Introduction Singapore has been touted as one of the countries with some of the most sustainable urban transport policies in Asia. This is mainly indicated by the country’s apparent success in containing traffic growth, vehicle ownership and emphasizing and expanding the role of public transport systems (Barter 6). Low motorization through sustained car ownership has ensured energy efficiency in Singapore’s public transport system compared to many Australian cities (Barter 7). There are distinct features that differentiate Australian cities from European, Asian and European cities. These features include the transport systems that the cities have adopted. In Australia for instance, the cities including g Melbourne combine urban compactness present in European cities and the suburban characteristics that are dominant in American cities. The cities like Melbourne have heavy rail systems that were built primarily to cater for suburban expansion rather than metropolitan expansion (Mees and Dodson 5). Following the success of the Singapore transport system, many experts have mulled over the possibility of applying the Singapore model on Australian cities especially Melbourne. Despite its success, it’s important to acknowledge that both cities were designed with different aim and objectives and both cities’ infrastructures have taken root to an extent that they cannot be easily changed. The simple answer therefore as to whether the Singapore model can be applied in Melbourne is no. this is because of various reasons Singapore Model unlikely to work in Melbourne First of all both cities are planned differently. It’s important to note that one a city has chosen a planning model it’s difficult to change it. As a result, the cities work differently. Singapore’s development gained momentum in recent years while that of Melbourne is a bit old. Furthermore, Singapore is the capital and its infrastructure is planned to serve a wider and bigger population t5hat that of Melbourne. The two cities spot two different rails systems that will be difficult to change in the case of Melbourne. In Singapore, the city has a mass rapid transport system (MRT) while that is chiefly meant to contain the population increase due to metropolis expansion (Bernick & Cervero 399). Melbourne on the other hand spots heavy rails built primarily to cater for the suburban expansion (Barter 5). Even if the Singapore model was applicable in Melbourne, it’s likely to face severe financial difficulties strain (Rodrigue 20). Singapore is a city-state and as such has access to sizable amount of resources that Melbourne cannot match. Additionally, the cost of labour in Australia is higher compared to Singapore. Hence, any such venture is likely to cost highly due to the costs involved. It’s also important to note that both cities economic activities differ significantly. Melbourne has only one central business district compared to Singapore’s multiple. Singapore city has several regional centres that serve as business districts because of the city’s expansiveness. Implementing such a plan in Melbourne is likely to misfit and any resizing will not work effectively. Unlike Melbourne, political interventionism is common in political and economic management (Han (a) 8) in Singapore. In Melbourne, the authoriti