Just as this video was being published, the Land Transport Authority made this video on the Changi Northern Corridor, which they deem a "transit priority corridor". ua-cam.com/video/g86xLqK66Ic/v-deo.html The plan appears to be to widen Loyang Avenue, an arterial road, from 6-lanes to 8-lanes, 2 of it being bus lanes, and add a new 6-lane wide Loyang Viaduct, an elevated semi-expressway bypass with no bus lanes, on top of it. There also appears to be cycle paths, though plans seem to suggest that they will not extend throughout the entire length of the road. www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/news/press/2019/20190918_Overview_transport_infra_works_AnnexA.pdf Understandably, this project may be necessary to increase the capacity of what is a rather congested road in Singapore at this point, and support the development of Loyang Industrial Estate and Changi Airfreight Centre. But a mostly motorist-centric project, with a viaduct which will be a glorified eyesore and a source of pollution for Pasir Ris East residents, should never have been sold to the public as a transit priority corridor. That's essentially calling Upper Serangoon Viaduct, Labrador Viaduct, or Tuas Viaduct transit priority corridors. Sure, there's transit. But where's the priority? Motor traffic above definitely would move faster. Watch closely on future projects that are branded transit priority corridors, fellow viewers. The TPC branding should be reserved for car-lite or car-free roads only, where public transport users are clearly prioritised when compared to cars, just like those pleasant transit malls which you see in other countries. If you see something like this, please call it out.
Anyway, the plan appears to shut down the Loyang Avenue for years (from Pasir Ris Drive 3 to Loyang Way) since they have to widen the road, and to give up certain parts of Selarang Camp to Loyang MRT Station and the Changi Northern Corridor for the construction - wah, a tight corridor!
It seems like LTA has forgotten to "priortise" car-lite transport modes in "Transit Priority" , in which LTA simply slapped yellow markings, added bicycle lanes that still have to yield for cars in informal crossings, and called it a day.
Hats off to you for showing the contradictions of a car-lite Singapore and LTA's drunken moves moving in that direction To me, I find that "Transit Priority Corridors" is just the newest addition to the LTA's unethical move of "upbranding". Just think of Integrated Transport Hubs in Singapore. Toa Payoh, the first ITH, blew Singaporeans away with its seamless transfer (short 2-3min walk) to the connecting MRT line, fully air-conditioned and whatnot. And many years into the future we get a 10-min walk between a station and a bus interchange in this hellhole called "Bukit Panjang ITH" despite making transfers longer just to please car users (presumably, the fact that the linkways between the LRT and MRT and bus interchange itself requires long bridges that go OVER car traffic makes it no accident), but making people walk long distances to transfer to their mode of travel makes the "integrated" part questionable It will take many, many, years of attempting to make Singapore Car-lite without the tempting idea of resorting to making the fastest mode of transit a 6-figure premium, given the Government's reluctance, channels like yours, Tehsiewdai, will be necessary in this war for better "Walk, Cycle, Ride" modes of transit
All the bigwigs drive. It goes against their interests to make it truly car free. The car will forever be king, even if old people and young children die from errant driving.
Seems like the project heads at LTA have a poor definition of TPCs. A shame especially when so many roads in Singapore are now undergoing major works together with MRT construction. Hopefully future urban and transit planners won’t be as car-brained.
it will always be... singapore primarily has been designed to motorist, quite never for peds. slapping "transit priority" to near every semi good schemes is very car-centric American I suspect the car lobby had some deals, even if singapore technically doesn't have any.
Coming from Netherlands, I was shocked by how wide the roads are in Singapore. Walking around in Tampines or the newer estates like Punggol and Sengkang made me wonder why the roads are all 4 or 6 lanes yet always seem to be empty and a 2 lane road (1 Lane for each direction) would suffice.
Unusually wide roads like these are actually a recent trend, getting worse in the 2000s and especially the 2010s. Bukit Batok is the model example of this. The neighbourhoods in the east and north, built in the 1980s & 1990s, have more reasonably sized roads, while there is an almost complete disappearance of 2-lane streets in the west (built in the 2010s), and strangely enough, the supposed future "car-lite" town of Tengah. I am currently reading up on Singapore's town planning history through the decades to try and understand what went wrong, and caused a gradual spiral into the state of new towns today. That could be a topic for a future video next year.
@@transitevolution Interesting! Am looking forward to your video. The newer developments and how car focused they are makes me so depressed and I can't wrap my head around it at all... Like why design the entire road layout around cars while the overwhelming majority doesn't even own one? The older mature estates are lovely though, I hope URA can change...
@@transitevolution Actually I wonder how these roads came to be so wide. Did they use wrong input for their traffic models? The roads in Punggol/Sengkang seem so horribly out of place and oversized, and each intersection is huge with the slip lanes that make it hard for pedestrians to navigate. Yet nothing seems to justify the huge road capacity as I'm sure these roads inky serve local traffic.
@Haziq Rosliall of that can be accounted for by public transport and active transport. Even if all those 4 and 6 lane roads get used at capacity in the future, that still is a Corbusier modernist nightmare.
This video just explained what I've been experiencing but just couldnt put it in words. I've driven and cycled down Tampines Ave 1 plenty of times, and yeah, everything in your video is spot on. Cycling is okay on the north side and downright terrible on the south side of that road. Just want to say I really enjoyed this video :)
That's a TPC?? Been there numerous times this year and I really didn't realise it was supposed to be one until I saw this XDD Nice work and keep it up, looking forward to more of such videos in future! :3
Protected bike lanes should be on the road taking up 1 car lane in each direction. Squeezing it together with the sidewalk without any form of physical barrier such as a kerb endangers both pedestrians and cyclists. Of course, if it was meant for the widened sidewalks to be used as shared paths like the PCNs, then those red paths shouldn't be drawn so that cyclists will ride slower.
Hopefully with channels discussing topics like this there will be greater interest and advocacy for true pedestrian-friendly & "car-lite" Singapore. Anws the whole road is just a contradiction of its transit priority name 😆
This is interesting. This, as well as TMT's video on OTA shows the current problems of public transport that need to improve. Buses being forced to stick to a schedule is a salt to the wound here, as buses are forced to slow down if they are too fast, and thus the transit priority corridor is of no use to a normal road
Yeah, Yishun Ave 2 cycling around MRT station is kinda weird. Wasn't sure if I ended up in some cark park. Also, the other side going past Northpoint City can be awkward as well. Not great. Oh, fantastic video, by the way!
always nice to see a channel not simping for singapore and showing its flaws and suggesting possible solutions. Rather than just praising it as if it is a god country haha
Ahh, Tampines Avenue 1 - a place I know VERY well. The north side has a bike lane etc and the south side does not. Totally unconnected I'm sure, but that road is the border between political constituencies. North side, with the bike lane and shelters, is PAP (ie the government) and the other side is Workers Party (the main opposition). A coincidence surely...... You also should talk about the junction at the west end of Avenue 1, next to the Caltex gas station and Avenue 8. Awful does not begin to describe it. The crossing light is RED MAN when there are no traffic that can cross the pedestrian crossing. but is GREEN MAN when cars are turning right across the pedestrian crossing from Avenue 8. Beyond dangerous and ridiculous. The new pedestrian bridge outside the gas station has also been built in a way that BLOCKS the view of the oncoming buses - so you can't see the buses coming or at the bus stop until you are actually at the bus stop itself - how many times I have missed a bus because I simply could not see it!
Hi, this was an experiment for me under a new video series, “SGExplorer”. Walking Tours was a warm-up for me to get comfortable with narrating my videos. You can expect to see more videos like this in the near future, involving a greater degree of on-site recording and research, and covering topics from transport and public housing.
Transit Priority Corridors (TPCs) are roads that are integrated with bus lane, wider footpaths and dedicated cycling paths or shared paths. It’s not meant to give buses to have dedicated lane unless it’s in city area like Bencoolen street which the existing buildings were designed during the colonial period NS having narrowed road reserved. Unlike Tampines’s where all road reserves were designed for modern Singapore with 3 full lanes on each direction and can cater to the population requirements till another 60 years in future. The current construction of TPC are focusing on converting existing side tables to shared footpaths and cycling lanes.
Had thought that the reason for narrowing Bencoolen St was that otherwise the pavement would be too narrow to fit the entrances/exits to Bencoolen MRT station below (as there isn't much empty land in that area where you could place the exits instead)
I think bus lanes are pretty horrible idea in Singapore and we should only stick with priority give way boxes. Its not uncommon to see busses queueing behind cars that are trying to merge in and out of the bus lanes to turn. It absolutely frustrates me when the dotted break line is like 3 cm away but I cant change lanes to turn left because theres a car infront of me but the entire bus lane is clear. Bus lanes can work if traffic doesnt build up, but I think up to a certain extent, it creates more traffic than it actually tries to solve. You can see this terrible effect along commonwealth ave west where Clementi MRT station is. Along Orchard Road you see this too. Particularly between Somerset and Dhoby Ghaut. And it becomes a shit show because the busses skip some bus stops and instead of just occupying 1 bus lane its not uncommon to see busses occupying 3 lanes because two lanes are turning lanes. 1 lane is used for the bus stop, 1 lane is for over taking busses to skip bus stop, the 3rd lane is used by busses who are trying to overtake the turning lanes which slows the entire traffic to a crawl. Because there are cars that are also trying to overtake the busses to turn .
bus lanes operated during peak hours are actually one of the culprits that cause heavy traffic jam throughout the whole of Singapore. it hinders car from going to the left if it want to turn left, blocking all the traffic at the centre lane of the roads. it forces all cars to squeeze to 2nd lanes onwards while bus lanes are mostly empty. These two factors alone can makes a half hour journey more than one hour to accomplish.
The main purpose of bus lanes is to allow public buses to bypass car traffic along roads with traffic congestion. While it may be tempting to see that lane of pavement as something that could have been used up for cars, I hope you guys can understand that the needs of up to 120 people within a bus should be prioritised over the needs of the 1 person occupying precious road space in a car. Travel times by public transport is already very slow when compared to cars, that is why you are driving cars in the first place. We do not need it to be any worse.
i prefer bus lanes tbh rather than give way boxes coz some drivers don’t give way to buses even though they could f-ing see there’s give way box. the problem is that singapore have too many cars for such tiny island which in turn takes up a lot of space. bus lanes are there to give commuters and bus drivers assurance they can be at every and any stop on time without waiting to filter out of bus stops. i mean come on cars and other vehicles alrdy have the remaining lanes, why don’t you let buses have their own lanes. also, these buses transport commuters to their workplaces and in turn contribute to economy. if you have a reliable transport system, you’re economy will grow since majority depends on it
@@transitevolution I think we're in consensus that public transport should have priority on roads, however, in my observation and opinion, I think bus lanes is either not effective or straight up not helpful in prioritising busses. I think priority boxes are far more effective because: 1. it does not uneccesarily cause congestions (underutilised road in the bus lanes when theres really no bus to give way to). 2. does not artificially inhibit lane changing to turn left causing everyone to try to merge at a single point leading to induced conjestions. For these reasons, in my observations, I think roads with priority boxes are less congested compared to roads with bus lanes (And my bus moves faster too). Although im aware that it may very likely be because these roads have bus lane implementations due to road conjestions.
@@yuumaamayuki I think priority boxes can definitely be enforced better (I think i've spotted TP/Ciscos at bus lanes for longer and more frequent compared to the priority boxes), but in terms of the actual outcome when used as intended, I think priority boxes come out ahead. This is bc buses seldom overtake cars and they only mostly need help when entering and exiting bus bays which the priority boxes addresses effectively.
Jai Hinduja. In Singapore, it is just too hot to walk and sit on the new broad sidewalks. A better way to increase pedestrian traffic is to cover up certain sections and restricted streets with overhead shades like solar panels.
8:12 OH SO THAT'S WHAT THOSE WERE FOR... I thought it was like drains for water leh or like some really weird slope to climb Btw, small not even really criticism honestly, it sounds like you're reading aloud as one would in an Oral exam, which I totally understand given that's how we're taught to speak in these kind of "formal" situations. It sounds like you're deliberately slowing down and adding pauses in, which can make it a bit hard to listen to in the long run. It's just a video, as long as you don't slur your words it's totally find not to enunciate every letter and stuff like that. Just talk as if it's a casual convo :)) If you do continue to make these kinds of videos I hope you can slowly find a way that's more comfortable and natural to you!!
before TBC can be implemented successfully, the car population must be able to reduced significantly. The way how Bencoolean street implemented, if it is being spread out to other places, you will have heavy jam everywhere in Singapore. The pollution level will no longer be taken care of no matter how many trees you planted. i suggest all videos taken during peak hour and see how bad the present situation already is before we talk about how to successfully implement TBC.
Hi, most of the footages of Tampines Avenue 1 & Bencoolen Street in this video are taken just before & during weekday evening peak hours. These include footages where seemingly no vehicles are present, which occurs during certain stages of a traffic light cycle.
the situation is bad because public transport isn't good enough. Why else would all the people of the roads choose to invest the equivalent of a downpayment for an HDB into their cars :) Is the solution, then, to continue making things better for cars while (90% of the time) making it worse for alternative modes of transport, or to make it better for alternative modes of transport? Would more people not use public transport instead of driving if it worked better? I live in Queenstown, and am (really) lucky to have a bus stop two minutes away that has four buses take me to the nearest MRT. So... when I need to get to the city, it's often a no brainer between booking a cab or using public transit, especially during peak hours. One is only slightly faster than the other (5min?)
@3:52 "where cars are not allowed.... even in the middle of the night" - This statement is false. Full day bus lanes apply only from 7:30am to 11pm. So cars do and can enter bus lanes in the middle of the night.
Hi, the statement is correct. Bencoolen Street uses bus-only lanes which applies at all times, not full day bus lanes. Cars are not allowed to enter bus-only lanes on public holidays, Sundays, and the wee hours of the morning as well.
@@transitevolution Oh you're actually right! Thanks for pointing it out. I just looked it up in detail and it does seem that it is one of only 2 Bus only lane in existence. Probably needs a better colour scheme to differentiate from full day bus lane. Bike paths too are not colour coded consistently. Some places have it red on both bike and pedesterian paths, with just the bike logo, some have it red only for cycle paths. Some are brown... Some are like your video showed, ambiguous with just PCN and arrow markings.
Wasteful to have both sides cycling lanes. Instead, more at-grade road crossing traffic lights to enhance social connectivity within residential estates.
A classic example of a multi million dollar salaried MP at work. Totally poor planning. At Bencoolen ST, their stupid "car lite" concept is causing a bad traffic jam. Only one lane for cars.
I think that was the intended effect to get buses to move faster than cars? 😅 They also had to find room to build Bencoolen MRT station’s exits so they won’t be able to widen back the street at this point.
@@aehighfmcolinchin he's right tho... as a former NAFA student, those morning jams are an annoyance of itself and most importantly a hazard due to selfish driver trying to edge the traffic light timing on the yellow box. so much so they often "park" themselves on the bus lane in order to clear the yellow box for the perpendicular oncoming traffic. IMO they could have redirect the exit on the hotel side over to the SMU exit using existing infrastructure or even add the additional lane near sunshine plaza on the "plant box" to ease the traffic overflow, it could even be a white crossed out "box" to indicate but is able to used by the "overflow" to reduce the hazard at their own risk of fines
Actually isn't the best solution to build more lanes for cars and ban bicycles and remove all bus lanes for more efficient use of the road by the majority of traffic? Bus lanes are an inefficient use of road space. They remain empty unless a bus happens to be on it, even during heavy traffic. Cycling is a primitive, dangerous, and inefficient mode of transport although it admittedly makes for a good form of amusement/recreation. "Car lite" is hence a ridiculous concept that makes poor use of land in land scarce Singapore. It is making daily life worse and worse for the average Singaporean who simply wishes shuttle back and forth in first world conditions (in their own car that is). Singapore should be embracing progress, not regression to the state of Shanghai in the 1980s (read: bicycles crowding the roads)!
Research has shown that a typical arterial road lane in Singapore has the capacity of 900 cars per hour, carrying 1500 people on average. A double-decker bus with 75% it’s seats filled and nobody standing fits 60 passengers. Using math, a seemingly empty bus lane which sees a bus every 2 minutes would carry more commuters than the car lane, and actually uses land more efficiently, while helping to balance out the disadvantage in travel times compared to cars by letting buses bypass congestion. Cycling & PMDs in general are only dangerous because for a long time, they’ve got no where to go, and are too fast for pedestrians and too slow for motorists. For intratown travel however, they are often faster than even the bus. It’s use should also not be reduced to that of recreation, because many people livelihoods already depended on it, such as food & parcel delivery workers. Failure to build bike paths will only put the lives of even more people on the line. Cars are not sustainable in terms of road space usage. LTA knows this. They has embarked on plenty of road widening projects which are getting enormous in scale of late, and yet traffic congestion has only worsened because it is simply impossible to build ahead of demand. Sitting in worsening traffic jams shouldn’t be something that is deemed progress either.
@@transitevolution I appreciate that you have taken the time to write this detailed response. Here, I shall assume that all the statistics you have quoted are accurate as I was informed by experience rather than official data which you have cited. If I understand correctly, you share the same conclusions as the government on "Car Lite" - a reasonable conclusion if you calculate everything purely by numbers and stats. I differ from this assessment as it completely excludes the qualitative aspects of daily travel. This would include things like whether people prefer to squeeze Itaewon-style on the train or be in the privacy and comfort in a car with their spouse on the way to work, even in slow-moving traffic. I suspect that for the majority of people, they would choose to commute in a car if given a choice - it would be hard to argue that qualitatively, an average trip with a car is inferior to one made via public transport. This is probably why despite the high costs of owning and running a car, most people continue to have car-owning aspirations. As for calculations that treat people as statistics, I would readily concede that it can make numerical sense. For the political government however, it might cost them everything when people realise they don't "care" for them as living, breathing, individuals, despite how efficient their policies may be. Thanks for indulging me.
I just like to let you know that your original comment was from the perspective of efficiency, not quality. So that was what I was addressing. Since the topic has been changed to quality, the truth is that Singapore is indeed designed for the comfort and convenience of cars, with public transport overlaid on it. To achieve car-lite, it is therefore essential to work towards more comfortable and convenient public transport & active mobility infrastructure than cars, even if it means inconveniencing car users. If public transport can be made better than cars, then the current intent of having 90% of the population commuting by public transport by 2040 won’t sound like a dystopia. So it is not just simply about overcrowding people onto trains. Obviously overcrowding is bad. That would be amongst the topics that I intend to explore in deeper detail in future videos.
@@transitevolution thanks, I was mindful that I had committed the "oppie" sin of moving the goal post here, hence I said thank you for the indulgence. I disagree that any policymaker should proactively make driving uncomfortable or inconvenient in order to artificially increase the relative convenience/comfort of public transport (I note you said "even if it means...", so this is not directed at your reply, but I can't help but feel that the government is doing that). Ideally, both forms of transport should be maximised for comfort and convenience. That's what in my view a successful country should he striving towards. Perhaps I should end this off by stating where I come from. I love driving so much that is really part of who I am. It's just as you would have avid cyclists or bus geeks who are very passionate about those forms of transport - call me a driving geek if you want. This is why I will never accept car lite in its current form, and it is a key reason why I fantasise about emigrating to a more car-friendly society, much as I love Singapore.
I do see where you are coming from. “Car-lite” isn’t exactly shaping up in a way that benefits people more. On the public transport side there have also been quite a few compromises where promises were degraded, such as the removal of express trains from the CRL, and the removal of expressway bus lanes on the NSC. Anyways, I think it is healthy that we have more conversations like these amongst Singaporeans of different interests. :)
Just as this video was being published, the Land Transport Authority made this video on the Changi Northern Corridor, which they deem a "transit priority corridor". ua-cam.com/video/g86xLqK66Ic/v-deo.html
The plan appears to be to widen Loyang Avenue, an arterial road, from 6-lanes to 8-lanes, 2 of it being bus lanes, and add a new 6-lane wide Loyang Viaduct, an elevated semi-expressway bypass with no bus lanes, on top of it. There also appears to be cycle paths, though plans seem to suggest that they will not extend throughout the entire length of the road. www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/news/press/2019/20190918_Overview_transport_infra_works_AnnexA.pdf
Understandably, this project may be necessary to increase the capacity of what is a rather congested road in Singapore at this point, and support the development of Loyang Industrial Estate and Changi Airfreight Centre. But a mostly motorist-centric project, with a viaduct which will be a glorified eyesore and a source of pollution for Pasir Ris East residents, should never have been sold to the public as a transit priority corridor.
That's essentially calling Upper Serangoon Viaduct, Labrador Viaduct, or Tuas Viaduct transit priority corridors. Sure, there's transit. But where's the priority? Motor traffic above definitely would move faster.
Watch closely on future projects that are branded transit priority corridors, fellow viewers. The TPC branding should be reserved for car-lite or car-free roads only, where public transport users are clearly prioritised when compared to cars, just like those pleasant transit malls which you see in other countries. If you see something like this, please call it out.
Anyway, the plan appears to shut down the Loyang Avenue for years (from Pasir Ris Drive 3 to Loyang Way) since they have to widen the road, and to give up certain parts of Selarang Camp to Loyang MRT Station and the Changi Northern Corridor for the construction - wah, a tight corridor!
only 89e will ply the Loyang Viaduct most likely
It seems like LTA has forgotten to "priortise" car-lite transport modes in "Transit Priority" , in which LTA simply slapped yellow markings, added bicycle lanes that still have to yield for cars in informal crossings, and called it a day.
Hats off to you for showing the contradictions of a car-lite Singapore and LTA's drunken moves moving in that direction
To me, I find that "Transit Priority Corridors" is just the newest addition to the LTA's unethical move of "upbranding". Just think of Integrated Transport Hubs in Singapore. Toa Payoh, the first ITH, blew Singaporeans away with its seamless transfer (short 2-3min walk) to the connecting MRT line, fully air-conditioned and whatnot. And many years into the future we get a 10-min walk between a station and a bus interchange in this hellhole called "Bukit Panjang ITH" despite making transfers longer just to please car users (presumably, the fact that the linkways between the LRT and MRT and bus interchange itself requires long bridges that go OVER car traffic makes it no accident), but making people walk long distances to transfer to their mode of travel makes the "integrated" part questionable
It will take many, many, years of attempting to make Singapore Car-lite without the tempting idea of resorting to making the fastest mode of transit a 6-figure premium, given the Government's reluctance, channels like yours, Tehsiewdai, will be necessary in this war for better "Walk, Cycle, Ride" modes of transit
unless they are willing to integrate tracks and stations literally into new developments, it would not be so IMO.
All the bigwigs drive. It goes against their interests to make it truly car free. The car will forever be king, even if old people and young children die from errant driving.
Seems like the project heads at LTA have a poor definition of TPCs. A shame especially when so many roads in Singapore are now undergoing major works together with MRT construction. Hopefully future urban and transit planners won’t be as car-brained.
it will always be... singapore primarily has been designed to motorist, quite never for peds. slapping "transit priority" to near every semi good schemes is very car-centric American
I suspect the car lobby had some deals, even if singapore technically doesn't have any.
Thanks for coming over to my sch to talk about the Transit priority Corridor there. It is not making use of the wide width and hence, "road reserves"
Coming from Netherlands, I was shocked by how wide the roads are in Singapore. Walking around in Tampines or the newer estates like Punggol and Sengkang made me wonder why the roads are all 4 or 6 lanes yet always seem to be empty and a 2 lane road (1 Lane for each direction) would suffice.
Unusually wide roads like these are actually a recent trend, getting worse in the 2000s and especially the 2010s. Bukit Batok is the model example of this. The neighbourhoods in the east and north, built in the 1980s & 1990s, have more reasonably sized roads, while there is an almost complete disappearance of 2-lane streets in the west (built in the 2010s), and strangely enough, the supposed future "car-lite" town of Tengah.
I am currently reading up on Singapore's town planning history through the decades to try and understand what went wrong, and caused a gradual spiral into the state of new towns today. That could be a topic for a future video next year.
@@transitevolution Interesting! Am looking forward to your video. The newer developments and how car focused they are makes me so depressed and I can't wrap my head around it at all... Like why design the entire road layout around cars while the overwhelming majority doesn't even own one? The older mature estates are lovely though, I hope URA can change...
@@transitevolution Actually I wonder how these roads came to be so wide. Did they use wrong input for their traffic models? The roads in Punggol/Sengkang seem so horribly out of place and oversized, and each intersection is huge with the slip lanes that make it hard for pedestrians to navigate. Yet nothing seems to justify the huge road capacity as I'm sure these roads inky serve local traffic.
@Haziq Rosliall of that can be accounted for by public transport and active transport. Even if all those 4 and 6 lane roads get used at capacity in the future, that still is a Corbusier modernist nightmare.
@@theteochewtower idk lta does expansion based on new roads and buildings
This video just explained what I've been experiencing but just couldnt put it in words. I've driven and cycled down Tampines Ave 1 plenty of times, and yeah, everything in your video is spot on. Cycling is okay on the north side and downright terrible on the south side of that road. Just want to say I really enjoyed this video :)
That's a TPC?? Been there numerous times this year and I really didn't realise it was supposed to be one until I saw this XDD
Nice work and keep it up, looking forward to more of such videos in future! :3
Protected bike lanes should be on the road taking up 1 car lane in each direction. Squeezing it together with the sidewalk without any form of physical barrier such as a kerb endangers both pedestrians and cyclists. Of course, if it was meant for the widened sidewalks to be used as shared paths like the PCNs, then those red paths shouldn't be drawn so that cyclists will ride slower.
Hopefully with channels discussing topics like this there will be greater interest and advocacy for true pedestrian-friendly & "car-lite" Singapore. Anws the whole road is just a contradiction of its transit priority name 😆
This is interesting. This, as well as TMT's video on OTA shows the current problems of public transport that need to improve. Buses being forced to stick to a schedule is a salt to the wound here, as buses are forced to slow down if they are too fast, and thus the transit priority corridor is of no use to a normal road
Yeah, Yishun Ave 2 cycling around MRT station is kinda weird. Wasn't sure if I ended up in some cark park. Also, the other side going past Northpoint City can be awkward as well. Not great. Oh, fantastic video, by the way!
Nice explanation of these “Transit Praarity corridor” 👍👍👍
The fact that it sounds like "transit parody corridor" makes this video so much better! That's how I choose to hear it!
always nice to see a channel not simping for singapore and showing its flaws and suggesting possible solutions. Rather than just praising it as if it is a god country haha
I recently started watching not just bikes, seeing this Singapore-focused channel on such traffic videos is super cool
Lol the last part so funny, where bus lane and bicycle path 😂😂😂😂
Ahh, Tampines Avenue 1 - a place I know VERY well.
The north side has a bike lane etc and the south side does not. Totally unconnected I'm sure, but that road is the border between political constituencies. North side, with the bike lane and shelters, is PAP (ie the government) and the other side is Workers Party (the main opposition). A coincidence surely......
You also should talk about the junction at the west end of Avenue 1, next to the Caltex gas station and Avenue 8. Awful does not begin to describe it. The crossing light is RED MAN when there are no traffic that can cross the pedestrian crossing. but is GREEN MAN when cars are turning right across the pedestrian crossing from Avenue 8. Beyond dangerous and ridiculous.
The new pedestrian bridge outside the gas station has also been built in a way that BLOCKS the view of the oncoming buses - so you can't see the buses coming or at the bus stop until you are actually at the bus stop itself - how many times I have missed a bus because I simply could not see it!
0:47 check out that classic Singapore Stop
suddenly out of nowhere you went RMTransit style. Love it
Hi, this was an experiment for me under a new video series, “SGExplorer”. Walking Tours was a warm-up for me to get comfortable with narrating my videos.
You can expect to see more videos like this in the near future, involving a greater degree of on-site recording and research, and covering topics from transport and public housing.
Nice vid want more 👍
Transit Priority Corridors (TPCs) are roads that are integrated with bus lane, wider footpaths and dedicated cycling paths or shared paths. It’s not meant to give buses to have dedicated lane unless it’s in city area like Bencoolen street which the existing buildings were designed during the colonial period NS having narrowed road reserved. Unlike Tampines’s where all road reserves were designed for modern Singapore with 3 full lanes on each direction and can cater to the population requirements till another 60 years in future. The current construction of TPC are focusing on converting existing side tables to shared footpaths and cycling lanes.
Had thought that the reason for narrowing Bencoolen St was that otherwise the pavement would be too narrow to fit the entrances/exits to Bencoolen MRT station below (as there isn't much empty land in that area where you could place the exits instead)
I think bus lanes are pretty horrible idea in Singapore and we should only stick with priority give way boxes. Its not uncommon to see busses queueing behind cars that are trying to merge in and out of the bus lanes to turn. It absolutely frustrates me when the dotted break line is like 3 cm away but I cant change lanes to turn left because theres a car infront of me but the entire bus lane is clear.
Bus lanes can work if traffic doesnt build up, but I think up to a certain extent, it creates more traffic than it actually tries to solve. You can see this terrible effect along commonwealth ave west where Clementi MRT station is. Along Orchard Road you see this too. Particularly between Somerset and Dhoby Ghaut. And it becomes a shit show because the busses skip some bus stops and instead of just occupying 1 bus lane its not uncommon to see busses occupying 3 lanes because two lanes are turning lanes. 1 lane is used for the bus stop, 1 lane is for over taking busses to skip bus stop, the 3rd lane is used by busses who are trying to overtake the turning lanes which slows the entire traffic to a crawl. Because there are cars that are also trying to overtake the busses to turn .
bus lanes operated during peak hours are actually one of the culprits that cause heavy traffic jam throughout the whole of Singapore. it hinders car from going to the left if it want to turn left, blocking all the traffic at the centre lane of the roads. it forces all cars to squeeze to 2nd lanes onwards while bus lanes are mostly empty. These two factors alone can makes a half hour journey more than one hour to accomplish.
The main purpose of bus lanes is to allow public buses to bypass car traffic along roads with traffic congestion. While it may be tempting to see that lane of pavement as something that could have been used up for cars, I hope you guys can understand that the needs of up to 120 people within a bus should be prioritised over the needs of the 1 person occupying precious road space in a car.
Travel times by public transport is already very slow when compared to cars, that is why you are driving cars in the first place. We do not need it to be any worse.
i prefer bus lanes tbh rather than give way boxes coz some drivers don’t give way to buses even though they could f-ing see there’s give way box. the problem is that singapore have too many cars for such tiny island which in turn takes up a lot of space. bus lanes are there to give commuters and bus drivers assurance they can be at every and any stop on time without waiting to filter out of bus stops. i mean come on cars and other vehicles alrdy have the remaining lanes, why don’t you let buses have their own lanes. also, these buses transport commuters to their workplaces and in turn contribute to economy. if you have a reliable transport system, you’re economy will grow since majority depends on it
@@transitevolution I think we're in consensus that public transport should have priority on roads, however, in my observation and opinion, I think bus lanes is either not effective or straight up not helpful in prioritising busses.
I think priority boxes are far more effective because:
1. it does not uneccesarily cause congestions (underutilised road in the bus lanes when theres really no bus to give way to).
2. does not artificially inhibit lane changing to turn left causing everyone to try to merge at a single point leading to induced conjestions.
For these reasons, in my observations, I think roads with priority boxes are less congested compared to roads with bus lanes (And my bus moves faster too). Although im aware that it may very likely be because these roads have bus lane implementations due to road conjestions.
@@yuumaamayuki I think priority boxes can definitely be enforced better (I think i've spotted TP/Ciscos at bus lanes for longer and more frequent compared to the priority boxes), but in terms of the actual outcome when used as intended, I think priority boxes come out ahead. This is bc buses seldom overtake cars and they only mostly need help when entering and exiting bus bays which the priority boxes addresses effectively.
Jai Hinduja. In Singapore, it is just too hot to walk and sit on the new broad sidewalks. A better way to increase pedestrian traffic is to cover up certain sections and restricted streets with overhead shades like solar panels.
8:12 OH SO THAT'S WHAT THOSE WERE FOR... I thought it was like drains for water leh or like some really weird slope to climb
Btw, small not even really criticism honestly, it sounds like you're reading aloud as one would in an Oral exam, which I totally understand given that's how we're taught to speak in these kind of "formal" situations. It sounds like you're deliberately slowing down and adding pauses in, which can make it a bit hard to listen to in the long run. It's just a video, as long as you don't slur your words it's totally find not to enunciate every letter and stuff like that. Just talk as if it's a casual convo :)) If you do continue to make these kinds of videos I hope you can slowly find a way that's more comfortable and natural to you!!
Thanks for the feedback, will keep that in mind for future narrated videos :D
So you telling me that big ass road behind my house is a transit priority corridor? Never knew it was a TPC…
before TBC can be implemented successfully, the car population must be able to reduced significantly. The way how Bencoolean street implemented, if it is being spread out to other places, you will have heavy jam everywhere in Singapore. The pollution level will no longer be taken care of no matter how many trees you planted. i suggest all videos taken during peak hour and see how bad the present situation already is before we talk about how to successfully implement TBC.
Hi, most of the footages of Tampines Avenue 1 & Bencoolen Street in this video are taken just before & during weekday evening peak hours. These include footages where seemingly no vehicles are present, which occurs during certain stages of a traffic light cycle.
@@transitevolution Thomas Wong is talking about roads in city areas
the situation is bad because public transport isn't good enough. Why else would all the people of the roads choose to invest the equivalent of a downpayment for an HDB into their cars :)
Is the solution, then, to continue making things better for cars while (90% of the time) making it worse for alternative modes of transport, or to make it better for alternative modes of transport? Would more people not use public transport instead of driving if it worked better?
I live in Queenstown, and am (really) lucky to have a bus stop two minutes away that has four buses take me to the nearest MRT. So... when I need to get to the city, it's often a no brainer between booking a cab or using public transit, especially during peak hours. One is only slightly faster than the other (5min?)
@3:52 "where cars are not allowed.... even in the middle of the night" - This statement is false. Full day bus lanes apply only from 7:30am to 11pm. So cars do and can enter bus lanes in the middle of the night.
Hi, the statement is correct. Bencoolen Street uses bus-only lanes which applies at all times, not full day bus lanes. Cars are not allowed to enter bus-only lanes on public holidays, Sundays, and the wee hours of the morning as well.
@@transitevolution Oh you're actually right! Thanks for pointing it out. I just looked it up in detail and it does seem that it is one of only 2 Bus only lane in existence.
Probably needs a better colour scheme to differentiate from full day bus lane.
Bike paths too are not colour coded consistently. Some places have it red on both bike and pedesterian paths, with just the bike logo, some have it red only for cycle paths. Some are brown... Some are like your video showed, ambiguous with just PCN and arrow markings.
Not to mention those fashion cyclists occupied 1lane like his father all the time.
Ps: you cant fit all kind of fish in a small fish tank.
Ive seen this before
Fail planning
My house got filmed by you
Go to the Netherlands and you will see what "car lite" means and what a "TPC" actually looks like.
Wait you kena pofma lol
Why making the bus lane all days & make others vehicle jam like hell?
Isnt that the point of a car lite future?
Car lite means car last. It is meant to prioritise public transport over private transport
most useless design ever ever
bruh
Hi
Wasteful to have both sides cycling lanes. Instead, more at-grade road crossing traffic lights to enhance social connectivity within residential estates.
Worst street in sg during peak hours. Bloody stupid move to widen walkway
A classic example of a multi million dollar salaried MP at work. Totally poor planning. At Bencoolen ST, their stupid "car lite" concept is causing a bad traffic jam. Only one lane for cars.
I think that was the intended effect to get buses to move faster than cars? 😅 They also had to find room to build Bencoolen MRT station’s exits so they won’t be able to widen back the street at this point.
Why not you and them give your cars up instead???
1 bus carries as much passengers as 50 cars that are part of the jam.
@@aehighfmcolinchin he's right tho... as a former NAFA student, those morning jams are an annoyance of itself and most importantly a hazard due to selfish driver trying to edge the traffic light timing on the yellow box. so much so they often "park" themselves on the bus lane in order to clear the yellow box for the perpendicular oncoming traffic.
IMO they could have redirect the exit on the hotel side over to the SMU exit using existing infrastructure or even add the additional lane near sunshine plaza on the "plant box" to ease the traffic overflow, it could even be a white crossed out "box" to indicate but is able to used by the "overflow" to reduce the hazard at their own risk of fines
Actually isn't the best solution to build more lanes for cars and ban bicycles and remove all bus lanes for more efficient use of the road by the majority of traffic?
Bus lanes are an inefficient use of road space. They remain empty unless a bus happens to be on it, even during heavy traffic. Cycling is a primitive, dangerous, and inefficient mode of transport although it admittedly makes for a good form of amusement/recreation.
"Car lite" is hence a ridiculous concept that makes poor use of land in land scarce Singapore. It is making daily life worse and worse for the average Singaporean who simply wishes shuttle back and forth in first world conditions (in their own car that is).
Singapore should be embracing progress, not regression to the state of Shanghai in the 1980s (read: bicycles crowding the roads)!
Research has shown that a typical arterial road lane in Singapore has the capacity of 900 cars per hour, carrying 1500 people on average. A double-decker bus with 75% it’s seats filled and nobody standing fits 60 passengers. Using math, a seemingly empty bus lane which sees a bus every 2 minutes would carry more commuters than the car lane, and actually uses land more efficiently, while helping to balance out the disadvantage in travel times compared to cars by letting buses bypass congestion.
Cycling & PMDs in general are only dangerous because for a long time, they’ve got no where to go, and are too fast for pedestrians and too slow for motorists. For intratown travel however, they are often faster than even the bus. It’s use should also not be reduced to that of recreation, because many people livelihoods already depended on it, such as food & parcel delivery workers. Failure to build bike paths will only put the lives of even more people on the line.
Cars are not sustainable in terms of road space usage. LTA knows this. They has embarked on plenty of road widening projects which are getting enormous in scale of late, and yet traffic congestion has only worsened because it is simply impossible to build ahead of demand. Sitting in worsening traffic jams shouldn’t be something that is deemed progress either.
@@transitevolution I appreciate that you have taken the time to write this detailed response. Here, I shall assume that all the statistics you have quoted are accurate as I was informed by experience rather than official data which you have cited.
If I understand correctly, you share the same conclusions as the government on "Car Lite" - a reasonable conclusion if you calculate everything purely by numbers and stats.
I differ from this assessment as it completely excludes the qualitative aspects of daily travel. This would include things like whether people prefer to squeeze Itaewon-style on the train or be in the privacy and comfort in a car with their spouse on the way to work, even in slow-moving traffic. I suspect that for the majority of people, they would choose to commute in a car if given a choice - it would be hard to argue that qualitatively, an average trip with a car is inferior to one made via public transport. This is probably why despite the high costs of owning and running a car, most people continue to have car-owning aspirations.
As for calculations that treat people as statistics, I would readily concede that it can make numerical sense. For the political government however, it might cost them everything when people realise they don't "care" for them as living, breathing, individuals, despite how efficient their policies may be.
Thanks for indulging me.
I just like to let you know that your original comment was from the perspective of efficiency, not quality. So that was what I was addressing.
Since the topic has been changed to quality, the truth is that Singapore is indeed designed for the comfort and convenience of cars, with public transport overlaid on it.
To achieve car-lite, it is therefore essential to work towards more comfortable and convenient public transport & active mobility infrastructure than cars, even if it means inconveniencing car users. If public transport can be made better than cars, then the current intent of having 90% of the population commuting by public transport by 2040 won’t sound like a dystopia.
So it is not just simply about overcrowding people onto trains. Obviously overcrowding is bad. That would be amongst the topics that I intend to explore in deeper detail in future videos.
@@transitevolution thanks, I was mindful that I had committed the "oppie" sin of moving the goal post here, hence I said thank you for the indulgence.
I disagree that any policymaker should proactively make driving uncomfortable or inconvenient in order to artificially increase the relative convenience/comfort of public transport (I note you said "even if it means...", so this is not directed at your reply, but I can't help but feel that the government is doing that).
Ideally, both forms of transport should be maximised for comfort and convenience. That's what in my view a successful country should he striving towards.
Perhaps I should end this off by stating where I come from. I love driving so much that is really part of who I am. It's just as you would have avid cyclists or bus geeks who are very passionate about those forms of transport - call me a driving geek if you want. This is why I will never accept car lite in its current form, and it is a key reason why I fantasise about emigrating to a more car-friendly society, much as I love Singapore.
I do see where you are coming from. “Car-lite” isn’t exactly shaping up in a way that benefits people more. On the public transport side there have also been quite a few compromises where promises were degraded, such as the removal of express trains from the CRL, and the removal of expressway bus lanes on the NSC.
Anyways, I think it is healthy that we have more conversations like these amongst Singaporeans of different interests. :)
Aiyah, just add "somewhat" to it problem solved. A Somewhat-TPC. See, it works!!