Hello there, reader!
Looking through the complicated mess of our postings on this site, across a boatload of various topics transport and urban-planning related, you might have asked, or wanted to ask at some point: Who are these people, writing incessantly about transport-related matters, and attacking our WORLD CLASS public transport system?
Perhaps you found us in the ramblings of your furious bus enthusiast friend, or you were popped an article from us by your search engine, and perhaps one feels the urge to cast us off as an edgy run-of-the-mill blog run by kids. Those who take more interest in urban transit and planning might see us as Singapore’s version of Transit Malaysia, Jarrett Walker, RMTransit and the like. With a tinge of politics, perhaps.
Simply put, we want to build a people-centric transport system for Singapore, and make this place friendlier for the human who inhabits it.
“People-centric public transport? Isn’t that what the LTA themselves are working towards? Why the opposition, and hostility?” It appears that LTA and the government in general have a pretty different idea of what constitutes public transport built for the people. This difference is why STC comes to exist. Why is a seemingly “people-centered” public transport system suffering from regressing service levels, reductions in network connectivity all while fares are going up, and people go “I want a car”? The inconvenient reality that public transport users face compared to what is officially touted, forms a mismatch that frustrates regular public transport riders, including yours truly from all of us here at STC.
World-class? Certainly a label that can be applied to our public transport, or urban planning, if one ignores the multitude of side issues that, while insignificant on their own perhaps, add up to considerably worsen the actual experience of using public transport here. Additionally, Singapore is quite a unique case, so what seems to work elsewhere need not necessarily be appropriate here, and vice versa. It doesn’t mean we don’t have anything to learn from good practices elsewhere however. That’s why beyond just a site ranting on about the deficiencies of local transit and other matters, we also take a look at what works elsewhere, and more importantly, how we can get it to work in Singapore too.
Admittedly, we don’t talk too much about the positives of the status quo here, for two reasons. First, one can overdose on that in the official media and international accolades that Singapore receives year-round, being hailed as a “model for urban planning” and whatnot, so there’s no need for us to add to that. Secondly, it’s a reminder for policy planners and the various parties that keep transit running to not get complacent. Singapore has been praised so much over the years, that LTA has been, whether intentional or not, catching the complacency bug, thinking things will still remain world-class even with less effort, or even chipping at the very foundation of our public transport that made it great in the first place!
With everyone around us, including our supposedly backwards neighbours, moving forward with various improvements to their cities and transit, it is foolhardy to stay put. You know, the parable of the hare and tortoise. And we don’t have to wait until we get surpassed to act — here at STC, we are all about improving the things that aren’t broken, because we want Singapore to be a better form of itself, not just for us but for future generations too. And pre-emptively initiating reform is the only surefire way to keep ahead of the crowd and remain a leading city in public transportation and planning, if we were ever one. That’s why we write, to get the attention of LTA and co where they missed, or be the alarm where they attempt to deliberately ignore the system’s faults.
What then, does truly people-first public transport look like? And what does human-centric urban planning look like?
I like to bring up this little analogy: what is, or should be the fundamental difference between a bus registered with the SG prefix, versus one with the PD prefix? Both provide transport service to whoever is riding them, right?
You have to ask yourself what the nature of said transport service would be. The latter provides it as a commodity, as a vehicle (pun intended) of extracting profit for the service provider. In economics, most “normal goods” would fall under this category. In contrast, despite being an identical bus, the SG-plated counterpart provides bus service as a public utility. It’s just like your water and gas — they’re essential to the functioning of the city, their requirement for broad coverage and access make them natural monopolies that should not be exploited.
What makes for a human-centric city? Throughout much of human history cities, the centers of economic growth and development, as well as hubs of culture and commerce, have been designed to ensure precisely that — the congregation of large numbers of humans in a relatively smaller land area, such that more interactions take place and more stuff happens. To that end, the re-orientation of our cities to favour motorised transport in the 19th and 20th centuries has been a great detriment to the healthy development of our cities, both the historic and the new. While we in no way are one of those who yell for the abolition of all vehicles, the blowing of cities out of proportion to fit the scale of cars, rather than humans has led to far too much waste, be it in terms of valuable land, resources or fuel consumption. The strengthening of alternative mobility options such as transit, cycling (and PMDs!) and walking is thus highly necessary to cut down on the excesses of car-oriented urban development, to return cities closer to what they were originally intended as — places for humans to congregate together. Even the LTA acknowledges this in their “Walk, Cycle, Ride” initiative for LTMP 2040. Those efforts to promote a car-litre society would be for naught if the execution goes wrong, however. However much we advocate for anything related to public transport or urban planning, at the end of the day what drives our work is the desire to build cities friendlier to its human inhabitants, rather than their wheeled metal boxes.
That’s about it for all the lofty talk of better cities and better public transport. But you may still wonder, who are we?
A bunch of transport enthusiasts writing about their hobby because they’re obsessed with it, just like fans of other hobbies? Maybe, and it’s undeniable that many of us come to criticise the shortcomings of public transport because of our increased interest here as a result of it. Perhaps other transport enthusiasts have different reasons for their passion in transport, but for us, we love transit because we want it to be better, and know it can be better. And we want to make it better, and be part of that process of improving public transport, and even the urban planning of Singapore! For us, this is what brings meaning to our hobby as transport enthusiasts, learning about mobility systems around us and finding out how it can be better, despite its current faults.
Want to find out more about each of our individual Team members? Pop over to our Author List page! 👇
Yet despite our profile as transport enthusiasts, STC rarely takes the tone of an “enthusiast’s blog” — perhaps true in earlier years, but not today. As authors at STC, we are also your fellow public transport user. We ride public transport as frequently as you do, or maybe even more so, and we experience the same benefits and drawbacks of the Singapore public transport experience as you do. As an advocacy page for better public transport and urban planning, we write primarily with the people in mind. Our proposals and analysis of public transport and citybuilding here are done with the people’s interest in mind, not that of transport enthusiasts’, and neither that of the LTA or any other government agency. Nor do we represent any corporate or business interests either. Because why write about public transport, if it’s not about the people that it serves, and we use every day?
Our Tagline
Rant. Realise. Reinvent. Rebuild.
Or you could call it the four “R”s, in short.
Coming first is Rant, which forms an essential part of being a Critic of transport here. Of course, not necessarily the unpleasant ranting that characterises what internet arguments regularly get into. But a litany of what has gone wrong is a necessary part of problem-solving, and while it’s nice to sugarcoat it in nice sophistry, in the face of systemic reform required for relevance in the 21st century and beyond, better to be direct about our own failures and shortcomings. And it need not necessarily be a bad thing — awareness is the first step in correction.
Next up is Realise, where we engage in a process of continuous learning, be it through exchanges with readers like you (join our Discord server, linked in the menu bar), official settings or studying what works elsewhere. Before we formulate those very ideas with immense transformative power for transport and citybuilding, it is important to study and know about those concepts on which urban planning operates. Of course, as the reader, you are not left out of this process, and STC will strive to frequently share with you our knowledge of how transit and cities work. It is a two-way process of learning from each other and others, here at STC, and we welcome all to be part of this process, of learning how to build a better Singapore together.
Where we come in most is Reinvent, the process of re-imagining what transport in Singapore can be. Too often are we fixated on what’s in front of us because, well it has won us accolades over the years right? It doesn’t hurt to introduce fresh new ideas on how our transport can be like, especially in an era when emerging cities around the world are poised to leapfrog their established counterparts. Our ideas can get radical, but it is such disruptiveness that ensures our system is relevant for the present day and age.
Finally, the grand project of Rebuild-ing our transport system, a complete overhaul to produce public transport that works for everyone in Singapore who needs to get somewhere. This is what the role of a regulatory agency in transport planning should be, rather than just maintaining a status quo that can barely handle current operational requirements. Let’s look up from the mountain of papers our heads are buried in, and take a look at the future, 2050s and beyond. Much is to be done, but far ahead is our goal of a future-proofed transport system of a livable city that is robust, dependable, and convenient. Exciting times lie ahead, and if we want to be flying among the clouds by then, it’s time for lift-off. Buckle up, and get started with the great reforms.
That’s what we are, at SG Transport Critic. We formally invite you to be part of this grand journey of remaking our transport, and our city. Here’s to a better public transport system of the future 🥂
Oh, and by the way, despite the similarity in acronyms, we are in no way affiliated to the PTC, even though they’re neighbouring APM stations 🙃
Join the conversation here! Thanks for reading STC.
SG Transport Critic 