The Battle for Space: Central Park’s Mobility Crisis and Lessons for Singapore

Introduction: When Progress Creates Chaos

Central Park. The very name evokes images of tranquil strolls, leisurely bicycle rides, and the gentle clip-clop of horse-drawn carriages – a verdant oasis in the heart of New York City’s concrete jungle. For generations, its three-lane corridor served as a cherished public space for recreation and slow-paced transit. But what happens when a century-old design meets 21st-century technology at breakneck speed?

Today, Central Park is a crucible of urban conflict, a stark illustration of the growing pains cities worldwide face as new mobility technologies emerge. The placid drives have become a battleground, pitting pedestrians against traditional cyclists, horse-drawn carriages against electric unicycles, and, most prominently, the rapidly increasing swarms of e-bikes and e-scooters against, well, everyone else. This unfolding drama in NYC offers invaluable, albeit cautionary, lessons for discerning urban planners and residents in high-density cities like Singapore.

Central Park’s Unholy Mix: An In-Depth Look at the Problem

The core of Central Park’s crisis is a fundamental mismatch: finite space versus an explosion of diverse, speed-differentiated modes of transport. The park’s carefully designed lanes are now a free-for-all, a cacophony of:

Pedestrians: Seeking a peaceful escape, often with children or pets.
Traditional Cyclists: Who once dominated the lanes, now find themselves outpaced and outmaneuvered.
Horse-drawn Carriages: The iconic, slow-moving symbols of old New York, trying to maintain their dignified pace.
E-bikes & E-scooters: The new, powerful, and often silent entrants, capable of significant speeds.
Skateboards, Unicycles, Pedicabs: Adding to the sheer volume and unpredictable movement patterns.

This blend, each with its own velocity, footprint, and user expectations, has created a recipe for disaster.

The Tangible Impact: A String of Grim Incidents

The abstract concept of “overcrowding” truly hits home when we look at the escalating incidents:

March Incident: An 18-year-old on an e-bike collided with a traditional cyclist, highlighting the risk even among recreational users.
June Incident: A man on an electric unicycle was critically injured, underscoring the dangers of newer, less regulated devices.
Fatal Crash: Most tragically, an e-bike rider died after colliding with a pedestrian, a heart-wrenching loss that brought the urgency of the problem into sharp relief.

These aren’t isolated accidents; they are grim statistics reflecting a systemic failure to adapt infrastructure and regulations to evolving urban mobility. The park, once a sanctuary, has become a site of genuine fear and anxiety for many users.

Proposed Solutions: Band-Aids or Cures?

New York City’s authorities are scrambling to respond, proposing a mix of infrastructure changes and regulatory interventions:

Roadway Redesign: The Transportation Department is attempting to make lanes more uniform, adding signs, and replacing traffic lights with flashing yellow signals, hoping to direct e-bikes to the far-right lane. This is an attempt at physical guidance.
Speed Limits: A new 15 mph speed limit for all e-bikes is set to take effect, aiming to curb excessive velocity, a primary contributor to severe accidents.
Potential Ban: Perhaps the most contentious proposal is a City Council bill, already backed by 19 co-sponsors, that aims to revive a ban on e-bikes in parks. This reflects a desire to revert to a simpler, safer era.

The Great Debate: Enforcement vs. Pragmatism

The proposed solutions have ignited a fierce debate that encapsulates the broader challenge of regulating new technology in established urban spaces:

“The Genie is Out”: A Central Park Conservancy spokesperson articulated the pragmatic view, suggesting that enforcing an outright e-bike ban would be “impractical” because “the genie is a little bit out of the bottle.” This perspective acknowledges the widespread adoption of e-bikes, their utility for commuters and delivery riders, and the difficulty of rolling back a popular trend. Many e-bike users rely on them for their livelihoods in the gig economy, where speed often translates to income.
“Just Enforce It”: Critics, like State Senator Liz Krueger, vehemently reject this, arguing that impracticality is simply an excuse. She points out that Central Park has “relatively few entrances,” suggesting that police could be posted strategically to enforce a ban. This view prioritizes safety and the traditional character of the park, advocating for strong, visible enforcement.

This debate highlights a fundamental tension: the practical realities of a population embracing new, efficient technologies versus the imperative to maintain public safety and preserve the character of shared spaces.

Lessons for Singapore: A Different Path, but Continued Vigilance

While New York grapples with this unfolding drama, there’s a valuable looking glass for other dense urban centres, particularly Singapore. The Lion City has, perhaps inadvertently, offered a contrasting model in managing this mobility evolution.

Singapore’s Proactive Stance: Learning from Anticipation

Singapore’s regulatory approach to personal mobility devices (PMDs) and subsequent e-bikes has been notably more restrictive and proactive than many Western cities. Facing similar challenges of high population density, limited space, and safety concerns, Singapore has already:

Banned PMDs from Footpaths: A decisive move after a spate of accidents, effectively separating faster devices from vulnerable pedestrians.
Mandatory Registration: For e-scooters and e-bikes, ensuring accountability.
Speed Limits & Device Specifications: Strict rules on the power and speed of electric devices allowed on public paths.
Dedicated Infrastructure: Continuous investment in a growing network of cycling paths and park connectors, physically separating different user groups where possible.

This approach, born from a culture of meticulous urban planning and a willingness to regulate swiftly, appears largely vindicated by Central Park’s current woes. Singapore learned from the experience of others – and its own early incidents – rather than waiting for a full-blown crisis.

Why Central Park Still Matters to Singapore: Future Challenges

Despite Singapore’s comparatively strong regulatory framework, the Central Park saga remains a cautionary tale and a reminder that vigilance is crucial. Singapore faces its own unique pressures:

Aging Population: With a rapidly aging demographic, the proportion of vulnerable pedestrians will increase, necessitating even safer shared spaces.
High Density, Limited Space: Like NYC, Singapore is land-scarce. Even with dedicated paths, the sheer volume of users will continue to create pressure points.
The Gig Economy’s Growth: The delivery economy relies heavily on e-bikes and PMDs. The pressure on riders to be fast can lead to risky behaviour, even with regulations in place. This economic incentive needs careful management.
Technology Evolution: New devices will continue to emerge, demanding continuous review and adaptation of existing rules.

Forward-Looking Solutions for a Smart Nation

To truly future-proof its urban mobility, Singapore can draw deeper lessons and consider more sophisticated solutions, perhaps even pioneering them:

Dynamic Space Allocation: Implement time-based zoning for certain paths, allowing faster devices during off-peak hours and prioritizing pedestrians during peak recreational times.
Technology-Enforced Speed Limits: Explore geofencing technology that automatically throttles e-bikes and e-scooters to adhere to speed limits in specific zones (e.g., parks, school zones).
Tiered Licensing & Training: Beyond registration, introduce tiered licensing for e-bike users based on device power or areas of operation, coupled with mandatory safety training programs.
Strategic Physical Separation: Continue aggressive investment in widening existing paths and creating genuinely separated infrastructure for different user groups, perhaps even exploring elevated “mobility highways” in high-traffic areas.
Economic Incentives for Safety: Engage with delivery platforms to embed safety metrics into their algorithms, rewarding safer (not just faster) delivery practices, rather than indirectly pressurizing riders to speed.
Data-Driven Enforcement & Planning: Utilize CCTV footage, sensor data, and incident reports to identify high-risk areas and times, allowing for targeted enforcement and infrastructure improvements.

Conclusion: The Constant Search for Balance

The Central Park crisis is more than just a local New York problem; it’s a profound reflection of the universal challenge cities face in accommodating innovation while preserving safety, equity, and quality of life. The “genie is out of the bottle” is not just about e-bikes, but about a paradigm shift in urban mobility.

Singapore, with its strong regulatory framework and “Smart Nation” ambition, has the opportunity to lead in finding this delicate balance. By learning from New York’s struggles, proactively investing in smart infrastructure, and adapting its policies to anticipate future technological shifts, Singapore can ensure its shared urban spaces remain harmonious and safe for all, rather than becoming battlegrounds in the ongoing quest for efficient and equitable city living. The choice is clear: proactive planning or reactive crisis management. The future of our cities hangs in the balance.

The Battle for Space: Central Park’s Mobility Crisis and Lessons for Singapore

Introduction: When Progress Creates Chaos

Central Park’s tree-lined drives, once designed for leisurely horse-drawn carriage rides at the turn of the 20th century, have become a cautionary tale of urban mobility in the 21st century. What began as a democratizing move—banning cars in 2018 to create more space for people—has morphed into a complex safety crisis that pits pedestrians against cyclists, traditional bikes against e-bikes, and preservation against progress.

The story of Carrie Michaels encapsulates the problem. In spring 2023, she was enjoying a ride on her carbon-fiber road bike when an e-bike delivery worker struck her, sending her airborne and leaving her bleeding on the pavement. Six hours in the hospital and months of recovery later, she has largely abandoned cycling in the park she once loved. “It’s hazardous beyond description,” she says.

Her experience is not isolated. In June 2024, Salvador Nico-Garcia, 43, died after his e-bike hit a pedestrian on the East Drive. Another rider on an electric unicycle was critically injured in a separate collision. These incidents represent the visible tip of a larger iceberg: a fundamental clash between different modes of transportation moving at incompatible speeds in shared space.

The Root Causes: A Perfect Storm

1. Policy Changes That Opened the Floodgates

The current crisis stems from a series of well-intentioned policy decisions that created unintended consequences:

2018: New York City lifted its ban on e-bikes on city streets, recognizing their value for delivery workers and commuters. The same year, cars were banned from Central Park’s drives, and Citi Bike added e-bikes to its fleet.

2023: A pilot program allowed e-bikes in parks, where they had previously been banned.

2025: Plans emerged to make the e-bike park access permanent.

Each decision made sense in isolation. E-bikes reduce carbon emissions, provide efficient transportation, and democratize cycling for those who might find traditional bikes too physically demanding. But collectively, these policies funneled thousands of electric-powered riders into a space never designed for such traffic.

2. The Speed Differential Problem

Central Park’s drives now host users moving at wildly different velocities:

Pedestrians: 3-4 mph
Horse-drawn carriages: 5-8 mph
Traditional cyclists (casual): 8-12 mph
Traditional cyclists (enthusiast): 15-20 mph
E-bikes (legal limit): 15 mph (soon to be implemented)
E-bikes (delivery models): 20-28 mph
E-scooters and electric unicycles: 15-25 mph

This speed differential creates dangerous situations. When a delivery worker on a high-powered e-bike traveling at 25 mph approaches a pedestrian walking at 3 mph, the reaction time available to avoid collision shrinks to fractions of a second. The physics of these encounters are unforgiving.

3. Infrastructure Designed for a Different Era

Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux designed Central Park’s drives in the 1850s-1860s with specific intentions: leisurely carriage rides with sharp curves to naturally limit speeds. The three-lane corridor was never meant to accommodate:

Spandex-clad cyclists treating the loop like the Tour de France
Teenagers testing electric Citi Bikes’ maximum speeds
Delivery workers racing against time to fulfill orders
Riders going the wrong direction or weaving through traffic
Pedestrians, skateboarders, and unicyclists sharing the same space

The mismatch between 19th-century design and 21st-century mobility demands is stark.

4. Economic Pressures and the Delivery Economy

The explosion of food delivery services—accelerated by the pandemic—has transformed e-bikes from recreational vehicles into essential economic tools. Delivery workers face intense pressure: algorithms track their speed, customers expect rapid service, and their income depends on completing as many orders as possible.

This creates perverse incentives. A delivery worker who slows down in Central Park to prioritize safety may lose income, receive poor ratings, or even lose their job. The economic structure of the gig economy essentially penalizes safe riding.

The Stakeholder Divide: Competing Visions

Pedestrians and Safety Advocates

Groups like the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, formed after members like Bonnie Gerard were struck by e-bikes, want complete bans on electric mobility devices in parks. Their argument is straightforward: parks should be sanctuaries from vehicular traffic, spaces where people can walk without constantly scanning for fast-moving bikes.

Janet Schroeder, the alliance’s director, questions why the Central Park Conservancy seeks to ban horse carriages but not e-bikes. From her perspective, the slower-moving, more predictable carriages pose far less danger than electric bikes capable of 25 mph.

E-Bike Riders and Accessibility Advocates

Parents like “Mr. Todd” from Hell’s Kitchen see e-bikes as transformative. With a seven-year-old child on his bike, the electric motor makes family cycling possible. “It’s opened up the entire park for us,” he says. For many New Yorkers, e-bikes are the difference between cycling being feasible or not—due to age, fitness level, or distance.

Delivery workers, meanwhile, depend on e-bikes for their livelihoods. Banning them from parks would force these workers onto congested streets, adding time to deliveries and reducing income.

Traditional Cyclists

This group is internally divided. Some enthusiast cyclists resent slower e-bikes clogging the loop. Others oppose e-bikes because they attract riders with less cycling experience who don’t know traffic etiquette. Still others support e-bikes as fellow two-wheeled travelers deserving equal access.

City Officials

Trapped between competing demands, officials like City Council member Gale Brewer (who represents the Upper West Side) try to thread the needle. She supports the redesign that replaces red lights with flashing yellow signals, arguing it forces “everybody to look” rather than creating false security.

But this position satisfies almost no one. Safety advocates want stronger protections; e-bike riders want clearer right-of-way; traditional cyclists want faster flow.

The Proposed Solutions: Band-Aids or Breakthroughs?

Current Redesign Efforts

The Transportation Department’s redesign includes:

More uniform lanes with increased pedestrian space
Signs directing e-bikes to the far-right lane
Replacing traffic lights with flashing yellow signals
New symbols alerting cyclists to yield to pedestrians

The Problem: E-bikes directed to the far-right lane immediately conflict with horse-drawn carriages, which move slowly and occupy most of that lane. The solution creates new problems.

The flashing yellow lights, meanwhile, eliminate the sense of security pedestrians felt with dedicated walk signals. Now every crossing requires vigilance and judgment calls about whether approaching cyclists will yield.

The 15 MPH Speed Limit

Coming into effect in October 2025, this uniform speed limit for all e-bikes represents an attempt to reduce the speed differential. Citi Bike has already implemented speed restrictions in anticipation.

The Problem: Enforcement remains unclear. How will police monitor speeds? What penalties will apply? And will delivery workers using personal e-bikes—not rental Citi Bikes—comply when their income depends on speed?

The Ban Proposal

City Council member Vickie Paladino’s bill to revive the e-bike ban in parks has 19 co-sponsors, showing significant political support. State Senator Liz Krueger advocates posting police at the relatively few cycling entrances to enforce such a ban.

The Problem: As Central Park Conservancy spokesperson David Saltonstall argues, “The genie is a little bit out of the bottle on e-bikes. I don’t know how you put it back.” Any ban would face fierce resistance from delivery workers, e-bike commuters, and accessibility advocates. It might also push e-bike traffic onto already congested streets.

Infrastructure Expansion

State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal suggests that creating more bike lanes on city streets—like adding one to Fifth Avenue, which runs along the park’s east side—would relieve pressure on Central Park.

The Problem: Street redesigns face opposition from drivers, businesses concerned about parking loss, and residents worried about noise and congestion. They’re also expensive and time-consuming.

Singapore’s Perspective: Parallel Challenges, Different Approaches

Singapore faces remarkably similar tensions with e-bikes and personal mobility devices (PMDs), but has pursued more restrictive policies:

Singapore’s Regulatory Framework

Proactive Restrictions: Singapore banned e-scooters from footpaths in November 2019 after a series of accidents, including fatal collisions. This decisive action contrasts sharply with New York’s gradual, reactive approach.

Designated Infrastructure: Singapore has invested heavily in a comprehensive Park Connector Network (PCN) spanning over 360 km, creating dedicated spaces for cyclists and PMD users separate from pedestrians.

Strict Enforcement: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has impounded over 150 non-compliant mobility devices in the last two months alone, demonstrating serious enforcement capability.

Device Specifications: Singapore imposes strict limits on PMD weight (20 kg maximum) and width (70 cm maximum), preventing the high-powered delivery e-bikes common in New York.

What Singapore Can Learn from Central Park’s Crisis

1. Prevention Is Better Than Reaction

New York’s crisis emerged because officials responded to each new mobility technology individually, without considering cumulative effects. Singapore’s more cautious approach—study first, regulate early, enforce strictly—appears vindicated by Central Park’s chaos.

However, Singapore must remain vigilant. The article notes that Singaporean authorities recently impounded many non-compliant devices, suggesting enforcement challenges persist despite strong regulations.

2. The Delivery Economy Pressure

Singapore’s food delivery sector has exploded, with Grab, foodpanda, and Deliveroo employing thousands of riders. If Singapore relaxes e-bike regulations in parks and park connectors to accommodate delivery workers, it could face Central Park-style conflicts.

The key question: How can Singapore balance delivery workers’ economic needs with public safety? Options include:

Designated delivery windows when park connectors have lighter pedestrian traffic
Separate delivery bike infrastructure
Technology solutions like speed governors that automatically reduce bike speeds in designated zones
Alternative incentives that don’t punish slower, safer riding

3. The Accessibility Argument

New York’s “Mr. Todd” example—a father who can cycle with his young children because of e-bikes—resonates globally. E-bikes democratize cycling for elderly residents, people with disabilities, and families with children.

Singapore’s aging population makes this particularly relevant. By 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be over 65. E-bikes could help seniors maintain mobility and independence. But this must be balanced against safety risks to that same elderly population as pedestrians.

4. Infrastructure Investment Is Non-Negotiable

Central Park’s fundamental problem is trying to force too many users moving at too many speeds into infrastructure designed for horse carriages. No amount of signage or regulations can overcome this mismatch.

Singapore’s PCN investment shows the right approach: dedicated infrastructure that physically separates incompatible uses. But even Singapore’s network faces capacity challenges during peak hours, especially along popular routes like East Coast Park.

5. The “Genie Out of the Bottle” Fallacy

David Saltonstall’s resignation—”I don’t know how you put it back”—reflects defeatism that Singapore should reject. Singapore has demonstrated that strong political will can reverse mobility trends. The 2019 e-scooter footpath ban faced criticism but was implemented and maintained.

The lesson: it’s never too late to course-correct, but the longer officials wait, the harder reversal becomes. Once millions of people depend on e-bikes for daily transportation, banning them creates genuine hardship and political backlash.

Singapore’s Unique Advantages and Challenges

Advantages:

Smaller geographic scale makes comprehensive regulation feasible
Strong enforcement culture and respect for rules
Centralized decision-making allows rapid policy implementation
Significant government resources for infrastructure investment
Camera and sensor technology infrastructure for automated enforcement

Challenges:

Limited space makes infrastructure expansion difficult
High population density increases conflict potential
Growing delivery economy creates pressure to relax regulations
Aging population needs accessibility but also faces greater injury risk
Increasing income inequality means mobility restrictions disproportionately affect lower-income delivery workers

Innovative Solutions: Beyond Simple Bans or Acceptance

Both New York and Singapore need creative approaches that move beyond the ban-versus-allow binary:

1. Time-Based Zoning

Different user groups dominate parks at different times. Implementing time-based rules could reduce conflicts:

Early morning (5-8 AM): Priority for exercise cyclists and runners
Mid-day (8 AM-5 PM): Mixed use with strict speed limits
Evening (5-8 PM): Pedestrian priority hours with bike restrictions
Weekends: Rotating schedules or designated lanes by day

2. Technology-Enforced Speed Limits

Geofencing technology could automatically limit e-bike speeds in parks and sensitive areas. When a bike enters Central Park or a Singapore park connector, its maximum speed drops to 15 mph (or 25 km/h) automatically.

This works best with rental fleets like Citi Bike or Grab bikes, but could be mandated for all devices through regulation requiring GPS-connected speed governors.

3. Tiered Licensing and Education

Just as drivers need licenses, e-bike riders could be required to complete safety courses and obtain permits. This would:

Ensure riders understand traffic rules and yielding requirements
Create accountability through a permit system
Generate data on rider behavior
Provide revenue for enforcement and infrastructure

Singapore could pilot this system, leveraging its existing framework for motorcycle licensing.

4. Physical Infrastructure: Separation at Key Points

Rather than complete separation (often impossible), focus on strategic separation at highest-conflict points:

Dedicated pedestrian crossings with barriers that force bikes to slow
Speed bumps or textured pavement in mixed-use zones
Elevated or separated paths at high-traffic intersections
Clear sightlines and intersection redesigns

5. Economic Incentives for Delivery Companies

Rather than regulating riders (who have little bargaining power), regulate companies:

Require delivery companies to allow adequate time for safe riding
Prohibit algorithmic penalties for slower speeds in parks
Mandate insurance coverage for rider-caused accidents
Require companies to contribute to infrastructure maintenance

This shifts responsibility to entities with resources and control.

6. Data-Driven Enforcement

Use sensors and cameras to:

Monitor actual speeds and traffic patterns
Identify high-conflict zones requiring intervention
Track near-misses, not just actual collisions
Create heat maps showing when and where problems occur
Automate violation detection and fines

Singapore’s Smart Nation initiative positions it perfectly for this approach.

The Larger Urban Mobility Question

Central Park’s crisis reflects a global challenge: cities worldwide are trying to accommodate new mobility technologies in infrastructure designed for earlier eras. E-bikes, e-scooters, electric unicycles, and whatever comes next are here to stay. The question isn’t whether to accept them, but how to integrate them safely.

The Environmental Imperative

E-bikes offer genuine environmental benefits. They reduce car trips, cut emissions, and promote active transportation. In both New York and Singapore, climate goals depend partly on shifting transportation modes.

Banning e-bikes from parks might improve safety in those specific locations but could undermine broader sustainability goals if it discourages e-bike adoption or forces riders back to cars.

The Equity Dimension

Mobility restrictions disproportionately affect lower-income residents. In New York, many e-bike delivery workers are immigrants supporting families. In Singapore, similar dynamics exist with food delivery riders.

Policies that ban e-bikes without providing alternatives risk deepening inequality. If wealthier residents can afford to live near workplaces while lower-income workers must travel farther, mobility restrictions become a form of economic discrimination.

The Democratic Use of Public Space

Who has the right to Central Park or Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park? This fundamental question underlies all policy debates.

Some argue parks should prioritize quiet, slow activities—walking, contemplation, gentle recreation. Others contend that in dense cities, parks must serve multiple transportation needs, including commuting.

There’s no objectively correct answer. It’s a value judgment each city must make through democratic processes. But that judgment should be informed by data, safety evidence, and comprehensive consideration of consequences.

Conclusion: Lessons for Singapore and Global Cities

Central Park’s mobility crisis offers Singapore and other cities several crucial lessons:

1. Act Early: New York’s crisis stemmed from incremental decisions that seemed reasonable individually but created chaos collectively. Singapore’s proactive regulation appears wiser in retrospect.

2. Invest in Infrastructure: No amount of rules can overcome fundamental infrastructure inadequacy. Physical separation, adequate space, and thoughtful design are non-negotiable.

3. Enforcement Matters: Rules without enforcement become suggestions. Singapore’s willingness to impound devices and issue fines gives its regulations teeth.

4. Balance Competing Needs: Simple bans ignore legitimate needs of riders; unrestricted access ignores pedestrian safety. The path forward requires nuance.

5. Technology as Tool, Not Solution: Speed limiters, geofencing, and data monitoring can help, but technology alone won’t solve conflicts rooted in competing visions of public space.

6. Address Economic Roots: As long as delivery workers face algorithmic pressure to ride dangerously, safety improvements will be limited. Regulation must address the business models driving risky behavior.

7. Prepare for the Next Wave: E-bikes won’t be the last disruptive mobility technology. Cities need adaptive frameworks that can accommodate innovation while protecting safety.

For Singapore specifically, the path forward should include:

Continued investment in separated cycling infrastructure, particularly expanding the PCN and creating protected lanes on roads
Maintaining strict device specifications to prevent high-powered bikes
Developing a comprehensive e-bike licensing and education program
Working with delivery platforms to restructure incentives away from dangerous speed
Piloting time-based zoning in high-conflict areas
Deploying Smart Nation technology for data-driven enforcement
Regular public consultation to balance competing needs

The battle for space in Central Park is ultimately about competing visions of urban life. Should parks be refuges from the city’s intensity or extensions of its vitality? Should new technology be embraced eagerly or cautiously? How do we balance innovation with safety, accessibility with tranquility, economic opportunity with public welfare?

These questions have no easy answers. But they must be asked, and thoughtfully answered, before more riders crash, more pedestrians are struck, and more people abandon the shared spaces that define urban community.

As New Yorkers Karen Cooper and Maria Donadio watched the chaotic bike traffic on Central Park’s West Drive, Cooper pointed at a cyclist going the wrong way and exclaimed: “Nuts! It’s nuts.”

Her companion, Donadio, sounded resigned: “The bikes, I don’t think they’re going anywhere.”

She’s right. The bikes aren’t going anywhere. The question is whether cities can create space for them without sacrificing safety, equity, and the fundamental character of public spaces that belong to everyone. Singapore, with its demonstrated capacity for thoughtful regulation, infrastructure investment, and enforcement, has an opportunity to show the world how it’s done.

The alternative is Central Park’s chaos—a cautionary tale of good intentions creating dangerous outcomes, of progress undermining safety, of a park designed for harmony becoming a battlefield for space.

Singapore can do better. The world is watching.