John Ang / Guest Writer
Cycling as a form of transportation hasn’t had a very good start getting integrated within the national consciousness.
While there is definite improvement over the situation a few years back, initiatives such as the one involving cycling on footpaths in Tampines has had much bad press, and while the bus and train operators have made several concessions towards cyclists, the time restrictions (only from 9.30am onwards), as well as the kind of bicycles allowed (only folding bicycles) really nullify much of the potential that such an initiative possesses.
Integration of cycling culture into public transport system
What if we could integrate a cycling culture into our public transport system? We already have an extensive parks connector network, that extends from the suburbs almost all the way towards the city. Perhaps more can be done than simply leaving them as peaceful, well-lit paths. There are two great obstacles to cycling as a mode of transportation to work or school in Singapore. Firstly, a lack of safe spaces to store bicycles; and secondly, shower facilities, because our extremely humid climate makes any physical exertion inconceivable to the average person who goes to work in the city. This is where the park connectors can be leveraged. If manned shower facilities and bicycle storage places can be set up at strategic points around the park connector network (ie: near places with bus stops or train stations), it solves both problems as well as offers the potential to take a load off the public transport system.
Picture this, a commuter could cycle from his home, along the park connector to a hub where he can freshen up and store his bicycle; then, it’s a simple hop onto a bus or train for two or three stations and he’ll reach his workplace. Coming home would be similar, and it would certainly make the journey from City Hall to say, Bedok, much more bearable if cyclists started getting off at Kallang and onwards.
These facilities need not be set only at where the park connectors are. They should also be built at all bus interchanges and MRT stations to further extend the reach of the network and to offer more convenience to cyclists.
Going where no parks have gone before
To relieve load on the buses and trains even further, laws can be passed that make it legal for cyclists to use bus lanes, and to enforce upon bus drives the need to share the lane with cyclists. Now that our roads have more bus lanes and they’re empty, except for the buses, the time is right to allow cyclists to utilise these lanes for a safer and faster journey. A little courtesy and education will go a long way in helping bus drivers and cyclists share the bus lanes harmoniously. To counter the problem of a stream of cyclists holding up buses at the bus bay, a ramp can be build before and after the bus stop, with a designated cycling lane on the pavement to preserve the movement of both motorised and pedal-powered vehicles.
Modifying our buses
In addition, we should have a drive towards integrating our buses with actual bicycle racks on the outside and do away with the timing and bicycle size constraints. All the technology is already there, it’s just that the companies are under no pressure to provide this service because there is no profit to be made. In this respect, we can only expect to see changes if the mindset of the bus and train companies look away from their bottomlines and actually think of providing a service to the commuters.
Effects
If done right, the cumulative effect can result in the opening of a new, nationwide transport network using our existing infrastructure, and has the potential to alleviate much of the crunch that commuters are feeling on the buses and trains, and even if no real competition springs up and fares continue to increase, declining ridership might just force public transport companies to treat us more reasonably. It also has the added benefit of being environmentally friendly and a healthy way of life too. All in all, any progress in this area would be more value for money than spending $16 million building the 16 KPE ERP gantries.
People from London to Sydney are already cycling to work daily, some making 10km trips or longer, and they don’t even have park connectors.
Cartoon from: www.wildes-guides.co.uk
————-
Reference:
http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/cedocs/bikebus.pdf
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/ebe6020dbc387a4/Pdf_b9_bicycles_and_bus_lanes.pdf
http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_visitorsguide&task=parkconnectors&Itemid=74
————-
If you have to depend on the bus companies, this will not work.
We need a good public transport regulator, but that’s a distant dream.
So I predict that things will get worse before they get better.
The bottom line is that, can cycling make money for the Party that governs this country. That is a categorical no. Just take a look at the cycling system is Paris and you can see how feasible it is to promote this idea. But in France the government pours in money to make cycling very user friendly. Here the government needs a return on investment. That is why the public transport woes will never be solved because the government is not egalitarian enough to serve the people truly without any expectations
Bicycling is a great way to travel (if drivers are friendly enough). I have been doing this daily for over an year in the States now for 3 miles (4-5 km) each way. And this is a short distance compared to some I know, cycling 10 miles each way. However, one comment in the article puzzles me. If bicyclist cycle in bus lane, then won’t it slows buses down? So more people would want to drive? Beyond that, I am all for bicycling.
Not quite about cycling on the roads. But about the cycling trail in Tampines(?) regarding cyclist cycling along footpath.
I think a lot of the problems with both cyclists and pedestrians sharing the footpath can be obviated if only they make the footpaths much wider instead of the standard 1 metre width. As it is, at some paths, it is not possible for 2 persons to walk abreast when they are bushes or shrubs around, let alone for cyclists to pass pedestrians. Of course, the authority will reply with the expected answer than land is scarce in Singapore. But if you look at the footpaths, there is room for widening in many instances.
Take a look at the Cycling in Singapore blog (http://cyclinginsingapore.blogspot.com/) for more on how we could do a lot better for bicycles as part of our land transport system.
i think maybe we need to install a IU on the bicycle to deduct charges for ERP too. Too many bicycles will slow down overall traffic speed too, so we need to moderate the number of bicycles on the road.
6) dennis on September 11th, 2008 3.32 pm
——–
Good idea !
Maybe can I borrow your idea and score point?
Let me come up a proposal how to make more….
I am sure all will continue to support….
based on proven extremely long track record
We should make riding a bicycle as another form of transport within a town. Here are what needs to be done:
1. Have separate paths for bicycles
2. These paths can have trees as shades
3. The bicycles should be owned by an operator and rented to the user
4. The bicycles are to be used for short tips within a town.
This will save on the problem of storing of a personal bicycle. It allows the bicycles to be used by many commuters.
Perhaps we can start this culture of riding a bicycle within the premises of our universities, i.e. NUS and NTU.
Make more park connector that has cycling path. If there is difficulties in carving out a bicycle path on the main road then put the bicycle on the park connector. Lay designated bicycle path and not one that shares with park goers, this draws the clear line and being Singaporean they will stay away from the bicycle tracks.
We have so many park connectors and there are so much land in the park, curve out a designated path will allow more cyclist to take the bicycle to work, to shop and even on weekend family outings in the neighborhood.
Kin Lian:
Perhaps we can start this culture of riding a bicycle within the premises of our universities, i.e. NUS and NTU.
I cycle to my faculty at NUS daily. And I must say this is nowhere near an appealing idea to most people. NTU, maybe, but NUS, with all the hills and slopes and whatnot, I think most people will rather practice their peak-hour-MRT-squeezing-skills on the shuttle bus.
Interesting idea but absolutely unworkable in Singapore. I bike about 300km a week in Singapore. The Park Connector System takes one very few places. It is way too small to serve as a conduit. One is forced to bike on the roads. The basic problem with that is the rudeness and agressiveness of drivers–particularly autos, lorries, and taxis. The bus drivers are for the most part polite. But, auto drivers and taxis would rather run over a biker than be polite. Untli that attitude is changed, putting lots of bikers on the roads will just lead to deaths….Frankly I have never seen a country where the drivers are poor quailty, rude, and agressive.
Solutions for storage:
1) As you mentioned, something like the bike boutique, but it should be of a lower pricing.
2) As Tan Kin Lian suggested, let a company to managed their bike for rental.
3) As I have been practicing, use a cheap (~<$100) 2nd hand bike that I’m afford to lose it once every 2-3 months, because the transport cost saved can cover it. By the way, the bike I’m using now has been with me since 1996 when I started using bicycle for 99% of my trips.
Solutions for weather:
1) Shower facilities. Indeed, this is quite lacking in Singapore, but if you try to find it, there is. Try asking the building management.
2) As MrBrown has discovered, bathing before riding and use wet tissue to wipe off the sweat is workable for him.
3) For me, it isn’t a big problem for a below 10km or below an hour ride. Practice to ride in an relax mode, especially the last quarter of the journey.
Regarding the idea of cycling within town only, it is not enough as eventually, cyclists would find it better for them to cycling inter-towns.
Regarding the idea of sharing bus lane, it can work currently as there are few cyclists on road. However, if the number of cyclists is approaching half of that in the Netherlands, than it will hog the buses. Of course, then it isn’t a problem, because if there were really that many cyclists, I think the infrastructure for bicycle would have been more ready.
Regarding park connectors, only some of them are useful as an alternative route for commuting, e.g. the Ulu Pandan Park Connector. I tried checking out how to continue on the Kallang Park Connector from Potong Pasir crossing PIE into Whampoa, but found it very troublesome. Need to push along a stretch of uneven narrow footpath and carry over a staircase-type pedestrian bridge. Unless truly inexperience on road, it is much faster and easier to go by Potong Pasir Ave 1, Upper Serangoon Road.
Regarding the lack of land logic, I think it is an excuse. Many overseas places I went to don’t have wide footpaths like ours, and in addition, beside many of our footpaths has a running stretch of grass patch.
I think the missing link is: how to make money for the Government if they promote the use of bicycle? Or, as Joshua Kums pointed out, how to inspire the Government to be egalitarian enough to serve the people truly without any expectations.
Cycling may ease the public transportation, but I don’t think by much.
It’s too humid to cycle for long distance trips on which even crowded public transportation is more comfortable.
With infrastructure changes, it’ll certainty get more people to cycle for short trips. But overall, the question is whether the benefits out-weigh the road space and safety taken away from vehicles and pedestrians.
“But in France the government pours in money to make cycling very user friendly.”
Actually the Velib bike rental system in Paris doesn’t cost the city any money:
“The system is financed by the JCDecaux advertising corporation, in return for Paris signing over the income from a substantial portion of on-street billboard advertising. JCDecaux won the contract over a rival bid from Clear Channel.[4]
The company paid start-up costs of about $115 million and employs the equivalent of about 285 people full time to operate the system and repair the bikes for 10 years. The city receives all revenue from the program as well as a fee of about $4.3 million a year. In return, JCDecaux receives exclusive control over 1,628 city-owned billboards; the city receives about half of that billboard space at no charge for public-interest advertising.”
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velib
“the question is whether the benefits out-weigh the road space and safety taken away from vehicles and pedestrians.”
Bicycles take up far less space per person than do motor vehicles. So from a road space perspective, bicycle lanes are a more efficient use of space than lanes for motor vehicles.
There are so many myths and misconceptions.
http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/GTZ%20TrainingNonMotorisedTransportation.pdf
Chapter 1, page 2:
“Bicyclists and pedestrians are more efficient
users of scarce road space than private
motor vehicles, helping to combat
congestion”
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/publications/paper/planning/planning%20for%20nmv%20unescap.pdf
page 62:
“…in order to move the same number of people
by car we would need 2.6 times the road area that would be required for
cyclists.”
Roads can be designed to be much safer for all, including cyclists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman
If you have been to Vietnam (and, they tell me, China, India, and other places), you have seen some of these traffic effects at work.
Should public transport be free?
http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/issues/tranfree.htm
http://www.ecostreet.com/blog/responsible-transport/2007/07/10/why-free-public-transport-would-work/
> Bicycles take up far less space per person than do motor vehicles. So from a road space perspective, bicycle lanes are a more efficient use of space than lanes for motor vehicles.
This is not a convincing argument at all.
If bicycle lanes are more efficient, then it is only beneficial to keep increasing the amount of bicycle lanes until we remove all vehicles from the road. But commonsense tells us that it is not the case.
The truth is that bicycles are more effective in some cases but not others, and also in some countries but not others. For eg, cycling as an alternative to taking public transport not prevalent in Tokyo and Seoul. I’m not saying that I can, but I find such superficial references and comparisons on paper getting nowhere.
I think I may be the only folding bike cyclist here. Sometimes I use my folding bike when taking the MRT. I can understand why the bike trial is for during off-peak hours. I also take the train to go to work and home everyday during peak hours (without my bike). It is very crowded. Sometimes, I have to wait for the next train before getting on it. Imagne if I brought my folding bike in too? The stares alone would probably kill! In many countries, the train and bus system allow for folding bikes to be brought into the train and bus during peak hours but they designate certain areas for the bikes to be parked and kept. I was in London recently and noticed that regular bikes were allowed onboard the train too but many riders just took up a lot of seat space just to park their one bike, much to the ire of other passengers.
Here’s the link to a blog that wrote about folding bikes in the train in the Netherlands (http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2007/11/30/folding-bikes-in-the-train/). The comments were varied and interesting.
For eg, cycling as an alternative to taking public transport not prevalent in Tokyo and Seoul. I’m not saying that I can, but I find such superficial references and comparisons on paper getting nowhere.
The number one reason for the lack of cycling in many cities is the lack of safety (on the roads), which is due to cyclist-unfriendly roads and policies. John Pucher has done extensive cross-country research on this:
http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf
Another reference:
http://trb.metapress.com/content/a2485322g1249615/
It is circular to point to places where cycling on roads is poorly facilitated and claim that the low levels of cycling there show that cycling is not efficient. The point at issue is precisely whether the situation in this places can be improved by cycling. Your assumption that their current solutions are optimal is unwarranted. Better to look at countries that have actually tried pro-cycling policies.
If bicycle lanes are more efficient, then it is only beneficial to keep increasing the amount of bicycle lanes until we remove all vehicles from the road. But commonsense tells us that it is not the case.
Bicycle lanes can be efficient up till a certain point, after which other priorities besides carrying capacity efficiency have to be considered. Besides, I have never seen anywhere where bicyclists have needed more than a car lane’s worth of space (for both directions), not even in the Netherlands. Bicycles are tiny. No one is demanding that the whole four lanes of a major road be turned over to cyclists. We could never use that much space. The Dutch cycle more than anyone else, and they don’t use that much space.
How ironic that you are appealing to ‘common sense’ given that others are accused of making superficial references. In fact, many issues in urban planning defy common sense. For example, it is ‘common sense’ that widening a road will reduce traffic congestion, but economists and urban planners have found that that is not the case — common sense fails to account for the economic phenomenon known as induced demand. (Google Scholar ‘induced demand’ and ‘congestion’ and you will get more references than you can read in a lifetime.)
In the 1980s, many cities in continental Europe went against ‘common sense’ and instituted traffic calming measures, designed to slow down motorised traffic and prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. The supposed economic disaster that ‘common sense’ said would ensue from limiting motor traffic this way never occurred. On the contrary, as energy prices inevitably rise, the cities that will survive best are those who have followed. In places where pedestrian malls (car-free zones) were implemented, businesses in the area found that business increased rather than decreased, because people spent more time walking in the area now that the unpleasantness of traffic was removed. So I would really suggest you take a hard look at urban planning and transportation research before waving the common sense card. Rather than being a radical thesis, the benefits of cycling as a mode of urban transportation form pretty much a consensus in the transportation research community. Example reference:
http://tinyurl.com/5hrfa7
Or check out tharold’s links as well.
Sorry, I truncated a sentence above, it should be: “the cities that will survive best are those who have followed anti-car policies.”
>> Bicycles take up far less space per person than do motor vehicles. So >from a road space perspective, bicycle lanes are a more efficient use of >space than lanes for motor vehicles.
>This is not a convincing argument at all.
There are two metrics when it comes to road usage: bandwidth, and latency. Latency is how fast you can get to where you are going. Bandwidth is how many people the road can take per hour.
The individual is only interested in latency, because he cares only about how soon he can arrive. Collectively however we take an interest in bandwidth.
Bicycles as a mode of transport do indeed trump cars in terms of bandwidth. This is beyond argument. See the links I posted.
cannot have bicycle track, cos then the so call public transport will lose revenue. if not authority will charge road tax & COE on bicycle. they cannot don’t earn from us want. what a society !!! money talk all the way.
However, official transport policy has tended to focus on the mass movement of people during the busiest times and over longer distances. It has therefore tended to miss the potential importance of bicycles and their potential strength in serving this niche of trips. The exception is the recent increase in effort to exploit bicycles as a feeder-mode to public transport.
geovani
SEO
> How ironic that you are appealing to ‘common sense’ given that others are accused of making superficial references.
Where is the irony? My “common sense” cannot derive policies more specific that the superficial references. You can call my “common sense” weak. It’s okay. This is true because I’m not claiming more than I can. But what I can claim is more definite than conclusions superficial references arrived.