update blogHEADmaster

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/data/blogs/urban0.md b/data/blogs/urban0.md
index 2d86b44..8cce7ec 100644
--- a/data/blogs/urban0.md
+++ b/data/blogs/urban0.md
@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ Firstly, let's remove two of the lanes from the carriageway to turn this street
 
 This narrower road also allows us to add more crossings that are safer for pedestrians and cyclists. This also makes a raised zebra crossing pretty safe to use on this street, meaning that we can remove the traffic signals that the existing crossings have. This way, pedestrians and cyclists do not need to wait unnecessarily to cross this street, while still having the traffic calming effect that also forces vehicles to yield to pedestrians, making a raised zebra crossing safe. We can also add another raised zebra crossing on this stretch of this street to further reduce crossing distances of pedestrians and cyclists, and I think we can do so while still having enough distance between them for vehicles to safely drive through. So, let's switch up the existing signalised pedestrian crossing with a raised zebra crossing, and add an additional raised zebra crossing too.
 
-From that alone, we've freed up 7.6 m worth of street space! Currently, the footpaths and cycling path here do meet LTA's minimum standards according to their Walking and Cycling Design Guide[^11]. However, LTA's minimum standards are still quite narrow compared to international standards, especially for a bi-directional cycling path. For instance, the United Kingdom's Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20) guide sets out a desirable minimum width of 3.0 m to 4.0 m for a 2 way cycling path depending on bicycle traffic[^13]. So, let's take this opportunity to finally add another cycling path on the west side of the street, and widen these paths. We will also widen the footpaths on both sides of the street to improve walking comfort for everyone. The widened footpaths ensure that groups of people that want to walk side-by-side have sufficient space and don't need to overflow to the cycling path. It also gives more space for Personal Mobility Aids such as wheelchair users ample space to comfortably use the path without "blocking" other pedestrians.
+From that alone, we've freed up 7.6 m worth of street space! Currently, the footpaths and cycling path here do meet LTA's minimum standards according to their Walking and Cycling Design Guide[^11]. However, LTA's minimum standards are still quite narrow compared to international standards, especially for a bi-directional cycling path. For instance, the United Kingdom's Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20) guide sets out a desirable minimum width of 3.0 m to 4.0 m for a 2 way cycling path depending on bicycle traffic[^13]. So, let's take this opportunity to finally add another cycling path on the west side of the street, and widen these paths. We will also widen the footpaths on both sides of the street to improve walking comfort for everyone. The widened footpaths ensure that groups of people that want to walk side-by-side have sufficient space and don't need to overflow to the cycling path. It also gives more space for Personal Mobility Aid users (e.g. wheelchair users) ample space to comfortably use the path without "blocking" other pedestrians.
 
 Last year, LTA started enforcement that prohibits bicycles to use pedestrian-only paths and encourages pedestrians to use their own paths[^14]. Despite that, I still frequently observe cyclists using pedestrian-only paths and pedestrians walking on cycling paths. One of the causes of this may be due to the nature of most cycling paths in Singapore, where they are placed adjacent to pedestrian-only paths without clear physical separation. As a result, cyclists may need to veer onto pedestrian-only paths to avoid people walking on cycling paths, and pedestrians are not guaranteed a peace of mind since they feel the need to watch out for cyclists using their paths. A possible solution is by putting a physical buffer between the footpaths and cycling paths, like a kerb or a green verge. Not only does this increase comfort for cyclists and pedestrians, this also increases safety as the design minimises possible conflicts. If we want to upgrade the physical separation even further, we can implement level differences between the cycling path and footpaths, or even use the existing 3.56 m-wide green verge as the buffer between the footpaths and cycling paths. But for this concept, let's just use a simple 0.5 m green buffer between the footpath and cycling path.