All masterplans are political
Let’s look at where we are, and where we’ve come from.
The previous Land Transport Masterplan was light on infrastructure development, and for a reason. With the 2013 Masterplan committing the government to at least 80km of new MRT lines, which will only finish more than 20 years after announcement, there is much to catch up on.
Six years and three transport ministers later, we’re about to see a new masterplan — one that will undeniably have a political stench to it, since this is also general election year. And after significant political embarrassment in 2024, not investing in infrastructure will not be acceptable at the ballot box.
We may have been given some teasers already.
Their own goals
Before we look at what the future might bring, let’s score the LTA against the initiatives they themselves committed to.
After all, the 2019 Masterplan was so weak in new MRT lines, because the LTA has to play catch up— finishing the rail projects it has on its plate, with TEL, JRL, CRL, and minor rail projects to complete, are themselves initiatives restated in the 2019 Masterplan. It doesn’t help that these projects are complex, causing things like a two-year delay to TEL Stage 5 and DTL3e due to works around the East Coast Integrated Depot; CCL6 will open before it in the first half of 2026.
Remember when I said that the LTA sucks at PR? Fortunately, it looks like they’re learning.
The Friendly Streets initiative and its Mr. Men inspired cartoon characters may be new to some people, but it appears to be a rebranding of things already planned in the 2019 masterplan anyway. Branding may also mean more money can be made available, in the LTA’s project-centric mentality, for things like:
- more space for Walk-Cycle-Ride at future developments
- More Silver Zones
- “localised pedestrian friendly features in mature residential towns”
- 150km of covered linkways
- Lifts at more overhead bridges
10 more “Friendly Streets” — including one in my neighbourhood — will be done by next year. Cyclists may wish they were more ambitious about path expansion; but the current target of 1300km already exceeds the 2019 Masterplan’s goal of merely 1000km. And maybe the Masterplan’s aims to increase “dedicated cycling paths” could be thrown in somehow.
They don’t really have to be that ambitious either, as Silver Zones and School Zones can and should be tools inside the overarching campaign of Friendly Streets. Just like the 30kph limit for Silver Zones— implemented in some places like Marine Terrace, but not all.
And in new developments; sure, Tengah is still full of six lane roads, and enforcement may be lacking on the new TPCs built. At least Tengah Boulevard has shared paths on both sides, and two of those six lanes are bus lanes. Urban permeability issues are also not only LTA issues — HDB designs BTO estates, and town councils provide covered walkways.
There may be some things done right. Maybe not as ambitious, nor as quickly, as people would like, but it’s happening. The next masterplan should build on the lessons learnt here, and perhaps update the definition of what it means to be a Friendly Street. Maybe not hearing about pedestrianization efforts at Market/Malacca Streets and Orchard Road may be a good thing, as plans are reshaped after the initial trials.
The fog of war
There was a lot of talk in the 2019 masterplan about “Mobility as a Service” — but the only meaningful thing that they committed to do was lift and escalator availability information, supposedly for persons with disabilities. Does it even work? I hope I’m wrong, but far too often I see the app saying that everything is OK, while physical signs at stations say a lift at a certain station is not in use. Any data source is only as robust as the people who maintain it, and as long as SMRT and SBS Transit do not do so, it’s useless.
Talk about MaaS is all just talk. The LTA has not done anything, at least publicly, to actually deliver what MaaS can offer — public timetables and real-time train operation information. A case study in the Masterplan Report was how a taxi can be arranged to meet someone at the MRT station — but can that work when you don’t know when the MRT can get you there?
That won’t get people to take trains. They may think that if there’s already an uncertainty and a fog of war in taking either the bus or taking the train, they’ll stick to what is comfortable and familiar — the bus. And they will thus scream when you get them to take the train.
So what should be done? Real time travel information for all public transport modes must be made available, to facilitate smart travel planning especially if they still intend to try to convert car drivers into public transport riders.
Maybe they can even collect information from private bike-sharing operators on where the nearest bikeshare bikes can be found. They already do this for carparks — originally on roadside LED billboards, now streamed directly into cars with the new ERP 2.0 OBU, as part of a suite of features of location-based alerts for motorists. Which, for the record, is another committed initiative in the 2019 Masterplan.
But that’s not all the projects the LTA needs to do. They’ll need to make the most out of the existing network, improving connections while avoiding competition. We have a shrinking pool of bus drivers, and we cannot afford to waste them on competing for passengers with the rail network. To increase the accessibility of train lines, the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme — itself branding — is sorely needed, but so is network reform.
Out of 11 new ITHs committed in the 2019 Masterplan, 7 of them are now in varying stages of construction. But not all of them will create new hubs for better connections. Jurong East, Pasir Ris, Bedok South, Tengah, and Hougang (the latter three still planned) will more likely than not replace existing facilities. We’ll also need more ITHs, especially with new stations and lines being built. At least Chencharu is happening.
The future is already radical
Conspicuously absent from the 2019 Masterplan is a project that will significantly reshape the transport landscape — ERP 2.0. The LTA claims that further adjustments to the car population can be made with the current implementation of ERP 2.0, where gantries can be put up at a click of a button instead of expensive construction works to build physical infrastructure. And that allows them to put more cars on the road.
Though, if you ask me, for the sake of the government’s political survival, distance based charging should not be a matter of not if, but when. Our response to this new tool, which we have already significantly “inconvenienced” drivers enough to install, matters. A full revamp of our approach to congestion management should tax at the point of use to be truly fair.
Of course, that comes hand in hand with rail expansion. CRL Phase 1 will open in 2030, more likely than not the first half of 2030. That could be a considerable relief for the east side; Phases 2 and 3 will be even more meaningful, as the public transport system can provide a faster way to get to the industrial estates of the far west. After all, it is not enough that 8 in 10 households are able to walk to a train station — the train network should also go where they need to go.
To sound like a broken record, only then can we solve the problem of the haves and have-nots when it comes to cars. Or even those who try to dress up car-centric mindsets as public transport advocacy, where they want the public transport system to provide the convenience of a personal car. These people want cars. Let them own cars. They will find excuses to not take public transport anyway.
Put together, these initiatives will improve the scarcity that required us to impose vehicle caps in the first place. Policy can then give people a choice, like in almost any other city in the world, between traffic jams and public transport. when public transport can be time-competitive and there are tools to properly apply costs to those who still choose to drive, addressing transport inequalities that the COE system causes. Policy consolidation can also do the same as what things like off peak cars were meant to do.
The need to build
In normal cities, election season means political parties dangling new infrastructure to entice voters. The PAP is no exception. To be fair, we do need to build, but there are challenges, like the political support to make the changes needed to support a more sustainable land transport system.
My original predictions about the DTL2e have proven to be woefully optimistic — they plan to open it in 2035 — maybe later in 2035; 11 years from announcement to completion including 2025 itself. That’s not considering the years of planning before this announcement. And CRL3 may be more of the same.
If new rail lines are going to take so long, we should ask what can deliver the most value the fastest. Perhaps the West Coast Extension can, but if and only if the LTA has designs ready and can start building ASAP; completing the line in the early 2030s. It’s possible, but highly unlikely, due to no externally apparent progress on engineering design. And this year marks the 10th year where it has been “under study”; the most recent update has them “assessing” future developments in the area.
The 9th MRT line, whatever form it takes, is also “under study” — a process to justify why money should be spent on building the line, and where it should go. If new lines must rely on what is being built around the stations, then business cases will weaken. If land use changes (especially in the central area) do not happen fast enough, then new rail lines will suffer like the TEL, as they must compete with other modes of transport for smaller groups of passengers.
Even the network reliability argument falls flat when service levels are not increased and SOPs changed to get passengers to use other lines during disruption. If justifying new lines becomes so hard due to unchanging policy inertia, are we better off not building, especially as crayons are just academic exercises?
Policy change to deliver current projects faster (like what may have happened with the R151 trains) and make better use of them, while preserving our high standards, is more important than just building. The past Masterplan may have been light on that; avoiding hard policy questions and the impending big projects, and delivering by scoring cheap wins.
Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps it may not be enough.
Like what you read? Join the Telegram Channel for updates, or follow me on Instagram, Threads, or Bluesky for quick takes!
