sometimes think we are talking at cross purposes in Parliament on cycling. I have been calling for an integrated and coordinated approach to cycling as a mode of transport for years now. This is not just about building off-road cycling paths and linking them up over time, although this is important and a good start. It is not also about promoting cycling as a primary mode of transport (which I have never called for - my consistent call has been for cycling as a legitimate mode of transport). It is about an coordinated and integrated approach which would include roads, road/junction design and shared paths, with safety a top priority. Parliament exchange on Mar 11 below: Ms Irene Ng: Mdm Chair, I want to thank Parliamentary Secretary Faishal for the progress made on cycling infrastructure. But it does seem to me that the approach is still quite piecemeal - more pieces but still piecemeal. Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary two questions? One is whether MOT could review the transport policy which now seems to favour motorists on roads, and to set out a more integrated and coordinated strategy for cycling as a mode of transport which would include the roads. My second question is also related to what the Member Dr Janil raised, which is to set a target for the modal share of cycling for all trips in Singapore. Right now, the current level is about 1%. Can I ask the MOT to set the target by a certain date, for instance, to reach 4% or 5% by 2020 - but to set a target so that we can monitor the progress and also to spur this coordinated approach towards cycling as a mode of transport? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I am very surprised by the Member’s comments that it is on a piecemeal. I think the efforts that we have taken are an integrated one whereby – as I shared with Dr Janil earlier – we are looking at developing all the different towns and it will connect them together. And it is not happening at one region but happening across Singapore. One thing that we have done is that we have integrated it with the park connectors, and not only park connectors, but also with the works by the Town Council, the local agencies, and see how we can connect all these cycling networks. At the same time, we also look at the educational and enforcement perspectives and see how we can make cycling a culture in Singapore. So I hope Members will also look at all these things that we have done. I have met many cyclists and my counterparts from other parts of the world. They shared with me – we are actually on the right track. They shared with me the mistakes that they have done in their countries which many of us thought would be a good thing for Singapore. But they realised that we, by having it off the roads, cycling tracks are the right way to go because they have problems that they face with the road users in their country. What we need to do is – I would like to urge Ms Ng to continue to work with us – to see how we can facilitate this culture. For the other aspects relating to her second question, I think I have answered Dr Janil. It remains the same. Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Maybe I will complement what Parliamentary Secretary has said with regard to cycling as a target that we should impose on cycling in our modal share. Why do we do it for public transport? Why do we want to move from 63% to 70% by the end of this decade and then 75%? It is because we realise that if we continue on the trajectory that we had in the past where it was actually only in the high 50s, you will require more and more land for roads. And you will need more and more vehicles and then it puts pressure on your COE system, ERP system and congestion overall. Because of those constraints, we felt that with a growing population in land-scarce Singapore where we also want to have more spaces for parks, greenery and roads that are not so close to housing developments, that the only way to achieve that quality of life, that liveable inclusive city, is to move more people away from private transport to mass public transport. I think cycling contributes to public transportation. It contributes in several ways. First, the last and the first mile – bringing people to key nodes, key hubs, running to the town centre, short errands and so on. There is a small number that uses it as their primary mode of transport but it is a small number. The larger numbers that want to go on the road want it as a form of recreation – serious cyclists with beautiful helmets and all the lovely gear and their bikes – but they like to do it on weekends. And as much as possible, we must try and accommodate that, make it safer and so on. But for me to set cycling as a certain percentage of the modal share, I am not so sure that I really see the rationale behind it. If I do set a number, why did I set the number? What does it mean? What am I going to do in order to drive behaviour towards that number? Do people really want it that way? So I am most happy as much as possible for the average cyclist where I believe it is safer – and I have said it before – they are safest when they are segregated from the motorists who are moving at much higher speeds compared to the average cyclists – let me add – and they are also segregated from pedestrians. Hence, our approach, priority, is to get off-road segregated cycling paths that will allow the cyclists to get to their destinations but also as much as possible to make sure that they do not run into the path of the elderly and the children.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:19:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015