The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore

39JOURNEYS | November 2012

The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore

AbstractThis 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 20th 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.

The Evolution of Cycling in SingaporeKOH Puay Ping and WONG Yiik Diew

IntroductionWith 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 SingaporeThe 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

BEST PRACTICES

40 JOURNEYS | November 2012


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 1945. These

replaced the rickshaws and can be seen as a

legacy in transport history for creating a leap

Table 1: The various non-motorised wheeled transports and their timeline

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

Bullock cart

Rickshaw

Trishaw

Bicycle

1850s-1870s 1880s-1890s 1900s-1910s 1920s-1940s 1950s-1960s 1970s-1980s 1990s-2000s Now

Horse and carriage

(Yip 2008)

(Lee 2009)

(Brown 2008)

(Googan 1968)

(Copenhagenize.com 2011)

Mainly for tourism

Note: The different shades of brown demonstrate the intensity of popularity for that period.

BEST PRACTICES


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

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 1981.

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.

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/

Bicycles had become popular in the West since the 1890s but they were initially expensive in Asia and few in number...

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.

Figure 1: Bicycles seen on the road with rickshaws (1945)

Source: Archives and Oral History Dept. 1981

The Evolution of Cycling in SingaporeBEST PRACTICES


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 TracksThe 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.

Current laws do not allow cyclists to ride on the

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 DevelopmentCycling 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.

Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities and CrossingsWhen 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 20–80 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

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.


Cycling infrastructure is defined as ‘dedicated cycle tracks, demarcated cycle tracks, widened footpaths for pedestrian/bicycle sharing and separate signalised bicycle crossings’.


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 2008. 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

Source: NParks 2012


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 intra-

town 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.

Figure 2: Park connectors (in green) in Singapore


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.

Attitudes, Behaviour and Views of Cyclists In order to understand today’s cyclists; four

phases of perception surveys were conducted to

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

By 2014, residents in these 5 cycling towns can look forward to at least 50km of intra-town cycling paths.


Figure 3: Example of cycling track network in a residential town

Phase 1 (Launch on 18 September 2011)

Phase 2 (By end 2012)

Park Connector

Additional cycling paths (Phase 2)

Existing cycling path by Town

Council under Pasir Ris 21

Community Mall Project


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/EntrancesFrom the typical route taken by the cyclists, the 85th

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.

Figure 4: Geographical spread of the five selected residential areas

Selected Residential Areas

CBD

Cycling Town


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).

I won’t cycle no matter whatMaybe Not likelyVery Likely

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0Pedestrians By Bus Existing Cyclists

10% 8%

79%

18% 22%

12%

23%34%

9%

49%36%

Figure 5: Likelihood of switching to cycling mode in future


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 CrossingsAmong 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

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.

Phase II - Users along FootpathsThe 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

When asked about their opinions about the type of bicycle parking facilities they prefer, 61% preferred parking within 50m of the MRT station.


800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

020 40 60 80 100 120

No. of passing cyclists/hr

Area 1

Area 4

Area 5

y = 6.5743xR² = 0.4301

Area 3

Area 2

No

. of

par

ked

bic

ycle

s

Figure 6: Plot of number of passing cyclists per hour versus number of parked bicycles


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.

There seemed to be a lower proportion of pedestrians supporting the idea of sharing pedestrian crossings with cyclists as compared to sharing footpaths.


5

3

4

2

1Agr

eeD

isagr

ee

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

Figures 7: Self report cycling behaviours

5

3

4

2

1Agr

eeD

isagr

ee

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

BEST PRACTICES

Phase IV - Residents within 1 km radius of MRT StationsQuestions 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-


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.

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 ConclusionsThe 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 85th percentile cycling distance of 1.5 km radius

surrounding the MRT station could be used as a

planning parameter for cycling infrastructure. It


5

3

4

2

1Agr

eeD

isagr

ee

Scenery Shops People Shortest route Shelter Resting stops Crossings (Delay)

Figure 9: Type of preferred routes of cyclists

BEST PRACTICES

There was, however, less proportion of non-cyclists who agree that cycling is green, healthy and cost-saving.

5

3

4

2

1Agr

eeD

isagr

ee

Green Healthy Save cost Convenient Time efficient Tiring Hot Identity Safe Information

Figure 8: Views of cyclists and non-cyclists on cycling

Cyclist Non-Cyclist Negative Opinions about cycling


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.

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. 1981. The land transport of Singapore from early times to the present. Singapore: Educational Publications Bureau Pte Ltd.

Barter, P. and T. Raad. 2000. 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).


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.


Koh Puay Ping received her MEng (Transportation) from Nanyang

Technological University (NTU), Singapore, in 2005. Her research focuses

on traffic safety issues and driver behaviour. From 2005-2010, 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.


Brown, E. A. (Artist). 2008. Celia Mary Ferguson, Horse-driven carriage with malay driver: side view.

Copenhagenize.com (Artist). 2011. Subversive bicycle photos: Singapore.

Googan, A. (Artist). 1968. Singapore Saturday trishaw from Collyer Quay.

GRO, T., LTA, and TP. 2009. 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. 2011. 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. 2012. Balancing demand and supply for non-motorised transport in Singapore. Paper presented at the World Cycling Research Forum, September 13–14.

Land Transport Authority. 2005. The journey, Singapore’s land transport story. Singapore: SNP International Publishing Pte Ltd. Lee, C.N. (Artist). 2009. Immigrants in Colonial Malaya and Borneo: a pictorial account.

Li, X. 2005. Cyclists may get to ride on pavements. The Straits Times, March 4.

Ministry of Education. 1999. Speech by RADM Teo Chee Hean at the Pasir Ris GRC Town Day ‘99 on December 5th.

MOT. 2012. Speech (Part 2—Private Transport) by Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Minister for Transport for Committee of Supply 2012.

NParks. 2012. Park Connector Network. National Parks Board Singapore.

SCMTA. 2012. The Singapore Cycle & Motor Traders’ Association. Retrieved 26 June 2012, from http://www.autoparts.com.sg/profile.htm

Tan, C. 1992. PWD building more bicycle stands for 2 MRT stations. The Straits Times, December 8.

Tan, H.Y. 1996. New bicycle crossing for park connectors. The Straits Times, April 13.

Tan, K.W. 2006. A greenway network for Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 45–66.

Tanuwidjaja, G. 2011. Park connector network planning in Singapore: integrating the green in the garden city. Paper presented at the The 5th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) 2011, Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore.

Tolley, R. 2003. Sustainable transport: planning of walking and cycling in urban environments. Florida: CRC Press LLC.

Yip, C.F. (Artist). 2008. The bullock cart —circa 1940s, Singapore Kampong—A glimpse of kampong life.

The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore

Documents

Transcript of The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore