Towards a greener transport policy

Ooi Giok Ling, Straits Times 29 Jan 08;

Currently, 'economy and business first' principles underscore planning principles in Singapore and many other Asian developing countries. But the fact is, cities have been expanding at the expense of nature.

Climate change and related sustainability issues have to be faced by urban societies and their governments

MINISTER for Transport Raymond Lim hit the nail on the head when he surfaced the many areas of frustration shared by commuters who use public transport in Singapore.

The frustration has been reflected in the lashing that the media has given the Singapore public transport system in recent months. For instance, covering a recent seminar on the implications for Singapore urban planning and development following the UN conference on climate change in Bali last month, The Business Times opted to concentrate on the Singapore public transport system instead.

The post-Bali implications for cities such as Singapore got rather lost in the critique levelled at the system in terms of how it compared with other cities.

In his so-called shake-up of public transport, Minister Raymond Lim pinpointed a slough of issues ranging from long commuting times and distances lengthened by the circuitous routes that buses take in order, presumably, to maximise ridership and volume of passengers.

Visitors have told me that at times, the bus they are taking appears to be heading in the opposite direction from its desired destination, perhaps because of the complicated routes taken to pick up more passengers.

Frustration with the public transport notwithstanding, the larger picture for discussing Singapore's public transport has to include the post-Bali implications not only for transport but also urban planning.

Singapore's sustainability agenda can be made more patently visible, that is, as visible as the business environment and the conditions favouring foreign direct investment which dominate our economic development agenda. Currently, 'economy and business first' principles underscore planning principles in Singapore and many other Asian developing countries.

But the fact is, cities have been expanding at the expense of nature. Therefore, climate change and related sustainability issues have to be faced by urban societies and their governments.

Being 'urban' implies Singapore is distant, both socially and geographically, from 'nature', making sustainability a more challenging message to 'sell' to the general public. Singapore's environmental policies have been successful where they have been concerned with technology and infrastructural development. But there has been limited success with changing behaviour among Singapore consumers.

Consider the effort that has been mounted to address littering, keeping public toilets clean, waste recycling, removing sources of mosquito breeding and the use of plastic bags.

By contrast there are few interventions to remind Singapore consumers about nature, biodiversity, climate change and related issues. Most Singapore consumers learn about production and consumption at the end of the commodity chain - in supermarkets, shopping malls and restaurants, locally and in the region.

Apart from Sars and dengue fever, Singapore has been relatively free of the natural disasters and hazards happening around the world - urban flooding, bush fires, drought, avian flu, typhoons and hurricanes among others. The threat of global warming and rise in the sea level appear to be distant rather than 'real' issues.

However, a 'business as usual' scenario does not augur well, even for Singapore. Singapore's per capita income is the highest in South-east Asia and among the highest in the world, but its carbon dioxide emissions per capita are also among the highest in the world. This partly reflects the fact that Singapore's energy consumption trends have grown with economic growth and affluence.

Urban land-use and transport planning in Singapore seems to display an ambivalence about sustainability. Of course it is important that efficiency and urban compactness are considered in our urban planning process.

But prevalent land-use development is characterised more by controlled urban sprawl and expansion. In the process, transport infrastructure developments have erased some of our natural and built heritage to save car drivers minutes of commuting time.

On further planned urban growth in Singapore, the planning process needs to consider nature reserves - both land and coastal - not as 'land banks' but as part of urban biodiversity and an intrinsic element of the urban ecological system.

Merely planning a 'garden in the city' is a scenario that promises little in the future for nature and biodiversity. The territorial footprint of further urban expansion should be smaller than in the past. Within the past five decades, more than 50 per cent of the city-state's land area has been developed and 10 per cent was added through reclamation. We cannot carry on at this pace.

Certainly, with a view to improving urban mobility, there is a need to fix issues like those related to taxi fares and services. However, present policies have little to do with sustainability or climate change but are more focused on taxi drivers' incomes and taxi firms' rental charges.

Minister Raymond Lim's emphasis on the integration of public transport services would be key towards encouraging commuters to opt for the more sustainable form of urban transport and to turn their backs on cars, even when they can afford it.

In this context, we should consider cross-subsidies for public transport commuters in the midst of rising costs. In the interests of energy efficiency, there is a need to incentivise Singapore commuters - as well as consumers - to consider more sustainable consumption choices.

The author is a professor, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. The views expressed are her own