re:cycling

Problem Statement

Despite significant investment and positive public messaging, Singapore’s cycling path network continues to fall short of providing genuine last-mile connectivity for everyday trips. Current reporting emphasises headline distance figures, which do not capture real-world usability factors such as network fragmentation. At the same time, the planning and implementation process remains largely opaque, making it difficult to assess whether built outcomes align with policy intent or to identify where targeted improvements are most needed.

Objectives

1. Develop a clearer understanding of how cycling path networks in Singapore are planned and implemented across agencies.

2. Explore alternative metrics and more transparent ways of representing cycling path networks, beyond total kilometres built.

3. Examine how structured feedback on cycling infrastructure could be collected and shared to better inform planning, implementation, and future iterations.

Approach

Speaking to LTA AMG (Active Mobility Group)

To ground our understanding of the cycling path planning and implementation process, we spoke to officers from the planning and engineering teams in LTA’s Active Mobility Group (AMG). These conversations helped clarify how policy intent is interpreted in practice, and where constraints and trade-offs are most likely to reshape outcomes on the ground.

AMG planners begin with a network-level planning approach centred on first- and last-mile connectivity around MRT stations, in line with the Walk-Cycle-Ride initiative under LTA’s 2040 Land Transport Master Plan. Planning typically starts by drawing a 400–600 metre catchment radius around MRT station exits, within which cycling routes are structured along major roads as primary spines before branching into secondary routes along smaller roads. At this stage, an ideal network is developed based on existing road hierarchies, with capacity and supporting infrastructure (such as bicycle parking) estimated from surrounding population data.

As planning progresses through the engineering design and inter-agency review phases, land availability emerges as the dominant limiting factor. Trade-offs are made to accommodate trees, drains, road widths, and other adjacent land uses, which frequently result in narrower-than-ideal paths, shared-use configurations, or localised discontinuities. These compromises are often reasonable in isolation, but their cumulative effect on network quality and usability is difficult to assess within existing planning frameworks.

Conversations with AMG also highlighted structural reasons why earlier phases of the cycling network appear fragmented today. Initial batches of cycling infrastructure were delivered in response to demand hotspots rather than through a fully integrated masterplan, leaving behind legacy gaps that LTA now seek to address. Although newer batches aim to resolve these issues, the success of these efforts is not easily evaluated using current, distance-based reporting metrics.

Finally, feedback mechanisms were described as largely unstructured and case-based, channelled through existing LTA feedback systems and typically addressed one at a time. While effective for resolving localised design or safety concerns, this approach makes it difficult to surface broader patterns related to connectivity or network coherence. In addition, feedback and its downstream implications are not easily visible to the public or to other agencies, limiting shared understanding of on-the-ground conditions. Taken together, these factors point to a planning process that is internally structured but externally opaque, reinforcing the need for clearer metrics and more transparent representations of the cycling network.

Rethinking How Cycling Networks Are Measured

LTA currently reports progress on the cycling masterplan primarily through kilometres of cycling paths built. While distance is a useful delivery metric, it is insufficient on its own to evaluate whether the cycling network is effective. Kilometre counts lack context—such as how much cycling infrastructure is appropriate in a given area, how usable the network is in practice, or what a target like “1,300 km by 2030” means for cyclists on the ground. Most importantly, distance alone is not directly tied to the objective of improving last-mile connectivity.

This creates a disconnect between reported progress and lived experience. Even as total network length increases, cyclists may still encounter fragmented routes, indirect alignments, or uncomfortable conditions at the neighbourhood scale where daily trips actually occur.

To understand how cycling networks are assessed beyond aggregate distance, we reviewed international approaches, including European cycling networks and New York City’s cycling system. These systems place less emphasis on national totals and greater emphasis on network structure, proportionality, and continuity at local scales.

From this review, we identified three metrics that we felt were particularly relevant for evaluating cycling networks at the neighbourhood and precinct level. These metrics were selected not as definitive measures of success, but as interpretable proxies for qualities that cyclists experience on the ground.

Cycling-to-road ratio captures how cycling infrastructure is provisioned relative to the surrounding road network. Rather than asking how many kilometres exist in total, this metric asks whether cycling infrastructure is proportionate to vehicular infrastructure in a given area. It also reflects LTA’s planning process, which aligns cycling routes along roads.

Fragmentation index focuses on continuity by measuring the average length of cycling path segments. This reflects the observation that interruptions to the cycling network can have outsized effects on usability. At the neighbourhood scale, cycling behaviour is shaped less by abstract network logic and more by whether routes feel continuous, legible, and safe.

Last-mile connectivity (within 1 km) centres analysis on short, everyday trips, particularly first- and last-mile connections to MRT stations. This aligns with the Walk-Cycle-Ride objective, where cycling could be a substitute for short motorised trips. Importantly, this metric reflects observed behaviour on the ground, where cyclists value connectivity within housing estates.

Together, these metrics provide a conceptual foundation for evaluating cycling networks beyond distance alone. In the following section, these ideas are operationalised through a map visualisation that applies each metric consistently across existing and planned cycling paths, allowing differences in network quality to be considered spatially rather than inferred from aggregate figures.

Field Work

To ground our understanding of how cycling infrastructure is used in practice, we conducted on-site observations and informal interviews with cyclists and pedestrians in the Jurong East vicinity, including areas around Jurong East MRT and Toh Guan Road (Blocks 285/286). This field work focused on how planned infrastructure performs under real usage conditions, and where gaps emerge between planning assumptions and everyday travel behaviour.

Image on the left depicts planned cycling routes for 2040 (purple). Image on the right depicts existing user routes (orange-red).

First, observations suggested that the core planning logic for cycling routes is directionally sound. Aligning cycling paths along major and minor roads provides a clear backbone for movement across towns, and many cyclists reported using these routes for regular point-to-point travel. However, implementation on the ground revealed inconsistencies in how this logic is applied. In some locations, major roads that function as obvious desire paths for cycling were not fully planned or connected. In other cases, cycling paths were merged into narrow pedestrian spaces due to space constraints. However, feedback from cyclists and pedestrians consistently pointed to safety and usability issues arising from these bidirectional shared pathways, where differing speeds and directions increase conflict. While pavements in some areas have been widened to accommodate cycling, many users felt that available widths remain insufficient relative to demand. These findings suggest the potential value of treating cycling paths as a clearer backbone network, distinct from walking infrastructure where feasible.

Second, field work highlighted the importance of ancillary infrastructure for cycling networks. Interviewees frequently cited the absence of clear wayfinding from estates, MRT stations, and park connectors to cycling paths, making navigation difficult without prior local knowledge. Safety at junction crossings could also be improved by introducing clearer separation between pedestrian and cyclist crossing movements. In addition, a lack of well-located bicycle parking reduced the usefulness of cycling for end-to-end trips.

Third, observations surfaced on-the-ground contextual factors that are not easily captured in high-level plans. Certain areas experience higher usage volumes due to nearby worker dormitories, placing additional strain on shared infrastructure. Ongoing construction works frequently introduce detours that require cyclists to take significantly longer routes to reach the same destination. More broadly, many cyclists reported travelling distances of 1–4 kilometres for daily trips, exceeding the 400–600 metre catchment assumptions commonly used in planning, and indicating that real-world cycling behaviour often exceeds initial planning assumptions about the scope of last-mile connectivity.

Taken together, these findings show that challenges in Jurong East stem less from the absence of cycling infrastructure, and more from how routes are configured, supported, and adapted to local conditions. Field work reinforced the limitations of distance-based metrics and highlighted the need for measures that account for continuity, safety, and real travel behaviour as experienced on the ground.

Solution

We focused on translating our process insights and ground observations into tools that make the cycling path network easier to evaluate, discuss, and iterate on. Rather than proposing new data collection mechanisms upfront, we explored how existing datasets could be reinterpreted to better reflect connectivity, usability, and real-world experience.

Based on the learnings above, we developed two complementary tools: a map visualisation to provide clearer, network-level metrics, and a heatmap-based feedback layer to surface on-the-ground issues that are otherwise difficult to capture systematically.

Map Visualisation

The map visualisation shifts attention away from headline distance figures towards measures that better reflect how cycling paths function as a network for everyday travel. Rather than treating all kilometres equally, the map focuses on usability, proportionality, and continuity in relation to key destinations.

Map examining the cycling infrastructure score for Jurong East MRT station

First, it examines last-mile connectivity by analysing cycling paths within a 1-kilometre radius of MRT stations, reflecting how cyclists realistically access public transport. This reframes success around access and coverage, rather than total network length.

Second, instead of reporting cycling infrastructure in isolation, the map contextualises it by measuring the ratio of cycling paths to vehicle roads within the same radius. This provides a more meaningful sense of whether cycling infrastructure is proportionate to the surrounding road environment, and highlights areas where cycling provision may lag behind vehicular capacity.

Third, the visualisation highlights network continuity by measuring fragmentation (i.e., average cycling path segment length within the same radius), showing where cycling paths are broken into short segments or interrupted by abrupt gaps. These breaks often undermine safe and intuitive travel, even when overall distance targets are met.

Map visualisation of Singapore’s MRT stations, colour-coded by cycling connectivity scores

Together, these views allow users to compare existing and planned networks and quickly identify where cycling paths function as a coherent system, and where improvements on paper may not translate into better real-world usability.

Feedback Tool

In addition to the map visualisation, we developed a heatmap-based tool to collect feedback on cycling infrastructure directly from cyclists and members of the public. Rather than measuring infrastructure coverage or distance, the tool captures cyclists’ preferred routes (i.e., where people want to cycle) between their homes and MRT stations. Visualised as a heatmap, this feedback surfaces spatial patterns of demand that are not visible through network metrics or high-level plans alone.

While still early and exploratory, this approach provides a foundation for prioritisation and iteration. Aggregated route preferences help identify which links matter most to users, where gaps or detours introduce the greatest friction, and which interventions are likely to have the highest real-world impact. Used alongside the network metrics from the map visualisation, the heatmap better informs the sequencing of builds and refinements by aligning planning decisions more closely with cyclist demand.

An important consideration is how qualitative feedback can be incorporated into sense-making alongside quantitative signals. During our testing, on-the-ground use of the tool involved direct engagement with residents, which surfaced practical insights about existing cycling infrastructure that are not easily captured through theoretical planning. In practice, there may be opportunities to integrate qualitative feedback already channelled through LTA’s feedback systems, ensuring that lived experience and local context meaningfully inform planning and iteration.

Future Vision

These tools are intended to support clearer, more informed decision-making by introducing metrics that are more directly aligned with stated policy objectives. By making progress more transparent through interpretable, network-level measures—rather than headline distance figures—the map visualisation helps clarify how planning intent translates into built outcomes. This increased transparency supports greater accountability in the planning and implementation process, while also enabling other agencies and local actors to engage with, iterate on, and complement the cycling network in a more targeted, place-specific way.

As an early signal of this potential, when this work was shared with a member of Parliament, they noted that clearer, demand-driven information could enable town councils to step in with more targeted local interventions, particularly where central prioritisation is constrained. By making network gaps, desire paths, and usability issues visible at a local scale, these tools could support localised solutions that sit alongside centrally planned infrastructure. More broadly, this creates a basis for wider participation in iteration—allowing agencies, town councils, and potentially private partners to identify where localised investments could meaningfully improve cycling outcomes.

Building on this, the work also points toward a possible evolution in how cycling infrastructure is prioritised. Given that the current planning logic—anchoring routes along major and minor roads—is directionally sound, one extension would be to more explicitly define a cycling backbone that is distinct from walking infrastructure and prioritised for continuity. Supporting this backbone with ancillary infrastructure such as clear wayfinding, safe crossings, and bicycle parking could help guide cyclists toward these routes, improving usability without requiring vast cycling networks.

Appendix

1. Cost of cycling paths

2. News articles on positive sentiment of cycling paths built

   1. More than 10km of cycling paths completed in Toa Payoh (Oct 2025)

   2. Another 40km of cycling paths to be ready in the west from 2027, including Bukit Batok, Jurong West (Jul 2025)

   3. LTA to build another 60km of cycling paths in Bukit Merah, Bukit Timah, city areas by 2029 (Dec 2024)

   4. Another 87km of new cycling paths to be built in Singapore’s east, north-east by 2030 (Aug 2024)

   5. New cycling paths in 7 towns will be progressively completed from 2024: LTA (Jan 2023)

   6. LTA to build 20km of new cycling paths in Bukit Merah, Kallang, city areas (Jun 2023)

   7. 6km of new cycling paths completed in CBD (Nov 2022)

3. Articles on the usability issues of current cycling paths

   1. Singapore’s Bike Paths Aren’t Built for the People Who Use Them Most (Rice Media, May 2025)

   2. Internet confused by design of Pasir Ris cycling path that gets cut off by dead-end (MS News, May 2024)

4. Land Transport Master Plan 2040

   1. Link

Summary

Opportunity

Singapore has invested heavily in cycling infrastructure, but cyclists still can't rely on the network for first- and last-mile journeys. The problem isn't lack of paths—it's that existing routes are fragmented, poorly connected, and often force cyclists onto uncomfortable shared walkways. Meanwhile, progress is measured purely by kilometres built rather than whether people can actually get where they need to go. This matters because cycling could relieve some of Singapore's first- and last-mile transport demands, but current metrics prevent us from understanding whether our investments are working.

Velocity

We developed two tools to shift how LTA evaluates cycling network progress. The map visualisation introduces three alternative metrics—last-mile connectivity within 1km of MRT stations, cycling-to-road ratios, and network fragmentation indices—that LTA could use instead of top-line distance figures. By being accountable to these connectivity-focused metrics, implementation decisions will naturally align with actual usability outcomes. We also built a heatmap-based feedback tool that captures cyclists' preferred routes, helping LTA test whether their planning assumptions hold up in practice and revealing how people actually experience implemented infrastructure.

Traction

A Member of Parliament immediately saw the potential value, revealing they'd been receiving numerous complaints about cycling infrastructure but lacked tools to quantify specific problems. They expressed strong interest in piloting our approach, recognising that clearer information could enable town councils to implement targeted local interventions where central prioritisation is constrained.