Objectives Singapore’s charging scheme was introduced as an Area Licence in 1975 as part of a wider transport network system that included expressways, comprehensive traffic management, restraint on car use within the central business district (CBD) and improvements to public transport. The congestion charge was therefore viewed as part of a wider strategy in providing a high quality, integrated and efficient transport system (Dunning, 2005; OECD, 2008). Policy Structure Drivers were required to purchase a permit from roadside booths, post offices and various other outlets to drive in the CBD during peak hours. The Area Licence was replaced in 1998 by an Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme that allows greater flexibility in setting charges and deducting payments. Drivers are now charged each time they enter the charging zone and charges are adjusted if speeds fall outside the accepted 20-30 km/h range in the CBD and 45-65 km/h on the expressways. Payment is made from a stored value card located in an in-car unit as the vehicle passes under an overhead gantry (Dunning, 2005; CfIT, 2006a; EEA, 2008; OECD, 2008). Implementation & Operation The ERP charge implemented in 1988 led to a 15% drop in traffic flows causing a 23% fall in revenue from S$115 million to S$88 million but is partly off-set by cheaper operating costs of S$10 million from S$19 million previously. Nevertheless, it is expected that the charging scheme will remain revenue neutral for approximately eight years (Dunning, 2005). Major Impacts The initial Area licence implemented in 1975 charged S$3 per day was immediately successful in reducing traffic entering the CBD by 40% while increasing average speeds from 23 - 30 km/h. The charging zone was subsequently enlarged to include the surrounding expressways and the controls extended to all-day operation. The ERP charge implemented in 1988 led to a further 15% drop in traffic flows (Dunning, 2005; CfIT, 2006a; OECD, 2008). The charging scheme has been complimented with land-use strategies that seek to decentralise development to high-density regional and sub-regional centres with mass rapid transit (MRT) stations. This ensures a mix of land development to reduce the need to travel and redistribute passenger demand so services are busy in two directions. Investment into high-density housing linked to rail stations has also been used to control car use. Another key feature of Singapore’s strategy is to influence both vehicle ownership and use. For instance, a vehicle quota system limits the growth in vehicles to 3% p.a. by requiring potential owners to bid (typically S$30,000) for a Certificate of Entitlement. The quota works in parallel with the congestion charging scheme, which deters driving in congested conditions. The strategy’s effectiveness is partly demonstrated in that car ownership and use are substantially lower than London (Table 3-4), despite GDP being higher in Singapore (Dunning, 2005).
Table 3‑4. Comparison of car ownership and use between Singapore and London
1980 1990 1999/2000 Cars per 1000 population Singapore London 64 284 102 348 111 345 Private Vehicle Kms per capita Singapore London 770 2529 1864 3892 2150 4114 Source: Kenworthy and Laube, 1999 and 2001 in Dunning, 2005 Despite controls on car ownership and use and investment into public transport, car modal share has continued to rise in Singapore now representing 35% of all journeys into the CBD, compared to 15% in central London (Dunning, 2005; CfIT, 2006a). Transport efficiencies have been realized through development of an Integrated Transport Management System that combines data on traffic speeds and junction operations relaying real-time travel data and ERP charges to a website for pre-trip planning. Data are also used to adjust traffic signal settings and enable faster recovery from accidents. There has also been continual investment into public transport including park and ride facilities, efficient pedestrian links to stations and approximately 120 km of bus lanes (Dunning, 2005; CfIT; 2006a). Buses continue to be the main form of public transport with 25 million journeys per year, compared to 2.3 million by rail. New services have been introduced that specifically target car users including the PlusBus an executive minibus, and the RapidBus a cross-island express that has reduced journey times by 20 minutes. Bus services are operated by two private companies that cover different areas of the city so they are not in competition. Fares and service levels are specified by Government, but regulated by the Public Transport Council, an independent body comprised of a cross-section of society (Dunning, 2005; CfIT; 2006a). The charging scheme also gained public acceptance because it was packaged as part of an integrated transport strategy that promoted high quality public transport and land use development integrated around rail stations with the overarching goal of improving mobility and quality of living (Dunning, 2005).
|