Nine changes. Each one specific enough to refuse in public.
Criticism is easy to absorb. A numbered proposal with a named owner, a costed delivery route and a stated failure test is not, because declining it requires giving a reason on the record. Every one of these is benchmarked against what Singapore does today.
What we do now, and what the evidence supports.
| Area | Singapore today | Evidence | Proposal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct speed | 50 km/h default | 30 km/h zones cut pedestrian deaths 46% | 30 km/h |
| Silver Zones | 15 zones, reactive | LTA's own: elderly accidents 14 → 4 | Preventive siting |
| Crossing time | Green Man Plus, tap to extend | 84–93% of over-65s walk below 1.2 m/s | 0.8 m/s default |
| Crossing spacing | No published maximum | Crossing accessibility predicts crashes (HK) | Published maximum |
| Footpath width | 1.5 m beside a cycling path | Two adults are 1.22 m of shoulder | 1.8 m floor |
| Width reporting | Nominal, includes lamp posts | Every comparator publishes clear width | Effective width |
| Side roads | Pedestrian gives way | Continuous footway: 89.7% vs 43.3% no-yield | Continuous default |
| Shade | Tree counts, no route target | Cooling needs ~40% block canopy | 40% over routes |
| Renewal | Rule exists, rarely triggered | LTN injuries −35%, boundary null | Trigger it |
Three proposals about people dying.
149 road deaths in 2025, a ten-year high. Elderly pedestrian fatalities more than doubled, from 11 to 27. The elderly were 83.3% of fatalities involving pedestrians who crossed away from a crossing. The Police call it "a persistent upward trend." The response so far is enforcement and education aimed at pedestrians.
Make 30 km/h the default inside residential precincts, delivered physically rather than by signage.
Singapore today
50 km/h is the default. Silver Zones and School Zones drop to 40 km/h in limited areas.
The evidence
A 2025 systematic review of 60 studies found 30 km/h zones cut pedestrian fatalities 46% and pedestrian injuries 61%, with travel times unchanged to +5%. Impact-speed data: ~1% fatality risk at 30 km/h against ~5% at 50.
The change
30 km/h inside precincts, delivered with physical calming. Signs alone do not work: in unmodified 30 zones elsewhere, 73–90% of drivers exceed the limit.
Site Silver Zones where elderly people live, not where they have already been killed.
Singapore today
15 Silver Zones, sited reactively on prior accident history.
The evidence
Singapore's own. Across those 15 zones, annual accidents involving elderly pedestrians fell from 14 to 4, about 80%. The design works. It is simply arriving after the deaths.
The change
Trigger Silver Zone treatment on elderly resident density and proximity to markets, clinics and eldercare, rather than on crash history.
Time crossings to how older people actually walk, without requiring them to tap a card.
Singapore today
Green Man Plus extends the crossing, but only for those who register and remember to tap. Standard timing assumes a speed most elderly people cannot reach.
The evidence
UK crossings assume 1.2 m/s. Population data: 84% of men and 93% of women over 65 walk slower than that, with means of 0.9 and 0.8 m/s. A 70-year-old struck at 40 km/h faces the same death risk as a 30-year-old struck at 56.
The change
Default crossing time computed at 0.8 m/s at every crossing near a market, clinic, eldercare facility or block with high elderly occupancy. No card, no tap, no registration.
Three proposals about where you are allowed to walk.
Publish a maximum crossing spacing, and audit it against where people actually cross.
Singapore today
No published maximum spacing between crossings. Where a crossing is absent, the resulting behaviour is classified as jaywalking and addressed by enforcement.
The evidence
A Hong Kong study across 379 grid cells found crossing accessibility was negatively associated with pedestrian crashes. Separately, a review screening 69,000 records found standalone pedestrian education had no positive effect on injuries, while road-environment change was favourable in 19 of 27 observations.
The change
Publish a maximum spacing for roads with pedestrian demand, and audit provision against observed desire lines rather than against complaint volume.
Make the continuous footway the default where a footpath meets a minor side road.
Singapore today
The footpath stops at a kerb, drops to carriageway level and resumes opposite. The pedestrian yields and changes level twice.
The evidence
Observation across 25 UK sites: at a continuous footway, 89.7% of pedestrians were not forced to yield. At a conventional side road, 43.3% — more than half had to give way. Driver yielding across 3,797 recorded interactions was 78.7%.
The change
Continuous footway as the default treatment at minor side roads, built at the same cost point as a conventional junction. Priority expressed by geometry rather than by a sign.
Trigger LTA's own width-transfer rule at every resurfacing.
Singapore today
LTA's Code of Practice already states that where lane widths are reduced, "the lane width savings shall be distributed equally to the footpath on the sidetables." The rule exists. It is rarely triggered.
The evidence
113 London Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, twelve years of police injury data, controlled design: injuries down 35% inside, and no detectable displacement onto boundary roads. On the gridlock objection: across 70 case studies, a median 10.6% of traffic disappeared rather than relocating.
The change
Apply the existing clause systematically at scheduled resurfacing rather than only at redesign. No new policy required, only a trigger.
Three proposals about whether anyone stays.
Set a canopy target over the pedestrian network, measured as coverage rather than tree count.
Singapore today
Trees are counted and planted at scale under OneMillionTrees, but there is no coverage target over the walking network specifically.
The evidence
Canopy must exceed roughly 40% cover at block scale before substantial daytime cooling appears. Below that the effect is minimal. Above it, up to 5.5°C. In Singapore's own one-north measurements, shade cut UTCI by 3.1°C, and by 3–5°C where coverage reached about 80%.
The change
A published canopy coverage target over footpaths and park connectors, with 40% as the design floor. Contiguous canopy, not scattered specimens.
Adopt a seating provision standard for public space, measured in linear metres.
Singapore today
Seating is provided at the discretion of each agency and town council. There is no published ratio, and no requirement that seating be joinable by a stranger.
The evidence
New York wrote Whyte's plaza research into zoning in 1975: one linear foot of seating per 30 square feet, with seating 36 inches deep or more counting double where it can be used from both sides. The unit matters — linear metres, not furniture items.
The change
A published seating ratio for public space, expressed in linear metres of undifferentiated seating: steps, ledges and low walls rather than fixed four-seat tables.
Restore 1.8 m beside cycling paths, and publish effective width instead of nominal.
Singapore today
§2.1.2 drops the footpath to 1.5 m wherever a cycling path adjoins, and quotes it as a nominal paved width including lamp posts and bins.
The evidence
Two adults occupy 1.22 m of shoulder before any clearance. Every comparator standard — Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Hong Kong — publishes a clear or effective width. Singapore is the only one quoting nominal.
The change
1.8 m as the floor, and widths published after deducting kerb, building line and street furniture. The full argument is here.
Four things this campaign will not claim.
The fastest way to lose an argument with an agency is to be caught overstating one part of it. These are the claims that would be convenient and that the evidence does not support.
That wider footpaths make more people walk.
There is no good evidence for this. In the main meta-analysis of the walkability literature, sidewalk width appears once, with an elasticity of 0.00. Every width standard in Europe rests on body-envelope arithmetic and wheelchair-passing dimensions, not on behavioural research. Width is justified by accessibility, crowding comfort and dignity, which is well supported. It is not justified by inducing walking, and we will not say that it is.
That better public space will make people know their neighbours.
Design demonstrably changes whether people stop and stay. Copenhagen's stationary activity rose 160% while pedestrian flow stayed flat; Times Square went from 17 to 90 people lingering. Those are real measurements. Whether lingering converts into social ties is an inference the field has not settled, largely because people who like walkable places move to them. We state the first as fact and the second as belief.
That Barcelona's superblocks saved 667 lives.
That figure is modelled, not measured. It assumes all 503 superblocks are built simultaneously; roughly six exist. The authors themselves warn of double-counting across correlated exposures and call one pathway "hardly generalisable." Pontevedra's zero-deaths claim is similar: true, but it covers municipal streets only, in a town of 83,000 where the expected baseline is about one death a year. Both circulate widely in advocacy and both will be checked.
That pedestrianisation boosts retail sales.
The best synthesis, covering 45 facilities, finds effects that are positive or non-significant — which supports "does not harm" far more strongly than "boosts." The headline 30–49% figures rest on weak comparison groups. What is robust is the misperception: in Berlin, traders estimated 21.6% of customers arrived by car when the actual figure was 6.6%, a pattern replicated in Washington, Toronto and Dublin. And Singapore's mall-based retail limits how much of the high-street literature transfers at all.
Take one proposal, not nine.
Nine asks in one letter reads as a manifesto and gets a manifesto's reply. One ask, with the clause number, the evidence, the owner and the failure test, reads as a case.
If you are picking, take Proposal 03. It costs a controller setting rather than construction, it protects the group whose deaths more than doubled last year, Singapore already concedes the principle by operating Green Man Plus at all, and refusing it means saying on the record that older people should register in advance for enough time to cross the road.
Sources
- SPF, Annual Road Traffic Situation 2025 — 149 deaths; elderly pedestrian fatalities 11 → 27; 83.3%
- Yannis & Michelaraki (2025), Journal of Safety Research 92 — systematic review of 60 studies on 30 km/h zones
- Rosén & Sander (2009), Accident Analysis & Prevention — impact speed and fatality risk
- Tefft (2011), AAA Foundation — age and survival at impact speed
- SUTD on LTA Silver Zones — elderly pedestrian accidents 14 → 4 across 15 zones
- Asher et al. (2012), Age and Ageing — 84% of men and 93% of women over 65 walk below 1.2 m/s
- PLOS One (2022) systematic review — pedestrian education vs road-environment change
- Zhu, Sze et al. (2023), Accident Analysis & Prevention — Hong Kong crossing accessibility and crash counts
- UWE Bristol for Sustrans — continuous footway yielding, 89.7% vs 43.3%
- LSHTM, London LTN injury study — 113 LTNs, injuries −35%, boundary null
- Cairns, Atkins & Goodwin (2002) — traffic evaporation, median 10.6% across 70 case studies
- Ziter et al. (2019), PNAS — the ~40% block-scale canopy threshold
- Bardhan et al. (2024), Science of the Total Environment — one-north, Singapore: UTCI −3.1°C under shade
- Melnikov et al. (2022), Scientific Reports — NTU Singapore: walking in sun perceived as 16% longer
- NYC Zoning Resolution §37-741 — the seating ratio
- Volker & Handy (2021), Transport Reviews — retail effects across 45 facilities
- von Schneidemesser & Betzien (2021) — Berlin merchant misperception, 21.6% vs 6.6%
- Ewing & Cervero (2010) — the walkability meta-analysis in which sidewalk width returns 0.00