Feedbacks on some other installations near the Aljunied BWR

Zigzag blockage
Not exactly zigzag as bicycle just need to be ridden through it diagonally. It has some use in slowing down but I still think the potential hazards it creates are much more than its benefits. Anyway, I guess some would still use the cement covered drain portion (on the west side) and the grass patch (on the east side).

The blue/white bollards and chain

As the PCN hit Merpati Road, there is a pair of alternating blue/white painted bollards with chain blocking off. This is new to me. Older Google Streetview show it was black/yellow previously. I'm not sure why and the meaning of blue/white paint. Here, I find the chain is too thin and might be missed out as some may not notice the bollards as the opening is quite wide.

The distance markings

I like the distance markings. Previously it wasn't clear the direction relevant to the distance labelled. This one is quite clear to me.

Sheltered walk way
The roof of sheltered walk way are not very heavy, and I think just have support on only one side should suffice. Especially on narrow pavement like the one along Aljunied Road here. Yes, cycling on pavement is [still] not legal, but the crowdedness would be worse if bicycle users obediently dismount and push on pavements.

Aljunied Road Pedestrian Overhead Bridge Bicycle Wheeling Ramp

My feedbacks after a recce ride to the bridge along Aljunied Raod with BWR

Channel

Photo credit: Danny Juriah Chay

I find the channel is quite redundant, regardless of its width. Anyway, it should be more about the depth rather than the width. I have seen such add-on in some European countries, and those are like 5 cm deep [protruded] trench, or 5cm tall wall besides the "channel" (I think like there is a similar one at Yio Chu Kang Shell station, Punggol PCN). 

The current shallow channel cannot guide the front wheel, while I don't think there is a need for it on the rear wheel. If in case this was to tackle the infamous curvy ramp on the now demolished bridge across Braddell road, then I think no need, as that problem was due to the curving down inward ramp.

Actually, I find those (I think there is one along Serangoon Road near Kallang River) with the slanting surface, where the current railings are mounted, is extended inwards nice, no need the groove/channel. The main issue is the tilting and the steepness, and I think tilting can be solved by redesigning the railings (see Qn 2).

Slope

The slope is ok for my current fitness and the foldable bike I was pushing, but I don't think the weaker/older one can manage well.

Surface

Although the painted surface looks slippery, but I tested a little and it was good when dry. Not sure how would it be when wet.

Tilt

Tilt of bicycle is ok, BUT why should there be a tilt. I noticed the lowered hand rail to a height below the height of most bicycle handle bars. I wonder is it feasible to have the railings mounted outside, at the side or underneath the stairs, and if need to curve outwards? This way, I believe the bike can be much more upright. 

Another issue is with the "flatness" of the railings. Currently, although for the most part the paddle is not touching the railings, but one will need to take care to tilt the bike more to avoid the main supports of the railing, that are protruding inwards.

Will I use the BWR?

In this particular case, no. Because it is easier and smoother to use the pedestrian crossing a short distance north of the bridge.

In general, no. Because for this design the bicycle easily knock on the railing, and at this angle the strength I need to use is not much lesser than if I were to just carry it up or down. Also because it is quite easy/convenient to carry foldable bicycles by resting the saddle on the shoulder.

Also, if it was intended to have the ramp on only one side, then I will only use it when it is on my right side. Because I (and I think most people) dismount to the left of the bicycle, and to use a ramp on the left is inconvenient.

From slope to flat

I think the connecting between ramp and flat ground can be improved. I would suggest a wider mouth or curve route at the turning part to remove the need to position the bicycle before the next stairs. 

Another little suggestion is to have a curve up instead of the current angled design where an impact is felt when pushing up from the ground on to the ramp.

Other wheel users

However, even if this works perfectly for bicycle, the other wheel users are still being neglected. Thus, why not just add a traffic light crossing here, synchronized to the two at both sides. This way I don't think it will delay the traffic.

What is the vision?

More fundamentally, the problem here is that what is the problem/issue that is being targeted, and is it the correct issue to be focused on? I guess NParks concern is to connect the PCNs, which are meant for recreation. Thus, from the perspective of recreation, maybe there is no strong need to ensure everyone (old, weak and kids) to cross over to the next PCN. LTA's concern is to have smooth (and moving) traffic, thus, getting as much non-motorized objects away from the roads has been their approach. Thus, adding a traffic light crossing that is on-demand based or synchronized to the existing traffic lights is quite unlikely although this will help the old/weak/young while not slowing down traffic much. Basically, whoever, if any, is taking care of bicycle commute is not doing their job or has no power/resources to do it.