§1 Introduction

Public transport in Singapore has developed from no systematic planning in colonial times to the present vision driven planning with continuous and adaptive developments of infrastructure, services and integrated land-use to meet Singapore’s needs, especially economic ones. However, with an aging population, lower fertility rate, higher longevity and better healthcare, the elderly would be an increasing group with needs that run counter to previous transport developments. In addition, the transport needs of the disabled (w.r.t. injury, mobility and mentality) would be emphasized due to social/political commitment, developed nation status and the fact that economic success releases the liberty to attend to previously-shelved needs of those with perceived to be of less economic contributions or more burden. It is the commitment of this study to highlight the specific transport needs of the elderly and disabled pertaining to the public transportation modes in Singapore and provide the discussions of issues, implementation and likely development to meet those needs.

Infrastructure development is now based on MND Year 2010 plan with emphasis on attractive public transport modes and intelligent systems to meet varying demands. Further development would include completion of expressway network, SURS, multi-tier interchanges, comprehensive SMRT/LRT coverage, adaptive transport supply through TRANSYT, GLIDE and EMAS as well as raising travel convenience and safety through ERP and Cablink. Hence, it can be foreseen that Singapore’s transport infrastructure (hardware) would continue to be well-funded and comprehensive.

On the service (software) end, public transport services have been largely consolidated into fixed-route fixed-schedule SMRT/LRT, fixed-route public bus services SBS and TIBS with flexible (variable route and schedule) taxis and miscellaneous transit services like BusPlus providing integrated transit. Due to island-wide distribution, public transport caters to most commuters (52.4% of working people above 15 years, Census 2000). The accessibility to the major transportation centres like town centres is through internal feeder/LRT services and external trunk/SMRT services. The recent opening of intra-town services to private operators signal more flexibility to cater to varying demand. The fares charged are generally cheaper for the major public transport services, but the access and service facilities mainly serve the mobile able-bodied commuters.

The elderly (aged 65 and above) are increasing - presently the elderly constitute almost 7% of total resident population, but by 2030, this would have increased to 18% nearly, 1 in every 5 persons. A total of 197,800 households (or 21.4 per cent) in 2000 had at least one elderly, up from 136,700 (or 20.7 per cent) a decade ago (Census 2000). In 2000, about 9 in 10 elderly persons aged 65 years and over lived with their spouse or children. Some 14 per cent lived with their spouse only and 37 per cent lived with their spouse and children (Table 2). Another 37 per cent lived with their children only. Elderly persons who lived alone formed only a small proportion – 6.6 per cent. These lonely elderly would be the critical limiting factor as they are likely to be without income (though with savings or under welfare), facing safety, mobility and health related problems with deteriorating vigilance with increased security concerns (more reports of crimes against the elderly). The trips by the elderly are more infrequent, of higher variability with more non home-based trips.

The disabled include both temporary and permanent intellectual and physical disability (Singapore Sports Council for the Disabled) arising from natural or artificial (injury, accident) causes. According to DPA (Disabled People's Association of Singapore), the disabled are mainly served by voluntary welfare organisations (3342 in 1991), NCSS, educated in special schools and working as manual or sales people (201 in 1993). Abuse (occasional reports of crimes against the disabled), prejudice (social and cultural neglect) and relative weakness (compared to the mobility and normality of the general public) are often encountered. Furthermore, the disabled needs help or supervision when travelling. Personalised transit is the mode not of choice, but of circumstances. Even for working or driving disabled, recent and constant fee hikes of public and private fares, traffic systems (ERP) would be difficult. The welfare organisations serving the disabled lack both resources and organisation to meet their needs adequately. The trips by the disabled are mostly home-based with relatively fixed schedules to rehabiliation centres, special schools and training places. Thus, the disabled are generally relying on welfare or in low-paying jobs, require special assistance and liable to mobility, safety and security difficulties.

Combining the background of both public transport and elderly/disabled, there is corporate awareness of the special needs of both elderly and disabled (EAD), but there is still no concerted planning and implementation on the macro-scale. The state of affairs on this matter can be aptly summarised in an article by DPA that it is much longer to achieve transit adequacy for EAD than efficiency for able-bodied commuters. If EAD can be approximated as freight, since freight modelling and planning is much underdeveloped than passenger, the existing inadequacy might arise from lack of understanding of the EAD situation.

Poor accessibility to main public transport facilities has forced the disabled to take only private or welfare transport. Taxi fares have increased together with road charges, reducing the ability of financially-weakened disabled to switch mode. The often-overlapping present welfare services may not fit potential needs of EAD and EAD might not be able to find the most appropriate transit provider. Welfare services charge lower rates for personalised service, but suffer from insufficient vehicles, manpower and funds. Public transport services are designed, planned and scheduled for able-bodied commuters. Although the services are well-distributed island-wide, they are scheduled and operated along routes that might not be preferable to EAD. The facilities have improved with low-step buses, better quality vehicles and focus on customer service. However, these facilities are largely disconnected – there is no central planning & implementation from trip origin to trip destination that favours EAD. For example, the bus centres are not designed with EAD-friendly facilities such that the accessibility and hence, the usage by EAD are greatly impeded. Furthermore, the drivers (already full-handed with driving, bus safety and fare monitoring) are not trained to professionally aid EAD, even though incentives might induce better service at the modal level. Advance notice need to be given (NRC 1974). Singapore statistics are concerned mainly with the elderly, while outdated figures on disabled are provided by welfare organisations. Hence, there is lack of relevant information on EAD.

The elderly (Spanhake 2001) are typically reluctant to use public transit due to lack of flexibility of services (no service, long duration, difficulty due to need for advance notice for service, etc.), increased frailty and perceived safety risk. The developmentally disabled (Spanhake 2001) may require supervision and this limits transport options as public transport services do not have adequate supervision and modal transfers would be difficult. Hence, modal integration would not help EAD. EAD are the "blind-spots" of the mainstream public transportation system.

Steps in planning and implementation need to take into account of the above inadequacies so as to make the public transport not only a viable transport option, but also an attractive one for all EAD. Due to the inherent delayed dynamics of transportation system coupled with other socio-economic factors, there are varying degrees of uncertainties, risks and difficulties. Although lessons from advanced countries do offer guidance, transfer errors with respect to spatial, temporal and circumstantial factors would limit the effectiveness of "wholesale" transfer. What is needed is research into the characteristics of EAD and the public transport system development, considering the lessons from advanced countries in order to evolve the adequate balance of required facilities, accessibility, expertise and derived demand.

Planning should be performed in stages as public transport relates closely to the lives of all people. Short-term planning as sketch plans done to elevate existing problems with a view to prepare for the long-term goal of making public transport an attractive option to all EAD. These must address the following:

• Lack of comprehensive information on EAD: approach EAD groups for listening forums (Spanhake 2001); research need to be conducted with regards to the activities, trip nature, demographics, distribution, concerns and needs of EAD – this provides vital information for planning
• Lack of transit routes: introduce user-side subsidies for personal rapid transit services; with the recent release of intra-zonal transport, public transport operators would be forced to seek new routes and hence, allow new routes to be opened for EAD; begin low-frequency dedicated public transport subsidiary for EAD with eventual goal of integrating with the mainstream services
• Lack of EAD-friendly facilities that impede EAD to consider using island-wide network of public transport: match the needs of EAD with new/upgraded facilities, especially during refurbishment or upgrading
• Lack of EAD-friendly expertise: teach drivers (trains, buses and taxis) to be aware of the needs of EAD; professional training for ticket-checkers or supervisors to double as EAD supervisors
• Lack of resources and organisation of welfare organisations: brokerage (Black, Alan 1995) services to determine most appropriate transit for EAD; for social policy reasons, management, subsidies and incentives can be increased appropriately to strengthen the welfare organisation – but not at the expense of increasing the attractiveness of welfare transport over public transport
• Lack of comparative advantage of public transport for EAD: reduce the relative public-private divide through tuning with price and non-price differentiation (better expertise, facilities and marketing)

Long term planning need to account for macro-scale socio-economic-transport environment, hence would require coordination of government, public operators, welfare organisations and the commuters at large. These must address the following:

• Land-use characteristics: planning for the expected production and attraction of EAD trip generation; encourage communal living of EAD with general public
• EAD activities (A): collect & update activities and patterns of EAD, especially with coordination with welfare groups, the new ez-link card and intelligent systems
• Transportation system (T): capacity aspect – build & modify transport facilities, vehicles and network distribution (of fixed-route services) for EAD convenience, accessibility, safety, security and comfort, while maintaining low fare structure at world-class level of service
• Demand-responsive door-to-door transport: responsiveness aspect – to minimise delays especially in emergencies
• Transport option versatility: quality aspect – dedicated transport for specific groups with specific targets of level of service using paratransit – hence different measure of level of service for each group (including EAD groups) and not by a common yardstick (as done now in "world-class transport")
• Seamless transport transfer: modal transfer catering specifically to EAD needs including expertise, supervision, equipment, etc.
• Social attitude towards EAD: increase awareness and civil consciousness of the commuters towards travelling EAD through activities, campaigns, news, etc.; challenge the "perception" of old age and disability against the facts
• Welfare organisations: induce consolidation into co-operatives to inject the required funding and management; encourage non direct government-supported funding; appropriately reducing previous short-term incentives and subsidies when EAD are taking up more public transit
• Merger of public and welfare transport: combine the strengths of public transport island-wide network and welfare transport expertise and professionalism to cater specifically to EAD

Implementing both the short-term and long-term plans require keen management, substantial funding, political will, social support and coordination of operators, welfare groups and government. Expected problems include:

• High costs of upgrading facilities, new routes, training – innovative pricing incentives and management
• Transfer of financial burden from operators to commuters: resistance from the public with the greatest impact on those with low or no income, but are neither old-age nor disabled
• Increased management and logistics: service evolution required by both public transport operators (add to resource constraints) and welfare organisations (non-profit & voluntary basis – resource and perceptual constraint)
• Increased coordination of shared resources – funds, information, drivers and facilities (Spanhake 2001): the central role of the government is pivotal
• Seamless modal transfer too difficult to realise: too costly and might add to congestion – need for insightful traffic management
• Difficulty in forecasting: requires combination of research, experience and resource consolidation
• EAD might still resist public transport: due to internal entropy, social detriments and income-dependence – need to challenge EAD’s own "perceptions" of themselves and either train (especially retarded) or encourage through the above means

The critical balance between public transport services (capacity, responsiveness, quality, seamless transfer) and EAD needs (income, transport versatility, special assistance, mobility, safety and security difficulties, perceptions) have to be actively maintained amongst the government, operators, welfare groups and commuters.

Black, Alan. Urban Mass Transportation. 1995. McGraw-Hill.

Census 2000

Dawn Spanhake, PE, Specialized Transit and Elderly, Disabled, and Families in Poverty Populations, 2001.

DPA (Disabled People's Association of Singapore)

National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 154: Demand-Responsive Transportation System Services. 1974.

Singapore Sports Council for the Disabled