A story of an old Angsana tree
Since antiquity, there is an old Angsana tree in Singapore. It is a valuable tree. So valuable that it has earned itself immunity: it was ruled that the tree is not to be chopped down if it is in the way of construction; instead it will be moved and transplanted under the guidelines issued by the authority overseeing trees.
This old and valuable tree sits in the middle of Braddell Road, overlooking Raffles Junior College. Many years have passed and the surroundings have morphed many changes, but the old tree remains just as it was fifty years ago. It still sits faithfully on its spot and continues to provide its service and shade to the people who reciprocated with much love and appreciation.
However, things took a twist of turns a few years back.
The traffic authority decided one day that a new viaduct connecting Lornie Road and Braddell Road would be necessary to alleviate the perennial traffic congestion (it was part of the Outer Ring Road System actually). Unfortunately the old Angsana tree sits right at the centre of the road diversion arising from the new viaduct. The construction company lamented at how ‘suay’ (colloquial slang which means ‘unfortunate’) it is. Already faced with rising construction costs, it needs to cough up another huge sum of money to transplant the tree under authority’s guidelines.
Then came along a brilliant idea. Why not get the authority that oversees tree to waive the requirement? That is, to chop the tree down. Nope, not successful.
Then came another brilliant idea. Why not a fork road (technically known as bifurcated road)? The traffic can go round the tree. Eureka! The tree is saved, traffic flow resumes, everybody is happy. This is not new in Singapore: there is also a forked road at North Buona Vista Road that goes around a MRT column due to Circle Line construction.
After numerous attempts to convince the traffic authority that safety would not be compromised, the forked-road scheme finally got the blessing to go ahead. It is not a cheap sum mind you. It is a whopping $200K. But considering how much moving a tree would cost, this sum pales in comparison.
And so everybody is happy. The authority looking after the trees is happy that the tree gets to survive; while the authority overseeing traffic is happy that it is paying a lesser sum for variable order (a technical term in construction that refers to any contingency work that went beyond the contract agreement).
It seems everyone is happy with the odd arrangement, until a few important passers-by happened to pass by the area.
“Unsafe” was the verdict.
This simple six-letter word was all it takes to throw the forked-road scheme away. Tussle followed.
In the end, after a brutal fight, the tree has to go. By this Sunday (15 July 2007).
If you happen to pass by the area, take a few moments to mourn for the tree.
So much for the guidelines.
[This post is not possible without John's contribution. He helps to improve the story flow and added a human touch to the writing. Thanks John.]
This old and valuable tree sits in the middle of Braddell Road, overlooking Raffles Junior College. Many years have passed and the surroundings have morphed many changes, but the old tree remains just as it was fifty years ago. It still sits faithfully on its spot and continues to provide its service and shade to the people who reciprocated with much love and appreciation.
However, things took a twist of turns a few years back.
The traffic authority decided one day that a new viaduct connecting Lornie Road and Braddell Road would be necessary to alleviate the perennial traffic congestion (it was part of the Outer Ring Road System actually). Unfortunately the old Angsana tree sits right at the centre of the road diversion arising from the new viaduct. The construction company lamented at how ‘suay’ (colloquial slang which means ‘unfortunate’) it is. Already faced with rising construction costs, it needs to cough up another huge sum of money to transplant the tree under authority’s guidelines.
Then came along a brilliant idea. Why not get the authority that oversees tree to waive the requirement? That is, to chop the tree down. Nope, not successful.
Then came another brilliant idea. Why not a fork road (technically known as bifurcated road)? The traffic can go round the tree. Eureka! The tree is saved, traffic flow resumes, everybody is happy. This is not new in Singapore: there is also a forked road at North Buona Vista Road that goes around a MRT column due to Circle Line construction.
After numerous attempts to convince the traffic authority that safety would not be compromised, the forked-road scheme finally got the blessing to go ahead. It is not a cheap sum mind you. It is a whopping $200K. But considering how much moving a tree would cost, this sum pales in comparison.
And so everybody is happy. The authority looking after the trees is happy that the tree gets to survive; while the authority overseeing traffic is happy that it is paying a lesser sum for variable order (a technical term in construction that refers to any contingency work that went beyond the contract agreement).
It seems everyone is happy with the odd arrangement, until a few important passers-by happened to pass by the area.
“Unsafe” was the verdict.
This simple six-letter word was all it takes to throw the forked-road scheme away. Tussle followed.
In the end, after a brutal fight, the tree has to go. By this Sunday (15 July 2007).
If you happen to pass by the area, take a few moments to mourn for the tree.
So much for the guidelines.
Braddell Road Angsana Tree To Be Removed
1. An Angsana tree that stands in the middle of Braddell Road will be removed this month to ensure motorists’ safety.
2. Usually, in its construction projects, LTA undertakes to conserve the greenery and minimise the impact of its construction activity on the surrounding environment, often working with NParks in these efforts. When the construction for the new Lornie-Braddell Road Interchange began in 2005, LTA and NParks had opted to save the Angsana tree by bifurcating the slip road around the tree. This was done after LTA’s studies showed the bifurcation design – or splitting of the road around the tree – would be a safe option if motorists were to drive within the stated 40km/h speed limit.
3. As a precautionary measure, LTA had drawn additional road markings and placed additional signs to remind motorists driving along this stretch to keep within the speed limit. To further ensure safety for motorists, the chevron markings in front of the tree were extended and a double white line was painted on the road before the tree.
4. In the two years since the bifurcation design was implemented, LTA has continued to monitor traffic conditions around the Angsana Tree. Despite the additional measures, LTA’s ongoing monitoring has revealed that many motorists do not drive within the 40km/h speed limit, and consequently, run the risk of colliding with the tree, resulting in injury or worse. It was also observed that, in not staying within the safe speed limits, many motorists are unable to keep to their lanes. We have also received feedback from motorists involved in ‘near accident’ situations along this stretch of Braddell Road.
5. Ms Karen Loh, a businesswoman, who drives pass the stretch occasionally told LTA: "When I come to this road, I have to make a split second decision on which lane to take. I also found it difficult to slow down. While I applaud the authorities' efforts to conserve the tree, many drivers don't realise the need to slow down to manoeuvre the curve in the alignment of the road.''
6. Based on LTA’s observations and the public feedback, LTA and NParks came to the conclusion that removing the tree is the most prudent course of action to prevent any future accidents.
7. The removal of the tree and the realignment of Braddell Road will take place from 15 July 2007. To facilitate the removal, there will be lane closures along Braddell Road from 15 July 2007 to 7 August 2007.
8. With the removal of the tree, a straighter three-lane carriageway will be constructed along this stretch of Braddell Road.
Source: LTA (11 July 2007)
[This post is not possible without John's contribution. He helps to improve the story flow and added a human touch to the writing. Thanks John.]


16 comments:
Daniel,
Please do not laud me. It was a brilliant article that you wrote. I merely made grammatical changes to it.
It is sad to see the tree go. I guess it is the way to go in Singapore, the old will always make way for the new. However in certain sectors of society, this adage may not be totally true.
- John -
What a shame... Hopefully the tree is just being moved to someplace else, and not cut down.
A $200k error. Ouch.
Dear Helen,
Welcome to the blog. Hope you enjoy the read so far.
I'm equally hopeful that they move the tree instead of chopping down. However, it will face the axe-treatment and it has already been confirmed by the authorities. :(
Regards,
Daniel
There is a forked road along Farrer Road to accommodate an overhead bridge's pillar.
I don't hear anyone complaining that that is unsafe.
Chopping an 80 years LIVING monument because of a few drivers can not follow the speed limit sounds very strange indeed.
There are drivers can not follow the speed limit in the city too. Clean up the city for the cars?
If the driver can not follow the speed limit, it is a problem of the driver, or the design of the road. Don't chop the tree, because the root of the problem is not the tree!
I have driven pass there a few times and I have to say that even when I was keeping at 40km/h, it was quite challenging to negoitate the bend. It was an accident waiting to happen and I'm amazed that none was 'reported'.
Simply put. It was a bad decision in the first place to try to save the tree and build a bifurcated road.
I dun believe that transplantation was an option due to the size of the tree. It was either chopped or build that bifurcated road.
I will give the LTA and NParks credit for at least trying to save the tree. But common sense would have ruled that it was just $200K down the drain. And thats our tax money.
Dear pinto, trigger and paul,
Thanks for your insightful comments.
Thanks to pinto for pointing out another forked road in Farrer Road. That just highlight another inconsistency in their argument.
Trigger, I strongly believe that speed limit is a scapegoat, and that the real reason is due to a comment by some important Members of Public.
Paul, I can't agree more with you. I wouldn't mind that my taxes contributes to the $200k that saved the tree in the first place. But knowing that it is going down the drain due to whatever pressure LTA/NPark might have, it is really a waste of money. Pity.
Regards,
Daniel
commentator_sc says:
Have all alternatives been explored? Such as shifting that entire section of the road to the left,(in the direction of Serangoon)?
I drive there countless of times, no problems. All it really takes is lane discipline. The woman who claimed she had problem deciding which lane to take is a poor driver. The decision is as simple as staying in the lane you already are on when going by the tree. You can switch lane if there are no traffic on the lane in question. It doesn't take a grand prix driver to do that!
Did the tree block somebody's fengshui now? I heard that it was more for fengshui that the tree was kept previously...then again who else believes in fengshui in such age and times...wait, probably those who believe they can get out of their coffin after their death.
Are there vampires in Singapore?
Paul, I've driven pass that tree a few times, even at 50Km/h there were no problem at all, let alone 40Km/h.
Unless you are travelling above 60Km/h, but then you would be at least 20Km/h above the speed limit.
If some people cannot slow down according to the speed limit, the solution is to cut down the tree? I guess you have to pay someone millions of dollars to come up with this brilliant solution.
If drivers cannot follow speed limit, then a simple solution is to lay deccelerating strips on the road surface to force drivers to slow down, or even to install a speed camera.
If you notice, the more challenging bends are those poorly constructed ones about 100 metres before the tree, not the one around the tree.
This angsana tree should stay, it helps to keep us mindful about conservation and about the environment each time we make a conscious effort to slow down a little when driving past it.
Safety is of paramount importance and will always take precedence. This tree should be "abolished" in the 1st place for the safety of all motorists. It is not a matter of motorists not adhering to the speed limits or whatever, the location of the tree by itself is already a safety hazard spat right in the middle of the road. Unbelievable, and another world 1st. I was very bewildered that it took LTA $200k later to realise and understand the word "SAFETY". The whole of Traffic Management ought to be sacked!
Paul
The bend itself around the tree is not a safety issue; if it is, then many similar (or worse) road bends on this island would have problems too.
If safety is of paramount importance, then follow the speed limit and slow down. What needs to be abolished is not the tree but the self-centred driving mentality.
And this self-centred mentality displayed in our everyday life is also the root cause of many serious environmental issues we faced today.
Hey guys no need talk so much liao, the tree is chopped down alreadi..
A moment of silence for the poor tree...
Hi all,
Thank you all for your passionate comments. I believe we all belongs to a mature society that empathise with environment causes.
To commentator_sc and Kevin, the real (unannounced) culprit behind the flip flop could be the authority overseeing traffic. Let me try to explain this conspiracy theory.
Back in 2005, the traffic authority signed a pledge known as UITP Sustainability Charter. This Charter, devised by the International Union of Public Transport (in short, UITP) which represents public transport operators/regulators around the world, called for all 2,700 international members across 90 countries to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable development. One way to achieve this is to balance development with protecting the environment.
As such, being eager to demonstrate their commitment, the traffic authority volunteered to protect the tree, even though it was not required by the tree authority. The tree authority was more than happy to see the old Angsana tree go because even though it is old, Angsana tree is common in Singapore. After getting the blessings from tree authority, the traffic authority needed to convince their internal colleagues. They subsequently bent the back of their own traffic management (TM) people to convince them that it was safe to bifurcate the road. And they spent a huge some to protect that tree too (psst: the $200K quoted is a budgeted figure. I heard they spent beyond the budgeted $200K).
Everything went fine until one day, when certain Members of the Public, who can't grow out of their school white uniform, past by and saw the tree. And before you knew it all, the traffic authority needed to backtrack on its decision to satisfy the unhappiness of the Members of the Public.
That is why they came up with intelligent rhetoric about motorists not keeping to 40km/h lah, safety lah etc etc.
So Paul, you are right about sacking TM team. They went against their design principle (how can you slow traffic to 40km/h along a major arterial?). I’m delusioned as to whether they have any planning guidelines at all. Likewise, the traffic authority needed some reflection as to why they cannot stand up to the pressure of Members of Public (no wonder they lost quite a couple of senior management lately, the tally is 4 know for the past half a year or so, and still counting).
But in the end, the biggest change should come from the Members of Public. We need people who can grow out of their uniform, and who can be convinced that there are intelligence out there too.
Thank you all for the support. It’s been a pleasure.
Regards,
Daniel
Post a Comment