Letter to HDB/URA/LTA/ST

This is not a course assignment, however, I feel that I should share this letter as a learning experience to everyone.

To: HDB, URA, LTA

Re: Drivability - Slopes and humps

Singapore is known for having a well-developed transport infrastructure. Yet, some areas of this infrastructure seems to be poorly designed, probably by people who do not drive.

Multi-storey carpark (MSCP) slopes is one of these areas. Currently, it seems like the approach taken is simply to build a 'bridge' between two levels. However, this is a problem as the angle between the slope and the deck of the carpark itself can be too steep for cars to negotiate down safely, especially when coming down the ramp. This leads to cars damaging their front bumpers when negotiating such slopes.

Carpark designers should allow for a gradual change in the gradient of the slope to make it more gentle, and to prevent such damage to cars.

Road humps is also another issue. The humps at certain areas are so high and steep that it seems as though road planners/designers want to build a hill instead of a hump. Cars have trouble clearing such humps successfully without scraping. This is evident by the scratch marks on the hump itself, and on the road after the hump.

Road planners/designers should come back to the basic issue of why we need humps: it is a traffic calming measure to reduce the speed of vehicles to a suitable level. A small hump would suffice in most cases. Having larger humps simply leads to damage to cars (lips, bumpers and suspension) and inefficiency as braking more scrubs more kinetic energy, and cars have to accelerate more to regain momentum after negotiating the hump leading to wasteful emissions and wear and tear.

On a more fundamental level, it may even be justifiable to eliminate the use of humps totally - they are inefficient and a nuisance to drivers. Other traffic calming measures, such as bright markings on the road, could be employed in the place of humps.

In conclusion, transport designers/planners should review their design of carpark slopes and road humps. In the case of MSCPs, they should flatten the angle between the slope and the carpark deck, and in the case of humps, they should leave the creation of hills to nature and use smaller humps.

By a <censored> and disgruntled motorist.

Week 4/ Report: Main Question/Thesis/Outline

Week 4/ Report: Main Question/Thesis/Outline

Problem: Whether NUS faculty should initiate/accept friend requests from students on Facebook
Purpose: To evaluate if NUS faculty should initiate/accept friend requests from undergraduate students on Facebook, and to suggest guidelines for Facebook interaction with students.
Question(s):

1.      What are the (positive and negative) consequences of faculty-student “friendship” on facebook?

2.      What are the attitudes of students towards befriending teachers on Facebook?

3.      How feasible is it for NUS teachers to use Facebook to value-add their relationship with students?

4.      What role does Facebook play in teacher-student interactions on Facebook, and can this be done in any other way?

Flow of issues:

1. What are the consequences (benefits/evils) of having teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook? (perspective of students)
2. What are the attitudes (general response) to befriending teachers on Facebook? (Why would students want to add teachers on Facebook?)
3. Suitability of integrating Facebook into courses – evaluate usefulness, convenience, ease of use
4. Evaluate whether FB ‘friendship’ is actually beneficial overall
4a. If FB usage is deemed to be beneficial (ie NUS faculty SHOULD initiate/accept friend requests from students on FB), what is the role of such “friendships”?
4b. If FB usage is deemed to be harmful (ie NUS faculty SHOULD NOT initiate/accept friend requests from students on FB), what are the guidelines that staff should follow with respect to FB usage?

Report will follow the following format:

1.Executive Summary

       1.0 Introduction
          1.1 Background of report
          1.2 PPQ
          1.3 Scope
          1.4 Limitations ???
          1.5 Sources & Methods 

   2.0 Findings

- To interpret data (Compare&contrast or Functional?)
          2.1. Consequences of teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook

2.1.1 Benefits of teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook

2.1.2 Drawbacks of teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook

          2.2 Students' attitude towards teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook
          2.3 Suitability of using Facebook for teaching
         
33.0  Conclusions
- To provide explanations for key findings

4. 4.0 Recommendation
- NUS faculty SHOULD intitiate/accept friend requests on FB, and the guidelines for FB usage in this case (for staff)
- NUS faculty SHOULD NOT initiate/accept friend requests on FB, and the guidelines for FB usage in this case (for staff)

55.0  Overall conclusion
- -revisit ppq
--highlight key findings, conclusions, recommendations.