The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore KOH Puay Ping and WONG Yiik Diew

Transcription

1 KOH Puay Ping and WONG Yiik Diew Abstract This paper discusses the evolution of cycling in Singapore from its popularity in post World War II to its downturn during the later part of the 20 th century and subsequently, to the current state of regaining its footing. It also examines early and recent cycling infrastructure development in Singapore. Opinion surveys were carried out to gather the views, needs, attitudes, personal reflections on behaviour and demographics of cyclists and affected pedestrians. Findings from the surveys were validated using unobtrusive video recordings of actual behaviour. The results reflect possible channels for further improvements to facilitate cycling. Introduction With the recent worldwide concern on health and environment created by the motor dominated era, many have turned cycling into a mascot for green and sustainable transportation. Utility cycling has taken great steps in developed countries, especially Europe, the United States of America, Australia and Japan. Utility cycling is defined as a short to medium cycling trip often made in an urban environment for commuting to work, going shopping and running errands, as well as heading out for social activities. Its many benefits include healthier lifestyle, cost and time savings, reduced traffic congestion and pollution, improved mobility and enhanced social inclusiveness. Singapore, in the recent years, has seen a renewed surge in cycling. This paper discusses the history of cycling in Singapore, the development of its cycling infrastructure and the current views, needs, attitudes, behaviour, and demographics of cyclists and pedestrians. With the recent worldwide concern on health and environment created by the motor dominated era, many have turned cycling into a mascot for green and sustainable transportation. History of Cycling in Singapore The first form of wheeled transport in Singapore were the bullock carts and horse carts in the 1850s (Archives and Oral History Dept. 1981), mainly used to transport goods for short distances from the harbour, provide essential transport services and carry passengers. In the 1880s, Jinrickshaws (Japanese rickshaws) became a popular and cheap means of transport (Table 1). While this practice of a man pulling a two-wheeled carriage is now deemed as inhumane labour, it persisted until after the Second World War. The alternative was the horse-and-carriage Hackney which the authorities imported and introduced as passenger transport in the early 1900s. However, the Jinrickshaws were cheaper, and JOURNEYS November

2 Table 1: The various non-motorised wheeled transports and their timeline Bullock cart 1850s-1870s 1880s-1890s 1900s-1910s 1920s-1940s 1950s-1960s 1970s-1980s 1990s-2000s Now (Yip 2008) Rickshaw (Lee 2009) Horse and carriage (Brown 2008) Trishaw Mainly for tourism (Googan 1968) Bicycle (Copenhagenize.com 2011) Note: The different shades of brown demonstrate the intensity of popularity for that period. the Hackneys started to fade away in the 1920s with the advent of motorised vehicles. The first bicycle-propelled rickshaw, the trishaw, was introduced during the Japanese Occupation of Singapore between 1942 and These replaced the rickshaws and can be seen as a legacy in transport history for creating a leap from human-powered to wheel-propelled assisted technology. They continue to be used as a tourist attraction in Singapore today. Bicycles had become popular in the West since the 1890s but they were initially expensive in Asia and few in number. However, when 40 JOURNEYS November 2012

3 Bicycles had become popular in the West since the 1890s but they were initially expensive in Asia and few in number... Figure 1: Bicycles seen on the road with rickshaws (1945) Source: Archives and Oral History Dept bicycle tracks next to the footpath. However, in the 1970s, bicycle usage started to drop drastically in Singapore when car and motorcycle ownership began to rise quickly. Walking, cycling and public transport were viewed as inferior or a lower class form of travel compared to private vehicles. Cycle tracks were removed to widen roads. The Singapore Cycle & Motor Traders Association (SCMTA), which was originally set up in 1932 to facilitate international trading of bicycles, also switched most of its dealings to motor vehicles and vehicle parts (SCMTA 2012). As such, transport planning began to focus on building more highways for motorised vehicles while largely neglecting provisions for cycling. The Government Registry of Vehicles also stopped registering bicycles in In recent years, as Europe, USA and Australia became more health and environment conscious, bicycling gained greater priority in their societies and was integrated into their transportation system. This has also caused a revived interest in cycling in Singapore. Japan developed its own bicycle industry, they became more common throughout Asia by the 1930s. There is no clear documentation as to when the bicycle was first used in Singapore, but it is believed to be around the same time as the trishaw (Figure 1). By 1960, Singapore had 268,000 bicycles, compared to 63,000 cars and 19,000 motorcycles, and several major roads had By 1960, Singapore had 268,000 bicycles, compared to 63,000 cars and 19,000 motorcycles, and several major roads had bicycle tracks next to the footpath. There are three groups of cyclists plying the roads or footpaths in Singapore. These are commuters (largely those who cycle for the first/last mile connecting trips to train stations/ JOURNEYS November

4 bus stops), those who cycle to run errands (to/from markets, fetch children, etc.) and long distance high speed amateur cyclists (for leisure). Cycling Infrastructure Development Cycling infrastructure needs to grow in tandem with the increase in cycling activities. Cycling infrastructure is defined as dedicated cycle tracks, demarcated cycle tracks, widened footpaths for pedestrian/bicycle sharing and separate signalised bicycle crossings. In fact, any infrastructure that contributes to the cycling circulation area (e.g., a traffic calmed area or minor collector road) or facilitates cycling (bicycle parking lots), can be considered as cycling infrastructure. Cycling infrastructure is defined as dedicated cycle tracks, demarcated cycle tracks, widened footpaths for pedestrian/bicycle sharing and separate signalised bicycle crossings. Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities and Crossings When Singapore opened the first Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) rail line in 1987, cyclists were observed to cycle to/from these stations daily. In 1991, the authorities constructed between bicycle parking stands at 24 MRT stations (C. Tan 1992). In 1995, it was estimated that Singaporeans owned about 240 bicycles per 1,000 population (Land Transport Authority 2005). This put Singapore sixth on the list with other developed countries. By 1997, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) had provided some 869 bicycle stands at 38 MRT stations (LTA 2005). With LTA s plan for doubling the rail network by 2020, it has announced the addition of 1,600 stands at 10 MRT stations (MOT 2012). In 1996, a new signalised bicycle crossing (green bicycle/red bicycle indications on the signal aspects) was introduced at one location so cyclists may ride smoothly along Singapore s Park Connectors, without dismounting (H.Y. Tan 1996 and K.W. Tan 2006). Following that, there are thirteen built or planned signalised bicycle crossings connecting dedicated cycling tracks. Provision of Cycling Tracks The first effort to have dedicated off-road cycle tracks was primarily meant for recreation. Since 1992, the authorities have started to develop a 300km round-island green network called the Park Connector Network, for cycling, jogging, walking and other recreational activities (Tanuwidjaja 2011). To date, there are 200km of Park Connectors around the island (Figure 2). The Pasir Ris 21 project was a pioneering effort by a Town Council in 2000 to construct a 1.5km long bicycle path and pedestrian walkway (Ministry of Education 1999). However, since Pasir Ris New Town was not originally designed as a cycling town, it faced several constraints and had to build the bicycle tracks around existing infrastructure. Since 1992, the authorities have started to develop a 300km roundisland green network called the Park Connector Network, for cycling, jogging, walking and other recreational activities. Current laws do not allow cyclists to ride on the 42 JOURNEYS November 2012

5 Figure 2: Park connectors (in green) in Singapore Source: NParks 2012 footpath but cyclists do so as they consider it safer than the road, and perhaps also due to the availability of a comprehensive footpath network. Cyclists and pedestrians share footpaths in Japan, market places in the Netherlands (Groningen) and Germany (Freiburg) and Britain (The Sustrans network of shared paths) (Tolley 2003). To juggle the land constraints issue, government agencies piloted the idea of allowing cyclists to share footpaths with pedestrians in another new town, Tampines, in 2005 (Li 2005). The trial was between 27 May 2007 and 30 May Concomitant to the trial, 1.2 km of footpaths were widened to 2 metres to facilitate the shared use, and 236 wardens were deployed to guide cyclists and pedestrians during the trial. Following a successful trial, Tampines New Town was made the first cycling town in 2010 with legalised sharing of footpaths between pedestrians and cyclists. There are still mixed views on sharing footpaths and the extension of this scheme to other towns requires the support of residents and grassroots leaders. Thus, presently, Tampines is the only town with legalised footpath sharing. After all the trials and consultation with different agencies, a National Cycling Plan was established (MOT 2012). The first strategic step is to provide off-road dedicated cycle tracks, to facilitate intratown cycling and connectivity to major transport nodes (e.g, MRT stations and bus interchanges). This Cycling Town approach has been evaluated to be the safest, most land-efficient and suited for the local context. Following a successful trial, Tampines New Town was made the first cycling town in 2010 with legalised sharing of footpaths between pedestrians and cyclists. JOURNEYS November

6 The basic idea is to build on the Park Connector network, identify common corridors linking major transport nodes to destinations, and add the missing links. One of its first strategies was a $43 million programme among the authorities and other stakeholders, to design and construct dedicated cycling tracks next to pedestrian footpaths in five selected new towns, namely, Tampines, Yishun, Sembawang, Pasir Ris and Taman Jurong. Figure 3 shows the integration efforts of different agencies to establish a comprehensive cycling path network in Pasir Ris New Town. By 2014, residents in these 5 cycling towns can look forward to at least 50 km of intra-town cycling paths. This concept will also be extended to other towns of Changi Simei, Bedok, and areas of East Coast and Jurong Lake. For all future new towns, basic cycling infrastructure will be provided during development. In the new downtown of Marina Bay (adjacent to the Central Business District) there will be about 16 km of cycling paths as the area develops. A Cycling Facilitation Committee was established in 2009, comprising key grassroots leaders, government agencies and cycling support groups. Its main objective is to establish a common, community-led approach to deal with key issues arising from the implementation of dedicated cycling tracks in selected new towns. By 2014, residents in these 5 cycling towns can look forward to at least 50km of intra-town cycling paths. Attitudes, Behaviour and Views of Cyclists In order to understand today s cyclists; four phases of perception surveys were conducted to Figure 3: Example of cycling track network in a residential town Phase 1 (Launch on 18 September 2011) Phase 2 (By end 2012) Existing cycling path by Town Council under Pasir Ris 21 Community Mall Project Park Connector Additional cycling paths (Phase 2) 44 JOURNEYS November 2012

7 Figure 4: Geographical spread of the five selected residential areas Selected Residential Areas CBD Cycling Town gather the views of cyclists and pedestrians in five selected residential new towns (Figure 4). These five new towns have a good mix of different cyclist proportions and are each served by an MRT station. Each phase of survey aims to capture cyclists or cyclist-affected pedestrians at different types of locations, namely, outside the MRT stations, footpaths and signalised crossings adjacent to MRT stations and within 1 km radius of residential units surrounding the MRT stations. Phase I - Last-mile Home-bound Trip Makers at the MRT station Exits/Entrances From the typical route taken by the cyclists, the 85 th percentile cycling distance from MRT stations to the destinations was 1.5 km (Koh et al. 2011). This was classified by the cyclists as medium, still comfortable distance and it could be used as a catchment radius surrounding MRT stations in residential areas for infrastructure planning purposes. The most common perceived time taken by the cyclists was 6 to 10 minutes for last-mile trips from the MRT stations to destinations. When asked about the likelihood of them switching to cycling mode if there were more cycling infrastructure in future, about 30% of pedestrians and feeder bus (short route buses serving the MRT stations) commuters expressed the likelihood of changing to cycling ( very likely or maybe ) (Figure 5). Figure 5: Likelihood of switching to cycling mode in future 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0 Very Likely 49% Maybe Not likely 36% I won t cycle no matter what 9% 12% 34% 23% 79% 18% 22% 10% 8% Pedestrians By Bus Existing Cyclists JOURNEYS November

8 About 70% of the interviewed cyclists parked their bicycles between 6 hours to less than a day, 13% park between 2 6 hours, 14% park less than 2 hours, 1% park 1 7 days and the rest did not answer. This suggests that most of the cyclists at the MRT stations were last-mile trip makers with regular working hours. When asked for their opinions about the type of bicycle parking facilities they prefer, 61% preferred parking within 50 m of the MRT station. 24% preferred shelters for the bicycle parking but do not mind walking a slightly longer distance. 11% wanted security facilities and do not mind walking more than 200 m to the MRT station. When asked about their opinions about the type of bicycle parking facilities they prefer, 61% preferred parking within 50m of the MRT station. Phase II - Users along Footpaths The number of passing cyclists per hour was observed from video footages and this was compared with the maximum number of parked bicycles at the MRT stations (Figure 6). There was a positive, though not strong, correlation (R-square Figure 6: Plot of number of passing cyclists per hour versus number of parked bicycles No. of parked bicycles Area 1 Area 2 Area 4 Area 3 Area 5 y = x R² = No. of passing cyclists/hr value=0.4) between the two figures. This suggests that observing the number of passing cyclists along major corridors near to the MRT stations could be one of the ways to estimate the number of bicycle parking lots required at the stations. When the 373 pedestrians were asked for their views on sharing footway with cyclists, about 73% had no strong objections, however, 45% opined that wider footpaths are needed to facilitate sharing (Koh and Wong 2012). In an earlier cycling survey for the first cycling town of Tampines, it was noted that there was 53% support from pedestrians in 2007, and 65% support in 2009 after selected footpaths were widened (GRO et al. 2009). One in three pedestrians indicated that they also cycle and three-quarters of these prefer to cycle on the footpath or cycle tracks instead of along the roads. This finding is consistent with the observations from the video footages, where 87% of them were observed to travel on the footpath. Close to half of the respondents reported that their household owns at least one adult bicycle. Phase III - Users at Signalised Pedestrian Crossings Among the 181 interviewed pedestrians, about three in five (61%) do not have objections to cyclists sharing the pedestrian crossings with them, with almost half of them opining that the crossing should be widened. There seemed to be a lower proportion of pedestrians supporting the idea of sharing pedestrian crossings with cyclists as compared to sharing footpaths. This is not unexpected as the act of crossing is more complicated than walking along the footpath. It is difficult to spot a cyclist who dismounts 46 JOURNEYS November 2012

9 There seemed to be a lower proportion of pedestrians supporting the idea of sharing pedestrian crossings with cyclists as compared to sharing footpaths. from his/her bicycle and pushes it across the pedestrian crossing. As cyclists have higher operating speeds than pedestrians, it is natural that they will overtake the pedestrians. Hence, it is common to observe cyclists travelling along the edge of the pedestrian crossing lines to avoid pedestrians. There are higher chances of them travelling near the junction box side of the pedestrian crossing as there is usually a centre divider on the other side which hinders their movement. This almost 100 percent disobedience suggests the need to relook into some rules in the Road Traffic Act. Otherwise, a separate bicycle crossing that frees cyclists from the hassle of dismounting and pushing can be provided. Phase IV - Residents within 1 km radius of MRT Stations Questions that required 205 respondents to provide personal reflections on cycling behaviour shed information about cyclists understanding of road traffic rules and their persistence in certain cycling culture. The respondents were given a 5-point scale (1 strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree) to rate each question. Most cyclists (79%) admitted that they do not dismount and push their bicycles across the pedestrian crossing. This finding stands out from the rest of the positive behaviour and matched the observations from the video footages in Phase III. About three in five cyclists agreed that they cycle on the footpath or cycle track (whenever there is one) rather than the road (Figure 7). Another set of ten questions were asked in order to identify the level of cycling advocates in Singapore. They provide a good understanding of how cyclists see themselves and how cyclists were seen by non- Figures 7: Self report cycling behaviours Agree Disagree I never use my phone when crossing I never use my music device when crossing I always use a crossing if I can see one I always wait for vehicle to stop/slow down at zebra crossing I always push my bicycle across pedestrian crossing I always cycle at the edge of crossing Agree Disagree I always cut across the void decks to save time I always cycle on the bitumen pavement whenever there is I never cycle in the opposite direction I always cycle on the footpath JOURNEYS November

10 Figure 8: Views of cyclists and non-cyclists on cycling Agree Disagree Cyclist Non-Cyclist Negative Opinions about cycling Green Healthy Save cost Convenient Time efficient Tiring Hot Identity Safe Information cyclists. Almost all (near 1 point) cyclists classified cycling as a green, healthy and cost-saving mode of transport (Figure 8). There was, however, less proportion of non-cyclists who agree that cycling is green, healthy and cost-saving. The second tier benefits of cycling, which was not as significantly clear to cyclists, were convenience and time efficiency (close to 2 points). Almost half of them (both cyclists and non-cyclists) agreed that cycling is tiring in our hot and humid climate. As such, more shelters or greenery can be built along common cycling routes to encourage cycling. Slightly more than half of the cyclists and non-cyclists disagree that cycling is the safest travel choice. More work has to done on this aspect to enhance safety for cyclists. Building separate tracks/lanes for cyclists could be one of the ways to enhance perceived safety. There was, however, less proportion of non-cyclists who agree that cycling is green, healthy and costsaving. The cyclists were asked to state if they agree with the statements on the types of preferred routes (Figure 9). It was found that the cyclists preferred to ride on a street with good scenery and on sectors where the surrounding is not pleasant, he/she prefers the shortest route. Shelter came in next but as less important. On the other hand, shops, people, crossings and resting stops are not desired to be part of the cycling route, as all these contribute to interrupt cycling. Discussions and Conclusions The packaged findings from the four phases of survey and video observations are useful for establishing the current cycling culture in Singapore. As the total cycling population for other than recreational purposes is not large at the moment, it is wise to focus on provision of cycling for the first/ last mile trips that are connected to MRT stations. The 85 th percentile cycling distance of 1.5 km radius surrounding the MRT station could be used as a planning parameter for cycling infrastructure. It Figure 9: Type of preferred routes of cyclists Agree Disagree Scenery Shops People Shortest route Shelter Resting stops Crossings (Delay) 48 JOURNEYS November 2012

11 could also be a good indicator of potential short personal car trips that could be replaced by bicycle trips. A maximum threshold of about 30% of the pedestrians and bus commuters are likely to switch to cycling if there were more comprehensive cycling facilities in place. Most of the cyclists park their bicycles between 6 hours to less than a day at the stations, hence adequate number of bicycle lots have to be provided as there are not many in/ out transactions throughout the day except during concentrated pre and post working hours. The 85th percentile cycling distance of 1.5 km radius surrounding the MRT station could be used as a planning parameter for cycling infrastructure. Even though cycling is legally not allowed on footpaths, observations and self-reported behaviour of cyclists suggest that it is a de facto phenomenon that cyclists choose the footpath instead of the road. Hence, in order to reduce conflict between cyclists and pedestrians and to provide an increased sense of safety and security, dedicated cycling tracks could be provided. It is also evident that the majority of cyclists does not dismount and push their bicycles across pedestrian crossings, as they find it inconvenient, and thus, their speeds are naturally higher than that of pedestrians. As such, cyclists are also commonly observed to cycle on the outer edge of the crossing in order to avoid pedestrians. If the cyclist volume increases to the extent that is intolerable to the pedestrians, dedicated bicycle crossings which allow cyclists to cycle across could be provided (where possible). It is found that scenery is important to cyclists; hence more effort can be made in this area to landscape possible cycling routes. This is also in line with working towards providing a more liveable city. As the cycling interest intensifies in the country, it is recommended for large establishments or estate developments to include cycling option as part of their development. As the cycling interest intensifies in the country, it is recommended for large establishments or estate developments to include cycling option as part of their development, rather than retrofitting in future. Acknowledgements The content of the paper and any opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors would like to express their utmost thanks to Adjunct Professor A P Gopinath Menon for his contributions to the facts and knowledge documented in this paper. References Archives and Oral History Dept The land transport of Singapore from early times to the present. Singapore: Educational Publications Bureau Pte Ltd. Barter, P. and T. Raad Taking steps: a community action guide to people-centred, equitable and sustainable urban transport. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The Sustainable Transport Action network for Asia and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network). JOURNEYS November

12 Brown, E. A. (Artist) Celia Mary Ferguson, Horsedriven carriage with malay driver: side view. Copenhagenize.com (Artist) Subversive bicycle photos: Singapore. Googan, A. (Artist) Singapore Saturday trishaw from Collyer Quay. GRO, T., LTA, and TP Press release on The cycling on footways study in Tampines Town: Tripartite Committee of Tampines Grassroots Organisations, Land Transport Authority and Traffic Police, Singapore. Koh, P.P., Y.D. Wong, P. Chandrasekar and S.T. Ho Walking and cycling for sustainable mobility in Singapore. Paper presented at the Walk21 Conference, October 3 5, in Canada, Vancouver. Koh, P.P. and Y.D. Wong Balancing demand and supply for non-motorised transport in Singapore. Paper presented at the World Cycling Research Forum, September Land Transport Authority The journey, Singapore s land transport story. Singapore: SNP International Publishing Pte Ltd. Lee, C.N. (Artist) Immigrants in Colonial Malaya and Borneo: a pictorial account. Li, X Cyclists may get to ride on pavements. The Straits Times, March 4. Ministry of Education Speech by RADM Teo Chee Hean at the Pasir Ris GRC Town Day 99 on December 5th. MOT Speech (Part 2 Private Transport) by Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Minister for Transport for Committee of Supply NParks Park Connector Network. National Parks Board Singapore. SCMTA The Singapore Cycle & Motor Traders Association. Retrieved 26 June 2012, from autoparts.com.sg/profile.htm Tan, C PWD building more bicycle stands for 2 MRT stations. The Straits Times, December 8. Tan, H.Y New bicycle crossing for park connectors. The Straits Times, April 13. Tan, K.W A greenway network for Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, Tanuwidjaja, G Park connector network planning in Singapore: integrating the green in the garden city. Paper presented at the The 5 th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) 2011, Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore. Tolley, R Sustainable transport: planning of walking and cycling in urban environments. Florida: CRC Press LLC. Yip, C.F. (Artist) The bullock cart circa 1940s, Singapore Kampong A glimpse of kampong life. Koh Puay Ping received her MEng (Transportation) from Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, in Her research focuses on traffic safety issues and driver behaviour. From , she worked as a road safety engineer in the Land Transport Authority (LTA). She is currently pursuing her PhD on non-motorised transport in NTU, under LTA scholarship. Wong Yiik Diew is a faculty member in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, where he conducts transportation courses. Dr Wong s principal Research & Development interests are in green and sustainable mobility; road safety engineering and practices; driver and traveller behaviours; pedestrian safety and accessibility; and bicycle transport and infrastructure. Dr Wong is also Director of the Centre for Infrastructure Systems at NTU. 50 JOURNEYS November 2012