10
Adjournment Motion – Developing a National Integrated
Cycling Strategy and Policy Framework
Ms Irene Ng, MP for Tampines GRC
3 November 2014
Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on developing a National Integrated Cycling Strategy and Policy Framework.
This is an issue that I have been raising for many years.
It is gratifying to see progress over the years, with cycling gaining greater support in and out of this House as a mode of transport.
Cycling offers people a cheap and convenient mode of transport. It means healthier citizens, less congested roads, and a more sustainable city.
We worry about the haze pollution, but on a daily basis, road transport is one of the biggest sources of pollution in Singapore.
In contrast, cycling reduces carbon emissions. It also offers benefits for a range of wider public policy concerns.
They include those concerned with promoting public health, reducing reliance on cars, easing pressure on our infrastructure and public transport, improving urban design and building a community’s social capital.
The good news is that more people in Singapore are cycling for leisure, for sport and for their regular commute.
The bad news, however, is this: anecdotal evidence suggests that cyclists and cycling suffer somewhat from an image problem among some motorists and pedestrians.
Some motorists believe that cyclists should not be on the road. The fact that road and traffic design do not cater to cyclist safety reinforces this perception. But this view – that cyclists should not be on roads - is patently wrong.
Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles and entitled to use the road. Some motorists seem oblivious to this fact, leading them to show insufficient care, even aggression, towards cyclists, resulting in avoidable collisions and a road environment hostile to cyclists.
Given the danger on roads, many cyclists, especially the novice, the juniors and the seniors, ride on footpaths.
Now, that is actually against the law – the Road Traffic Act specifically bans people from cycling on footpaths, except in Tampines.
But often it seems the safest option and sometimes they really have no choice. Their quest to seek safety on footpaths puts them in conflict with pedestrians.
Hence, as the numbers of cyclists rise, so too the number of complaints by pedestrians against cyclists, leading to mounting pressures on the authorities to summon cyclists for riding on footpaths.
But we have to ask ourselves: is the problem the cyclist, or is it the lack of infrastructure and a coordinated policy and plan for the bicycle as a mode of transport?
It is important to address this issue urgently.
The whole set-up as it is, pits cyclists, pedestrians and cars against one another.
If the situation is allowed to persist, the negative attitudes of motorists and pedestrians towards cyclists will harden.
This will just sour the ground for any Government plan to promote cycling as a sustainable mode of transport.
I am a pedestrian, a cyclist and a motorist. In fact, many cyclists own cars and many pedestrians own bicycles, so let us not encourage the divisive false dichotomy between cyclist vs motorists, or cyclists vs pedestrians.
Community is not built by isolating segments of society. Community is built by making it possible for people to share common space peacefully and safely.
Cities which strive to be great create green, smart and sustainable urban areas, and do not pit one group against another.
I believe Singapore can be such a great city, great for cycling, great for walking, great for living.
The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of National Development have been active in engaging cycling groups and other stakeholders, and have made good efforts to improve the cycling network.
In this regard, I welcome the URA's Draft Master Plan 2013 which sets out the National Cycling Plan to build a cycling network of 700km by 2030, and to transform all HDB towns into “cycling towns”.
I thought the recent report by the Centre for Liveable Cities, which examines the best practices from cities around the world, offers useful ideas and much hope.
The question now is how to move from good intentions to coordinated policy, and from policy to practice.
The answer lies in a national integrated cycling strategy and policy framework which has specific, measurable targets, fosters cooperation between government agencies, and supported by adequate and sustained funding.
International experience, and also our local experience in Tampines as Singapore’s first cycling town, suggests that having such an integrated framework can be a powerful tool for action across government on this vital agenda.
This framework can provide a common basis for the long-term development and implementation of coordinated cycling policies among the different agencies, as well as among the national and local authorities, and in partnership with industry, cycling groups and other stakeholders.
It can also demonstrate political will and commitment at the national level, thereby pushing cycling policies higher up the policy agenda and mainstreaming it.
Planning for cycling cannot be addressed in isolation.
While there have been a range of separate initiatives on cycling in Singapore, it is hard to make real headway unless cycling policies are integrated with wider transportation and other policy fields, such as town planning, road safety, education, and enforcement.
Today, bicycles account for only 1 per cent of trips.
There is enormous scope to increase the modal share of cycling, particularly for those making short local trips.
A target in cycling modal share should be spelt out, as well as for walking. This would show the Government’s seriousness in promoting sustainable modes of transport.
It is clear that a more decisive national commitment to cycling and a more comprehensive approach would be required for Singapore to catch up with international best practice.
In my speech, I would like to focus on three key areas: First, infrastructure, second, on legislation, and third, on education.
First, infrastructure.
It must be understood that providing stretches of cycling paths alone does not create a cycling town.
Cycling tracks which are fragmented could not be described as a cycling network.
The urban cycle network must consist of a broad variety of measures including traffic-calmed streets, cycle-friendly junctions, and a coherent policy on shared paths and footpaths.
The bicycle network should be part-and-parcel of the integrated approach to urban traffic solutions and urban town design.
In designing such a network, it is useful to understand the psychology of cyclists.
A cyclist has to pedal hard to produce a steady power to propel oneself on a bicycle. The average commuting rider produces no more than 100 watts of propulsion power, or about what it takes to power a reading lamp.
Stopping and starting at frequent stop signs wastes momentum.
That’s why even the most otherwise considerate residents are reluctant to dismount and push across road crossings.
And that’s why planners have to understand the need to design a cycle network that can connect origin and destination as directly as possible.
To achieve this, they need to give consideration to cycling right at the start of all developments, and make it an integral part of the design for all new infrastructure projects.
Given our space constraints, it will be a challenge to build segregated cycle paths everywhere to link up every HDB block to key destinations.
This means that, at some point in their journey, cyclists have to go on footways and roads.
The Government must confront this reality and tackle the issues related to cycling on footways and roads in a coherent and coordinated way.
It should also innovate new ways of creating continuous cycling tracks that do not take up space from either walkways or roads, such as creating long overhead cycling bridges and overhead cycling boulevards.
We can draw from the experience of advanced cycling cities - and adapt them to our conditions.
In many cycling cities such as Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Bogota, where cycling is more established and road traffic is better calmed, cycling on bike lanes on the road is the norm.
Shared paths with pedestrians are viewed as the last resort, with segregated paths filling the gaps.
Here in Singapore, roads are generally wider, faster and motorists are not conditioned to look out for cyclists.
Hence, cyclists, unless they are experienced and confident, consider the use of off-road paths essential.
Tampines is Singapore’s first cycling town, and from our experience, it is clear that the design of cycling network has to accommodate two major groups of cyclists.
One is novice cyclists, and the junior and elderly rider.
For this group, shared paths with a minimal width of 3 metres linked to off-road segregated cycling paths is a good solution. As their speed does not go beyond 15 to 20 km per hour, they offer minimal risk to pedestrians.
However, a cautious word about shared paths – they should not be considered as easy fixes. Their design is crucial. Poorly designed and poorly signposted paths can make conditions worse for both cyclists and pedestrians.
Many footways would need to be widened before they could be converted to be shared paths.
The second group of cyclists, consist of faster riders who are competent and assertive. They cycle from 20 to 40 km/ph.
They put a priority on speed for commuting over longer distances. They should use roads rather than off-road paths, and it is important to ensure that the roads are safe for them.
How to make our roads safe for the faster cyclists is an issue that must be addressed.
Some measures could include
traffic calming, protected bike lanes or priority space for cyclists on selected roads and junctions; and effective road signage.
Different streets require different solutions, but they must be consistent at the national level.
There is no single solution. There is also no single model.
Each city has to find its own tailor-made solution according to its geographic, urban and traffic features. Singapore is no different.
One universal principle applies however: In developing cycle-networks, the designs should be created with the principal aim of preserving cyclist momentum and safety.
Apart from a cycling network, it is also important to plan for secure bike parking, and to develop better integration with public transport.
Madam, there are various initiatives implemented in different towns. Their experiments can lead to a national strategy if the right lessons are learnt.
If I may give an example. Tampines is the only town which is exempted from the provision in the Road Traffic Act which bans cycling on footways.
This exemption was unfortunately not part of a great national integrated plan to promote cycling as a mode of transport.
The background is that Tampines got this exemption largely because of the speeches I made in Parliament in 2003 and 2005 on the dangers of cycling on roads, and the trend of more residents – housewives, students, the elderly - cycling on footways because the roads were just too dangerous.
To force them to brave the risky road conditions seemed wrong; to force them to become lawbreakers whenever they ride on footways seemed equally wrong.
This concern was shared by our other Tampines MPs who were equally passionate about the issue.
Our Tampines MPs, grassroots leaders and residents were willing to give it a try to turn Tampines into a cycling town, despite the obvious obstacles.
It was clear to us that, in the longer term, there needs to be a seamless cycling network for Tampines to be a great cycling town.
But until that network is built, the ban on cycling on footpaths would be dysfunctional with very poor compliance. So a code of conduct is required, and this was what we set out to achieve.
The trial officially started in 2007, although our groundwork began in 2005.
We learnt the hard way, each step of the way.
When we legalised cycling on footpaths, we stressed that this was for novice and slower cyclists. The fast and experienced cyclists should go on the roads. Pedestrians have right of way on any shared path. This is the intent.
But that is not easy to enforce, given the lack of coordination and clarity among the relevant agencies.
Which agency should take action against reckless cycling on these paths, especially the shared paths?
There was to-ing and fro-ing among the relevant agencies, but as timely enforcement is necessary for safe sharing, our Town Council decided to just hire Auxiliary Police Officers to do the job, although strictly speaking, the paths and the laws concerned do not fall under the Town Council remit.
Another issue: Because cyclists use footways, they naturally join up to pedestrian crossings. In a bid to make the paths and crossings safer for pedestrians, the LTA put up signposts asking cyclist to dismount and push at regular intervals along the paths, especially at pedestrian crossings and bus-stops.
These signposts are assuring to pedestrians, but an irritant to cyclists.
The Ministry of Home Affairs says it is not against any law to ride across pedestrian crossings. So when our volunteer cycling wardens advised cyclists to follow the LTA’s signs to dismount and push, they face the ire of cyclists who argue it is not against the law.