Headed to Woodlands Integrated Transport Hub (WITH) for an eco-trail organised by GTA and Geen Nudge, in collaboration with SMRT.
Did up a post on some highlights from the trail on my Instagram page, where I mainly showcased the sustainability features found at WITH and drew links to the topic of Transport (Sec 2), specifically the indicators of quality of transport infrastructure (Chapter 10).
Delving Deeper... Expectations VS Reality?
After taking some time to observe how commuters interacted with the sustainability features at WITH, I couldn't help but wonder if they were being utilised enough to be considered to have made a difference to commuter experience.
This is especially so for the features that promote inclusiveness (social sustainability). For instance, the placement of the colour-coded arrows to direct commuters to their desired berth may not be conspicuous enough. This is especially so during peak hours, where the arrows will be covered when people pass through the high-traffic area. (for context: the arrows are placed right at the landing of the escalator from the ground floor to the underground bus interchange)
Another participant pointed out that the lack of awareness of the NaviLens app may limit its effectiveness. Other 'barriers to entry' include the need to own a smartphone, as well as the initial set up process, where visually-impaired commuters would still need to first seek assistance from the staff in pointing out which berth the bus they wish to board is at.
Though this is not to take away the effort that has been put in to make the public transport network more accessible and inclusive. These are great strides taken in the right direction, and would go a long way in offering all commuters, whatever their needs, a sense of independence. At this point, I am reminded that we do not always have to rely on the government/service providers for solutions. Instead, the community can also step up to complement their efforts, be it in providing constructive feedback or in spreading awareness about these initiatives to those who may benefit from them.
In terms of environmental sustainability, most would agree that the hard infrastructure in place have been effective in reducing energy consumption (e.g. LED lights, electric buses, etc.). However, much needs to be done before our society truly becomes a sustainable one. A case in point would be the use of single-use containers and cutlery even when dining in at the stalls located right outside the MRT station. (Pic 1 & 2 below). Finger food have also been individually packed in single-used plastic bags (Pic 3), contributing to the plastic waste issue. This is despite SMRT being a partner of Say YES To Waste Less Campaign launched by the NEA. This points to the ineffectiveness of the campaigns ran by SMRT to encourage the public to adopt environmentally friendly habits, since most retailers or even individuals seem to value convenience over the environment.
Choices, Choices, Choices.
Our ecological footprint is a product of the many choices we make every day - be it choosing between the use of reusables or disposables, or when choosing between private and public transport.
There are many factors influencing our daily choice of transport. A non-exhaustive list of factors:
Weather conditions (we are more likely to take a taxi to avoid being exposed to the elements on public transit)
Time (more likely to take a taxi when we are running late/have time constraints)
Travel companion(s) (more likely to opt for driving when we are travelling with children)
There is only this much that the government/service providers can do to make public transport as appealing an option as possible, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make the choice to utilise public transport.
As cliché as it may seem, I am reminded of the quote "We don't need a handful of people doing zero waste perfectly. We need millions of people doing it imperfectly." We don't have to make the right choices every day, in this case, only relying on public transport. What is far more important is doing what is in our means to live sustainably.
This also applies to social sustainability - being gracious commuters who look out for others (see poster promoting caring commuter acts below).
Applications to Transport Geographical Investigation (GI)
A brainstorm of possible activities categorised according to the active learning processes (ALPs):
Activate Learning
Question: "How did you get here?" "Why was [mode of transport] chosen?"
Rationale: Asking these questions would get students to consider factors influencing our daily choice of transport, which can possibly be a segue into thinking about how attractive public transport is in Singapore
E.g. since we brought the Sec 1s out for their GI to Dairy Farm Nature Park via MRT, we can potentially ask them to think about how the teachers came to the decision of using public transport rather than chartering a private bus. (Possible factors: cost, convenience, accessibility, safety, presence of sheltered walkway from AES to Cashew MRT + entrance to DFNP is right at the exit of Hillview MRT)
Promote Thinking & Discussion
Task: Get students to locate a bus service and head to the berth using only the murals/signages found at the interchange
Rationale: To get students to put themselves in the shoes of commuters and experience the level of convenience/accessibility afforded by the transport infrastructure
To take it one step further, we can even get students to download the NaviLens app and try to navigate around the bus interchange with blindfolds on (1 blindfolded student to be accompanied by 2-3 other classmates)
Task: Count the number of CCTVs found within the integrated transport hub
Rationale: Safety is an indicator of quality transport infrastructure. Counting the number of CCTVs found is a means of quantifying the hub's level of safety.
Possible extension: getting students to consider the possible drawbacks of having (too) many CCTVs
Task: Compare the design and features of a 'traditional' bus VS an electric bus
Rationale: This is one way of leading into the concept of trade-off:
E.g. Increasing capacity of the bus (by having more standing space) VS ensuring that there are sufficient seats for those who need them (elderly, physically impaired, etc.)
E.g. Downtime involved in charging electric buses VS emitting more greenhouse gases when using 'traditional' buses
Facilitate Demonstration of Learning
Task: Get students to propose improvements to the hub
Rationale: This is part of Stage 5 of the Inquiry Cycle: reflecting & taking action. After looking at the different sustainability features and analysing their effectiveness (i.e. advantages and limitations), they can propose changes to make public transport more appealing to commuters.
E.g. If students feel that last-mile connectivity is an issue for the ITH, they can propose to add more sheltered walkways leading to the MRT station, or propose to expand the bicycle park.
Comments