Ensuring People-centric Desing in Pedestrian Linkway Planning

Deputy Speaker, if I may begin in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, last year, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and SMRT built a new overhead bridge at the Clementi Town Centre. This overhead bridge enables residents to walk from Block 326 to Clementi Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station, crossing Commonwealth Avenue West conveniently and safely.

With the new overhead bridge, the old pedestrian crossing at the ground level and the traffic lights were removed.

On the surface, this new facility seems to be perfect. Pedestrians do not have to wait for the traffic lights to turn green; they can simply use the overhead bridge to cross the road. There are even lifts at the overhead bridge so that our elderly residents can enjoy barrier-free access.

However, what was meant to be a perfect facility has, in fact, some shortcomings. After 12.35 am, when the last train has gone, the lifts at the overhead bridge stop operating. Hence, the overhead bridge is no longer a barrier-free facility. As the ground level pedestrian crossing has already been removed, residents, particularly seniors with mobility issues, have no choice but to walk up the stairs to cross the road. The overhead bridge, therefore, has inadvertently become a new barrier. Some Clementi residents are wondering why this is so.

I have appealed to LTA on behalf of the residents but six months have passed and the problem is still not solved. Some residents are feeling rather helpless.

In response to my query, LTA replied that since there is only one SMRT staff at the MRT station in the middle of the night, should there be a lift breakdown, that one staff would not be able to provide emergency assistance.

This answer sounds plausible but does not make sense. Lifts in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates operate round-the-clock. Anytime when there is a lift breakdown, we can call the 24-hour Emergency Maintenance Services Unit (EMSU) service for emergency repairs. Is there such a big difference between the lifts in HDB estates and those at overhead bridges? How come HDB estate lifts can operate 24 hours, yet lifts at overhead bridges cannot?

Some people might say: "This is such a small matter pertaining to Clementi, why do you have to raise this issue in Parliament?"

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think this matter actually reflects the style of some Government agencies in terms of policy design and implementation. I am more concerned that this could well be just the tip of the iceberg.

Hence, I sincerely hope that LTA can resolve this problem as soon as possible to make this nice, albeit slightly flawed, overhead bridge into one that is perfect and can provide 24-hour barrier-free access. Please allow me to continue in English.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether in the public or private sectors, policy and implementation are about the big and the small. They are all interlinked. Sometimes, you can see a universe in a raindrop, or, sometimes, you see a world in a grain of sand. But it is in the little details that we see deep lessons about the broader firmament.

So, if I may beg the indulgence of Deputy Speaker, I will mention a few local examples to highlight issues of national policy and implementation. May I start by telling a tale of two crossings in Clementi town.

In 2015, the LTA and SMRT opened a new sheltered overhead link bridge along Commonwealth Avenue West. It connects Clementi Block 326 to the MRT station. It has lifts for barrier-free access. The old pedestrian crossing at ground-level was removed. So, the previous barrier-free pedestrian crossing is gone. It has been replaced by an overhead link bridge which is barrier-free and only during certain hours of the day – the lifts shut down after the last MRT train has gone.

My Clementi residents with mobility needs now have to find a different place to cross the road when they venture out at night.

I am sure LTA and SMRT had the best of intentions, but the devil is in the details. Whenever a ground-level signal crossing is replaced, surely the new facility should be as good, or even better, in providing access to Singaporeans with mobility needs. When we add new innovations, we must be mindful not to subtract from it what came before, especially when it affects the vulnerable and disadvantaged among us.

I have appealed to LTA which has consulted with SMRT. I was told that, after revenue hours, there is only one station staff member preparing for the next morning's operation. So, the agencies are worried about what might happen if there is a lift breakdown with a trapped pedestrian.

But, Deputy Speaker, I draw a comparison with our HDB estates where the lifts do not shut down overnight. If a HDB lift breaks down, emergency assistance is despatched through EMSU 24 hours a day. Surely, SMRT and LTA could find a similar arrangement to cater for residents with mobility needs, especially after the pedestrian crossing at ground level was removed.

I understand that resources may be limited and, if this is a concern, perhaps SMRT could partner with the existing EMSU framework to achieve economies of scale. There are many possible back-end solutions to look after our residents at the frontline.

Deputy Speaker, I am sure a solution can be found and that measures can be taken to prevent similar situations from arising. I know SMRT and LTA are working very hard on this. My residents tell me a solution cannot arrive too soon and we must make sure other HDB town centres do not face the same problem.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak as well on another area where we could have better pedestrian access. Some of our HDB town centres have a lot of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It makes sense to create a network of overhead pedestrian bridges, helping pedestrians cross from HDB blocks to shopping malls, away from vehicular traffic. This improves accessibility for the elderly as well as young families with prams. It helps residents with mobility needs. It also helps drivers when pedestrians and traffic are separated from each other.

Unfortunately, this vision sometimes is more aspiration than reality. There have been examples of link bridges proposed to connect private developments, private shopping malls to HDB buildings where the proposals were rejected.

In my own ward of Clementi, this was the case for Clementi Mall, as well as the new "321 Clementi"; in both cases, missed opportunities to improve pedestrian access, missed opportunities to reduce the risk of traffic accidents.

Deputy Speaker, commercial developers benefit when a new building is located in an HDB town centre, especially in a mature estate with a critical mass of residents and customers. The central location and population density bring business opportunities for any landlord. But if developer and landlord are benefiting from the HDB town centre location, surely there is a responsibility to contribute back to the community?

We should not have a situation where the benefits and profits are privatised with hardly any socialisation of the gains. Our building code needs stronger incentives, perhaps even making such access mandatory for projects in already built-up HDB town centres. Indeed, the Building Code helps prevent market failure which occurs when developers prioritise profit and rents over the broader public good.

This is why in 1990, the first Building Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility was introduced. Since then, barrier-free access has improved significantly in Singapore. Likewise, I would propose that the Building Code, at its next review, should require private developers to make provision for barrier-free overhead crossings to nearby HDB developments, either at the time of construction, or by allocating white space for future crossings where the Town Centre is not yet fully mature.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to elaborate on another issue which my colleague in Parliament Mr Ang Wei Neng had raised as a Parliamentary Question: how our MRT stations connect to public hospitals.

Visiting a sick relative in hospital can be a stressful time for the family. The least we can do is to make the journey smoother, less exposed to weather and less open to the elements. Some of our public hospitals already have such sheltered barrier-free access from the nearest MRT station.

Tan Tock Seng Hospital connects with Novena MRT Station. The National University Hospital's new medical centre links with Kent Ridge MRT Station. Ng Teng Fong General Hospital has overhead walkways in Jurong to avoid the traffic at ground level. Singapore General Hospital is connected to Outram Park MRT Station, but the main challenge is that the hospital is still some distance away, although the SGH Campus Masterplan – I understand – will address this in years to come. But KK Women's and Children's Hospital is not quite there yet, nor is Khoo Teck Puat Hospital.

Here, there is, again, a role for enhancing covered barrier-free access so that patients and their relatives can have one less thing to worry about when visiting their sick relatives in our public hospitals.

Deputy Speaker, these stories are a link and a bridge to a broader issue and a bigger picture. Our public servants and agencies work very hard. They mean well, but governance has gotten more complicated.

Many areas of specialisation, much more happening at the same time, issues needing coordination and many policy issues straddle the public and private sectors as well.

In dealing with this complexity, design is crucial. We can draw lessons from other sectors, for example, portable digital devices. Thoughtful people-centric design is what differentiated the Apple iPhone and iPod from the rest of the industry, from their competitors. Attention to the whole user experience making sure individual elements add up to more than the sum of individual parts, first-mile and last-mile, not just for the journey as a whole, but also where each component connects to each other.

Imagine if we had a "design language" that guides how we help pedestrians navigate new towns and redevelop mature town centres. In this design language, each agency and each component is like one letter of the alphabet, one word in the dictionary. And when we put it all together, we must be able to make beautiful poetry, not just turgid technical prose.

Deputy Speaker, even as we build deep expertise in specialist areas, even as we add new technology and new construction, we must never lose sight that the people are at the heart of all we do.

So long as we continue seeing through the eyes of the people, we will continue being able to build better homes and a better Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his remarks and his many useful suggestions. I fully agree with him that we must adopt a people-centric approach when designing and planning our city. In fact, our city planners are fully aware that the work they do is not just a technical exercise. It has far-reaching consequences. Because we know that even as we build and shape our infrastructure, it is our infrastructure that shapes us. It influences our actions, our behaviours and our mindsets.

A well-designed city can inspire us, it can lift our spirits. Conversely, in a poorly-designed city, life can be brutish and miserable. So, the approach that the Government has taken from our early years of nation-building has always been to put people at the centre of urban planning. You can see this from the very First Concept Plan which was formulated in 1971.

I have looked at the concept plan then. The centre of our island was preserved as a natural reserve and water catchment. We pushed out the heavy industrial areas from residential areas so that pollution will be kept away from the people and then we had lighter industry and commercial areas planned adjacent to new towns so that people do not have to travel far to get to the Central Business District (CBD) to work. These were some of the features in our First Concept Plan more than 40 years ago. But these essential features are still very much recognisable in the structure of Singapore today. It is not just about the big picture of a concept plan but also focusing on details, as Dr Tan Wu Meng has mentioned.

A good example of that is having a clean and green environment for everyone. That is something that we put a lot of attention to, it was not just slogan or window-dressing. It was a strategic imperative and one which we set about doing deliberately year after year, and putting a lot of attention to details.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew had always emphasised, having public access to greenery is nothing less than a matter of a social equity. It is about creating a sense of social equalness in society so that everyone, regardless of where you stay, be it a flat, a condominium or a landed property, everyone in Singapore can have equal access to greenery and public spaces.

So, the point I wanted to highlight, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that we have always put people first in our planning considerations and this will continue to be our approach as we think about planning our city going forward. We will have to continue with our long-term plans to make good use of spaces, we will have to continue with our greening initiatives and, indeed, as we look forward to the next phase of urban planning, we want to make significant enhancements to pedestrian connectivity. So, one key priority for us is to improve our pedestrian connectivity, to improve first-mile, last-mile connections and to ensure that our environment is highly walkable in Singapore.

This is a long-term effort which will require many stakeholders and involve many implementation details. But let me just share some broad areas of emphasis and also, in doing so, respond to some of the suggestions that the Member has highlighted.

First, we will provide more pedestrian connectivity from residential estates to key amenities and transport nodes. Some of these connections will be in the form of ground-level direct crossings, because that is the most direct way of getting from point to point and some will be involving above-ground or underground linkages to enhance connectivity. These are more costly to do than at grade linkways, the above-ground and underground linkages, but we will do so in areas with higher pedestrian volumes, such as in our town and regional centres. You can already see some of these taking shape, say, in a town like Jurong. If you come out from the Jurong East MRT, you will see elevated walkways which allow commuters direct access to the nearby malls like JEM and Westgate and, potentially, to other key developments that are coming up in the future Jurong Lake district. So, that is the first point – that we are going to have more pedestrian connections.

Second, we are going to improve the walking experience. So it is not just about having more connections but, as Dr Tan Wu Meng has highlighted, about having better-designed walkways so that we can create a more comfortable and a more user-friendly walking environment.

One important priority is to enhance the linkages to MRT stations and bus interchanges with better covered walkways. LTA has a scheme to do this, called the Walk2Ride scheme, and I am happy to share that they will be extending the covered linkway network under this scheme to about 200 kilometres of sheltered walkways by 2018. So, there will be an expansion and there will be more covered walkways linking to MRT stations to enhance the walking experience and the last-mile, first-mile connections.

Dr Tan Wu Meng mentioned that there are covered walkways from MRT Stations to most public hospitals but he highlighted two in particular, that are not directly connected – the KK Women's and Children's Hospital and the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. I would like to share that LTA will be constructing a covered walkway from Little India MRT station to KK Hospital later this year and this will be completed around the middle of next year. For Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, it is slightly further away from the MRT station because the hospital was built in a mature estate where there was not an available site near to the MRT. So, the hospital is now about 700 metres away from the MRT station, about a 15-minute walk. Nevertheless, to provide better connectivity, we have bus services from the MRT station to the hospital and we are going to make sure that, as far as possible, for most of the stretch when you walk from the MRT station to the hospital, there will be sheltered walkways provided as well.

Within our housing estates, HDB is also working on a more integrated network of pedestrian connectivity. So, this will be done for all new estates. The walkability features will be incorporated into the design of all new estates. For existing estates, the improvements can be done as part of our upgrading programmes. HDB has a Remaking Our Heartlands programme. We also have the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) which estates can make use of to enhance pedestrian connectivity. And as all Members in this House are involved in the NRP implementation process through the Town Councils, I would encourage everyone to think about how you can prioritise the use of your NRP funds towards enhancing pedestrian connectivity within your estates. So, all Members in this House have the responsibility and also the ability, through the NRP funding, to enhance pedestrian connectivity within your own towns.

Another way of enhancing pedestrian experience is to better meet the needs of the elderly and the vulnerable members of our society. LTA is continuing with efforts to install lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges to improve barrier-free access to public transport nodes and popular destinations. On the issue of lifts, Dr Tan Wu Meng highlighted the case at Clementi MRT where LTA provided the lift and then the lift only works during MRT operating hours. I checked with LTA and I think they have also done their checks. As Dr Tan Wu Meng mentioned, they have been hard at work with SMRT. And I am happy to announce that LTA and SMRT will be adopting his suggestion to provide all-day barrier-free access to and from the overhead bridge. So, he can convey the good news to his residents in both English and Mandarin. It is not just in Clementi, because LTA will be learning from this example and experience to make sure that solutions are available not just in Clementi but in other towns as well. So, that is the second point about enhancing the pedestrian experience.

Thirdly, as highlighted by Dr Tan Wu Meng, the private sector also plays an important role in realising our people-centric vision of pedestrian connectivity. This is already done today – Government agencies work with developers to safeguard pedestrian access through private developments. Wherever feasible, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) will impose this as a land sales condition on developers that they have to build underground at-grade or elevated linkways connected to their developments and to enhance the pedestrian experience.

It is possible for new developments; it is harder and more complex to do so for existing ones. And Dr Tan Wu Meng shared some of his experience in Clementi with difficulties getting some of the existing malls to put in place connections. I understand the difficulties. We are, indeed, studying how legislation needs to be enhanced, potentially, to give us the ability to compel building owners to provide such pedestrian links. It is a complex issue and we are studying this very carefully. It may or may not be legislation of powers needed in the Building Code. There could be other forms of legislative levers that we can apply and, so, that is a matter being studied and the details will be announced in due course.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have summarised some of the efforts that we are undertaking to push for better pedestrian connectivity. All of this is work-in-progress and it is a long-term effort. It requires support and understanding from all stakeholders. Dr Tan Wu Meng spoke about having a "design language" in which we can think about designing our streets better for pedestrian connectivity and I fully agree with him. Having such a design language, in fact, requires us to think about taking some hard decisions because designing a city for people and for walkability potentially means reducing car parking norms; it means, shrinking road sizes; it means pedestrianising more roads.

Those are the hard decisions that we may have to make. Other road users would have to make adjustments. I note that we have received – both the Ministry of National Development (MND) and Ministry of Transport (MOT) – many requests from the public, including from Members of this House, from time to time to have more car parks, not just more car parks but more free car parks, which will just add to road users but for cars, not for pedestrians and sometimes to expand the roads for cars.

These are issues that we have to balance. If we truly want to embrace a more pedestrian-friendly culture, it is really about adopting a more car-lite culture in Singapore. That is why we have to make progress towards such a goal and we are trying to sensitise and get people used to such a mindset.

That is why MND and MOT have launched more road closures over the weekends and we have recently started a car-free Sunday in the civic district on the last Sunday of the month. You can come to the civic district, the roads are closed, you can walk, you can cycle, you can jog, you can enjoy the streets, for people. I would welcome Members to participate and join us on the last Sunday of the month to experience what car-free Sunday is about.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government has always adopted a people-centric approach in urban planning. That is why, despite our constraints, we have today a city in a garden and we have people from all over the world coming to MND, URA and MOT to learn about our experience.

The nature of urban planning is such that it is really long-term work. The results do not happen overnight. It takes good planning; it takes systematic implementation over many years and even decades. So, you cannot look at urban planning over just one or even two electoral cycles. You have to think and plan long-term and then implement and deliver the results systematically and progressively.

That is what we have done in Singapore and that is what we will continue to do. With the support of all stakeholders, I am confident we can build an even better Singapore. We can build a Singapore that is not just the greenest and most beautiful city in the world, but, potentially, one of the best cities for walking and for active urban mobility.