Your Views Wanted

Are you a bicycle user? Do you care about breathing clean air while you are out there on the roads?

Then please take this quick survey.

It is from researchers Chris Zegras and Amalia Holub of the Future Urban Mobility project under MIT's SMART Centre in Singapore.

Why should you bother? 

This research project focuses on a proposal to use portable monitors to gather air quality data as people move around the city. This would generate data for an open local air quality map.

The team has already tested portable particle counting monitors in Singapore and Mexico City. The next phase includes this web survey of cycling communities in several cities.

So, what are you waiting for? Please take the survey!

Cyclists be warned: heavy traffic on Changi Coast Road & Loyang Ave, 11-16 Feb 2014

SPF have written to SCF to alert cyclists about heavy traffic on Changi Coast Road and on other roads approaching Changi Village, between 11-16 Feb 2014.

URA's Draft Master Plan 2013: National Cycling Plan - "Cycling for All"

Unveiled on 20 November 2013, the URA Draft Master Plan has six key focuses. Transport is a key focus and identifies these issues:

1. Transport And Connectivity
2. Doubling The Rail Network
3. Enhancing Bus Services
4. Reducing Car Usage
5. Cycling For All
6. Creating Walkable Places

"Cycling for All" outlines the National Cycling Plan. Read at http://www.ura.gov.sg/MS/DMP2013/key-focuses/transport/cycling-for-all.aspx

Singapore still lacks the ride stuff

By Toh Yong Chuan Senior Correspondent
Straits Time 2013-11-09

More than 500 cities in the world have bicycle-sharing schemes. Singapore is not among them.

Although the Government announced bold plans last month to build a staggering 700km of cycling paths by 2030 - the equivalent of cycling from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur and back - that alone will not make Singapore a cycling city.

We have fallen behind other cities that actively promote cycling as a mode of transport. There are various reasons why we should pedal hard to catch up.

Cycling is a green option that can be an efficient people-mover for transport planners.

A cycling census in London this year found that one in four road users in the morning peak period is a cyclist. For some popular roads, as many as three in five vehicles in the morning rush hour were bikes.

Bikes take up proportionately less road space than cars. Given that the road network here cannot expand indefinitely, cycling paths provide a logical option even as we expand our train and public bus networks.

Cycling also encourages interaction and it can be a social leveller. Cars cocoon drivers and disconnect them from other road users. In contrast, there are no physical barriers between cyclists and they have to share space.

I was part of a three-man reporting team that rode some 180km of park connectors last month to explore whether they could be used for daily commute.

At the Kallang Park Connector, a cyclist on an Italian Colnago bike, which costs thousands of dollars, stopped to ask whether we were lost. It did not matter to him that our bikes cost a fraction of his. I wonder how many BMW and Mercedes-Benz drivers will stop and help a Toyota Corolla driver with directions.

The Government used to be lukewarm towards cycling. Small pockets of cyclists have lobbied for dedicated bike lanes on the roads but their calls were repeatedly rejected by the Government, citing space constraints. Tampines is the closest Singapore came to a cycling city.

But there was a change of heart this year. We are still not getting bike lanes on the roads, but the 700km of cycling paths will connect the whole island and all HDB towns will have a network of dedicated paths to MRT stations.

The Government is even exploring automated underground parking for bikes.

The hot and wet weather here makes cycling unattractive. While we cannot control the weather, there are four steps that we can take - besides building infrastructure - to promote the use of two-wheelers as a mode of transport.

First, we can re-introduce bicycle-sharing. This is not a new concept. The biggest community bicycle scheme is in Hangzhou, China, with over 60,000 bikes; the newcomer is Citi Bike in New York City that was launched in May, and Copenhagen is set to launch the world's most high-tech system this month with its bicycles fitted with onboard computers.

Insurer NTUC Income wheeled out a bike-sharing programme at four housing estates in 2004, but it folded in 2008.

There will be no lack of options should Singapore decide to take another crack at bike-sharing. Other cities have roped in advertising companies, banks and public transport operators. We have the benefit of learning from them.

Second, the current rules that restrict bikes in trains and buses should be relaxed. Folding bikes have been allowed on MRT trains and buses since 2008, but response has been poor because of restrictions.

The limitation on size can stay, but the bikes should be allowed on trains earlier, say before the 7.30am rush hour. The earliest they are allowed on trains now is 9.30am, well past the time most workers have to clock in for work.

And more than one bike should be allowed on each public bus at any one time, since there are some folding bikes that do not take up more than one person's standing room.

Third, school and premises owners should cater to students or workers who commute by bicycle by providing parking spaces or shower rooms.

This week, I saw half a dozen bikes chained to railings outside a primary school in Sengkang. I asked a security guard why the pupils could not park their bikes in the school compound. He shrugged his shoulders: "Have to talk to the principal."

Such attitudes should change.

Lastly, it is unclear which government agency spearheads the cycling policy in Singapore. National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan is a known cycling enthusiast.

Three statutory boards - the Land Transport Authority, which plans public roads, town-planner Urban Redevelopment Authority and the National Parks Board, which builds park connectors - and at least three ministries - the National Development, Transport and Finance ministries - have stakes in the cycling policy.

While the much-touted "whole of government" approach to policies should largely see the cycling policy through, small cracks are already showing.

For example, there is no consistency in how overhead bridges are designed or built. Some do not even have ramps and cyclists have to haul their bikes up and down steps. There are also eyesores at some sections of the park connectors. At the Pelton Park Connector, the fresh coats of paint stop abruptly at a rusty old pedestrian bridge that was built at least four decades ago by the now-defunct Public Works Department. NParks could not refurbish the old bridge as it does not own it.

Besides coordinating government agencies, perhaps we can also take a leaf from London, which appointed a "cycling commissioner" this year to be an advocate for cyclists as the city plans cycling policies and programmes. We do not need to copy the idea, but there is no harm for the Government to step up its engagement with cycling enthusiasts as it expands the cycling infrastructure.

These steps, taken together with the expansion in cycling infrastructure, give us a good shot at making Singapore a cycling city. It will help us pedal into the league of self-respecting modern cities that promote cycling for commute because it is green, efficient and a social leveller.

tohyc@sph.com.sg

Cycling in Singapore is evolving, so expect joy and expect growing pains!

I looked back to a blog post from ten years ago and it is a fascinating read - "Thoughts about cycling in Singapore".

The important issue though is, how much has changed since?

Well in the past year, so many things have happened in the cycling scene in Singapore and the number of announcements, news items and discussions have far outpaced my ability to keep this ten-year old blog updated!

Stakeholders have been meeting with URA and LTA, sounding out suggestions, consulting on routes and even going on bicycle rides! In a very short time, advocates for cycling as an integral part of city life have become a united group, whether in government or from the ground.

The mission? Introduce, change and improve infrastructure, culture, mindset about cycling as a way of life and be a natural evolution from modern Singapore's foundation as a garden city. Also, we need to teach a lost generation how to ride a bicycle!

Suddenly, many things seem possible. And the people involved are not idealistic, some changes we will happily see now, others we know will only happen in a very distant future - so much so one person hoped he could enjoy some of that change before dying!

Many stakeholders have been advocates for a couple of decades, from their far-seeing conviction of what could be possible in Singapore. Some have been fuelled by their experiences overseas, themselves the fruit of a long, arduous journey involving many groups.

The hurry to appreciate better cycling possibilities hit a hard wall for a long time, with arguments dismissed with the suggestion it was too sweaty to cycle to work. Many believed the dismissal, not having tried mounting a saddle to appreciate the freedom it offered, or discovered the possibilities and joy of cycling to work.

As we grew more urbanised, as foldable bikes flooded the island, as some part of the island were liberated, as we discovered safe short routes at our doorstep, and as people travelled to other cities and experienced the fruits of their efforts and thought about the sort of city we were becoming, as we yearned for ways to liberate our minds from the intensity of city living as all this and more happened, the inevitable happened. The nonsensical suggestions of the past became serious considerations and efforts behind the scenes have begun to be expressed.

At a meeting at the Urban Redevelopment Authority between staff from URA, LTA and stakeholders, some had expected an angry conversation. Instead it was simply fruitful.

Participants found themselves in a conversation with government officers who were familiar with the fundamentals. The group recognised and appreciated experienced suggestions and technical ideas. The focus was very quickly orientated towards the challenges of our inherited infrastructure, attitudes honed by our history and expectations (or lack of) and then on to practical solutions for the short and long-term.

This is the way change often takes place, gradually, over more than a decade!

And this will not be fast enough for some. And there will be growing pains.

The old debates will the resuscitated repeatedly and discussed, often without inheriting the wisdom of the past. Self-serving perspectives will surface noisily - these motorists, cyclists and even pedestrians will argue from a lack of holistic vision or sadly, just selfishness. But I am convinced from public engagements that these are NOT the views of the majority.

I have also been fortunate to experience those who have a vision of a city with considerateness for all users, and these will move the debate towards holistic solutions.

These people inspire, encourage and motivate, and they include folk from all walks of life, civil servants, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. They give me hope for any and all of the challenges we will face in Singapore.

I have a dream for Singapore: Fewer cars, fewer roads - Kishore Mahbubani

Fewer cars, fewer roads

By Kishore Mahbubani, for The Straits Times, 14 Sep 2013, by invitation http://www.straitstimes.com/st/print/1507520

A FEW weeks ago, on Aug 28, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the famous speech given by Martin Luther King Jr entitled "I have a dream". He said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character."

The goal of his speech was to open the roads to advancement for his fellow black citizens. I too have a dream for my fellow Singaporeans. However, while the goal of his speech was to open the roads to advancement, my goal is to close the roads to advancement for my fellow citizens. The only difference between him and me is that while he was speaking metaphorically, I am speaking literally. We do not need many more physical roads or much more physical road space in Singapore.

One undeniable hard truth of Singapore is that we live in one of the smallest countries in the world. This is also why we have one of the most expensive land costs in the entire world. Apart from Monaco, no other United Nations member state has land as expensive as Singapore has per square foot. Hence, we should value every square foot. Every square foot we give up to road space is a square foot taken away from other valuable uses: pedestrian walkways, bike paths, green parks and so on.

To be fair to our road planners, they are caught in a bind because Singapore is continuing to grow its population of cars. If we expand the number of cars, we have no choice but to expand the amount of roads to carry more cars. So the real solution is to reduce the demand for more cars in Singapore. How do we do this?

The problem here is that a car remains an essential part of the Singapore dream. Yet, if every Singaporean achieves his or her dream, we will get a national nightmare. To prevent this national nightmare from happening, we have created harsh policies to raise prices and reduce the demand for cars.

Status symbols

PARADOXICALLY, the high prices of cars have made them even more desirable as status symbols. This is why luxury brands trump cheap brands in Singapore sales. If the desirability of cars keeps rising, our efforts to curtail car ownership will be as successful as a dog chasing its tail.

So what is the alternative solution? The solution is obvious: Change the Singapore dream!

Yes, almost every Singaporean reading this article will laugh out loud at this suggestion. How can any well-off Singaporean deprive himself of a car? It serves as the most reliable form of transportation as well as a powerful status symbol. The minute you own a car, especially a Mercedes-Benz, BMW or Lexus, your friends know that you have arrived.

But for 10 years of my life, I have actually lived on another even more crowded tiny island where it is not rational to own a car. In fact, it is considered downright stupid to buy and own a car if you live in Manhattan. All this came home clearly to me one evening in Manhattan when I saw the former chairman of Citibank, Mr Walter Wriston, and his wife Kathryn standing on First Avenue with their arms raised and trying to hail a cab.

Clearly, Mr Wriston was then one of the richest men on our planet. He could have easily bought a car in Manhattan. Yet, it just did not make sense.

The eco-system of public transport that Manhattan had created with a combination of subway trains, public buses and readily accessible taxis meant that in a crunch you could get anywhere in Manhattan using public transport.

More significantly, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, another clearly very rich man, used to take a subway train to work in Manhattan.

The former mayor of Colombian capital Bogota, Mr Enrique Penalosa, put it very well when he said: "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation."

I have been to Bogota. When I visited it in 1992, the city was so unsafe that I was given a private bodyguard to walk down its equivalent of Orchard Road. Mr Penalosa transformed the city so much that Latino Fox News described him as "one of the world's pre- eminent minds on making modern cities more liveable."

Mr Penalosa is quoted as saying: "When we talk about car-free cities, we're not talking about some hippie dream. Not only do they exist, but they also are the most successful cities on the planet. The ones where the real estate is the most valuable, the ones that attract most tourists, the most investment, the ones that generate the most creative industries."

There was a time when Singapore's experiments in improving its urban environment would get global attention. Today, it is a man like Mr Penalosa, with bigger dreams than our dreams, who is described by Latino Fox News as a man whose "work and ideas have gained him international attention and a loyal fan base that includes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg".

Mr Paul Steely White, executive director of New York City's Transportation Alternatives, has also said about New York City that "the way the streets of the greatest city in the world are being used is changing fundamentally… People are beginning to understand that it's entirely possible and really very desirable to lead a life without being tethered to an automobile".

We therefore have to replace the Singapore dream with the Manhattan or Bogota dream.

We have to give up this insane dream of owning a car and replace it with an ecosystem of a public transport system that makes it irrational to own a car.

Singapore's failure

AND this is probably one of Singapore's biggest failures in its first 50 years: We have failed to develop a world-class ecosystem of public transport. We do have a good public transport network, but this has not kept pace with the population's expectations, which include a more reliable MRT system with fewer breakdowns, predictable bus services, taxis available in thundery showers, and pools of electric cars for ready rental.

So why did we fail? The answers must be complex. But one fundamental error could be simple. We expected every artery of this ecosystem to be financially viable. The disastrous result of looking at each artery and not looking at the ecosystem as a whole is that while each artery made sense in isolation, the combination did not result in a good ecosystem. Even more dangerously, by looking at each unit in isolation, we did not consider its impact on the island or the nation as a whole.

Let me give a specific example from the area of expanding road space. Many Singaporeans of my generation are still puzzled that the road planners of Singapore destroyed our precious National Library on Stamford Road to build a little tunnel under Fort Canning to save two minutes of driving time. The road planners who designed this tunnel had no idea that they were effectively shooting a bullet through the soul of Singapore by destroying the National Library.

This is why we have to be fair to our road planners. The only key performance indicator (KPI) given to them is to make traffic flow smoothly. With this KPI, it is logical to build more roads or expand road space. Hence, it was perfectly natural for our road planners to announce recently that Clementi Road and the Pan-Island Expressway would be expanded. I am sure many motorists who use that stretch of road daily will approve. But when do we say that enough is enough?

This is why we need a new dream. Does this mean Singaporeans will stop driving cars?

Absolutely not. My dream is to walk out of my house, use a smart card to pick up an electric car on rent and drive it anywhere I want to. We can replace car ownership with car pools. In fact, other cities have begun trying this. In Vauban, a suburb of Freiburg, Germany, 70 per cent of residents choose to live without private cars due to excellent city planning and a car sharing system. Before you scoff at electric cars, let me tell you that electric cars have faster torque than petrol-driven cars.

In short, we can have an alternative dream for Singapore. Let us dream of an island with fewer cars and fewer roads. It will be closer to being paradise on earth. stopinion@sph.com.sg The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.

"Stop the killing on the roads" - Editorial, The Straits Times

"Stop the killing on the roads," editorial in The Straits Times, 13 May 2013.

"AT LEAST three people here come to an untimely end on the roads every week. Three cyclists died recently in as many days. A professor's wife lost her life under a double-decker bus. Two young brothers were killed when a cement mixer ran over them while they were cycling. They made the news; many others did not. All of the deaths were tragic. They were both needless and avoidable.

With over 965,000 vehicles and millions of pedestrians and cyclists jostling on the roads in a land-scarce city, to flout the rules, act inconsiderately or push one's luck is to court disaster. There were 327,503 traffic violations last year, many of which had the potential of causing more harm than what transpired. It is safe to assume that hundreds of thousands of other illegal and dangerous acts escaped detection. Law enforcers cannot be everywhere and, like street cameras, can pose only a deterrent effect. Saving lives will call for preventive action undertaken by all. Instead of playing a cat-and-mouse game while cutting corners to gain a dubious advantage on the roads, all road users need to take personal responsibility for the safety of not just themselves but also other road users.

Fostering such a road culture will take time but is well worth the effort as safety consciousness paired with graciousness on the streets can palpably transform the daily experience of people on the move. The Traffic Police's plan to reward deserving drivers, as part of the Safer Roads Singapore movement, can help to promote good habits. Civic groups should assist by reaching out to other road users as well - cyclists, young pedestrians, the elderly, and foreign workers (particularly those from teeming cities with hell-bent motorists).

Heavy vehicles continue to deserve more attention because their drivers, in an elevated position, have to cope with blind spots and comparatively reduced manoeuvrability. Other road users often do not make enough allowance for such limitations and take their chances. Involved in 10 fatalities in the first three months of this year, drivers of these behemoths have to be dealt with firmly when they are caught speeding.

Apart from "enforcement, engagement and education" strategies, it is prudent to also closely study "black spots" where accidents tend to occur more frequently. Road engineering, markings, signage and competing traffic flows might be hazardous in one way or another. Improving traffic management at certain busy junctions should also be considered. In the end though, the roads are only as safe as the people who use it. There is no use pointing fingers. Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians - all - must play their part."