This report from IBM is entitled the Commuter Pain Survey. In the 2011 edition, IBM state that there has been an increase in “the number of respondents who said that roadway traffic has increased their levels of personal stress and anger and negatively affected their performance at work or school”. That’s right, traffic can adversely affect productivity, and it is perceived to negatively affect health in some way (69%), increases stress (42%), and anger (35%).

Angry drivers, I know of one or two.

-

Read the entire press release on IBM

Check out the report [pdf]

-

Related: 5 Cities, 5 Different Congestion Solutions

Honestly, when I was told about it (thanks mel!), I didn’t really think it’d amount to much. I was expecting some “masak masak” stuff, but as it turns out, this is the real deal: Almost every facet of sustainability is mentioned here, from Biodiversity, Recycling, Renewable Energy, CSR, Food Supply, Green Vehicles to even Noise Pollution.

It’s effectively a wish list for the green minded Singaporean!

-

OK. Enough chatter from me, here’s a cut and paste from the manifesto, enjoy.

(I hope The Workers Party doesn’t mind, and don’t mind the formatting errors)

-

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Preamble

The scarcity of land and resources in Singapore makes sustainability a top priority.While economic development is important, it should not overshadow the importanceof environmental sustainability. A sustainable environment is essential to economic growth. Singapore’s economic development has taken a toll on our natural resources andcreated pollutants in our environment in the process. We are rapidly losing our natural heritage as a result of urbanization and rapid development.While we are mindful of the scarcity of land in Singapore for housing and economicdevelopment, we must balance the needs of urban development and preservingnature.Ecological awareness to protect and preserve our biodiversity is low in Singapore.Recycling is not yet a way of life in Singapore. Increasing recycling rates is key in extending the lifespan of our landfills.

Noise pollution is often a problem in Singapore. We should be mindful to ensure a‘civic and gracious’ social environment.Climate change is a reality, and extreme changes in the weather can be expected infuture. We should be ready to react to sudden changes in the environment.Most of Singapore’s food today is imported. There is little certainty that food suppliescan be sustained through prolonged periods of emergency.

-

Our Beliefs

1. We should encourage research and implementation of the use of sustainable energy and related products.

2. Commercial users should be incentivised to conserve energy and water.

3. Corporations should be encouraged to exercise corporate social responsibilityto protect the environment.

4. A rich ecosystem is necessary for a quality environment, and it is theresponsibility of the government and our people to protect our natural heritage.

5. The government must educate and encourage greater awareness of indigenous flora and fauna, as well as marine life.

6. Natural habitats like the marshland habitats, mangrove swamps and coral reefs,marine animals and wild birds must be protected for our future generations.

7. A clean and healthy environment is also essential to ensure the physical wellbeing of our people. We need to do more to motivate every individual to takeup environmental ownership and to care for the environment as a way of life.

8. The culture of recycling should be imbued from young.

9. There should be a more holistic approach to deal with noise pollution.

10. We have to explore ways to increase our self-suffciency in food supplies.

11. We need to be prepared for extreme weather changes. Contingency plans shouldbe drawn up according to various possible scenarios.

12. We require sustainable energy to ensure water sustainability for the country viatechnologies like NEWater. Energy costs should also be reined in; otherwisewater costs will increase in tandem.

13. Budget should be provided for research into solar power usage for water reclamation plants. A possible investment in offshore water catchments andprocessing plants should be studied.

-

Our Proposals

1. Natural habitats with ecological and educational value should be gazetted aspermanent natural reserves.

2. We need to strive for more regional cooperation to contain environmental hazards such as forest fires or chemical leaks so as not to affect air quality.

3. Plans for projects likely to adversely affect the natural environment shouldbe accompanied by Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) and mitigation plans before they are approved. This is especially important in the case of thefeasibility study on nuclear power use in Singapore. Radiation monitoringcapabilities should also be strengthened in view of this.

4. More programmes should be implemented to encourage local farming. Weshould explore vertical farming or high-rise farming technology to offset theproblem of limited land for food production. We should also further diversifyour food sources to enhance our food security.

5. As an equatorial country, we should explore alternative ways such as fuel celland solar energy to mitigate the worldwide shortage of natural gases and fossilfuel. This has potential to create maintenance and engineering jobs and reduceexpenditure on raw energy resources. We could also export our knowledge andproducts based on fuel cell and solar technology.

6. Green vehicle adoption should be encouraged via price incentives and improvedrefuelling infrastructure support.

7. We can provide tax relief and incentives for companies to encourage innovativeways to recycle waste and increase energy conservation.

8. “Social noise pollution” such as karaoke sessions at home, dog barks andchildren playing at common areas disturbs the comfort of others. We shouldcultivate civic awareness to prevent such noise pollution in a high-densityliving environment.

9. A comprehensive approach including a legal framework and a centralisedagency to regulate noise pollution should be set up.

10. Noise meters should be installed around potential noise pollution ‘hot-spots’,including MRT/LRT rails and roads to ensure noise levels remain within thelegal limits.

11. A dispute resolution mechanism should be set up at the Community DevelopmentCouncil level for greater accessibility.

12. A Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) should be performed to understandthe risk posed to Singapore by climate change. Adaptation policies should becommunicated to citizens. As part of this, a task force needs to perform scenarioplanning for adverse and extreme weather changes. Contingency plans shouldbe drawn up in response to these scenarios.

-

Oh yes, we’ve posted about environmental issues in politics previously, do check that out if you’re interested:

• More green discussions in Parliament, please. No Seriously.
• Will a Green Party Work in Singapore?

-

Majulah Singapura and vote wisely folks!

Before I continue, allow me to lay down some disclaimers. I am no politician. I admire people in the public service community, and I appreciate all the work that has been done to get Singapore where we are today. Let’s not kid ourselves, we’re in a great position, we’re generally comfortable, and that’s in no small part due to the leaders of this country. Legislation, economics, social design, all factors were carefully planned and implemented as close to perfection as possible.

Let’s be honest. Singapore is a single party country as far as politics go. As such, I have to say that I am also all for the democratic process. I believe that there should be competition in the political arena. I will NOT vote for the opposition just because they are the opposition; in the same breath, I will NOT vote for the party in power just to keep status quo. Parties running for election must show a clear and concise plan, a willingness to execute at all cost. The plan needs to be well thought out, economically and socially sound, and should be sustainable in the long-run. The people in the party must be capable, must have some form of track record, and must be open.

What about a party that puts social and environmental concerns at the forefront of its plans? I’m talking about a comprehensive plan to push environmental protection legislation, promote social causes in the community, and back it up with legal and economical measures. Would Singaporeans go for that? Would you support this party?

This is also tricky on another level. To a very large extent, Singapore’s government has been a one-party system as mentioned previously. How will a new (young) party fare in Parliament, holding an expectedly low number of seat, affect legislation? Who will listen? Should the local Green Party be spun off from the current ruling party as opposed to a brand new party? Will it be a lost cause?

Point of clarification, for the purpose of this article, Green Parties (upper case first letters) refer to political parties that support the Green Politics ideology. Political parties can call themselves green parties (lower case first letters) if they generally support green policies, however, they would not be related to the Global Green Network. Green Parties follow a coherent ideology that includes not only environmentalism, but also other concerns such as social justice, consensus decision-making, and pacifism. Greens believe that these issues are inherently related to one another as a foundation for world peace.

Green parties are not new in in the world of politics. They are already in countries like the UK, Germany, and Australia. For a full list of Green Federations, Networks and National Green Parties go here.

The German Green Party, the first to achieve national prominence, was famous for their opposition to nuclear power, as well as an expression of anti-centralist and pacifist values. Notably, they reached an agreement in 2001 to end reliance on nuclear power in Germany, while in federal government with the Social Democratic Party of Germany. In Finland, the Finnish Green Party was the first European Green Party to be part of a national Cabinet.

While the 85 (to date) Green Parties are all related to the Global Greens, each party generally are free to make their own political moves – alliances with different parties, different stance on certain issues such as specific wars, but in general agree to adhere to the Global Green Charter laid out in 2001.

Should a Green Party be formed in Singapore? If so, should it find alliance with the ruling party, or an opposition?

Who would you like to see in the Green Party? Scientists? Career politicians? Civil servants? Activists? Who will you most likely listen to?

What should the Green Party stand for in terms of reforms and policies? Energy policies? Transportation upgrades? Housing? What are some policies and measures that you’d like to see pushed by such a party? What are your concerns?

Maybe there should be a spin-off from one of the current political parties, tightly related but not governed by the main party.

Whatever your views on these questions (and whatever questions you might have yourselves), I think we can agree that there needs to be more representation of sustainability issues in the political process in many countries, including Singapore. Whether it’s to enforce transparency in industry, or to dole out financial assistance to social enterprises, more people need to stand up for sustainability and environmentalism politically. Having an representative speak up in parliament on the validity of climate policies and environmental claims made in parliament is priceless, and it holds every member of the government accountable.

Once again, I reiterate that a politician representing sustainability and environmentalism cannot merely be making a lot of noise about climate change and demanding sweeping changes – ban oil, subsidise all electric/hybrid vehicles – without a valid social and economical support structure to back it up.

“A plan to cover the city with cycleways gathers momentum – as cyclists wear flourescent Lycra, rack bikes on ferries and overtake cars.”

“On roads, cyclists and drivers have been exchanging stares and shouts. Horns and bells have faced off. The bells, it seems, are subtly more powerful/”

“City of Sydney Council is creating 200 kilometers of cycleways and turning the city into a cycling Utopia.”

“The target is for 10 percent of all city trips to be made by bike (presently at one percent) to reduce car journeys by 4.3 million annually.”

It’s an extended article, covering a wide range of topics, including rules of road usage, groups that one can join, obstacles along the way, and the bike movement sweeping Sydney.

All that just makes me jealous. Sydney, like Singapore, is basically a big city, where parking is a pain, bus lanes are commonplace, and there’s hardly any space along some roads for vehicles to get by. There are over 4 million residents in Sydney, most of the population is staying within city limits. People are as fast-paced as any city I’ve ever been to, Singapore included.

Drawing inspiration from an article in SPIN Asia (Pg 3. SPIN Asia is available all over Singapore for a mere $3!) titled “Singapore Through a Brommie’s Eyes – A Stroll Through the Lion City on a Brompton Breathes New Lift Into Familiar Sights.”

In the article, the writer explains how thanks to the foldability of the Brompton, you can now travel much longer distances on a bicycle. The folded dimensions falls under the legal size limit of folding bikes under the LTA’s Permanent Folding Bike Scheme.

If, like me, you get a bit tired when all you see are words,  I took the liberty of giving you the cliff notes:

General Guidelines:

• Foldable bicycles should be folded at all times in the MRT/LRT stations, bus interchanges/terminals and on trains and buses.
• Cyclists should use the lifts and wide fare gates at MRT/LRT stations where these are available.
• Foldable bicycles are allowed during the following operating hours:
  • Mondays to Fridays: 9.30am to 4pm, 8pm to end of operating hours
  • All day on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays
• Generally ensure that your bike doesn’t hurt anyone, or impede traffic in and out of carriages, or dirty the place
• Strangely, only one bike per bus (I’m not sure how they are going to enforce this)
• Foldable bikes have to fit into the little box that all stations have at the gantries (see below)

There are also other points, like how they came to decide on the details of the scheme, which you, dear reader, should read on your own time.

Given this scheme, I wonder how it is that I have never met anyone with a foldable bicycle in the train on my way to work (which happens during off-peak periods). If anyone’s ever made use of this scheme, drop me a line with a self-portrait of you with your bicycle in the train/bus. I’ll add your picture onto this blogpost. You’ll be famous!

In Singapore, there are arguably as many cars as there are people (I know I’m exaggerating but seriously, don’t you think that there are way too many cars on our roads?) and that presents several problems – traffic congestion, greenhouse emissions, rising fuel (and electricity) cost, health issues, etc. We love driving. We love buying cars. We love everything about owning these four-wheeled machines. Can’t live without them. We practically work so that we can afford to buy one (or two, or four).

Today, I put on my policy making hat and propose the following:

Mileage Pegged Road Tax

Now, as all current and future car owners know, we have to pay a road tax (amongst a myriad of other things) in order to own and drive a car in Singapore. Currently, this road tax is pegged squarely on the car’s engine capacity. That’s worked out well for decades, and will continue to serve its minimalistic purpose.

While segregating cars by its engine capacity has its merits, I propose that identifying usage of said vehicle is just as important. The road tax, as the name suggests, should be a tax for using the roads. In order to make this easier for everyone concerned – governing bodies and road users alike – the vehicle inspection held on an annual basis will include mileage recording, and together with the existing measurements of engine capacity, a road tax payable will be derived.

I can already hear people reaching for their pistols ready to put a bullet through my skull. Let us assess this proposal before we make any death threats shall we? I’ll use the in-depth  pros and cons analysis.

First the cons:

1. Troublesome. Yes. It’s going to be quite a bit more work for VICOM and car-owners. We’ll also run the risk of people trying to tamper with their odometer, but as with any legislation, there will always be folks trying to cut corners.
2. Confusion. As with any new legislation, it’s going to cause mayhem and confusion amongst the stakeholders. This will iron out naturally as long as the processes are in place. Further, the infrastructure necessary for such an exercise already exists!
3. “I drive for a living! This isn’t very fair!” There will be folks whose livelihood depend on driving. It is a necessity of our daily lives. In order to alleviate the burden of my proposed policy, occupations that depend on driving around all day should have some tax breaks or possibly even partial exemption from the road tax. Further, for people whose occupation requires extensive driving, vehicles should be registered under companies, much like vans and trucks currently, and tax matters should be directed to these companies – and possibly direct some costs towards these entities.
4. Ineffective to a large group of road users. Of course, given the fact that many road users would rather pay huge amounts of money, get laden with a humongous debt for 10 years, scrimp and save every way they can to feed the car, queue for hours

Now the pros:

1. Accountability. People have to start taking responsibility for their actions. If you use the roads more, you’ll have to pay more; much like our ERP system. If you drive a car with bigger capacity, you are responsible for higher emissions every time you use it.
2. Encourages alternate forms of transport. When people start to realise that it’s just not worth it, which would result in more people seeking alternate forms of transportation. This will in turn lead to more businesses providing services for folks using sustainable transportation methods – taking the MRT, cycling to work, electric bicycles, electric cars – thus creating an entirely new industry.
3. Increased Government revenue. While I would love to say that this is the main reason why I would implement this system, it’s not. But it IS a good argument for the system, especially if someone from the relevant authority happens to chance upon this post.

Cars cost so much in Singapore, and yet the number of new cars sold per year continually increases, even with our extensive public transportation network. I think it’s time that we consider other ways of limiting the purchase, or at the very least, control the amount of car usage.

What do you think guys? Drivers, don’t stone me, leave a response.

Cycling as an alternative mode of transport has its perks both environmentally as well as to an individual’s health. Given Singapore’s small size, why then don’t we cycle everywhere? Well, I can think of 3 main problems why people who are keen to cycle don’t (Note: this does not address the people that DO NOT see cycling as an alternative mode of transport):

1. Singapore’s Climate – Hot and wet all year round. It would be lovely if the weather was cool and dry and it would be perfect for cycling but sadly we either perspire from the heat or get soaked from the rain and in both of these situations they serve only to dampen any plans to go to work, shop, watch a movie or even have a meal.
2. Lack of facilities and cycling infrastructure – Let’s say I do want to cycle. Where am I supposed to park my bike? My bike isn’t a Pinarello (I hear it is the Ferrari of bicycles) but it is a road bike which I wouldn’t want to park just anywhere with a lock. How many offices encourage cycling by allowing employees to park their bikes in the office and provide shower facilities for their employees? That is just the logistical portion of attempting to cycle to work. Let’s not forget how we have to jostle with motorist for road space, maybe I am misusing the word jostle because we can’t really jostle with a car or even a motorbike. Apart from signs along the roads that warn motorist of cyclist (which are not everywhere), we have pretty much zero infrastructure that promotes or encourages cycling.
3. No official rules – There are no clear cut rules for cyclist, I believe there is some form of etiquette but as a cyclist, our etiquette largely revolves around how best not to get run over.

_______________________________________________________________________

I propose the following to best encourage and promote cycling in Singapore:

1. Designated Cycling Routes – I’m not asking that all roads be changed to accommodate cyclist. Just a couple of roads into and in the major areas like CBD or Orchard Road with a merger of various routes from housing areas. I’m sure almost all cyclist wouldn’t mind a detour for a substantially safer route. Over time and with experimentation, we can implement various forms of infrastructure along these routes that serve not only to promote and encourage cycling but also to protect the cyclist.
2. Cycling Facilities – Since we are unable to control the weather to make it cool and dry, we can only better prepare for it. Tapping on our extensive, state-of-the-art mass rapid transit (MRT) network, I propose planning the cycling routes in tandem with this network. Imagine a cycling route that goes from Yishun to Raffles Place and every couple of stations having a bicycle parking facility with showers. If it rains, I just duck into the nearest MRT station to utilize the parking facilities and showers and hop on a train to get to work or whatever else I was planning to do and after I am done, I just hop on a train back to the stop I parked my bike and cycle home.
3. Education – This is probably one of the most important ways to make this safe. Make cyclist go through a basic course to teach them what to do and what not to do on the roads, similar to a basic theory course for driving. Most importantly, educate motorist of how to look out for cyclist and the various signals a cyclist would use to indicate their intentions to turn, stop, etc etc. Also do make it clear to motorist that cyclist (although slower than a motor vehicle) do have the same amount of rights to the roads as them. If you have time read the comments here, as a cyclist, I find this worrying and I sure hope they do not represent the majority of motorist in Singapore.

_______________________________________________________________________

I read somewhere that the number of women who cycle in a city is a good representation of how cycle-friendly a city is and I am pretty sure a plan like this if implemented right could increase our cycling rate and make Singapore more bicycle friendly.

I was at the City Hall area yesterday when the haughty edifice by architect Moshe Safdie caught my eye. This edifice comprises of three imposing towers standing adjacent to the other towering maybe 60 stories into the air. On their common top straddles a vast, cantilevering plateau of steel and concrete. The next thing that I noticed was its still unadorned, unpainted and likely unfinished skin. Then an idea struck me: what if some of the skin of this vast building complex is used for vertical, urban farming?

* * * * * * * *

Imagine that we have 3,000 buildings in Singapore. Further imagine that each of these buildings is 10 stories high and the height between each storey is 2m. Lets also assume that each building has a linear footprint of 100m. And for simplicity’s sake lets also assume that this footprint is rectangular in shape and with the longer sides measuring 40m each. Hence without including the shorter sides, each building has 40m x 20m x 2 vertical surfaces, which is 1,600 square meters. If we add this number up for all 3,000 buildings in Singapore, then the aggregate number is 1,600 x 3,000, which is 4.8 million square meters.

4.8 million square meters is also 4.8 square kilometers of surface. This is still a tiny number in tiny Singapore with about 710 square kilometers of total land area.

But my calculations are erring on the conservative side. It is likely that we have much more vertical surface aggregating beyond 3,000 buildings of 10 storey each. I take into consideration all the public housing estates, the private estates and most of the commercial, public and private, non-classified buildings in this city-state.

It is in fact worthwhile to discover the exact number. But for argument’s sake lets imagine that my margin of error is 100% lower than the actual number.

If so, then in land-scarce Singapore, we have nearly 10 untapped square kilometers of surface now. This number is sure to increase with a continuous increase in population density. And you know what, as far as air space is concerned, there is no upper limit on this number…

* * * * * * * *

Sometimes ideas are weak and discounted as fictional or unrealistic because they stand in isolation to other ideas. But when these ideas are put together like hands and feet, things can work.

* * * * * * * *

Assuming that we dedicate these 10 square kilometers to intensive, high-yield urban, vertical farming. Lets further assume that about 51% of the citizens buy into this idea and would willingly—and profitably—contribute some of their time in the week (instead of shopping) to organize and work in this effort. Even so, we are talking of 1.6 million people working on this farming venture at any one time—would this not be the largest industry, spurring domestic demand then in Singapore? With a rising grey population and a longer but uncertain retirement livelihood in the world today, urban farming can become a sustainable source of income and psychological fulfillment for the golden years.

* * * * * * * *

I am not an agricultural expert. But I am an architectural designer who realizes that there is a problem of cladding buildings in plastic, granite and glass when the world is increasingly growing hungrier and (will become) bloodier from food conflicts. While my Hobbesian inclinations are clear, it is also clear to me that only architects and urban designers are trained—with support from public administrators and urban agricultural experts—to provide the aesthetical and technical spatial answers for this growing social and global problem.

* * * * * * * *

I have grown some tomatoes, potatoes and lady’s fingers successfully (in my garden). From this experience in primary school, I realized that Singapore has a full year of growing season.

Critics of urban farming may suggest that the use of water will surely increase exponentially for water-scarce Singapore. They are right. But equally true is that all vertical urban farms can capture rainwater that is lost right now through run-offs from these vertical surfaces. Imagine that half a centimeter of rain falls daily in Singapore for the whole year. That’s an incredible amount of water that can then be channeled for sustaining these farms.

Besides, depending on how these vertical farms are designed together with the façade, they are likely to reduce heat gain and at the same time, also reduce ambient temperatures. Indeed, these vertical farms present before us is a choice between the positive reinforcing cycle of air-conditioning use, or a negative feedback cycle of reducing air-conditioning use.

* * * * * * * *

I mentioned earlier that ideas ought to work together. Here we can begin to count the perks of this proposal:

1. Reduced emissions from food transportation. With a reduced demand for imported food—especially tonnage heavy agricultural products—we also reduce emissions attributed to trucks and planes carrying these products.
2. Eating healthier. This is subjective. But with an available local supply of agricultural products we may come to depend less on processed foods and more on natural foods, thereby also cutting down on paper, plastic and synthetic material wastes. This also means major cuts in emissions.
3. Hunger is on the rise in the world today. In a soon to be food-scarce world, increasing a domestic supply of food means food security if and when the barn-houses of the world reduce their exports for a near 100% imported-food dependent Singapore.
4. It may even be possible to have surpluses from this effort and to export some of these surpluses. With the market for organic agricultural products expanding in the world, vertical farming, because of its proximity to human activity, must be as organic as it can be. Is this not another place to explore the combination of these two ideas: between organic farming and vertical farming?
5. Communities in the city-state can be organized into self-sufficient communities specializing in different produce and strengthening local identities and trusts between people. All said, I do not hold onto a romantic ideal of socially edifying agricultural work. What I am suggesting is a much more modest and pragmatic vision where this can become another avenue for community involvement with tangible perks.
6. The probability of a universal carbon credit system is high in the near future. When this finally becomes reality, contributors to this system can exchange rebate-credits based on their individual production yields. This serves as an incentive for working in this socially ameliorative ‘industry’.

* * * * * * * *

What are some of the problems with this vision? Here, I count a few of them:

1. Not all buildings can be used for vertical farming. For example, buildings with a security nature; or buildings used for communication purposes and so on.
2. Architectural conformity. This is not so much a problem as it is still an open question. Architects have always been able to provide answers that have yet to be imagined. Imagine entire housing estates covered with trellis of tomatoes, lady’s fingers and other vegetables…It may strike some as delicious while some may find it a perverted version of the witch’s house in a new Hansen and Gretel story. But because no effort has been expended in envisioning a cityscape like this, there is still ample room for improvement and compromise.
3. Free-riding. Like all public goods, there will be some who would literally want to do nothing yet receive the same pay-offs as those who work on these vertical farms.
4. Initial high costs from public investment and private cooperation. But if we build it well and if it can last a long time, how is this different from building a subway or an effective airport?

* * * * * * * *

Many years ago, an American psychologist by the name of Abraham Maslow came up with a hierarchy of needs. For Maslow, food, water and sleep are foundational needs. Luxury, circus and entertainment(-gambling) for him are surely aspiration wants.

All around the world today we see more trade-offs along this trend: competitive advantages in agriculture traded for tourist-inducing golf-courses and thus, foreign exchange; resources that can be invested in sustainable production being consumed rapidly for higher immediate dividends but poorer longer term returns; and finally, a vast material investment in our visual and spatial productions that have nearly no relevance or gravity to the human condition today.

If there is preponderant attention paid on aspiration wants today, surely some attention—and vision—ought to be allocated to foundational needs as well?

Bio: Jeffrey Chan is an entrepreneur, architectural designer and design thinker. He writes and thinks in different domains unified by the theme of purposeful human activity, which is design. He believes that there are deep conflicts present in world development today and these conflicts are increasingly exacerbated by the growing forces of social injustice, environmental pressures and resource constraints. To the extent that he wants to play a role in mitigating these conflicts, he acts, thinks, and writes about these conflicts in relation to the artifacts and ideas that are familiar to him.