The problem with Singapore’s PCN
Tags: Active Mobility, Cycling, Park Connector, Singapore

These “continuous sidewalks” aren’t that continuous as some of them seem to be misaligned, perhaps intentionally to get users to slow down. However, I believe it would be clearer for a road user to tell if a path user would like to continue straight on the Park Connector or head north towards the residential blocks if the path was aligned.

I am Confusion

There are 2 main types of paths on the Park Connector: Separated Cycle and Pedestrian paths, and Shared paths. Based on the Walking and Cycling Design Guide by URA, Shared paths by nParks are easily recognisable; marked with PCN Logos with no line running down the middle. Separated paths on the other hand, tend to get a little different. Unlike cycle paths by the LTA which are marked by a different colour and a bicycle icon for clarity, cycle paths on the PCN are marked in the same shade of grey with a PCN logo on it.

Example of Cycling path by LTA (Walking and Cycling Design Guide by URA)

Example of Park Connector with separated paths (Walking & Cycling Design Guide by URA)

Although the intention behind this is to harmonise with the CPN, using the same logo to mark shared and segregated paths creates a level of ambiguity. In the case of ECP, the segregated pedestrian path is nearer to the coast line (not visible in the image). However, many pedestrians assume that the path above is a shared path instead of a cycling lane because of the PCN marking!(I’m guilty of that especially when I’m running!) And that 15km/h sign? It’s for maintenance vehicles, not active mobility. The speed limit for active mobility is 25km/h

Comparison of markings at East Coast Park Area G (2009 vs 2017) (Source: Google Street View)

At the other end of the island, at first glance, one might assume that the park connector below is a shared path due to the presence of the PCN logo and no line running through it but the “Stay on Track” sign says otherwise.

Choa Chu Kang PC along CCK Avenue 3

After exploring various parts of Singapore on a bicycle, I can’t seem to understand the designers’ choice of using the PCN logo in place of a bicycle icon. If there is a need to show a distinction of authority for the path, the PCN logo should be added to bicycle icon, not in replacement.

Fast forward to 2020, the brand new Lornie PC now has walking and cycling icons, an improvement from the past. However, with no dividing line or proper direction, this design could potentially confuse path users. If the path ahead is intended for active mobility only, a “no walking” sign could be made similar to the “dismount and push” signs.

Lornie Park Connector, 2020. (Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/lovecyclingsg/permalink/3549830345074288/)

Comments regarding the new Lornie Park Connector. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/lovecyclingsg/permalink/3549830345074288/)

Quantity over Quality

The quality of paths on the Park Connector is varied, some being well designed, others most likely designed by people who’ve never cycled in their entire life.

A good example of a well designed park connector is no other than East Coast Park. Wide segregated cycle and pedestrian paths are present, with designated crossings for pedestrians to cross the cycle path. At no point of time are people on bikes required to dismount and push. Considering that this path is wider than the TMCR Bicycle Lane and has designated crossings for pedestrians, the speed limit for this path could be raised to encourage people to use this path as part of their commute instead of congested arterial roads.

Segregated paths at East Coast Park Area D

Car travelling on cycle path at East Coast Park (https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/crazy-uncle-spotted-driving-car-along-east-coast-park-cycling-path)

The only complaint I have about ECP is the barriers installed at the most minor of crossings (at roads where I’ve never sighted a car before). This inconveniences all users of the path and at times even causes bicycle traffic jams. As shown in this image (not ready yet), users have also went off the path to cross it when it could be avoided without the barriers.

At many other places, Park Connectors are shared paths and are often very narrow. Obstructions such as this power box in the middle of a sharp bend are also relatively uncommon.

Tampines PC, Tampines Avenue 2

Prior to lockdown, this particular stretch of Park Connector isn’t the most accessible to active mobility users due to frequent temporary Pasar Malams (Night Market) being set up which occupies the entire path. Joggers had to squeeze among the crowd and most active mobility users would choose to use the road till the next intersection. At the very least, putting up advance notices for users prior to occupancy of the path would be handy.

Heading north to Yishun, there is a park connector running parallel to the NSL form Yishun to Woodlands (Yishun PC, Canberra PC, Woodlands (SLE) PC), which I feel is a brilliant idea, to link residents to the MRT or alleviate traffic during a disruption. Despite having a relatively attractive route, the path has excessive use of speedbumps, and is discontinuous, with detours whenever a road intersects. In the case of Woodlands Drive 75, PC users do not have priority when crossing the road.

Lack of proper crossing at Woodlands Drive 75 (Woodlands (SLE) PC)

Apart from the areas mentioned, other areas where the path design needs to be improved include but not limited to: Jurong Park Connector along Boon Lay Way which literally hurts you in the ass with multiple sudden changes of gradient. Bedok PC behind Bedok Camp II which similarly to Jurong PC, leaves one’s butt sore with thick speed regulating strips at places even when there is no crossing. And Lorong Halus PC, where the shared path is seriously too narrow for users to pass safely any faster than 15km/h.

Remember the PC at Choa Chu Kang shown above? I’ve observed more people on bicycles using the footpath instead of the PC — for obvious reasons

The footpath is straight unlike the park connector There is a wider turning radius when approaching the zebra crossing

Changi Airport Connector

While the Changi Airport Connector (CAC) is built by CAG and not nParks, I thought it would be worthy to add it in since it connects to the PCN. It is a breakthrough that a path was finally made to allow people to walk and cycle to and from the airport, providing an alternative to the notoriously overcrowded buses. All was good on paper, but did not seem to be the case in reality. Generally, I find the path width too narrow for pedestrians and active mobility given that it serves an international airport, compared to the wide and open 10-Lane Airport Boulevard. Possibly the worst bit of the connector is the Jurassic Mile, a 1 kilometre “jogging and cycling path” where cycling is prohibited.

Dismount and Push sign at Jurassic Mile, Changi Airport Connector (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o4H9VgU5Ko&t=475s&ab_channel=LivingLikeLionel)

pcN

Perhaps the biggest problem about PCN is its name, the N for Network

PCN Map by nParks (https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/park-connector-network)

With many paths leading to dead ends and sparse branches of paths built, it is hard to call it a network when the paths don’t interconnect with each other. Be it on a bicycle or on foot, it doesn’t take long before reaching the end of a park connector and having to continue on another path.

Final Word

If there’s one thing common about the images that are in this article (except one), it’s that the Park Connectors are mostly

Empty!

and that’s a big problem.

Road users won’t be inclined to give up lanes for development of cycle infrastructure such as Park Connectors or cycle paths if they are going to be empty. Experienced cyclists will not be inclined to use the park connectors if they are counterintuitive. Pedestrians will take the shortest route (which is often the footpath) if Park Connectors are full of detours. Other road users won’t like people cycling on the road if there is a park connector parallel to it.

With Singapore shifting towards a car-lite society and plans to increase the length of the cycle network in Singapore to 1000km by 2040, much more work needs to be done beyond what the academic textbook suggests. There are many factors put into consideration when building a cycle path such as land use, safety, and cost, many of which I am almost certainly not qualified to explain in detail. However, more groundwork has to be done, and surveys for path users need to be conducted. Existing designs could be relooked at, and some paths need to be refurbished to better accommodate the changing patterns of usage. As Henry Ford once said: “(The) Greatest thing in life is experience. Even mistakes have value.” Perhaps the most important bit that could spark change is for the team planning to ride the PCN experience first hand, and discover things that could be improved on.

There is much room for improvement of the PCN, and though I sound like a grundgy old man, I remain optimistic about its future. The day where these paths are constructed with not just quantity but quality in mind will be the day the Park Connector Network starts growing to its full potential.