“It’s not fair to pay to park outside our own homes”, seems to be the opinion of most of the residents who parks on the streets outside their landed homes.

The issue over whether landed home owners should pay for parking their cars on public streets outside their houses has come up again after it was announced last month that public car park rates were set to rise from December.

In Singapore, this seems to happen in low-rise residential areas where on-street parking is not priced and where spaces are not formally marked out, cars parked along the roads, making it difficult for traffic to pass in certain areas at each place.

Plant pots and other things are placed outside homes to ensure no one else could park there.

Residents said they parked along the road because it was more convenient. Most were against the idea of paying for the space.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) said a balance needed to be struck between meeting parking needs and ensuring smooth traffic flow in private estates.

“There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The LTA adopts a consultative approach by working with the Neighbourhood Committee, grassroots leaders and resident groups,” said a spokesman, adding that this included whether or not to provide for paid parking at estates.

When asked by media, LTA did not provide an example where paid parking was implemented after a consensus was obtained from private estate residents.

A transport researcher from National University of Singapore, Lee Der Horng said: “They park on the road and the road is a public space. If we consider parking as a commodity, then it must come with a price.”

SIM University senior lecturer, Park Byung Joon said: “Japan does this by making on-street parking mostly illegal, drivers also have to prove that they have a parking space at their homes when they register a car. “It will mean that there will be no overnight parking on these small streets,” he added.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) said it provides paid parking at private estates, only when these are near commercial businesses such as food outlets or sports facilities. It added that its policies were not static and it was open to reviewing them in areas where parking demand needs to be managed.

Both Housing & Development Board (HDB) and URA said the increase to public car park rates was to recover costs of running car parks – which have increased 40 per cent since 2002, the last time fees were raised.

Experts believe the hike also signals Singapore’s push towards a car-lite society, and to send a consistent message, private property residents should have to pay for parking too.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

New Naratif’s podcast presents a fresh perspective on the recent hawker industry controversies

On the New Naratif fortnightly podcast ‘Political Agenda’, Dr Thum Ping Tjin,…

SFD members released from investigation over death penalty book

The SFD trio: Jarrod Luo (far left), Seelan Palay (second from left)…

《海时》前总编:支持未审先扣维稳 港读者反问新加坡可有言论自由?

6月22日,《海峡时报》前总编冯元良在《南华时报》发表评论,文中他提及,网上流传旅居台湾的维权人士鄞义林举着”今日新加坡、明日香港、后日台湾“的大字报,并表示不认同后者观点。 在评论中冯元良指出,接受集会者表达异议的权利,不过他的朋友对待类似”诽谤“新加坡的态度不太宽容,也反问鄞君大可调查下有多少香港人想来新加坡定居。 形容香港“街头暴力荒谬” 冯元良也形容,许多自97香港回归以来一直关注这个都会命运的”有想法的新加坡人“,都觉得香港近期的”街头暴力“非常荒谬,非理性已战胜了理性。 他认为,有外国和香港内部势力算计并分裂和激起香港的社会和政治动荡,令他们感到悲痛。但他作为新惧怕人只能祝福香港,无法对这场灾难做什么,只能困惑地看着先进的局势,并从中反思。 他也认为任何理智的人都不明白何以《逃犯条例》会引起争议,指该条例的修法用意是直接明了的,香港也必须对公民和国际社会履行责任,避免成为逃犯天堂。 “但是摆在眼前的事实无阻蓄意被散播的恐惧,宣扬”送中“修法将让北京当局有办法基于政治因素引渡特定人士。那些选择可以散播假消息的,理应扪心自问对香港社会造成的破坏。” “须有相应法律和力量预防公共安全威胁” 而他认为,香港街头暴力事件表明,政府必须有必要的法律和执法力量,“以及训练有素的人员来预防和消除对公共安全的威胁。” “总的来说,即便在许多领域亲自由派的人士,也会接受有必要针对煽动暴力和破坏公共安全,有预防性扣留的权力。” 他表示,香港的情况应该提醒大家,在特殊情况下,实施未审先扣以维护公共安全和社会凝聚力,并没有错。 读者回函反驳冯元良…