BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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 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.
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 2012
39
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
Table 1: The various non-motorised wheeled transports and their timeline
1850s-1870s
1880s-1890s
1900s-1910s
1920s-1940s
1950s-1960s
1970s-1980s
1990s-2000s
Now
Bullock cart
(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 1945. These
replaced the rickshaws and can be seen as a
legacy in transport history for creating a leap
40
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
JOURNEYS | November 2012
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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)
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.
Source: Archives and Oral History Dept. 1981
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 2012
41
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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 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
42
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
JOURNEYS | November 2012
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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 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
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 2012
43
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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 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.
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
Very Likely
Maybe
Not likely
100 %
80 %
49%
36%
I won’t cycle
no matter what
9%
12%
60 %
34%
40 %
23%
20 %
18%
0
10%
8%
Pedestrians
By Bus
JOURNEYS | November 2012
79%
22%
Existing Cyclists
45
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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
800
No. of parked bicycles
700
600
Area 2
500
Area 3
400
200
Area 1
Area 5
100
0
46
y = 6.5743x
R² = 0.4301
300
Area 4
20
40
60
80
100
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.
120
It is difficult to spot a cyclist who dismounts
JOURNEYS | November 2012
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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-
Disagree
Figures 7: Self report cycling behaviours
5
4
Disagree
Agree
3
2
1
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
5
4
Agree
3
2
1
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
JOURNEYS | November 2012
I always cycle on the
footpath
47
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
Figure 8: Views of cyclists and non-cyclists on cycling
Disagree
Cyclist
Negative Opinions about cycling
Non-Cyclist
5
4
Agree
3
2
1
Green
Healthy
Save cost
Convenient Time efficient
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.
Tiring
Hot
Identity
Safe
Information
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 85th percentile cycling distance of 1.5 km radius
surrounding the MRT station could be used as a
planning parameter for cycling infrastructure. It
Disagree
Figure 9: Type of preferred routes of cyclists
5
4
Agree
3
48
2
1
Scenery
Shops
People
Shortest route
Shelter
JOURNEYS | November 2012
Resting stops
Crossings (Delay)
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
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.
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.
It is also evident that the majority of cyclists
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).
JOURNEYS | November 2012
49
BEST PRACTICES
The Evolution of Cycling in Singapore
Brown, E. A. (Artist). 2008. Celia Mary Ferguson, Horsedriven carriage with malay driver: side view.
Ministry of Education. 1999. Speech by RADM Teo Chee
Hean at the Pasir Ris GRC Town Day ‘99 on December 5th.
Copenhagenize.com (Artist). 2011. Subversive bicycle
photos: Singapore.
MOT. 2012. Speech (Part 2—Private Transport) by Mr Lui
Tuck Yew, Minister for Transport for Committee of Supply
2012.
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.
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.
Land Transport Authority. 2005. The journey, Singapore’s
land transport story. Singapore: SNP International
Publishing Pte Ltd.
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.
Lee, C.N. (Artist). 2009. Immigrants in Colonial Malaya and
Borneo: a pictorial account.
Tolley, R. 2003. Sustainable transport: planning of walking
and cycling in urban environments. Florida: CRC Press LLC.
Li, X. 2005. Cyclists may get to ride on pavements. The
Straits Times, March 4.
Yip, C.F. (Artist). 2008. 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 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.
50
JOURNEYS | November 2012