Returning the pavements to pedestrians

In modern Singapore history, pedestrians have gradually seen their allotted spaces on the roads shrink. They used to be able to walk on the roads, sharing them with other 19th-century vehicles such as bullock carts, horses carriages, and rickshaws. Then from the 1970s, pavements were constructed all over the island for them. Pedestrians had to keep to them, largely for the benefit of motor vehicles such as cars and trucks. Then in the second decade of the 21st century, came the Personal Mobility Device (PMD) scourge, which saw an invasion of fast-moving vehicles on the pavements, endangering the safety of pedestrians. Common sense finally prevailed last year when the PMDs were banned from pavements, but pedestrians still have to share them with bicycles. My book Jalan Singapura details this history.

South Bridge Road around 1900. Pedestrians walked on the roads then. Credit: National Archives of Singapore.

Another view of South Bridge Road around 1900. Look at the pedestrian standing in the middle like he owned the road! Credit: National Archives of Singapore.

At the beginning of August, a code of conduct was unveiled for pedestrians, to complement existing codes of conduct for cyclists and PMD users. It was part of measures proposed last year by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel.

Among other things, pedestrians are urged to stay away, if possible, from paths they have to share with cyclists. But if they must use shared paths, then they are advised to keep left. Also, they should refrain from using mobile phones while on these paths.

It would have been good for the release of this code of conduct to be matched with a reaffirmation of existing codes of conduct for bicycles and PMDs, to remind everyone that the onus for looking out for others should always be on those riding vehicles moving at faster speeds. The concept of defensive driving - that it is the traveller’s duty to look out for others even if others are not doing the same - should be applied to them like how it applies to drivers of motor vehicles on the roads.

Ultimately, the underlying issue remains the lack of travelling spaces for bicycles and PMDs, which results in them having to jostle for valuable space with pedestrians. Hence, it’s great that plans to expand Singapore’s cycling path network are being hastened - it will double to 800km by 2023, two years ahead of schedule.

In the long term, I will still like to see bicycles and PMDs move to special lanes carved out of roads, similar to how Bencoolen Street has had one lane handed over to bicycles. This has to be executed in tandem with a whittling down of the motor vehicular population in Singapore, which will be a true fulfilment of the “car-lite” vision for the city-state. Only after this, can pavements be returned to pedestrians.

In 2017, one road lane in Bencoolen Street was converted into a bicycle lane.

Giving up the forest for the trees

The HDB said Tengah, which is about the size of Bishan and billed as Singapore’s “forest town”, will dedicate about 20 per cent of its 700ha to green spaces.

Located next to Tengah’s Central Park green lung, the Park district will occupy 104ha and feature a number of green ways, such as a 1.5km-long rainforest walk.

Tengah is the first HDB town to be developed since Punggol more than two decades ago.

The Tengah masterplan was first revealed in 2016, and since 2018, over 7,000 new flats have been offered. When fully developed, the town will have about 42,000 new homes, with the first residents expected to start moving in from 2022.

Credit: The Straits Times.

I know the urban development of the sprawling Tengah forest - which has flourished since the last villages in the area were resettled in the 1990s - was inevitable. Plans for a Tengah town had existed for a long time.

But I still feel sad when I see an actual secondary forest being cleared for a “forest town”.

Tengah town may be a “forest town”, but it’s still a town. Almost none of the original forest cover will be retained.

This:

And this:

Credit: Google Maps.

Will be replaced by this:

Credit: Housing and Development Board.

A key feature of Tengah is the car-free town centre. Roads will run beneath it to free up the ground level and to allow for a bicycle-friendly environment.

So the town centre won’t exactly be “car-free” - the roads will just be pushed underground, out of sight.

It’s good to free up surface land for community use, but it doesn’t tackle the macro problem of Singapore still having too many cars, and too many roads. This is not an issue that adjusting the configuration of one town centre can solve. It has to be a nationwide policy involving all towns mature and new. One car-lite town does not make a car-lite city-state.

The rationale for rationalisation

Mr Ong Ye Kung’s just been made Transport Minister, but he already has had to deal with one hot potato, a perennial one - rationalisation, which is the amending or withdrawing of bus services with low demand.

This time, it’s the residents of Bukit Panjang, who are already used to drawing the short straw when it comes to public transport - look no further than the history of its incident-prone Light Rapid Transit system.

On 3 August, as a rationalisation exercise, the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore’s bus route planner, announced the withdrawal of two SMRT bus services, 700 and 700A, and the amendment of two more services, 171 and 972. These services plied along the Downtown Line (DTL) - which meant a duplication of resources.

SMRT Bus Service 700. Credit: Businterchange.net.

Cue public outrage over the changes which would affect tens of thousands of residents, extending the journeys of some by at least 20 minutes.

On 7 August, Minister Ong was forced to, ahem, rationalise the rationalisation, revealing that $60 million a year in public funds goes towards subsidising operations for the DTL connecting Bukit Panjang to the city. Also, two of the bus services to be rationalised were also being subsidised at $14 million a year. Which means it didn’t make economic sense to keep both running.

He said: “If the bus services are the only public transport option available to residents, LTA is able to justify the public spending… But with the DTL available, LTA needs to exercise prudence in public spending, and is hence making the changes announced.”

After more than a week of negotiations between LTA, the Ministry of Transport, and Bukit Panjang town MPs, compromises were finally worked out on 13 August, which saw some changes withdrawn, and other bus services step in to plug the transport gaps left by other changes. The rationalisation furore looks to have died down, but it will not be the last.

The finalised bus routes. Credit: The Straits Times.

As my book Jalan Singapura mentions, rationalisation has been an issue as early as the 1970s, when the newly-formed Singapore Bus Service - a private company - laboured to figure out how to best serve the rapidly-changing urban landscape of an island city-state while keeping its profit margins healthy. It did not make economic sense to maintain bus services which ensured 100% connectivity across all locations but did not pull in enough commuters to pay for themselves.

This financial logic became even more apparent when the North South MRT Line opened in 1987. Almost immediately, bus services which ran parallel to the line and suffered a significant decline in ridership - at least a third - were amended or withdrawn, much to the chagrin of commuters.

The North South Line in Ang Mo Kio, 1995. Credit: Mark S. Feinman.

Herein lies the fundamental dilemma - offer more choices to commuters, or keep the spending of funds, be it public or private, prudent?

With regards to dollars and cents, rationalisation is rational. But when it comes to public sentiments towards public transport, just rational, economic considerations are not enough.

Ultimately, the authorities must mull over rationalisation taking into account the nationwide car-lite drive, which officially began in 2014. Removing unprofitable bus services will not help the nationwide push to get people to give up their cars for good. Going car-lite doesn’t mean just cutting back on the car population and car usage - it also means giving commuters so many public transport options, falling back on private transport is out of the question.

Perhaps, in this light, rationalisation would sound less rational.