A Brief Overview of the Road Safety

Approach in Singapore

October, 2019
© 2019 The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org

Some rights reserved

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in
this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments
they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries,
colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part
of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such
boundaries.

Rights and Permissions

The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its
knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution
to this work is given.

Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2019. A Brief Overview on the Road Safety Approach
in Singapore. © World Bank.”

All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications,
The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail:
pubrights@worldbank.org.
Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 4
List of Photos.............................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 5
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 7
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 9
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.1. The Safe System Approach ........................................................................................ 12
1.2. Evidence-based measures ......................................................................................... 14
1.3. Road safety in the ASEAN context ............................................................................ 15
1.4. Overview of road safety status in Singapore ............................................................ 16
2. Road Safety Management ............................................................................................... 18
2.1. Road traffic collision classification in Singapore ....................................................... 18
2.2. Vehicle safety ............................................................................................................ 19
2.3. Awareness and education ......................................................................................... 20
2.4. Red-light camera system ........................................................................................... 24
2.5. Road infrastructure ................................................................................................... 26
2.5.1. Road safety audits.............................................................................................. 26
2.5.2. LTA road maintenance program ........................................................................ 30
3. Speed Management ......................................................................................................... 31
3.1. Setting speed limits ................................................................................................... 31
3.2. Enforcement of speed limits ..................................................................................... 32
3.3. Speed cameras .......................................................................................................... 35
3.4. Traffic-calming measures .......................................................................................... 38
4. Road Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 42
4.1. Road parameters ....................................................................................................... 42
4.2. Safer roadsides for forgiving roads ........................................................................... 44
4.2.1. Vehicle impact guardrail .................................................................................... 44
4.2.2. Rumble strips ..................................................................................................... 45

2
 4.2.3. Raised profile marking ....................................................................................... 45
4.2.4. Crash cushions ................................................................................................... 46
4.3. Self-explaining roads ................................................................................................. 47
4.4. Pedestrian footbridges .............................................................................................. 47
5. Dangerous Infrastructure................................................................................................. 49
5.1. Identifying dangerous existing streets ...................................................................... 49
5.2. Dangerous road designs ............................................................................................ 51
5.3. Dangerous Pedestrian and Cyclist Infrastructure ..................................................... 52
6. Safer Design Principles: Before-and-After Study on Sustainable Cycling and Pedestrian
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 56
7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 58
References ............................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix A – Pedestrian Infrastructure Design Guidance ...................................................... 62
Appendix B – Guardrail Design Guidance ................................................................................ 63

3
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. BIGRS (2015–19) Cities and Countries ................................................................... 11
Figure 1.2. Conceptualization of the Safe System Approach................................................... 13
Figure 1.3. Estimated Fatalities per 100,000 Population, ASEAN ............................................ 15
Figure 1.4. Fatalities per 100,000 Population, Singapore........................................................ 16
Figure 1.5. Collisions per 10,000 Vehicles, Singapore ............................................................. 17
Figure 2.1. Singapore Road Safety Campaign Poster in Public Transport Vehicles ................. 21
Figure 2.2. Singapore Road Safety Poster for Cyclists’ Safety ................................................. 22
Figure 2.3 Road Safety Poster for speeding............................................................................. 23
Figure 2.4. Red-Light Camera Locations, Singapore ................................................................ 24
Figure 3.1. Speed Camera Locations, Singapore...................................................................... 35
Figure 3.2. Speeding Violations 2010–18, Singapore .............................................................. 38
Figure 4.1. Sight Stopping Distance ......................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2. Raised Profile Marking ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.3. Raised Profile Marking, Side Profile View .............................................................. 46

List of Photos
Photo 2.1. Red-Light Camera, Singapore ................................................................................. 25
Photo 2.2. PCSR Hazard, Singapore ......................................................................................... 30
Photo 3.1. Two-Stage Crossing ................................................................................................ 33
Photo 3.2. Silver Zone Sign and Rumble Strips, Bukit Merah View ......................................... 34
Photo 3.3. Chicanes, Bukit Merah View................................................................................... 34
Photo 3.4. Fixed Speed Camera, Singapore ............................................................................. 36
Photo 3.5. Mobile Speed Camera, Singapore .......................................................................... 36
Photo 3.6. Police Speed Laser Camera .................................................................................... 37
Photo 3.7. Average-Speed Camera, Singapore ........................................................................ 37
Photo 3.8. Centre Refuge Island, Singapore ............................................................................ 39
Photo 3.9. Centre Divider, Singapore ...................................................................................... 40
Photo 3.10. Chevron Markings, Singapore .............................................................................. 40
Photo 3.11. Road Hump, Singapore......................................................................................... 41
Photo 3.12. Hatching Marking, Oldham Lane, Singapore........................................................ 41
Photo 4.1. Crash Cushion, Singapore ....................................................................................... 46
Photo 4.2. Examples of Self-Explaining Roads in Singapore .................................................... 47
Photo 4.3. Examples of Frequently Used Footbridges in Singapore ....................................... 48
Photo 5.1. Fully Controlled Right Turn (red-amber-green arrows) ......................................... 50
Photo 5.2. Signal box located unsafely on the edge of the carriageway, Singapore .............. 51

4
Photo 5.3. Inadequate Visibility Along Vertical Curve, Singapore ........................................... 52
Photo 5.4. Unremoved Crossing, Singapore ............................................................................ 53
Photo 5.5. Inadequate Crossing, Singapore............................................................................. 54
Photo 5.6. Hazardous Footpath, Singapore ............................................................................. 54
Photo 5.7. Inadequate Crossing ............................................................................................... 55
Photo 6.1. Previous Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore ................................ 56
Photo 6.2. New Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore .................................. 57
Photo 6.3. Improved Pedestrian Facilities, Bencoolen Street, Singapore ............................... 57

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Vehicle Safety Items (LTA 2017a)............................................................................ 20
Table 2.2. PSR Stages ............................................................................................................... 27
Table 2.3. Collision Frequency and Severity ............................................................................ 28
Table 2.4. Definition of Risk Category...................................................................................... 28
Table 2.5. Guide on Accident Frequency Index ....................................................................... 28
Table 2.6. Guide on Accident Severity Index ........................................................................... 29
Table 2.7. Definition of Practicability Category ....................................................................... 29
Table 3.1. Singapore Speed Limits (kilometers per hour) ....................................................... 32
Table 4.1. Main Principles for Forgiving Roads........................................................................ 44

5
Acknowledgments
This work was undertaken by the World Bank road safety focal point for the Bloomberg
Philanthropies’ Initiative for Global Road Safety (BIGRS) in Southeast Asia and the Pacific,
Alina F. Burlacu (Transport Specialist), together with Emily Tan (Consultant). The entire work
was funded by the Bloomberg Philanthropies under the BIGRS.

The report benefited from extremely useful advice from the Global Road Safety Facility
specialists: Soames Job (Global Lead Road Safety), Dipan Bose (Senior Transport Specialist and
Task Team Leader for BIGRS), Juan Miguel Velasquez (Transport Specialist, BIGRS focal point
for Latin America and the Caribbean region), and Sudeshna Mitra (Transport Specialist), as
well as international road safety expert Daniel Mustata (Australia).

6
Executive Summary
This report introduces how the Safe System Approach works, with a focus on road
infrastructure and road safety engineering best practices from one of the best performing
countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Singapore.

Singapore roads are not only considered the safest in the region, they rank among the safest
globally. Road safety management rules and regulations implemented in the country have
resulted in significant strides in managing the effects of collision factors related to roadway
design, human behavior, and vehicle attributes. As a result, road safety statistics have shown
that fatalities on the Singapore road network have been steadily declining over the past
decade. This is leading to a desire on the part of neighboring countries to follow Singapore’s
example and learn from its experience.

In order to mitigate collisions attributed to vehicle inadequacies or defects, one of the

measures taken in Singapore was to enforce a strict vehicle import policy. Vehicle imports
are permissible from countries that have adopted and comply with recognized high vehicle
safety standards. Vehicle safety compliance is particularly focused on 52 items specified by
the Land Transport Authority (LTA). In addition to strict vehicle import standards, Singapore
enforces a strict vehicle quota system, which regulates the number of vehicles on the road
network. Additionally, vehicles are required to undergo frequent inspections. Cars between
3 and 10 years old are required to have a biennial inspection, and cars older than 10 years are
required to undergo annual inspections. Furthermore, taxis are required to undergo
inspections every six months.

Road safety education and driver education are core tenants of Singapore’s roads safety
strategy. Road safety education is predominately undertaken by the Singapore Traffic Police,
but nongovernmental organizations such as the National Security Coordination Secretariat
contribute significantly to road safety education in Singapore.

Ensuring that roads are safe and adequate for road users is vital, and Singapore implements
a range of road safety management measures to ensure this is the case. Road safety audits,
also known as Project Safety Reviews (PSR), have been implemented in Singapore since 1998.
LTA guidelines specify that PSRs are required to be undertaken at the planning, design,
construction, and completion stage of a project. PSRs are essential components of Singapore’s
road safety strategy.

Another key road safety measure used in Singapore is speed cameras. A network of 87 speed
cameras is strategically positioned along the road network. Singapore uses four different
types of speed cameras: fixed speed camera, police speed laser camera, mobile speed
camera, and average speed camera. Data obtained from the Singapore Traffic Police show

7
that the number of speeding violations is in decline. The data have shown that the
introduction of 20 speed cameras at 11 locations in 2014 has resulted in a steep decline in the
number of violations. Further investigation would be required to know whether this decline
is attributed solely to the speed cameras or to various contributing factors.

Speed management is essential, particularly in areas where vehicles and vulnerable road
users come into contact. Traffic-calming measures can be a low cost and effective way of
managing speeds in areas with a presence of vulnerable road users and can include physical
measures such as road dividers or visual measures such as road markings. Certain areas in
Singapore have been designated as “special zones”: Silver Zones and School Zones. Speed
management techniques have been implemented in these areas because of the presence of
vulnerable pedestrians such as elderly people and school children. Speed management and
traffic-calming measures in School Zones and Silver Zones include lower speeds (40 kilometers
per hour in school zones and 40 kilometers per hour when possible in silver zones),
appropriate signage, assisted crossings and road safety features such as rumble strips.

At the same time, in order to prevent collisions at junctions due to vehicles running red lights,
Singapore implements a red-light camera (RLC) system. Research has shown RLCs can be an
effective way of preventing or reducing the impact of collisions. Singapore has a total of 240
RLCs across its road network.

As previously stated, Singapore roads are among the safest globally, but there is still room for
improvement, particularly when it comes to pedestrian infrastructure. Pedestrians and
cyclists account for approximately 16 percent of all road deaths in Southeast Asia. The number
of collisions involving pedestrians in Singapore in 2018 was 1,036, and 25 percent were elderly
pedestrians (who actually account for 62.5 percent of pedestrian fatalities). Although the
pedestrian infrastructure in Singapore is considered good, there are plenty of examples of
subpar pedestrian infrastructure across the country that could benefit from improvements.

Additionally, there have been recent strides by local authorities in Singapore to improve
sustainability and accessibility by promoting sustainable modes of transport. Several
improvement schemes have been implemented, and many more are planned to improve
pedestrian and cyclist accessibility.

8
Abbreviations

BIGRS Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Initiative for Global Road Safety

COE Certificate of Entitlement
GRSF Global Road Safety Facility
LTA Land Transport Authority
PSR Project Safety Review
RLC red-light camera
SRSC Singapore Road Safety Council
TP Singapore Traffic Police
WHO World Health Organization
VIG vehicle impact guardrail

9
1. Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that road injuries accounted for
approximately 1.35 million deaths in 2016, ranking it 8th in the top 10 global causes of death
(WHO 2018a). This global epidemic is not only fatal but comes with great economic
consequences. Road collisions are estimated to cost around US$518 billion, costing countries
1–2 percent of their annual GDP. If no intervention is taken, road traffic injuries are expected
to become the fifth leading cause of death globally by 2030.

The World Bank gives road safety a critical consideration in its transport investment projects.
Through its Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF), a partnership under the Bloomberg
Philanthropies’ leadership was formed with another nine international institutions, creating
the Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Initiative for Global Road Safety (BIGRS).

A World Bank (2017) study on the economic impact of road traffic injuries, undertaken under
BIGRS, shows that over time, sharply reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths
would enable the study’s five selected countries to attain substantial increases in economic
growth and national income, leading simultaneously to clear welfare gains. Reducing road
traffic mortality and morbidity by 50 percent and sustaining it over a period of 24 years could,
for example, generate an additional flow of income equivalent to 22.2 percent of 2014 GDP
in Thailand and a 7.2 percent increase in the Philippines. This puts into perspective the
magnitude of economic benefits that the countries may realize with sustained action if they
were to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal targets on road safety.

The Bloomberg Philanthropies’ BIGRS (2015–19) is the second phase of a $125 million
partnership program focused on reduction of road deaths and serious injuries in 10 selected
cities and 5 countries in the developing world (figure 1.1). The following cities were selected
through a competitive process: Accra, Addis Ababa, Bandung, Bangkok, Bogota, Fortaleza, Ho
Chi Minh City, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, and Shanghai. Under the program, cities have been
receiving funding support for full-time staff embedded in city agencies, comprehensive
technical assistance from the collaborating organizations, training and capacity building for
enforcement agency, and media and social awareness campaigns.

In addition, five countries were selected (China, India, Philippines, Tanzania, and Thailand) to
receive support for national-level activities including legislative and policy implementation
activities. Bloomberg has also requested the World Bank to carry out financial costing studies
and assessment of high-risk roads in the five selected countries.

Figure 1.1 shows the locations of the BIGRS activities:

10
 Figure 1.1. BIGRS (2015–19) Cities and Countries

Under BIGRS, the objective for the World Bank engagement is to:

• build road safety management capacity;

• improve road infrastructure safety; and
• leverage related road safety investment in countries where significant impact on lives
saved can be achieved.

Working together with other BIGRS Safer Streets and Safer Mobility partners, EMBARQ -
the World Resources Institute, Ross Centre for Sustainable Cities, and the National
Association of City Transportation Official's Global Designing Cities Initiative, the World Bank
complements efforts in improving road infrastructure and mobility safety for the selected
cities.

This report introduces how the Safe System Approach works, with a focus on road
infrastructure and road safety engineering best practices from one of best performing
countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Singapore.

11
1.1. The Safe System Approach

The Safe System Approach advocates for a safe road system, better adapted to the physical
tolerance of its users (Well et al. 2018; ITF 2016). The core principles of this approach are in
line with well-known mid-1990s national strategies such as Sweden’s Vision Zero and the
Netherlands’ Sustainable Safety approach (PIARC 2015). It was officially endorsed by the
Australian Transport Council in 2004 and adopted by all Australian state and territory road
authorities. The history of how the Safe System Approach was adopted and some of the
rationale behind it is presented by Grzebieta, Mooren, and Job (2013).

The main highlight of the Safe System Approach is that while it recognizes the need for
responsible road user behavior, it also accepts that human error is inevitable. It therefore
aims to create a road transport system that makes allowance for errors and minimizes the
consequences—in particular, the risk of death or serious injury.

Obviously, the Safe System Approach does not absolve road users from complying with road
laws. On the contrary, the Safe System Approach works at its optimum when road users
comply with road laws. In other words, the Safe System Approach should be considered as a
holistic graded safety system. For fully compliant road users, the Safe System Approach
should guarantee maximum protection against death and serious injury. Road users should
not expect to die or be seriously injured if, through no fault of their own, they find themselves
involved in a crash or collision. However, the system should also assist with reducing the risk
of a fatality or serious injury for a noncompliant road user who is involved in a crash.

In a nutshell, by taking a total view of the combined factors involved in road safety, the Safe
System Approach encourages a better understanding of the interaction between the key
elements of the road system: road users, roads and roadsides, vehicles and travel speeds (see
Figure 1.2). It has three core components:

1. Safe roads and roadsides: a transport system designed to make a collision survivable
through a combination of design and maintenance of roads and roadsides
2. Safe vehicles: the design of vehicles and their safety equipment to include protective
systems including electronic stability control, air cushions, and so forth
3. Safe speeds: a speed limit reflecting the road safety risk to the road users and sending
them the right messages

12
 Figure 1.2. Conceptualization of the Safe System Approach

Source: ITF 2016.

It is essential that vehicles travel at speeds that suit the function and the level of safety of the
road to ensure that crash forces are kept below the limits that cause death or serious injury.
This requires the setting of appropriate speed limits supplemented by effective enforcement
and education, together with self-explaining infrastructure that would send all road users the
right signals on how to use the road.

13
1.2. Evidence-based measures

Evidence-based measures involve looking at a crash, casualty, and any other available data to
be sure what road safety issue needs to be addressed. It further involves research and
evaluation reports to check whether the type of intervention being considered is likely to be
effective. Evidence-based practice originated in medicine, but it has been translated to
several policy areas, including road safety.

Evidence-based practice can help to ensure that both new and existing interventions are
successful, as they have been proven to work in a similar context, and also maximize efficiency
in times of budget cuts.

The main evidence-based interventions in road safety can be divided into four main groups:

1. Safer road users: informing and educating users about safe use of the road, and taking
action against those who do not comply with the rules
2. Safer roads: designing, constructing, and maintaining roads and roadsides to reduce
the risk of crashes and minimize the severity of injury if a crash occurs
3. Safer vehicles: designing and maintaining vehicles to minimize the risk of crashes and
the severity of injury to motor vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and cyclists if a crash
occurs
4. Safer speeds: setting speed limits taking into account the level of risk on the road
network and the benefits of lower speeds in minimizing the incidence and severity of
injury in the event of a crash, together with the corresponding self-explaining
infrastructure and enforcement

According to Wegman et al. (2017), three subjects are key in this new approach of evidence-
based and data-driven road safety management: ex post and ex ante evaluation of both
individual interventions and intervention packages in road safety strategies, and
transferability (external validity) of the research results.

14
1.3. Road safety in the ASEAN context

It is estimated that vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists
account for approximately 50 to 75 percent of all road traffic fatalities in Asia and the Pacific.

According to WHO (2018b), the Southeast Asia region accounts for the second highest road
fatality rate globally, surpassed only by Africa. In 2016 there were approximately 20.7 road
traffic fatalities per 100,000 people in the Southeast Asia region.

WHO also estimates the number of road traffic fatalities globally in 2016 at 18.2 per 100,000
people. The road traffic fatality rate in the Southeast Asia region was approximately 13
percent greater than the overall global road traffic fatality rate in 2016.

WHO road traffic fatality data show that several ASEAN nations have particularly high road
traffic fatality rates. ASEAN nations such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam have road traffic
fatality rates of 23.6, 32.7, and 26.4 deaths per 100,000 people respectively (figure 1.3). This
is significantly greater than the global road traffic fatality rate.

Figure 1.3. Estimated Fatalities per 100,000 Population, ASEAN

2010 2013 2016

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Singapore Indonesia Philippines Lao PDR Cambodia Myanmar Malaysia Vietnam Thailand

Source: WHO 2018a.

15
1.4. Overview of road safety status in Singapore

Singapore is located in Southeast Asia and consists of islands between Malaysia and
Indonesia. It is the focal point for Southeast Asian sea routes. The land area is less than seven
hundred square kilometers, with a coastline of 193 kilometers. The island is relatively flat in
the lowlands and its highest point is 166 meters. The climate is tropical: hot, humid, and rainy
with two distinct monsoon seasons.

Singapore is a highly developed and successful free market economy, enjoying a remarkably
open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and one of the highest per capita GDPs
in the world. The population of Singapore is over 5 million people, with an average life
expectancy of 83.2 years.

Singapore is considered one of the best performing countries globally and regionally in terms
of road safety. Road safety statistics provided by the Singapore Traffic Police (2019) show that
there is a downward trend in the number of road traffic fatalities, presented in figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4. Fatalities per 100,000 Population, Singapore

Source: Singapore Traffic Police 2019.

The total number of fatalities in 2009 was 183. Over a 10-year period (2009–18), Singapore
was able to reduce the number of fatalities on its roads by approximately 32 percent, to 124
fatalities in 2018.

16
The overall number of collisions resulting in injury over a 10-year period has experienced
decreases and increases (figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5. Collisions per 10,000 Vehicles, Singapore

Source: Singapore Traffic Police 2019.

It can be deduced from the data presented in both Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5 that overall there
is a decrease in the number of fatalities and the number of collisions resulting in injury. This
can be attributed to several factors, such as lower speeds, increased driver awareness, safer
vehicles, safer roads, and better post collision care.

17
2. Road Safety Management
The first and fundamental pillar of WHO’s Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety
is road safety management (WHO 2011). The World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention
(Peden 2004) and the Global Plan highlight that a systematic and planned approach is
required to improve road safety performance. The most effective way countries and
organizations can improve road safety performance is by establishing an effective road safety
management system.

In Singapore, the responsibility of road management is held by the Land Transport Authority
(LTA) and the Singapore Traffic Police (TP). The LTA is responsible for the provision and
maintenance of road facilities and vehicle safety, whereas the TP are entrusted with the
responsibility of enforcing traffic regulations and providing publicity and education.

2.1. Road traffic collision classification in Singapore

A road traffic collision is an incident involving one or more vehicles, occurring on the public
highway and resulting in personal injury that is recorded by the police. A road traffic collision
is a rare, random, multifactor event always preceded by a situation in which one or more road
users have failed to cope with the road environment.

In Singapore, road traffic collisions are classified into four categories of severity: (i) fatality,
(ii) serious injury, (iii) slight injury, and (iv) property damage. A fatal casualty in a road traffic
collision is one in which the victim dies within 30 days of the collision.

A seriously injured casualty is one who has suffered injuries such as a fracture, concussion,
internal lesions, crushing, severe cuts and laceration, or severe general shock requiring
medical treatment or hospitalization, such that the person is unable to perform his ordinary
pursuits for at least seven days. A slightly injured casualty is one who is conveyed to the
hospital from the scene in an ambulance or otherwise, one who requires subsequent medical
treatment entailing hospitalization, and one who takes medical leave of up to three days.

Collisions are assigned the severity group according to the most seriously affected casualty in
the collision. All reported collisions not involving injuries are classified as property-damage-
only collisions.

A road traffic collision can be attributed to several factors. These include road factors, human
factors, vehicle factors, and environmental factors.

18
2.2. Vehicle safety

As previously stated, vehicle factors can also contribute to a collision. The provision of safety
features such as airbags and antilock braking systems can decrease the likelihood of a collision
or the severity of a collision. Singapore allows the importation of new vehicles directly from
the manufacturer or from countries with higher or equivalent safety and exhaust emission
standards to Singapore’s. The importation of used cars less than three years old and classic
or vintage cars is allowed (LTA 2017a).

Imported vehicles are required to comply with the Road Traffic Act and its subsidiary
legislations. Vehicles imported from EU countries, Japan, and the United States are deemed
acceptable, as the LTA recognizes that these have adopted an internationally recognized high
vehicle-safety standard.

Stringent regulation of the importation of vehicles prevents the use of unsafe vehicles on the
roads of Singapore.

At the same time, in order to maintain a steady rate of vehicle growth with the development
of transport infrastructure, vehicle quotas are enforced in Singapore. In order to own and
operate a vehicle in Singapore, a Certificate of Entitlement (COE) is required. The COE allows
the vehicle owner the right to own a vehicle for a period of 10 years.

The vehicle quota is determined by several conditions:

• The total number of deregistered vehicles

• The allowable growth in vehicle growth, that is, capacity for new vehicles
• Adjustments to account for changes in taxi population, replacements under the Early
Turnover Scheme, past over projections, and expired or cancelled temporary COEs

The quota for the number of COE’s available is updated every three months (LTA, 2019).

In addition, according to the Singapore Land Transport Master Plan 2040, 67 percent of all
peak-period journeys are now undertaken on public transport, compared to 63 percent in
2012. This has a considerable impact on road safety, since public transport is considered the
safest means of transportation on the road.

Table 2.1. outlines 52 items that are required for a vehicle to comply with in terms of vehicle
safety standards.

19
 Table 2.1. Vehicle Safety Items (LTA 2017a)

Item Item
1 Anti-theft and immobilizer 27 Lateral protection
2 Audible warning 28 Masses and dimensions
3 Braking 29 Parking lamps
4 Couplings 30 Prevention of fire risks
5 Defrost/demist 31 Protective steering
6 Diesel Smoke 32 Rear registration plate lamps
7 Direction indicators 33 Rear registration plate space
8 Door latches and hinges 34 Rear visibility
9 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) 35 Registration plates
10 Emissions 36 Retro reflectors
11 End-outline, front position (side), rear- 37 Reversing lamps
position (side), stop, side marker,
daylight running lamps
12 Engine power 38
Safety glass
13 Exterior projections 39
Seat belt anchorages
14 Fog lamps (front) 40
Seat belts
15 Fog lamps (rear) 41
Seat strength
16 Forward vision 42
Side impact (side beams)
17 Front underrun protection 43
Sound level 18 Frontal impact
18 Frontal Impact 44
Speed limiters
19 Fuel consumption 45
Speedometer and reverse gear
20 Fuel tanks/rear protection device 46
Steering effort
21 Head restraints 47
Towing hooks
22 Headlamps (including bulbs) Tires 48
23 Heating systems 49
Vehicle and component marking
(including vehicle identification number,
or VIN)
24 Identification of control 50 Vehicle using CNG/electric/hybrid etc.
25 Installation of lightings and light 51 Wash/wipe
signaling devices
26 Interior fitting 52 Wheel guards

2.3. Awareness and education

A key aspect of road safety is the education of all road users, including drivers and
pedestrians. Driver education and road safety awareness predominantly falls under the TP’s
responsibility.

20
The TP frequently organize road safety campaigns extended to all road users, including
pedestrians and cyclists. There are three driver training centers in Singapore:

• Bukit Batok Driving Centre Ltd

• ComfortDelGro Driving Centre Pte Ltd
• Singapore Safety Driving Centre Ltd

The driving centers are responsible for the training of new drivers as well as conducting
retraining courses for the suspended drivers. The driving centers are also responsible for
testing drivers in collaboration with the TP.

The driving instructors at the driving centers are of a high standard and are closely monitored
by the TP. The centers make use of structured theory and practical course as well as driving
and riding simulators in their teaching program.

The Road Safety Division of the TP holds the responsibility of delivering road safety education
to the public. They work hand in hand with various community groups to promote road safety
for all road users. The TP reach the population using the following communication avenues:

• Television commercials
• Radio commercials
• Newspaper advertisements
• Cinema advertisements
• Bus and taxi advertisements
• Publicity materials such as leaflets, banners, posters, and stickers (figure 2.1)
• Internet and information communication technology

Figure 2.1. Singapore Road Safety Campaign Poster in Public Transport Vehicles

21
 Figure 2.2. Singapore Road Safety Poster for Cyclists’ Safety

A typical road safety awareness poster provided by the TP is presented in Figure 2.2. The
poster targets cyclists to inform them on how to correctly and safely use the road
infrastructure available.

22
 Figure 2.3 Road Safety Poster for speeding

Road safety campaigns also seek to highlight to drivers of the dangers of speeding. The poster
presented in Figure 2.3 informs drivers that speeding and “beating the red light” are among
the top killers.

Several other nongovernmental organizations play a role in delivering road safety education
to the public. These include the Singapore Road Safety Council (SRSC) and the Automobile
Association of Singapore. The SRSC was established in 2009 to focus on road safety issues. It
is funded mainly through private donations and small government grants.

23
2.4. Red-light camera system

Several studies have been undertaken at signalized junctions with a red-light camera (RLC)
system. The studies show that there was a reduction in the number of violations in the order
of 30 percent to 50 percent.

RLC studies (Retting, Ferguson, and Hakkert 2010) have observed changes in red-light
violations at noncamera sites, that is, at similar signalized intersections in the same
communities that were not equipped with RLC. Large reductions in violation rates, of an order
resembling those at camera sites, were observed at these sites, indicating a spill over or “halo”
effect. This shows that in some cases the implementation of RLC can have a positive effect on
nearby areas.

As of 2019, there are a total of 240 RLCs located across Singapore. Figure 2.4 provides a visual
representation.

Figure 2.4. Red-Light Camera Locations, Singapore

Source: Traffic Police

The existing network of RLCs was introduced to the Singapore road network in 1986. Since
their installation, the number of vehicles on the road has increased significantly, from under
half a million vehicles in 1987 to over 900,000 vehicles in 2018. Furthermore, the number of

24
driving license holders has increased considerably, from 735,480 holders in 1987 to over two
million in 2018.

The number of red-light violation cases recorded in 2018 was 53,910, representing a 15.7
percent increase from 46,599 cases in 2017. The number of collisions from running a red light
increased slightly, by 2.6 percent, to 120 collisions in 2018 from 117 collisions in 2017.
Although an increase in the number of violations has been recorded between 2018 and 2019,
over a long-term period there is a decline.

Photo 2.1 shows the standard type of RLC used in Singapore.

Photo 2.1. Red-Light Camera, Singapore

25
2.5. Road infrastructure

2.5.1. Road safety audits

Safer roads are one of the core components of the Safe System Approach, as well-designed
road infrastructure can reduce the likelihood and the severity of a collision. The LTA in
Singapore is responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
regulation of roads in Singapore. Roads are designed in accordance with design standards set
out by LTA. This entails several design specifications documents including the “Code of
Practice—Street Work Proposals Relating to Development Works.” The Code of Practice
outlines the essential submission procedures and technical requirements pertaining to the
design and construction of street work (LTA 2019b).

The Austroads guidelines define a road safety audit as a “formal examination of a future road
or traffic project, an existing road, or any project which interacts with road users, in which an
independent, qualified team assesses the crash potential and safety performance.”
(Austroads 2019).

The aims of a road safety audit are (i) to ensure roads operate as safely as practical, (ii) to
minimize the number of collisions and severity, (iii) to consider the safety of all road users,
and (iv) to improve the awareness of safety design practices by design, construction, and
maintenance staff. Road safety audits can lead to safe roads by removing or treating safety
hazards and promoting the incorporation of safety or collision-reduction features; they can
reduce the risk, severity, and likelihood of a crash to occur. In addition, road safety audits can
reduce costly remedial works.

Road safety audits comprise two complementary approaches: collision reduction and collision
prevention. A road safety audit is required for developing remedial measures for sites where
collisions are frequent and also for modifying existing roads or designing safer ones to prevent
crashes (Austroads 2019).

Road safety audits were introduced to Singapore in 1998 by the LTA as a requirement for new
road projects as well as for temporary traffic schemes. The LTA offers road and transport
professionals the opportunity to become a certified road safety reviewer by attending a four-
day training course. Road safety audits are also known as a Project Safety Reviews (PSRs) in
Singapore. The PSR is not a design check, it is a review of the safety and adequacy of the
design. The PSR is an independent review and assessment of the project team’s assertion that
the proposed road system is safe to use (LTA 2019c).

The PSR process in Singapore consists of four stages through which an audit of a road scheme
must pass:

26
 1. Planning: preliminary design safety submission
2. Design: detailed design safety submission
3. Construction: temporary traffic control safety submission
4. Completion: postconstruction safety submission

An independent safety review report is required for each of the stages, highlighting safety
deficiencies and proposing remedial countermeasures. Table 2.2 provides a summary of the
PSR process and responsibilities held by various stakeholders.

Table 2.2. PSR Stages

Stage Role Responsibility

Preparation of Contractor/traffic consultant Prepare design details and
design details project Brief
LTA project team In-principle approval of design
details
Conduct of safety Independent safety review Prepare draft safety review
review team report
LTA project team contractor/ Review and accept draft safety
traffic consultant review report
Independent safety review Prepare final safety review
team report
Preparation of Contractor/traffic consultant Prepare response to
response recommendations in safety
review report
LTA project team Approve safety submission
Audit LTA Safety Division Audit safety submission
Endorsement PSR Committee (roads) Endorse safety submission
Implementation Contractor/traffic consultant Implement design details on site

Safety hazards are identified and categorized using the risk assessment matrix provided
within the Project Safety Review Procedure Manual for Road Projects.

The frequency and severity of collisions are classified from Incredible to Frequent and
Negligible to High (presented in Table 2.3). The frequency and severity of collisions are
assigned to four categories which define the level of acceptability of the risk. Table 2.4 shows
the different risk categories defined by LTA.

27
 Table 2.3. Collision Frequency and Severity

Risk category Accident severity index

Negligible Low Medium High
(NEG) (LOW) (MED) (HIG)
Frequent (FRE) B A A A
Accident frequency

Occasional (OCC) C B A A
Remote (REM) D C B A
Improbable (IMP) D D C B
index

Incredible (INC) D D D C

Table 2.4. Definition of Risk Category

Risk category Definition

A Intolerable Risk shall be reduced by whatever means possible.
B Undesirable Risk shall be accepted by the LTA if further risk reduction is not practical.
C Tolerable Risk shall be accepted by LTA subject to endorsement by the PSR
(Roads) Committee.
D Acceptable Risk shall be accepted by LTA.

The frequency and likelihood of a collision to occur is classified into five categories. These are
presented in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Guide on Accident Frequency Index

Frequency index Definition Frequency guide

Frequent (FRE) Likely to occur often 10 times per year or more

Occasional (OCC) Likely to occur several times
Less than 10 times per year but more
than once per year
Remote (REM) Likely to occur sometime Less than once per year but more
during the system’s than once every 10 years
operational life
Improbable (IMP) Unlikely to occur but Less than once every 10 years but
possible more than once every 100 year
Incredible (INC) Unlikely to occur Once every 100 years or less

The severity of injuries resulting from a collision can are classified into four categories, these
are presented in Table 2.6.

28
 Table 2.6. Guide on Accident Severity Index

Severity index Definition Guide

High (HIG) Multiple fatalities and/or High-on collision
severe injuries Right-angle collision
High speed collision
Medium (MED) Single fatality or severe Pedestrian or cyclists struck by car
injury, with possible other Side swipe collision
minor injuries Medium speed collision
Low (LOW) Minor injuries or property Low speed collision
damage only Pedestrian or cyclist fall
Negligible (NEG) Property damage only Car reverse into post

Recommendations provided to remove or reduce a hazard are defined as either “practical”

or “not practical.” Table 2.7 provides a definition for each category.

Table 2.7. Definition of Practicability Category

Practicality Definition
category
P Likely typical cost of implementing the recommendation is
commensurate with the level of risk reduction which it achieves.
NP Likely typical cost of implementing the recommendation is not
commensurate with the level of risk reduction which it achieves.

The safety review report is required to identify and present hazards in the following format
as specified by the LTA:

• Hazard location: Specify the design reference and exact location of the Hazards.
• Hazard description: Describe the nature of the safety concern.
• Collision description/potential risk: Describe the type of collision or conflict.
• Initial risk category: Indicate the risk assessment of the potential risk.
• Recommendation:
o Describe the measures to be undertaken to mitigate the risk associated with the
hazard.
o The risk is to be reduced to an acceptable level.
• Practicability category:
o Indication that the recommendation is practical
o Site constrains taken into consideration

29
As presented in Table 2.3, hazards vary in the level of severity. Photo 2.2 presents an example
of a hazard identified during a Postconstruction Safety Review (PCSR).

Photo 2.2. PCSR Hazard, Singapore

Photo 2.2 shows an exposed vehicle impact guardrail (VIG), which poses a high threat to
vehicles. VIGs are designed to prevent vehicles from running off the roadway, but they can
pose as a hazard when the termination is not properly anchored or ramped down into the
ground.

2.5.2. LTA road maintenance program

Road maintenance is vital for the preservation of a road’s safety and quality. The frequent
maintenance of a road can lead to a reduction in the probability a collision will occur due to
hazards located on the road. Furthermore, regular maintenance ensures that the level of
safety is adequate for all road users.

In Singapore, the LTA operates a comprehensive road maintenance program, which

encompasses the maintenance of roads, roadside features and pedestrian facilities. The
maintenance program covers several facilities, including carriageways, footpaths, streetlights,
signage, pedestrian overhead bridges, and other structures. Identified defects are treated
promptly and potholes are fixed within an average of 24 hours of being reported (LTA 2019d).
Additionally, the LTA implemented the Black Stop Program to identify, monitor, and treat
locations with a high number of collisions.

Public roads and road facilities are checked and maintained regularly. The frequency of checks
and maintenance of a road is as follows:

• Expressways: daily
• Major roads: every two weeks
• Minor roads: once every two months

30
3. Speed Management
Speed is considered a key risk factor in collision severity and causation of collisions. Speed
accounts for approximately 30 percent of road deaths in high-income countries, and it is
estimated that speed is the main contributing factor for half of all road collisions occurring in
low- and middle-income countries (WHO 2018).

The number of speeding violations detected in Singapore was 156,157 in 2018. This
represents a 5 percent decrease from 164,319 violations in 2017. Speed-related collisions
amounted to 719 cases in 2018, a 5.6 percent decrease from 762 cases in 2017 (Singapore
Traffic Police 2019).

Roads in Singapore are classified in five categories based on their function:

1. Expressways form the primary network where all long-distance traffic movements
should be directed. They are planned to optimize long-distance mobility from one part
of the island to another.
2. Major arterial roads predominantly carry through traffic from one region to another,
forming principle avenues of communication for urban traffic movements. They
connect expressways with minor arterial and other major arterial roads.
3. Minor arterial roads distribute traffic within the major residential and industrial areas.
They are planned to optimize circulation within the area and facilitate through traffic
between adjacent towns.
4. Primary access roads form the link between local accesses and arterial roads. They
provide access to developments, and through-traffic is discouraged. However, where
a development is also accessible by a local access road, the access shall be located at
the local access road.
5. Local access roads give direct access to buildings and other developments and should
connect only with primary access (LTA 2019b).

3.1. Setting speed limits

Speed limits should be set by evidence and should be self-explaining, seeking to reinforce the
driver’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. Speed limits should encourage drivers
to be self-compliant. Drivers should view the speed limit as the maximum speed and not a
target speed.

There is a strong correlation between the probability of a collision—as well as the severity of
injuries sustained due to a collision—and speed. Research has shown that the probability of
a collision can be reduced by 5 percent with every 1 mile-per-hour (1.6 kilometers per hour)
reduction in average speeds (Taylor, Lynam, and Baruya 2000).

31
When setting an appropriate speed limit for a road, several essential factors are taken into
consideration:

• History of collisions: including the frequency, severity, types and causes

• Road geometry and engineering: including width, sightlines, bends, junctions,
accesses and safety barriers
• Road function: strategic, including through-traffic and local access
• Composition of road users: including existing and potential levels of vulnerable road
users
• Existing traffic speeds
• Road environment: including level of road-side development

There are several approaches used when setting appropriate speed limits:

• Engineering approach: the base speed limit of a road is set according to several
factors, including the 85th percentile speed, the design speed of the road, and other
conditions.
• Expert system approach: speed limits are determined by the use of computer
programs that take into consideration several factors relating to road conditions.
• Safety systems approach: speed limits are based on the type of collision that can occur,
the likely severity of the collisions, and the human body’s tolerances to the forces of
the collision.

3.2. Enforcement of speed limits

The enforcement of traffic regulations falls under the responsibility of the Singapore Traffic
Police. The Road Traffic Act states that the speed limit for vehicles travelling along roads in
Singapore is limited to 50 kilometers per hour unless stated otherwise (Statutes of The
Republic of Singapore 2004). The LTA bears the responsibility of determining the speed limit
for roads in Singapore. Table 3.1 presents the speed limit for different vehicles travelling on
roads and expressways and in tunnels in Singapore.

Table 3.1. Singapore Speed Limits (kilometers per hour)

Type of vehicle Roads Expressways Tunnels

Cars and motorcycles 50 70–90 50–80
Buses and coaches 50 60 50–60
Light commercial vehicles (includes light goods 50 60–70 50–70
vehicles and small buses not exceeding 3.5 tones and
seating capacity of up to 15 passengers)

32
Exceptions to speed limits stated in Table 3.1 do apply to fire emergency vehicles,
ambulances, and government vehicles used by the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore
Civil Defence Force.

Lower speed limits are enforced in designated zones. These include School Zones and Silver
Zones where speed limits are set at 40 kilometers per hour. School Zones are roads in close
proximity to a school or roads located between School Zone signs. Silver Zones are located in
residential neighborhoods. In addition to lower speed limits (when possible), several safety
features are implemented in order to enhance road safety for elderly pedestrians. Silver Zone
features are the following:

• Rest points are created on the road divider, to assist elder pedestrians crossing in two
stages (Photo 3.1).

Photo 3.1. Two-Stage Crossing

Source: LTA 2017b.

• Upon entering the Silver Zone, road signs are displayed in addition to three rumble
strips on the road to slow drivers (Photo 3.2).

33
 Photo 3.2. Silver Zone Sign and Rumble Strips, Bukit Merah View

Source: LTA 2017b.

• Other traffic features, including chicanes, reduced lane widths and gentle curves along
sections of the road (Photo 3.3).

Photo 3.3. Chicanes, Bukit Merah View

Source: LTA 2017b.

34
3.3. Speed cameras

Speed cameras have long been used as an effective method of reducing traffic speeds and
thus reducing casualties and collisions. Several speed camera studies have shown that speed
cameras can lead to a reduction in the number of collisions. In some cases, collisions can be
reduced by as much as 27 percent (Pérez et al. 2007).

Speed cameras are one of the speed enforcement measures utilized in Singapore. Four
different types are used: fixed speed camera, mobile speed camera, police speed laser
camera, and average-speed camera.

There are a total of 87 speed camera locations across Singapore. The location of the speed
cameras is presented in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Speed Camera Locations, Singapore

Source: Traffic Police

The different types of speed cameras used in Singapore are presented in Photo 3.4, Photo
3.5, Photo 3.6, and Photo 3.7.

35
Photo 3.4. Fixed Speed Camera, Singapore

Photo 3.5. Mobile Speed Camera, Singapore

36
 Photo 3.6. Police Speed Laser Camera

Source: Straits Times 2016

Photo 3.7. Average-Speed Camera, Singapore

There is a perception among certain members of the public that speed cameras are only a
revenue-generating apparatus used by authorities. Although the use of speed cameras can
generate significant income for authorities, their effectiveness in reducing collisions is
undeniable.

37
 Figure 3.2. Speeding Violations 2010–18, Singapore

Figure 3.2 shows the number of speeding violations recorded by the Singapore Traffic Police,
who are operating the speed cameras, between 2010 and 2018. A noticeable decline in the
number of violations is observed between 2014 and 2015. Speeding violations declined from
278,545 in 2014 to 186,838, in 2015 representing a 33 percent decrease. 1 This decline can be
directly attributed to measures implemented by the Singapore Traffic Police, such as the
installation 20 speed cameras at 11 locations on March 1, 2015. However, it is difficult to
know whether this decline is due entirely to the introduction of new speed cameras and/or
other contributing factors.

3.4. Traffic-calming measures

Traffic calming is a system that uses various design and management strategies to achieve a
balance of traffic on roads and streets, particularly those with vulnerable road users. Traffic-
calming measures not only act to slow down vehicles but also improve safety and convenience
for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. This can be achieved, for example, by
implementing measures to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians.

Traffic-calming measures can include the following:

• Vertical and horizontal measures such as road humps, chicanes, and road narrowing

1
Fines collected by government agencies go into the Ministry of Finance’s Consolidated Fund, as defined by the
Constitution of Singapore.

38
 • Optical measures, which include the use of rumble strips, shortened sightlines, and
road surface changes, including color and texture
• Changes to road environments, including the abundant use of vegetation and
placement of street furniture
• Lower speed limit zones, which include School Zones or Silver Zones.

Photo 3.8. Centre Refuge Island, Singapore

Source: LTA 2016.

Traffic-calming measures can be found on several Singapore streets, including central refuge
islands. These are usually positioned at zebra crossings along undivided two-lane roads. The
positioning of the center refuge island along the carriageway assists pedestrians in crossing
the road in two stages. Additionally, the pedestrian island structure narrows the width of the
carriageway, alerting vehicles to slow down. The pedestrians crossing is slightly raised, acting
as a speed hump. This also makes the crossing more visible to oncoming vehicles. The design
specification for a raised pedestrian crossing is provided in appendix A. An example of a
center refuge island is presented in Photo 3.8.

Center dividers provide a physical segregation of oncoming traffic, in addition to narrowing

the width of the carriageway so oncoming vehicles approach at a slower speed. An example
of a center divider located on Singapore road is presented in Photo 3.9. The photo on the
right-hand side includes as treatment calcined bauxite (skid resistance treatment). That is
good practice at pedestrian crossings, bends, and locations where the likelihood of running
off the road is high.

39
 Photo 3.9. Centre Divider, Singapore

Source: LTA 2016.

Chevron markings are used as an alternative to physical structures. The markings lead the
driver to perceive the road narrower than it is, thus slowing vehicles. An example is presented
in Photo 3.10.

Photo 3.10. Chevron Markings, Singapore

Source: LTA 2016.

Physical measures used to calm traffic include road humps. Road humps can be effective in
reducing vehicle speeds along minor arterial roads. Vehicles drivers are alerted to the
presence of the speed hump prior to approaching it, giving them time to reduce their speed.
Bus-friendly road humps are implemented on bus routes. They are designed to allow buses
to pass safely. An example of a road hump in Singapore is presented in Photo 3.11.

40
 Photo 3.11. Road Hump, Singapore

Source: LTA 2016.

Hatching can be provided along the edge of a carriageway at the turn of a road. This is seen
in Photo 3.12, where there is a high number of jaywalkers and driver visibility is reduced due
to the presence of vegetation and street furniture. The hatching along the carriageway gives
the perception of a narrower carriageway, guiding drivers away from the edge of the
carriageway where a pedestrian could be present.

Photo 3.12. Hatching Marking, Oldham Lane, Singapore

In summary, traffic-calming measures can be used as a cost-effective measure to improve the

safety of a road.

41
4. Road Infrastructure
“Safer roads and safer mobility” is the second pillar of the UN Global Plan for the Decade of
Action for Road Safety 2011–2020. The necessity to increase the safety and quality of road
networks for all road users, especially the most vulnerable, is highly emphasized in this pillar.
In order to achieve this, measures such as improved safety-conscious planning, design,
construction, and operation of roads need to be adopted.

Road infrastructure, which includes roadway and roadside design elements, can have a
significant role in determining the risk of a traffic collision. A collision can be caused directly
due to a defect on the road, or in some cases misleading elements of the road environment
can lead to human error. Road safety design concepts such as “forgiving” and “self-explaining”
roads are significant and should be adopted in the design of roads in order to reduce and
minimize the risk of traffic collisions.

There is a strong correlation between poor road design and a higher risk of a collision. Roads
should be self-explaining, providing guidance to roads users on what they should be doing.
Collisions can be triggered by negative road engineering factors or misleading road
environments which lead to collisions through human error.

4.1. Road parameters

The inadequate design of a road can be a leading causation factor for a collision. Several road
design parameters are considered to have a significant impact on the safety of a road.

The cross-section of a road can have a significant impact on the frequency of collisions.
Research has shown that there is a correlation between carriageway width and the collision
rate of a road. There is a direct tendency for the collision rate to increase with increased lane
widths (Othman, Thomson, and Lannér 2009). This can be attributed to lane change
maneuvers and higher speeds experienced on wider carriageways.

Road surface conditions contribute significantly to the usability and safety of a road. Several
studies have looked at the relationship between collisions and road surface parameters such
as pavement roughness and friction. The studies have shown that pavement conditions
expressed in terms of the International Roughness Index have significant impact on the
collision rate of a road (Tighe et al. 2000).

Road marking and road signs are significant road features that guide and inform drivers about
their surroundings. Inadequate signage or inconsistent signage can misinform or confuse
drivers this can likely lead to a collision. Therefore, it is essential that road signs be consistent,

42
conspicuous, and comprehensible. Road markings and road signs usually complement one
another by providing guidance to the road user.

Roadside conditions can have a great impact on the safety of a road. Obstructions and
inadequate roadside safety measures such as crash barriers can contribute to collisions.
Obstructions located on roadsides include sign posts, traffic signal boxes, and other street
furniture. When designing safe roads, adequate lateral offset to vertical obstructions such as
sign posts is required in order to reduce likelihood of crashes.

Road curvature and speed are connected parameters in road design that reduce the
probability of a collision. A vehicle navigating around the curved section of road experiences
centrifugal forces. These forces try to deviate the vehicle from the desired line of movement.
Super elevation is provided at the curved sections of roads in order to prevent vehicles from
deviating from the desired line. The curvature of a road is designed to accommodate vehicles
travelling at a certain speed. Therefore, vehicles travelling at speeds above the design speed
of the curve will lose control.

The inability of a driver to see ahead is considered as a collision causation factor. A sight
distance of sufficient length is required in order for a driver to safely control a vehicle in order
to avoid hitting an unanticipated object on the road (Ahmed 2013). Guidance on safe
stopping sight distances can be found within the LTA Code of Practice (LTA 2019b).

Figure 4.1. Sight Stopping Distance

Source: LTA 2019b.

Figure 4.1 shows the parameters required in order to calculate a safe sight distance at
junctions where pedestrians and cyclists are present.

43
4.2. Safer roadsides for forgiving roads

A large number of research studies have been conducted in the past years, studies which
contributed to the development of the road design standards for improving roadside design.
They suggest that the stages in any strategy for improving the siting and design of street
equipment can be further developed and extended (ETSC 1998), as shown in table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Main Principles for Forgiving Roads

Existing roads Designed roads

Eliminating unnecessary
obstacles
Moving obstacles further
away from the roadside
Modifying the structure of the
obstacles
Isolating certain obstacles
with new and improved types
of safety devices
Designing roads free of
obstacles
Designing a clear zone at the
side of the road
Designing street equipment to
be more forgiving
Protecting street equipment
with a barrier to absorb some
of the energy of the impact

To develop a forgiving road environment, certain characteristics must be included, and

standard road safety measures should be taken, such as the assessment of the effectiveness
of a roadside treatment. The aim of the forgiving roads approach to road design is not only to
prevent collisions from occurring but also to reduce the damage inflicted on the driver if a
collision does happen due to human error. A forgiving road is largely based on how the
roadside is designed and equipped, taking into consideration how several inadequately
designed roadside elements pose a risk to drivers. A series of measures can be implemented
to create forgiving roads. They are presented in the following subsections.

4.2.1. Vehicle impact guardrail

Vehicle impact guardrails (VIGs) or safety barriers are a form of forgiving roadside treatment,
designed to prevent vehicles from running off the carriageway. However, VIGs can also act as
a hazard in circumstances where installation is incorrect or the wrong type of VIG is used. The
VIG ends are considered hazardous when the end is not properly anchored to the ground, or
when it does not flare away from the carriageway (La Torre 2012). Collisions with an
“unforgiving” VIG end can result in fatal consequences.

44
VIGs can be classified as energy-absorbing and non-energy-absorbing, dependent on whether
it is a tangent terminal or a flared terminal. Tangent terminals are aligned parallel to the
carriageway edge and are energy absorbent; they are designed to stop a vehicle. Flared
terminals deviate from the alignment of the carriageway edge; typically they are not designed
to dissipate significant amounts of energy when a head on collision occurs.

Design specifications for guardrails can be found within the LTA Standard Details of Road
Elements document. A copy of a good practice guardrail design specification is provided
within appendix B.

4.2.2. Rumble strips

Rumble strips are a road safety feature designed to alert drivers to potential hazards. When
a vehicle comes into contact with the rumble strips a rumbling sound is transmitted in
addition to a vibrating effect.

In Singapore, rumble strips are typically used in pedestrian priority areas such as Silver Zones.
Three yellow rumble strips are installed in order to alert vehicle drivers of pedestrians.

4.2.3. Raised profile marking

Raised profile markings function similarly to rumble strips. They can be installed along a
carriageway in order to prevent vehicles from deviating. This road safety feature is particularly
useful in preventing drowsy or distracted drivers from causing a potential collision; drivers
are alerted by the vibration and sound emitted from the strips.

The LTA provides guidance on where raised profile markings should be provided. Raised
profile markings are to be provided for the following (LTA 2017b):

• From the start of the shoulder marking at the exit road to 10 meters behind the gore
area
• From the start of chevron to 10 meters after the gore area
• From the start of the deceleration lane along the expressway next to pave shoulder
• Continuously along the expressway shoulder lane next to slow lane

Design specification for raised profile markings provided by within the LTA SDRA are
presented in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3.

45
 Figure 4.2. Raised Profile Marking

Figure 4.3. Raised Profile Marking, Side Profile View

4.2.4. Crash cushions

Crash cushions are considered highly effective in reducing the consequences of a crash. The
crash cushion is designed to absorb the impact of the collision. Crash cushions are usually
positioned in front of diverging roads and along expressways and major arterial roads.

The use of crash cushions has been very effective in some cases. A 40 percent reduction in
injury crashes was observed at study sites in Birmingham, United Kingdom. The treated site
also experienced a reduction in the number of fatal and serious crashes from 67 percent to
14 percent (TMS Consultancy 1994).

Photo 4.1 provides an example of a typical crash cushion found along an expressway in
Singapore.

Photo 4.1. Crash Cushion, Singapore

Source: LTA 2019.

46
4.3. Self-explaining roads

Self-explaining roads are designed so that the appropriate speed and driving behavior
required on the road is self-evident to drivers. Self-explaining roads can be implemented
through the implementation of several measures such as appropriate road markings and
roadside features (photo 4.2).

Photo 4.2. Examples of Self-Explaining Roads in Singapore

Self-explaining roads have been successfully implemented in several urban areas around the
world. According to a study undertaken by Charlton et al. (2010), the implementation of self-
explaining roads resulted in a significant reduction in vehicle speeds. The study area was
segregated into two sections, one receiving treatment measures such as increased
landscaping and limiting forward visibility and the other receiving no treatment. The results
of the study showed a significant reduction in vehicles speeds for the section that had
received the treatments.

4.4. Pedestrian footbridges

Separation of different traffic flows depending on types of road users is very important to
ensure increased safety, especially for the most vulnerable users. Based on this principle,
Singapore is hosting a high number of user-friendly and attractive footbridges. These are
positioned near bus stations and mass-rapid transit stations, are accessorized with elevators
for the elderly and the disabled, and linked to sheltered footpaths going to and from

47
residential areas. Basically, these footbridges become points of attractions or standing
gardens across the city, as in photo 4.3.

Photo 4.3. Examples of Frequently Used Footbridges in Singapore

48
5. Dangerous Infrastructure

5.1. Identifying dangerous existing streets

Several methods can be utilized to assess the safety of a street or road. This includes road
safety audits and collision hotspot schemes. A road safety audit can be undertaken for an
existing road or route on the road network. The aim of a road safety audit of an existing road
is to identify hazards that may cause a collision in the future. Remedial measures can be
applied to hazards identified during the safety audit.

Collision data are an important factor in identifying and treating collision hotspots. However,
collision data are prone to confounding factors of regression toward the mean and general
collision trends. A confounding factor is any factor other than the measure whose effects the
study is designed to evaluate (Elvik 2002).

Regression to the mean is the tendency for unusually high or low counts to be followed by
values closer to the underlying mean. General trends in collisions can be observed due to
several factors such as changes in vehicle safety and driver education. (Thorpe 2018).

Collision data should be comprehensive and inclusive of the following information:

• General collision information: date, location, road features, speed limit, junction
features, weather and lighting conditions, and road surfaces
• Vehicles involved: type, maneuvers, location, skidding and overturning, striking
objects, points of impact, age, gender and address of driver, alcohol test, vehicle
registration, and journey purpose
• Casualties involved: type of casualty (for example, driver, pedestrian), gender, age and
severity of causality, location and movement direction, front versus rear passenger,
and address
• Contributory factors: road environments, vehicle defects, injudicious actions, driver
and/or rider error or reaction, impairment or distraction, behavior or inexperience
(Thorpe 2018)

Collision hotspots can be identified by looking at a baseline period, which is usually three to
five years. Clusters are identified by defining a minimum threshold in a defined radius. A
collision hotspot can then be defined as an area in which the number of collisions exceeds the
predetermined threshold during the baseline period.

As previously stated, collision data is prone to confounding factors, which can be misleading.
Confounding factors can lead to false positives, which in turn can result in a non-hotspot area

49
being treated. Additionally, there is a risk of false negatives, which can result in a genuinely
unsafe site being left untreated.

Since 2005, the LTA has implemented a road safety initiative known as the Black Spot
Programme. The key objective of the Black Spot Programme is to identify, monitor, and treat
locations with a high number of traffic collisions. The Black Spot Programme has proven to be
a success with an average of 5 to 10 locations being removed per year due to the collision
rate falling below the defined threshold level. The program has resulted in a 75 percent drop
in collisions over a three-year period in some cases (LTA 2014). A range of interventions have
been used, included the provision of signalized pedestrian crossings. One success case of the
Black Spot Programme is the Moulmein Road–Newton Road—Thomson Road junction. The
junction was monitored for 36 months; prior to treatment a total of 19 collisions were
recorded compared to 7 after treatment. The treatment at the junction comprised of the
provision of a fully controlled right turn (red-amber-green arrows). This is presented in Photo
5.1.

Photo 5.1. Fully Controlled Right Turn (red-amber-green arrows)

Additional methods utilized in Singapore for identification of dangerous roads or streets

include the LTA road maintenance program discussed in previous sections.

The LTA frequently checks and maintains roads and road facilities on the road network.
Expressways are checked and maintained on a daily basis, major roads are checked and
maintained every two weeks, and minor roads are checked and maintained every two
months.

Identified defects are treated promptly, and potholes are fixed within an average of 24 hours
of being reported (LTA 2014).

50
5.2. Dangerous road designs

Badly designed roads can be a major contributing factor leading to a collision. Faults can
include road defects and misleading road infrastructure.

Several different road elements such as markings, signs, road geometry, lighting, road surface,
and traffic and speed management are essential to maintain the safety of a road. Roads are
considered one of the key causation factors of collisions, together with human and vehicle
factors.

Road alignment has a significant influence on the safety of a road, which includes the
dimension of radii, ratio of consecutive curves, dimensions of vertical curves, and sight
distance conditions. (Mohammed 2013)

Road design standards in Singapore are set and regulated by the LTA. Road designers follow
guidelines and standards included within several LTA publications, such as the LTA Code of
Practice and the LTA Standard Details of Road Element. Examples of standard design elements
can be found in the appendixes of this report.

The guidance and standards provided do promote safe design, but without comprehensive
audits, significant safety hazards can be neglected.

Photo 5.2. Signal box located unsafely on the edge of the carriageway, Singapore

51
Photo 5.2 shows a signal control box positioned on the carriageway at a bend in the road. This
hazard was identified during a Post Construction Safety Review. Hazards such as the one
present in photo above pose a risk to drivers. Without road safety audits, hazard like this can
go unnoticed until it’s too late (LTA 2019).

Photo 5.3. Inadequate Visibility Along Vertical Curve, Singapore

There is inadequate visibility along the vertical curve of the road displayed in Photo 5.3.
Driver’s visibility and sight stopping distance are greatly affected, as drivers are unable to see
and react to potential hazards which lay ahead.

5.3. Dangerous Pedestrian and Cyclist Infrastructure

Pedestrians and cyclists are considered the most vulnerable road users. Surprisingly, it is very
common in many countries to focus on road design to accommodate vehicles and neglect the
need for safe pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure. This can be due to shortcomings in road
design standards or a lack thereof.

Vulnerable road users, which include pedestrians, cyclists and motorized two- and three-
wheelers, account for over half of all road deaths globally. In Southeast Asia, motorized two-
and three-wheelers account for the highest proportion of road deaths, meaning
approximately 43 percent of the total numbers of road fatalities (WHO 2018a).

Although Singapore has been making strides in promoting walking and cycling, pedestrians
and cyclists are still very vulnerable on roads. The number of collisions on Singapore roads
involving pedestrians was 1,036 in 2018, with elderly pedestrians accounting for 25 percent

52
of pedestrian collisions. Pedestrian fatalities in 2018 were 40; 62.5 percent were elderly
pedestrians. Jaywalking is attributed to 40 percent of collisions involving elderly pedestrians
(Singapore Traffic Police 2019).

Although the quality and provision of pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure is considered
better than that of neighboring countries, inferior pedestrian and cycling facilities can still be
found around the country.

Photo 5.4. Unremoved Crossing, Singapore

Photo 5.4 shows two pedestrian crossings with tactile paving. The crossing directed toward
the main carriageway on the left formed part of a crossing across the main carriageway, which
is now removed, but the dropped curb and tactile paving remain in place. The unremoved
dropped curb and tactile paving can be confusing and pose a risk to pedestrians, especially
visibility impaired pedestrians.

Inadequate design of pedestrian infrastructure is an unfortunate but recurring theme in some

streets in Singapore. The common design errors observed include no dropped curbs and
tactile paving at pedestrian crossing areas, incorrect positioning of tactile paving, inadequate
widths of pedestrian footpaths, and dangerous level changes along edge of pedestrian
footpaths.

53
 Photo 5.5. Inadequate Crossing, Singapore

Photo 5.5 shows a crossing area where adequate dropped curbs and tactile paving is provided
on one side but not the other. Inadequate pedestrian infrastructure such as that presented in
Photo 5.6 impacts the most vulnerable of pedestrians. A significant level of difference can be
seen along the pedestrian footpath, which poses a high risk to pedestrians, especially
vulnerable pedestrians.

Photo 5.6. Hazardous Footpath, Singapore

54
Dangerous designs can also be found in temporary road works, where inadequate or unsafe
pedestrian infrastructure is sometimes provided (LTA 2019).

Photo 5.7. Inadequate Crossing

The location and positioning of the plastic barricades in Photo 5.7 forced pedestrians onto a
live carriageway, putting them in potential danger.

55
6. Safer Design Principles: Before-and-After Study on
Sustainable Cycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure
Singapore has implemented a range of measures such as Certificates of Entitlement and road
pricing to maintain adequate capacity on roads. In recent times, initiatives such as Car-Lite
have been introduced in order to promote sustainable modes of transport and reduce
dependency of cars.

Several roads have been redeveloped and equipped with infrastructure to support
sustainable modes of transport, such as walking and cycling. Bencoolen Street in Singapore is
an example of this, having recently undergone a transformation to become more pedestrian
and cycle friendly.

Bencoolen Street was formerly a four-lane street with no cycle infrastructure and narrow
pedestrian footpaths. The past street configuration is presented in Photo 6.1.

Photo 6.1. Previous Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore

The new revitalized Bencoolen Street provides pedestrians with wider footpaths and cyclists
have segregated cycle paths. The carriageway width has been reduced to two lanes in order
to accommodate the provision of a cycling path and wider pedestrian footpaths. Photo 6.2
and Photo 6.3 and show Bencoolen Street after improvements have been implemented.

56
 Photo 6.2. New Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore

Photo 6.2 shows the reduced carriageway width of Bencoolen Street. A cycle lane can be seen
in red adjacent to the pedestrian footpath.

Photo 6.3. Improved Pedestrian Facilities, Bencoolen Street, Singapore

The revitalized Bencoolen Street can be seen in Photo 6.3. The provision of segregated cycle
lanes, cycle parking, and wide pedestrian footpaths have made the area more sustainable and
inclusive to pedestrians and cyclists.

57
7. Conclusions
We are still in an era where road engineers are focused only on design standards and creating
roads for cars. Even if a street goes next to a school, if there’s too much traffic, what is the
first recommendation? “Let’s add another lane!” This couldn’t be more wrong.

It is necessary to change this mentality in order to have safer streets, and Singapore is a good
example of success story for building a safer road infrastructure for safer communities,
especially through the coordination of different institutions.

Let’s make road engineers think “Safety First!”

Singapore enjoys a high level of safety on its road network due several complementary
factors. Local authorities have made significant progress in addressing the road safety issue
faced by the nation.

Government agencies such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Singapore Traffic Police
(TP) have contributed significantly to road safety on Singapore’s roads. Road safety
management under the LTA and the implementation of numerous road safety measures and
tools such as the Black Spot Programme and road safety audits and collision data collection
by the TP have made a positive contribution to the success of road safety in Singapore. A
crucial aspect for the success of a road safety program is to have a dedicated budget and good
data to analyze the most vulnerable locations that need immediate treatments.

There is no single solution to tackle road safety, but there are collective solutions. These
include improved education and awareness linked to high vehicle standards, improved design
and maintenance of road and roadsides, and better road management systems.

58
References
Ahmed, I. 2013. “Road Infrastructure and Road Safety.” Transport and Communications
Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific 83: 19–25.

Austroads. 2019a. Guide to Road Safety, part 6, “Managing Road Safety Audits.” Sydney:
Austroads.

Austroads. 2019b. Guide to Road Safety, part 6A, “Implementing Road Safety Audits.”
Sydney: Austroads.

Charlton, S. G., H. W. Mackie, P. H. Baas, K. Hay, M. Menezes, and C. Dixon. 2010. “Using
Endemic Road Features to Create Self-Explaining Roads and Reduce Vehicle Speeds.”
Accident Analysis and Prevention 426: 1989–1998.

Elvik, R. 2002. “The Importance of Confounding in observational before-and-after Studies of

Road Safety Measures.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 345: 631–5.

ETSC (European Transport Safety Council). 1998. Forgiving Roadsides.

Grzebieta R. H., L. Mooren, and S. Job. 2013. Introduction (or Reintroduction) to the Safe
System Approach, “Roadside Safety Design and Devices,” in R. Troutbeck, editor,
Transportation Research Circular no. E-C172. Milan, Italy: Transportation Research Board of
the National academies. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec172.pdf.

ITF (International Transport Forum). 2016. Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a
Paradigm Shift to a Safe System. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd.org/publications/zero-road-deaths-and-serious-injuries-9789282108055-
en.htm.

La Torre, F. 2012. Forgiving roadsides design guide no. 2013/09.

LTA (Land Transport Authority). 2014. “Factsheet: Enhancing Safety on Our Roads for All
Road Users.” Singapore: LTA.
https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=91de65eb-fea5-48f6-b101-
5573dc68face.

LTA. 2016. “Factsheet on Completion of New Road Safety Measures at 10 Pilot Primary
Schools.” Singapore: LTA. https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=59d4005d-
c2e3-4c17-9ee6-06daab5cfc44.

LTA. 2017a. “Procedures on Importation and Registration of a Car in Singapore.” Singapore:

LTA.

59
LTA. 2017b. “Silver Zones.” Singapore: LTA.
https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/projects/road-and-
commuter-facilities/silver-zones.html.

LTA. 2019a. “Certificate of Entitlement COE | Vehicle Quota System | Owning a Vehicle |
Roads & Motoring.” Singapore: LTA. https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-
motoring/owning-a-vehicle/vehicle-quota-system/certificate-of-entitlement-coe.html.

LTA. 2019b. “Code of Practice—Street Work Proposals Relating to Development Works.”

Singapore: LTA.

LTA. 2019c. “PSR Roads Process.” Singapore: LTA.

LTA. 2019d. “Road Maintenance Programme | Maintaining Our Roads & Facilities | Road
Safety & Regulations | Roads & Motoring.”
https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/road-safety-and-
regulations/maintaining-our-roads-and-facilities/road-maintenance-programme.html.

LTA. 2019e. Road Safety Guide Book: Temporary Road Works for LTA Projects. Singapore:
LTA.

Mohammed, Hameed. 2013. “The Influence of Road Geometric Design Elements on

Highway Safety.” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 4: 146–62.

Othman, S., R. Thomson, and G. Lannér. 2009. “Identifying Critical Road Geometry
Parameters Affecting Crash Rate and Crash Type.” Annals of Advances in Automotive
Medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific
Conference 53, 155–165.

Peden, M. 2004. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention.

Pérez, K., M. Marí-Dell’Olmo, A. Tobias, and C Borrell. 2007. “Reducing Road Traffic Injuries:
Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in an Urban Setting.” American Journal of Public Health 979:
1632–1637.

Retting, R. A., S. A. Ferguson, and A. S. Hakkert. 2003. “Effects of Red-Light Cameras on

Violations and Crashes: A Review of the International Literature.” Traffic Injury Prevention
41: 17–23.

Singapore Traffic Police. 2019. “Statistics.” https://www.police.gov.sg/news-and-

publications/statistics?category=Road Traffic Situation#content.

Statutes of the Republic of Singapore. 2004. Road Traffic Act. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/.

60
Straits Times. 2016. “Traffic Police's New Portable Speed Laser Cameras: Where Can You
Find Them.” Straits Times, May 20.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/traffic-polices-new-portable-speed-
laser-cameras-where-can-you-find-them.

Taylor, M. C., D. A. Lynam, and A. Baruya. 2000. The Effects of Drivers' Speed on the
Frequency of Road Accidents. TRL report 421. Crowthorne, UK: TRL.

Thorpe, N. 2018. “Identifying Collision Hotspots and Evaluating Road Safety Schemes: A Case
Study of Road Safety Cameras in the UK and Practitioner Software.” UK: Newcastle
University.

Tighe, S., N. Li, L. C. Falls, and R. Haas. 2000. “Incorporating Road Safety into Pavement
Management.” Transportation Research Record 16991: 1–10.

TMS Consultancy. 1994. Research on Loss of Control Accidents on Warwickshire Motorways

and Dual Carriageways. Coventry, UK: TMS Consultancy.

Wegman, Fred, Hans-Yngve Berg, Iain Cameron, Claire Thompson, Stefan Siegrist, and
Wendy Weijermars. 2017. “Evidence-Based and Data-Driven Road Safety Management.”
IATSS Research 39 (1).

Welle, B., A. B. Sharpin, C. Adriazola-Steil, S. Job, M. Shotten, D. Bose, A. Bhatt, S. Alveano,

M. Obelheiro, and T. Imamoglu. 2018. Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for zero
Road Deaths. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
https://www.wri.org/publication/sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-
deaths.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road
Safety 2011–2020. Geneva: WHO.
https://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/global_plan_decade.pdf

WHO. 2018a. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. Geneva: WHO.

WHO. 2018b. “The Top 10 Causes of Death.” Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/news-

room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death.

World Bank. 2017. The High Toll of Traffic Injuries: Unacceptable and Preventable.
Washington, DC: World Bank.

PIARC (World Road Association). 2015. Road Safety Manual. New York: United Nations.
https://roadsafety.piarc.org/en/road-safety-management-safe-system-approach/safe-
system-elements.

61
Appendix A – Pedestrian Infrastructure Design Guidance

62
CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

LEGEND

RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS (AMBER) 'PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROHIBITION' SIGN

TO BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO
D REFER TO LANE MARKINGS THE 'ARROW' SIGN

FL NG BEACONWI
ASHI PEDESTRI
TH' SI
NG'
ANCROSSI GNS 'ARROW' SIGN TO BE PLACED PARALLEL TO
SIDE OF ROAD
HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES
ALL SIGNS TO BE CLAMPED ONTO THE NEAREST
EXISTING LAMPPOSTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND
SUBJECT TO SO'S APPROVAL

600 3m 600
1.6m 200 200 1.6m
C
L
2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 30m 30m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

1m
S

A
X
L

H
-
J

E
O

I
N

1m
A
W

1m

SLOW
NG
AHEAD
600
J

X-I
A
-

1m
600
ZEBRA CROSSING
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
K
YELLOW CHECKER MARKING

PLAN
SCALE 1:250

1400 3000 1400

CHAMFER ZEBRA CROSSING CHAMFER

100

50 50 CARRIAGEWAY LEVEL

500 500

TO BE RAISED BY WEARING COURSE

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1:50

RAISED ZEBRA CROSSING

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Footpath joining pedestrian crossings shall be flushed with zebra crossing.
2. Checker markings to be painted in yellow.

DRAWING NO. REV.

RAISED ZEBRA CROSSING LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM5 B
B SEP 2017

A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

9-5
CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

100

350
420

420
630

630
200 2520 15000 2520 30000 4000 30000 2520 15000 2520

150
1050

490
630

A
H

H
A

U
DIRECTION

E
A
M
OF TRAVEL -

D
P

AHEAD

HUMP
DIRECTION
980

980
OF TRAVEL
2520

1680
420

420

840
HUMP

YELLOW STRIPS 150 WIDE 45°

630
420

420
TYPICAL PAVEMENT WARNING MESSAGE FOR ROAD HUMP

490
1050

SCALE 1:400

150
200
80
490

490
420

420

350
150
Y-AXIS 0 8 32 50 68 92 100

100
c
L X-AXIS 0 400 800 1000 1200 1600 2000
300 200 200 200 200 200 300 200 280

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Y Y
2980 PARABOLIC S-CURVE

X TO BE RAISED BY PREMIX W3B X

100
CARRIAGEWAY LEVEL

50
300
800 2400 800
420

440

4000
840

280
1050

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1:25
770

190

550
1820

280

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
420

20
15
420

0
0
840

4000
280
1050

350
910

45°
560

440
420

300

WIDTH OF CARRIAGEWAY

200 100 200 200 150 100 150 100 200 100 100 200 100 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

100
COLOUR SCHEME FOR HUMP
MARKINGS FOR HUMP AHEAD SCALE 1:20
SCALE 1:30

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Thickness of thermoplastic paint for hump ahead marking is 3mm.

DRAWING NO. REV.

ROAD HUMP LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM6 A

A SEP 2017 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

9-6
CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

100 100
600 600
2150 3.7m 2150

2.5m 15m 2.5m 30m 8m 30m 2.5m 15m 2.5m

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

A
U

H
M

E
A
P

AHEAD

HUMP
A A
- -

150 WIDE YELLOW STRIPES AT 45° YELLOW CHECKER DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

AND 200 WIDE APART MARKING

PLAN
SCALE 1:250

1300 4000 4000 1300

100 110 100

50 50

500 500

100 8000 100

1200 1200

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1:50

BUS FRIENDLY HUMP

STANDARD DETAIL

DRAWING NO. REV.

BUS FRIENDLY ROAD HUMP LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM7 -

DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

9-7
CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

LEGEND

'PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROHIBITION' SIGN

RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS (AMBER)
TO BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO
D REFER TO LANE MARKINGS THE 'ARROW' SIGN

FL NG BEACONWI
ASHI PEDESTRI
TH' SI
NG'
ANCROSSI GNS 'ARROW' SIGN TO BE PLACED PARALLEL TO
SIDE OF ROAD
HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES
ALL SIGNS TO BE CLAMPED ONTO THE NEAREST
EXISTING LAMPPOSTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND
SUBJECT TO SO'S APPROVAL

500 500
3m 5m 5m 3m
(MINIMUM) (MINIMUM) (MINIMUM) (MINIMUM)
600 100 100 600
1m 2m 4m 2m 1m
8m

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
S

1m
L

H
O

E
A

A
W

G
-
1m

1m
D

2m
1.

1m

NG
AHEAD

SLOW
1m

X-I
J

600

1m
K DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
YELLOW CHECKER MARKING
2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 30m 30m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m

C
L

PLAN
SCALE 1:250

4000

c
L
1000 1000

SEPARATOR 200 200 SEPARATOR

200 200
100 110 100

500 1500 500 4000 500 1500 500

2200 1300 8000 1300 2200

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1:50

BUS FRIENDLY HUMP CUM RAISED ZEBRA CROSSING

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Footpath joining pedestrian crossings shall be flushed with zebra crossing.
2. Center refuge island shall terminate near a lamp pole.
3. Floodlight to be provided if necessary.

4. The use of skid resistant pavement before the zebra crossing is BUS FRIENDLY HUMP DRAWING NO. REV.

recommended, particularly in wet environments. CUM RAISED ZEBRA LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM8 B

B SEP 2017 CROSSING
A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

9-8
CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE NEXT

POINTOF
ON
ECTI
INTERS NT
TANGE
TANGENT NT
POI
POINT
2000m
2000m
TANGENT
250 DIA UPVC PIPE (HEAVY DUTY) POINT
2000m 2000m 10000 AT 3m C/C APPROXIMATE 5000
NTOF
POI
BUS STOP (REFER TO COMMUTER I ON
NTERSECTI
BUS - STOP POLE
DETAIL 1 FACILITIES CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS) TANGE
NT
SCALE 1:100 SLAB THICKNESS AND REINFORCEMENT DETAILS POINT DETAIL 2
SAFETY BOLLARDS AT 3m C/C
(REF DWG NO: SDRE14/14/BOL3 & 4)
SCALE 1:100
FOOTPATH CUM DRAIN
PEDESTRIAN GRATING 1800
FOOTPATH
WITH CHEQUER PLATE

3800
1500
3000
1800

600
2 F
CATCH BASIN 3700
-
DROP-INLET CHAMBER

EXPANSION JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION JOINT NO. OF
1 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL (FOR DOUBLE AND (REF DWG NO: SDRE14/11/BUS3)
A 200 X 1.5 THK YELLOW BAND TYPE DESCRIPTION L EXPANSION
TRIPLE BUS BAY) 3
- THERMOPLASTIC PAINT TO
JOINT
BE DRAWN 125mm FROM KERB LINE SDRE14/11/BUS2
(ON PAVED AREA ONLY) 1 2
SINGLE BUS BAY 18m

2 DOUBLE BUS BAY 32m 3

25000 L 20000
980 980 3 TRIPLE BUS BAY 46m 4
KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 150mm KERB HEIGHT
OF 125mm KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 125mm
TRANSITION TRANSITION

TYPICAL SECTION OF BUS BAY

SCALE 1:250

0
98
250 DIA UPVC PIPE (HEAVY DUTY) 150
AT 3m C/C APPROXIMATE SLAB THICKNESS AND
REINFORCEMENT DETAILS
(REF DWG NO: SDRE14/14/BOL3 & 4)
BUS STOP (REFER TO
10000 COMMUTER FACILITIES
CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS) 0
5000 PEDESTRIAN GRATING 98
SAFETY BOLLARDS AT 3m C/C WITH CHEQUER PLATE 125
FOOTPATH CUM DRAIN
1800

K
TH AY
20 TAR EW
M R AG
MU O RI
XI TM R
MA MEN CA
CE
5000

EDGE OF 3000 1500

CARRIAGEWAY
BUS STOP
POLE

CATCH BASIN 3
3000

200 X 1.5 THK YELLOW BAND YELLOW LINE

THERMOPLASTIC PAINT TO SDRE14/11/BUS2 RIGID PAVEMENT
BE DRAWN 125mm FROM KERB LINE
(ON PAVED AREA ONLY) 600 600
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ISOMETRIC VIEW
100 L
980 980
KERB HEIGHT TRANSITION FROM 150mm TO 125mm
KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 150mm KERB HEIGHT
OF 125mm KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 125mm SCALE 1:30
TRANSITION TRANSITION

BUS STOP WITHOUT BUS BAY

SCALE 1:250

NOTES: 5. The kerb line (L) shall always be a straight line even when the bus stop is STANDARD DETAIL
1. Size and type of bus shelter shall be subject to approval from LTA. located in a curve / bend.
2. Safety bollards shall be provided at all bus stops, according to the posted speed 6. Where there is site ocnstraints, width of bus bay can be reduced to an
limit. absolute minimum of 3m subject to approval from LTA.
3. Location of advertising panel and bus stop sign shall not obstruct pedestrian 7. Safety bollards shall not be erected on scupper pipes. BUS BAY DRAWING NO. REV.
movements and the view of the approaching buses. 8. Refer to the table in DWG No: LTA/SDRE14/4/GRA1 for the type and (SHEET 1 OF 2)
LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS1 B
4. Where there is site constraints, width of bus bay can be reduced to an absolute spacing of pedestrian grating. B SEPT 2017
minimum of 3m subject to approval from LTA. A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 2

11-1
CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

BUS SHELTER
(REFER TO COMMUTER FACILITIES
CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS)

CARRIAGEWAY BUS BAY 600 1800

1m (MINIMUM CLEARANCE)

SAFETY BOLLARD

25 THK
RIGID PAVEMENT SLAB THICKNESS AND REINFORCEMENT DETAILS GRANOLITHIC FINISH
(REF. DWG NO: SDRE14/14/BOL 3 & 4)
SEPARATING
SHEET 1:100 100 THK HARDCORE

1:20

250 DIA UPVC SCUPPER PIPE

CATCH BASIN (HEAVY DUTY)

TYPICAL SECTION OF BUS BAY / SHELTER

SCALE 1:50
DRAIN

REGULATORY SI
'
WITHI

Wi
Vehi
NPar
Except
N BAY'

thi
n Bay
cl
ks'
es
GN

R5m R5m
3m

R5m CARRIAGEWAY BUS BAY

R5m

RIGID PAVEMENT
3
RIGID PAVEMENT
I I 150
A DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

225
105
9000 10000 4000

200M UM )
NI
300
LAYBY FOR NPARKS' WATER TANKER

MI
(
SCALE 1:250

SUB-BASE
SUB-GRADE

DETAIL 3
REF DWG NO: SDRE14/11/BUS1
SCALE 1:25

STANDARD DETAIL

BUS BAY / LAYBY FOR DRAWING NO. REV.

NPARKS' WATER TANKER LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS2 B
B SEPT 2017 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 2 OF 2

11-2
CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

WELDING THROUGHOUT
45 45
R13
52.5 52.5

20
15

45
6 DIA
HOLE AT ROAD LEVEL
BASE R20 DOWEL BAR R20 DOWEL BAR
ROAD LEVEL
40

60 DIA.13 AT 45 C/C
VIEW E
SCALE 1:20
VERTICAL ALUMINIUM GRATING
SCALE 1:20
DETAIL 1
SCALE 1:3
BUS SHELTER PLATFORM

100 600 100 150 200 125 275 100

COMPLETE ASSEMBLY EXCLUDING

R6 BAR TO BE GALVANISED 780 X 255 X 26 THK 15mm THK. GRANOLITHIC FINISH
BEFORE CASTING OF SLAB CONCRETE SLAB
VERTICAL 25mm THK. GRANOLITHIC FINISH
ALUMINIUM GRATING R13

1 A A K2 KERB

100
255
R6
DIA 13

50
255

475
R20 R20 R6

375
425
1:
5
KERB E 1:20
FOUNDATION 350 X 400

100
KERB FOUNDATION

780 250 DIA UPVC PIPE

B KERB
WSFR B8

PLAN VIEW OF SLAB FOR CATCH BASIN PLAN VIEW OF CATCH BASIN SECTION B-B
SCALE 1:10 SCALE 1:25 SCALE 1:20

780 X 255 X 26 THK

CONCRETE SLAB 2
15
45 X 45 X 4
GALVANISED M.S. ANGLE 15mm THK. GRANOLITHIC FINISH

APPROVED SEALER
WELDING 6 THK GALVANISED REINFORCEMENT TO TERMINATE
M.S. KEYHOLE CASING COMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL 60 + 20 FROM CENTRE LINE 15

25

3
R6
10

90

25

3
30 DIA.
PVC CAP
45

15

4 THK BOTTOM GALVANISED BASE PLATE 75

WELDED TO GALVANISED M.S. BASE
DETAIL 2
6 DIA DRAINAGE HOLE
25 DIA SMOOTH DOWEL BAR AT APPROVED PRE-MOULDED JOINT FILLER SCALE 1:5
5 THK GALVANISED M.S. BASE
300mm CENTRES TREATED WITH
50 X 50 X 5 GALVANISED M.S. ANGLE BOND BREAKING COMPOUND OVER 300 300

FISH TAIL FIXED INTO CONCRETE HALF ITS LENGTH

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1:3 EXPANSION JOINT
SCALE 1:10

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. All m.s., angle, base plate to be hot galvanised in accordance
to ISO 1460, ISO 1461.
2. All flats and angles are to be fillet welded throughout.

DRAWING NO. REV.

BUS BAY DETAILS LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS3 B
B SEPT 2017
A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

11-3
CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT
A

5°
9000

3000 150 2850 3000 2850 (END UNIT)

3 THK FIBRE 25 X 50 X 3 THK RHS
GLASS ROOFING

225
3 THK FIBRE 1m
GLASS ROOFING 600 (MINIMUM)

80 DIA M.S. PIPE

SAFETY BOLLARD 450

40 DIA M.S. PIPE
6 FILLET

2100
WELD ALL ROUND

450
420

125
WSFR A5

500
SAFETY BOLLARD
3 THK FIBRE
GLASS SEATING

300
500
WSFR A8

KERB & FLOOR LEVEL

200 THK HARDCORE
300 THK CONCRETE FOOTING
A ROAD LEVEL
WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE

FRONT ELEVATION SECTION A-A

SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:50

40 DIA M.S. PIPE

C

2
800mm^2 X 300mm
0
75 1425 1500 1500 1425
25°
CONCRETE FOOTING 340
240
2202

80 DIA M.S. PIPE

1840

80 DIA M.S. PIPE

250
(4 THK)
150 X 150 X 6 THK
B

600
500
ROOF LINE M.S. PLATE
10 DIA HOLE 25 X 50 X 3 THK RHS

50 X 25 KAPOR TIMBER STRIP

6 THK M.S. SEAT PLATE

OUTLINE OF FIBRE
GLASS SEATING
450
600

SAFETY BOLLARDS AT 3m SPACING

KERB
600

200 x 1.5 THK YELLOW BAND THERMOPLASTIC PAINT TO EDGE OF CARRIAGEWAY

BE DRAWN 125mm FROM THE KERB LINE PLAN LAYOUT DETAIL OF FIBRE GLASS SEATING
(ON PAVED AREA ONLY) SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:20

50 X 25 KAPOR TIMBER STRIP WITH 2 LAYERS

400 400 OF FIBRE GLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC

85 85 6 THK M.S. SEAT PLATE

40 40 20mm WOOD SCREW
3 THK FIBRE GLASS SEATING

130
170
250

85 85 200 X 12 DIA BOLT & NUT

15

80 DIA M.S. PIPE ( 4 THK )

500

450
75 X 75 X 8 FLANGE PLATE 100 X 12 DIA BOLT & NUT ( NOT TO BE ENCASED
IN CONCRETE IF USED AS TEMPORARY SHELTER )
250 X 250 X 10 THK M.S. PLATE

50
80 DIA M.S. PIPE (4 THK) 150 X 150 X 6 THK M.S. BASE PLATE
550

1000 1000 CONCRETE HAUNCHING ( NOT REQUIRED

100
WHEN USED AS TEMPORARY SHELTER )

300 300

50
DETAIL OF POST CONNECTED
DETAIL OF FIBRE GLASS ROOFING TO CONCRETE FOOTING SECTION B-B SECTION C-C
SCALE 1:10 SCALE 1:25 SCALE 1:20 SCALE 1:20

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Type A bus shelter shall be used for temporary shelter use.
(with 2 units unless otherwise specified).
2. All pipes to be class medium (B) in accordance with SS EN 10255:2013
3. All exposed metal surface to be coated with a layer of red lead undercoat
DRAWING NO. REV.
and 2 layers of finishing paint of approved quality and colour
BUS SHELTER - TYPE A
TEMPORARY USE ONLY LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS4 B
specified by the S.O. B SEPT 2017
A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

11-4
CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS
SIZE OF BUS SHELTER 1500

CONNECTING RAIN SCREEN TO BE

FOOTPATH
FRAMED ON ALL SIDES BUS INFORMATION PANEL WITH
LOCATION AND NUMBER OF BUS INFORMATION PANEL TO BE PROVIDED
LIGHTING PROVISION
ROOF EAVE ABOVE SIZE OF BUS LOCATION MINIMUM NUMBER
S/N
SHELTER(m)
1 NO. ELECT. PIPE FOR
ADVERTISEMENT PANEL 1 9 FRONT 1 SET
ALUM. SEAT AND RAIN
ALUM. SEAT

3000
SCREEN SHALL NOT BE CONC. SLAB COMPLETE
PROVIDED IF THERE IS WITH ARM REST 2 12 FRONT
WITH GRANOLITHIC 1 SET

100
CONNECTING FOOTPATH FINISHES

1:
3 15 CENTER 1 SET
SAFETY BOLLARDS @ 3m C/C 2000

4 18 CENTER 1 SET

600
5 21 CENTER 1 SET
3000
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ROAD KERB 24 AND ABOVE
6 FRONT AND CENTER 2 SETS
POINT OF INTERSECTION
NOTE: 1 SET= MINIMUM 2 NUMBERS
BUS-STOP POLE
BUS STOP LAYOUT PLAN 1
SCALE 1:100
RAIN SCREEN TO BE BUS INFORMATION PANEL WITH
FRAMED ON ALL SIDES LIGHTING PROVISION

BUS STOP ADDRESS

& NUMBER SIGN
PLATE TO FACE
ONCOMING TRAFFIC

CONNECTING
FOOTPATH

FFL

SAFETY BOLLARD
3000
ALUM. SEAT AND RAIN ALUM. SEAT
SCREEN SHALL NOT BE WITH ARM REST
PROVIDED IF THERE IS
CONNECTING FOOTPATH
BUS STOP ELEVATION 1
SCALE 1:100

SIZE OF BUS SHELTER 1500

CONNECTING
FOOTPATH
RAIN SCREEN TO BE
FRAMED ON ALL SIDES
ROOF EAVE ABOVE

1 NO. ELECT. PIPE FOR

ADVERTISEMENT PANEL
ALUM. SEAT AND RAIN 1 NO. ELECT. PIPE FOR
SCREEN SHALL NOT BE
3000

ALUM. SEAT ADVERTISEMENT PANEL

WITH ARM REST PROVIDED IF THERE IS
CONNECTING FOOTPATH CONC. SLAB COMPLETE

100
WITH GRANOLITHIC

1:
BUS INFORMATION PANEL WITH
2000 FINISHES
LIGHTING PROVISION
SAFETY BOLLARDS @ 3m C/C
600

3000
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ROAD KERB

POINT OF INTERSECTION
BUS STOP LAYOUT PLAN 2 BUS-STOP POLE
SCALE 1:100

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. This drawing shall be read in conjunction with LTA Architectural Design Criteria 5. The design of the bus stop shall comply with BCA Code on Accessibility
(ADC) checklist and Material and Workmanship Specifications. in the Built Environment.
2. The size of the bus shelter shall be in accordance to ADC checklist. 6."No smoking" sign shall be provided at every 9m spacing of bus
BUS STOP LAYOUT DRAWING NO. REV.
3. All aluminium elements (bench, flashing piece,roof capping etc) shall be in shelter.
AND ELEVATION LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS5 -
powder coated finish. 7. The location of bus-stop pole shall be subjected to approval from LTA.
4. 25% of all the seats shall be provided with arm rests. 8. All aluminium seats shall be of a darker shade than the floor finish. DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

11-1
CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT
CARRIAGEWAY 300 600
100
HOMOGENEOUS
1 TACTILE TILES 1:40

100
-
2

50
-
CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH
LEAN CONCRETE
WSFR A5

K2A PRECAST CONCRETE KERB

SECTION A-A
(DRAIN NOT SHOWN)
SCALE 1:30

CARRIAGEWAY

100
1:40

PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING

50
- LEAN CONCRETE CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH

K2A PRECAST SECTION B-B

CONCRETE KERB (DRAIN NOT SHOWN)
GENERAL LAYOUT WITH TYPE 1 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS SCALE 1:30
(NTS)
3000 600 600 3000
FOOTPATH FOOTPATH FOOTPATH
LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL
1:
12 11
:2
125
FOOTPATH

VERGE

CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS

HOMOGENEOUS CONCRETE RAMP
TACTILE TILES
TACTILE TILES
DROP-INLET CHAMBER
VIEW C

18
AT 6m C/C

00
SCALE 1:100
K2A PRECAST
TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE
CONCRETE KERB
1000

FOOTPATH 3000 H
1
:2 AT
LEVEL (FL) 1:
12 1
OTP
FO
3000

A
PEDESTRIAN
30
CROSSING - 0 E
6 RG

00
CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS N 0 VE
IA 0

30
TACTILE TILES TR G
S IN
E
1:

VIEW D D SS 12
12

DROP-INLET E 1:
P RO FLASHING BEACON
CHAMBER SCALE 1:100 C
30 (TO BE ALIGNED

1:
AT 3m C/C TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE 0

40
WITH STOP LINE)
(1.2m FROM KERB) HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES

HOMOGENEOUS
HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES
250 DIA UPVC PIPE
B

FLASHING BEACON TACTILE TILES

-

250 DIA (TO BE ALIGNED VERGE

250 DIA 1:12 UPVC PIPE WITH STOP LINE) 1:12 1:12

12
1:
UPVC PIPE
40
1:

1800

TH
K2A PRECAST FOOTPATH
VERGE

PA
CONCRETE KERB

OT
600

E
FO

RG
1800

VE
FOOTPATH
DROP-INLET CHAMBER
-
C

AT 6m C/C
D
1000 3000
DROP-INLET CHAMBER -
AT 6m C/C 3000 250 DIA UPVC PIPE
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING K2A PRECAST
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
CONCRETE KERB
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3
SCALE 1:200 SCALE 1:150
SCALE 1:150

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Gradient of ramps shown in the details shall not be exceeded. 8. The ramps shall be broom brushed.
2. All concrete shall be C25/30, unless otherwise stated. 9. Zebra crossings to be 'raised crossings' when necessary,
3. Details to be used when footpath is next to the kerbs. particularly in areas with high pedestrian volumes.
4. Homogeneous tactile tiles for tactile warning indicator requirements to refer 10. Pedestrian refuge island dimensions can be adapted as FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV.
to LTA/SDRE14/3/KER12. necessary. TYPE 1 PEDESTRIAN LTA/SDRE14/3/KER5 B
5. Yellow coloured tactile tiles shall be provided on the concrete footpath ramp. B SEP 2017 CROSSING POINTS
DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.
6. No obstruction shall be placed within the pedestrian crossing zone. A OCT 2015

7. No drop-inlet chamber shall be placed within the pedestrian crossing zone. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 7

3-5
CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT
HOMOGENEOUS
CARRIAGEWAY 300 TACTILE TILES 100
1 1:40

100
-
2
-

50
CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH
LEAN CONCRETE WSFR A5

K2A PRECAST CONCRETE KERB

SECTION A-A
(DRAIN NOT SHOWN)
SCALE 1:30

100
CARRIAGEWAY
1:40

PEDESTRIAN

50
CROSSING LEAN CONCRETE

3 CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH

-
SECTION B-B
K2A PRECAST (DRAIN NOT SHOWN)
SCALE 1:30
CONCRETE KERB

GENERAL LAYOUT WITH TYPE 2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS

600 3000 600 600 3000 600

(NOT TO SCALE)
N
DRAI

CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS

ON LENGTH

TACTILE TILES TACTILE TILES

OVER-

VIEW C
FOOTPATH

5000
VERGE

SCALE 1:100
/SLAB-

TI

DROP-INLET CHAMBER
600 3000 600
TRANSI

AT 6m C/C
1000

K2A PRECAST
1:

CONCRETE KERB
12

TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE

(1.2m FROM KERB) CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS
TACTILE TILES
E
AN

VIEW D RG
PEDESTRI
NG

VE
3000

CROSSI

A
SCALE 1:100 N
I
/ RA

-
30
-
0 ATH - D
A N R
IA TP E
00 O OV
30 TR 60 FO AB-
- S ING 0 L
5000 5000 E S
D SS
1:

DROP-INLET E
1:12 1:12 P RO
12

CHAMBER TRANSITION LENGTH TRANSITION LENGTH FLASHING BEACON

C
AT 3m C/C 30 (TO BE ALIGNED
0

1800
FOOTPATH/ WITH STOP LINE)
FOOTPATH/
SLAB-OVER-DRAIN 12
250 DIA HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES SLAB-OVER-DRAIN 1:
UPVC PIPE

40
B

5000

1:
HOMOGENEOUS
TRANSITION TACTILE TILES
1:12 1:12 VERGE
LENGTH 250 DIA UPVC PIPE

40 600
1:
1800

FOOTPATH

E
G

12
/SLAB-OVER-DRAIN

1:
VE
FLASHING BEACON K2A PRECAST CONCRETE KERB

N
AI
(TO BE ALIGNED
HOMOGENEOUS

DR
O TH/
VERGE WITH STOP LINE) DROP-INLET CHAMBER
C

R-
TACTILE TILES D
AT 6m C/C

AB PA
VE
-

SL OT
-
FO
1000 3000 K2A PRECAST
TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE 3000
CONCRETE KERB
(1.2m FROM KERB) PEDESTRIAN
PEDESTRIAN 250 DIA UPVC PIPE
CROSSING DROP-INLET CHAMBER
CROSSING
AT 6m C/C
18
DETAIL 2 00 DETAIL 3
DETAIL 1
SCALE 1:150 SCALE 1:150
SCALE 1:200

STANDARD DETAIL

FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV.

TYPE 2 PEDESTRIAN LTA/SDRE14/3/KER6 B
B SEP 2017 CROSSING POINTS
A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 2 OF 7

3-6
CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

3000 1m
PEDESTRIAN (MINIMUM)
TRAFFIC LIGHT CROSSING
POLE (1.2m
FROM KERB)

M UM )
VERGE

NI
1m

MI
AN (
A
K2A PRECAST

PEDESTRI
NG
CONCRETE KERB

3000

CROSSI
B
-
HOMOGENEOUS
TACTILE TILES
K2A PRECAST
CONCRETE KERB TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE
(1.2m FROM KERB)

B
-

6m (MINIMUM)
VERGE CLEAR ZONE

0
30

60
00
ZE S
C
R

B SIN
O

600 3m CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH 600

A G

FLASHING BEACON 0
WITH 'PEDESTRIAN 60 100
CROSSING SIGN' 50
LEAN CONCRETE
WSFR A5
HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES

PLAN SECTION A-A

SCALE 1:50
SCALE 1:200

B VARIES C

1500 (MINIMUM)
300 600 600 300

HOMOGENEOUS WSFR A5 HOMOGENEOUS

TACTILE TILES TACTILE TILES

1:40 K2A PRECAST

125

1:40
CONCRETE KERB

LEAN CONCRETE

SECTION B-B
(FOR WIDTH OF TRAFFIC ISLAND EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 7.5m)
SCALE 1:25

WHEN A > 7.5m WHEN A < 7.5m

B = 3m B = VARIES (MIN 1.5m)

C = 3m C = VARIES (MIN 1.5m)

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Drop-inlet chamber and scupper pipe is to be provided only where there is a
provision of a drain at the traffic island.
2. Clear zone shall be free of obstruction.

DRAWING NO. REV.

FOOTPATH RAMP -
TRAFFIC ISLAND LTA/SDRE14/3/KER7 B
B SEP 2017
A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 4 OF 7

3-7
CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

N/
DRAI
FOOTPATH DRAIN/
FOOTPATH

VERGE

1:
12
12
1:

VERGE

40
1:

HOMOGENEOUS VERGE
TACTILE TILES

60 1:
0 40

30
0
18 0
00 60
AD
SI RO
DE IN
RO MA
AD
60
0

E
-
DROP-INLET CHAMBER
AT 6m C/C

AT SIDE ROAD
(NTS)

VERGE FOOTPATH VERGE MAIN ROAD

CONCRETE RAMP
1:40

FALL

HOMOGENEOUS
TACTILE TILES

VIEW E
SCALE 1:25

STANDARD DETAIL

FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV.

SIDE ROAD LTA/SDRE14/3/KER8 B

B SEP 2017

A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 5 OF 7

3-8
CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

DRAIN / FOOTPATH

HOMOGENEOUS
TACTILE TILES
ABUTTING DEVELOPMENT FENCE / WALL

12
1:
40
1:
0
60
0 VERGE
30

0 1:
30 40

18
00

DR
IVE
W
AY 60
0
AD
RO
IN
F MA

DROP-INLET CHAMBER
AT 6m C/C

AT DRIVEWAY
(NTS)

FOOTPATH VERGE MAIN ROAD

ABUTTING DEVELOPMENT FENCE / WALL 1:40

FALL

HOMOGENEOUS
TACTILE TILES

VIEW F
SCALE 1:25

STANDARD DETAIL

FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV.

DRIVEWAY LTA/SDRE14/3/KER9 B
B SEP 2017

A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 6 OF 7

3-9
CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

TYPE 'B' RAILING

OPEN DRAIN

FOOTPATH

HOMOGENEOUS
12
1:
TACTILE TILES

VERGE

0
30

0 1:
18 30 40
00
0
60
DR
IVE
W
AY
60
0
DROP-INLET CHAMBER
G AT 6m C/C

AD
RO
IN
MA

AT DRIVEWAY
(NTS)

DRAIN FOOTPATH VERGE MAIN ROAD

VARIES

TYPE 'B' RAILING

600 1:40
125

FALL

HOMOGENEOUS
TACTILE TILES

VIEW G
SCALE 1:25

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Railings are to be provided next to open drain.

FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV.

FOOTPATH BESIDE B
LTA/SDRE14/3/KER10
B SEP 2017 OPEN DRAIN
A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 7 OF 7

3-10
CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

300

300
300

25
50
CARRIAGEWAY

15
KERB CUT RAMP PEDESTRIAN CROSSING KERB CUT RAMP

300
A
600mm -
HOMOGENEOUS
TACTILE TILE
600mm TACTILE TILE 35 TACTILE TILES

25 15

12
5
PLAN SECTION A-A
TYPE A - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES TYPE B - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES
(STRAIGHT KERB CUT RAMP) (CURVE KERB CUT RAMP) HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES
SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:5

AN
PEDESTRI
NG

N.1 m
CROSSI

MI
300 300

KE
RB
TACTILE TILE W
I
LL

B
300 300 MIN 1m

E
RA
CARRIAGEWAY

ISE
300

D
CARRIAGEWAY TACTILE TILE
KERB CUT RAMP KERB CUT RAMP

KERB CUT RAMP 300

300
PEDESTRIAN
< 900 > 900 CROSSING

TACTILE TILE
600mm
TACTILE TILE

300

TYPE C - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES TYPE D - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES

(CURVE KERB CUT RAMP) (CURVE KERB CUT RAMP) TYPE E - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES
SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100
(CURVE KERB CUT RAMP)
NOTE: SCALE 1:100
Minimum 2 set of tactile tiles to be laid for both side of type e ramp

NOTES: 4. Tactile tiles shall comply to SS485:2011 for skid resistance based on wet STANDARD DETAIL
1. The tactile tiles shall have a minimum of 30% luminance contrast with the pendulum test (Classification V).

footpath ramp. 5. For driveways leading to two or less individual house units, a flushed kerb

2. All homogeneous tiles shall comply with the following: is to be provided without any tactile tiles.

- Water absorption : 0.4% maximum per ASTM C72 6. For closely-spaced driveways with footpath separated from the carriageway HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE DRAWING NO. REV.
- Modules of rupture : 10.34 MN/m² per ASTM C99 by a green verge or kerb, and with footpath length less than 10m, the whole TILES AND ARRANGEMENT LTA/SDRE14/3/KER12 B
- Compressive strength : 131 MN/m² per ASTM 0170 footpath is to be flushed. B SEP 2017 OF TACTILE TILES
A DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.
3. All homogeneous unglazed ceramic tiles shall comply to ISO 13006:2012. OCT 2015

REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

3-12
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE NEXT

LEGEND

SHARED TRACK
DE
Pedestrians

5m W I
Give Way To
FOOTPATH
SLOW

2.
CYCLING TRACK (RAL 3011)

HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES

A4
Watch Out

CYCLING TRACK LIGHT (INDICATIVE ONLY)

100 x 300 RED
DASH LINE

3m
Shared
Track

LOOK

300mm THK "YELLOW

STOP LINE" IN 3mm
THK THERMOPLASTIC

3m

A4

A4

5m

P
G ed LOOK
i

LOOK
ve es

LOOK
t
W ri
ay an LO

5m
s OK
T

OK
o

LO
SLO
2m

LO
OK

A4
5m

OW
OK
1.

LO
y

SL
k
5m

ta ac 2.
S
T
r 9m
n
O 2m

ay ns
O

To
n

W ria
W

T
'SLOW' LOGO

t
S ra
at

s
ta c

G ede
y k
ch

RUMBLE STRIPS TO

e
O

P
v
i
u
t

GO THROUGH BOTH
OF THE TRACKS

O
OW

S rac
n
SL 'CYCLIST' LOGO

ta
o

T
y k
T
s
ay an
W ri
e s t
v
i e
G ed
P

t
u
O
h
tc
a
W
NOTES:
1. Cyclist logo & signage provided at the first entry point to cycling track from a 7. Cycling track signages shall be installed on cycling track lighting poles if the
pedestrian crossing. intended location of the signages are next to it.
2. Additional strips and other signage shall be applied if there is further need to slow 8. Gratings/sumps that are on cycling track or shared track are to use
down and warn the cyclist. pedestrian grating with mild steel plate unless otherwise stated. Details to
3. If cycling track intersects a pedestrian route, the cycling track shall terminate before follow drawing No. LTA/SDRE14/4/GRA1 to 3. STANDARD DETAIL
the pedestrian route and continue after the route. 9. Pavement details of cycling track to follow drawing
4. Wherever cyclists are likely to join the cycling track, additional cyclist logo shall be No. LTA/SDRE14/3/KER11B.
added. 10. For cycling track lighting reference shall be made to
5. Where the cycling track crosses a covered linkway, a reflective strip shall be pasted LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC10. DRAWING NO. REV.
TREATMENT
on the walkway roof/column to warn the cyclists. 11. For all road markings reference shall be made to LTA/SDRE14/8/RMS1-3. AT MAJOR JUNCTION LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC1 -
6. All markings that are off carriageway shall use coloured high strength coating
DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.
system (RAL 1003) or (RAL 3011) unless otherwise stated.
REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:400 1 OF 1

21-1
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

SLOW SLOW

5m
2.

15m
X-ING X-ING

5m
2.

15m
W at
ch Out
AHEAD AHEAD

5m
2.
On Track
On Track

30m
Stay
Stay

300MM THK "YELLOW

STOP LINE" IN 3MM
A THK THERMOPLASTIC A

1m

3m
1.
100 x 300 RED
DASH LINE

N)
BUS FRIENDLY HUMP

MI
4m

8m
LOOK

LOOK
Give Way To

LOOK

LOOK
BICYCLE 'LOOK' BOX CUM RAISED ZEBRA

(
Give Way To
Pedestrians
Pedestrians CROSSING

2m
RUMBLE STRIPS TO GO

3m
1.
A THROUGH BOTH OF A

M UM )
'SLOW' LOGO

9m
THE TRACKS

5m
SLOW SLOW SLOW SLOW

2.
1.
ch Out

MINI
FOOTPATH

15m (
CYCLING PATH

W at

2m
TYPE 'C' RAILINGS 15m (MINIMUM)
OR LOW SHRUBS

TREATMENT AT UNSIGNALISED JUNCTION TREATMENT AT UNSIGNALISED JUNCTION

(TRAFFIC SIGNS) (DIMENSION)
SCALE 1:500 SCALE 1:500

10600

1300 4000 4000 1300

100

110
50

500 500
100 100

1200 8000 1200

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1:50

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1.
2. Refer for other details for bus friendly hump cum raised zebra crossing.
3. To add zebra crossing at unsignalised junction with minimum setback of 15m.

DRAWING NO. REV.

TREATMENT AT OTHER
JUNCTIONS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC2 -

DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 2

21-2
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

DEVELOPMENT / CARPARK
ACCESS

100 x 300 RED DASH LINE

BICYCLE 'LOOK' BOX

'CYCLIST' LOGO

RUMBLE STRIPS TO GO
2900 THROUGH BOTH OF
THE TRACKS
1500

FOOTPATH

SLOW

LOOK

SLOW

2000
LOOK
CYCLING PATH

'SLOW' LOGO

MIN)
2000

5000 (
5000 (MIN)

300MM THK "YELLOW

STOP LINE" IN 3MM THK
THERMOPLASTIC

ve W ay To
Gi

ans
ch Out
Pedest

W at

On Track
On Track
ve W ay To

ri
St
ay

Pedest
ch Out

ay
St

W at
rians

Gi
NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL
1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1.

TREATMENT AT
DRAWING NO. REV.
DEVELOPMEMT /
CARPARK ACCESS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC3 -

DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:250 2 OF 2

21-3
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT
50m 50m

DOUBLE SIDED

FOOTPRINTS & BICYCLE

LOGO IN 3mm THK
THERMOPLASTIC

B
I C LOOK

A4

J A8

LOOK

B KERB LINE C

BICYCLE CROSSING SIGNAL AND

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ASPECT
ATTACHED TO TRAFFIC LIGHT
POLE
DOUBLE SIDED

400
DETAIL BICYCLE CROSSING
100 SCALE 1:500

600
125 850
300 200

A8
A4

600
720

400
15 570 15

650

400

15
100
KERBLINE

300
3000 3000
FOOTPRINT LOGO

300
SCALE 1:30 250 300

3mm THK. WHITE THERMOPLASTIC 150 985 150

"STOPLINE" (YELLOW)

600

570
150
IN 3MM THK
175 350

850
LOOK THERMOPLASTIC
1800

°
650
46

70
38
650

225
268

344
°
60

15
150

850
46
1500

BICYCLE LOOK BOX DETAILS AT BICYCLE CROSSING BICYCLE CROSSING SIGN

BICYCLE LOGO BICYCLE CROSSING PLATE
SCALE 1:50 NOTE: DOUBLE SIDED NTS
SCALE 1:30
SCALE 1:10
3mm THK. WHITE THERMOPLASTIC "LOOK" FONT IN HELVETICA / HELVETICA BOLD
COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW)
RAL 9011 (BLACK)

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Bicycle crossing is to be situated at the side that is nearer to the cycling
path or bicycle parking facilities.
2. Bicycle crossing plate is to be placed on cycling path traffic pole.
3. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC1.
DRAWING NO. REV.
4. Headroom clearance for all signs is 2.4m. Refer to "Support for Road Signs" BICYCLE CROSSING LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC4 -
chapter for details.
5. For all road markings reference shall be made to LTA/SDRE14/8/RMS1-3. DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

21-4
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

On Track
On Track

Shared
Shared

Track
Track

ay

St
St

ay

SLOW
SLOW
2000

1500
2900
PEDESTRIAN & 2000
RUMBLE STRIPS TO GO
CYCLIST LOGO
THROUGH BOTH OF
'SLOW' 'CYCLIST'
100 x 300 RED THE TRACKS
LOGO LOGO
DASH LINE

TRANSITION AREAS WHERE THE CYCLE

PATH SWAPS SIDES WITH THE PEDESTRIAN PATH

On Track

On Track

Shared
Shared

Track
Track

ay

St
St

ay
SHARED TRACK
SLOW

SLOW
2000

1500
MIN 2500

'SLOW' LOGO
5000 2000 2900
PEDESTRIAN &
RUMBLE STRIPS TO
CYCLIST LOGO
GO THROUGH BOTH
OF THE TRACKS 100 x 300 RED
'CYCLIST' LOGO DASH LINE

SHARED TRACK TREATMENT

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Only applicable when there are site constraint and subject to authorities
approval.
2. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1.

DRAWING NO. REV.

SHARED TRACK
LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC5 -

DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:250 1 OF 1

21-5
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

ans
o
y T
Gi
Ped

ri
ve

st
Wa
est

e
W

d
ve
ri

Pe
ay

On
ans

Gi
ck

St
To

ay

Tra
Tra

ay
St

ck
On
ROOF OUTLINE OF TRAFFIC FLOW
COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION

5000
5000

2000

SLOW

SLOW

1500
'SLOW' LOGO

RUMBLE STRIPS TO
GO THROUGH BOTH
2900
PEDESTRIAN & 000
OF THE TRACKS
100 x 300 RED 2000 2
CYCLIST LOGO
'CYCLIST' LOGO DASH LINE
2 PIECES 300 x 300
YELLOW DIRECTIONAL "LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS TO
TACTILE INDICATOR HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS
TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS
Gi

BUS STOP WITHOUT SIDE FOOTPATH ACCESS

Ped
ve
est

SCALE 1:250

ans
o
W

y T
ri
a

ri
ans
y T

st
ck

Wa
ay

e
Tra
o

d
St

ve
Pe
On

Gi
On

St
Tra
ay
ck
PEDESTRIAN & ROOF OUTLINE OF TRAFFIC FLOW
CYCLIST LOGO COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION

5000
SLOW
2000

SLOW

1500
'SLOW' LOGO

RUMBLE STRIPS 5000

PATH

TO GO THROUGH 2900
000
2000 2
BOTH OF THE TRACKS 100 x 300 RED
FOOT

"LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS

DASH LINE
'CYCLIST' LOGO TO HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS
TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS
2 PIECES 300 x 300
YELLOW DIRECTIONAL
TACTILE INDICATOR

BUS STOP WITH SIDE FOOTPATH ACCESS

SCALE 1:250

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1.

TREATMENT AT DRAWING NO. REV.

BUS STOP WITH BUS BAY LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC6 -

DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 2

REV. DATE

21-6
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

ve W ay To
Gi

ans
Pedest

On Track

On Track
ve W ay To
ROOF OUTLINE OF TRAFFIC FLOW

ri
ay

St

Pedest
COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION

St

ay
PEDESTRIAN &

rians
CYCLIST LOGO

Gi
SLOW

SLOW
2000
1500

'SLOW' LOGO
5000 100 x 300 RED 5000 2000 2900
RUMBLE STRIPS DASH LINE
TO GO THROUGH
BOTH OF THE TRACKS "LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS TO
HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS
'CYCLIST' LOGO TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS

2 PIECES 300 x 300

YELLOW DIRECTIONAL
TACTILE INDICATOR

BUS STOP WITHOUT SITE FOOTPATH ACCESS

SCALE 1:250

ve W ay To
Gi

ans
Pedest

On Track

On Track
ve W ay To

ROOF OUTLINE OF TRAFFIC FLOW

ri
St
ay

Pedest
COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION
St

ay
rians

Gi
PEDESTRIAN &
CYCLIST ROAD
SLOW

SLOW
2000
1500

FOOTPATH

'SLOW' LOGO
100 x 300 RED 5000 2000 2900
5000
RUMBLE STRIPS DASH LINE
TO GO THROUGH
BOTH OF THE TRACKS "LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS TO
HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS
'CYCLIST' LOGO TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS
2 PIECES 300 x 300
YELLOW DIRECTIONAL
TACTILE INDICATOR

BUS STOP WITH SIDE FOOTPATH ACCESS

SCALE 1:250

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1.

TREATMENT AT
DRAWING NO. REV.
BUS STOP WITHOUT
LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC7 -
BUS BAY
DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 2 OF 2

REV. DATE

21-7
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

270

498
2025

105 100 100 100

150
100 320 150 140 140 120 150 600 100

730
SLOW

100

630
122 198 35 2 2 50 365 235
150

EQ

498

100
68

150 150
100
500

200

250

130

300
150

35
EQ

1780 300 300

850
580

100
EDGE LINE

CYCLIST LOGO SLOW LOGO PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST LOGO DASH LINE MARKING
"LOOK" MARKING
SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:30
SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:30
COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW)
COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) COLOUR CODE: RAL 3011 (RED) COLOUR CODE: RAL 3011 (RED)
COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) RAL 3011 (RED)
RAL 3011 (RED) RAL 1003 (YELLOW) RAL 1003 (YELLOW)
RAL 9011 (BLACK) "SLOW" FONT IN HELVETICA / HELVETICA BOLD
NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS ON NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS TO NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS TO
NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS ON RED COLOUR
RED COLOUR PATH FINISHES. BE APPLIED ON RED COLOUR BE APPLIED ON RED COLOUR
PATH FINISHES. RED COLOUR MARKINGS ON
RED COLOUR MARKINGS ON FLOOR FINISHES ONLY. FLOOR FINISHES ONLY.
OTHER FINISHES.
OTHER FINISHES.

2900

700 300 700 300 100

2000

300
"STOPLINE"
(YELLOW) IN 3MM

300
150 985
THK THERMPLASTIC

100
350
LOOK 2000 WIDE
CYCLING TRACK
3500

1800

175
650

225

100
850

1500

RUMBLE STRIPS BICYCLE LOOK BOX DETAIL SOLID LINE MARKING TO DEMARCATE
SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:50 CYCLING TRACK (AT CENTRAL AREA ONLY)
STRIPS THICKNESS: 3mm THERMOPLASTIC SCALE 1:30
"LOOK" FONT IN HELVETICA / HELVETICA BOLD

COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) COLOUR CODE: RAL 3011 (RED)
RAL 9011 (BLACK) RAL 1003 (YELLOW)
NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS TO BE APPLIED
ON RED COLOUR FLOOR FINISHES ONLY.

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1.

CYCLING PAVEMENT DRAWING NO. REV.

MARKINGS DETAILS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC8 -

DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1

21-8
CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT

600
600 600 600
127 285 127
113 314 113 70 400 70 70 400 70

40

40

40
55

111

281

281

281
136

136
260

111

600

600

600
600
42

40

40

40
55

55

55
55

Push Your Shared Stay Stay

30
30

30

30
55

55

55
55

Bicycle Track On Track On Track

39

39
43

SHARED TRACK STAY ON TRACK

PUSH YOUR BICYCLE
THIS SIGN IS USED TO INDICATE A SHARED TRACK.
THIS SIGN INFORMS CYCLISTS TO PUSH YOUR BICYCLE THESE SIGNS ARE USED TO INDICATE A SEGREGATED
USUALLY PLACED AT THE START OF THE TRACK.
(ONLY TO BE USED WHEN INSTRUCTED BY LTA) TRACK. USUALLY PLACED AT THE START OF THE TRACK.

600 600

91 358 91 91 358 91
25
25

645
316

600
316

93 353 93 450 175

600
10 375 10

10
600

5
77.

60
65
CAUTION
55 30

130
55 30

180
Watch Out
30

300
85
SLOW

90
30

LOW HEADROOM

10 25
30
30 55

5
77.
30 55

364

GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS WATCH OUT FOR VEHICLES SLOW (SUPPLEMENTARY) CAUTION LOW HEADROOM
TO BE PLACED BELOW STANDARD SIGNAGE, WHERE NECESSARY.
THIS SIGN INFORMS CYCLISTS TO GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS THIS SIGN INFORMS CYCLISTS TO LOOKOUT FOR THIS SIGN WARNS CYCLISTS OF THE
ESPECIALLY AT AREAS WHERE THE PEDESTRIANS PATH SUCH APPROACHING VEHICLES AT CARPARK ACCESSES/ LOW HEADROOM AHEAD.
AS STAIRCASES, RAMPS, BUS-STOPS, FOOTPATH ETC INTERSECTS UNSIGNALISED JUNCTIONS/ SIGNALISED JUNCTIONS/
COLOUR CODE: RAL 1018 (YELLOW)
THE CYCLING TRACK. CROSSINGS. THIS SIGN MAY ALSO BE USED FOR
RAL 9011 (BLACK)
OTHER AREAS WHERE CYCLING PATHS INTERFERE
NOTE: FOR CLEAR HEIGHT LESS THAN 2.4m
WITH ROADS.

NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL

1. Design details: 2. Headroom clearance for all signs is 2.4m. Refer to "Support for Road Signs"
Text: Helvetica / Helvetica Bold chapter for details.
Material: Refer to M&W Specification For Civil And Structural Works
(Revision A1, June 2010 Edition)
DRAWING NO. REV.
Fixture: Refer to SDRE (2014 Edition) including all other subsequent CYCLING SIGNS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC9 -
amendments.
All signs are colour brown background (RAL 8011, Nut Brown), red triangle DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO.

with white lettering, line & border unless otherwise stated. REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:10 1 OF 1

21-9
Appendix B – Guardrail Design Guidance

63