AUGUST 17 — I refer to Dr Chee’s article “Move people, not vehicles” (The Star, August 12).

Dr Chee’s knowledge of this subject matter is poor, lacking and misleading as much of her article is backed up by assumptions rather than facts.

As a fellow MBPP Councillor, I find it shocking that Dr Chee is unaware of the many transport improvement initiatives being discussed and implemented by MBPP and the State Government. We have launched the Penang Bicycle Route Master Plan, LinkBike and Penang Central Area Transit, with many more initiatives being worked on simultaneously while the State works hard to get the PTMP off the ground. It is misleading to assume that the State Government is not working on alternatives during the years between the start and completion of the PIL 1 and LRT. Each phase and initiative is meant to alleviate and cater to transport demands of the future.

Moreover, Dr Chee questions whether the LRT and PIL 1, when completed, will only be one mass transit line and one highway. This is misleading as she clearly does not understand the PTMP, which she is so vehemently against.

The Penang Transport Master Plan is a long-term public transport and highway improvement exercise that takes years to implement. Each step of its implementation must have a long-term horizon to ensure sufficient capacity and reach to meet trip demands that grow in line with developments, employment and population. The LRT and PIL 1 are not the whole PTMP, they are a part of it.

Even today, after two decades of continuous upgrading and extension of its MRT network, Singapore is still aggressively expanding its MRT network to increase connectivity and spur development in new areas on the island.

Dr Chee also argues that the cost of the LRT and PIL 1 totalling RM16.4 billion makes it reasonable to request for a review of the whole PTMP in order to seriously consider other alternatives.

I disagree. In my opinion, cost is secondary compared to the suitability of the proposed system. Based on the arguments posed, the “alternatives” Dr Chee is referring to is the tram system and bus rapid transits. Why would Dr Chee so aggressively support a system that has been proven to incur cost overruns, long delays and public outrage as seen in Sydney just recently? Per article “Sydney light rail extension a “horror story” of missed deadlines and billions in cost overruns” (news.com.au April 10 2018)

It is irresponsible and callous of an academic like Dr Chee to not be well-informed on the subject that she is advocating for on a major news platform, especially as she is a public figure. The construction of the tram system in Sydney shows the horrors Penangnites will face, both financially and logistically. Is such an alternative really suitable for Penang who already has narrow roads and limited space?

Dr Chee also highlights how the Halcrow only costs RM10 billion for the public transport component and only RM27 billion for the whole proposal (modern tram systems and bus rapid transit). This is again, misleading.

It is obvious that Dr Chee is unfamiliar with the Halcrow Report which she is heavily lobbying because the RM10 billion is a broad-construction-cost-only estimate made in 2013 with no associated study on the recommended system’s engineering feasibility, constructibility and land acquisition costs.

This is being compared to the LRT and PIL 1 systems which had studies carried out by internationally reputable engineering consultants. The money being invested into the PIL 1 and LRT is to ensure that they are a success.

Dr Chee also assumes that for the cost of the LRT and PIL 1, we can easily implement Halcrow’s BRT and modern tramway system. This is baffling to me as how can Dr Chee be sure when no feasibility tests have been done? Without a feasibility report from a reputed body to corroborate her statement, is she not just lying through her teeth?

I also disagree with Dr Chee when she says bus rapid transit and tramways are more suited for Penang’s population size rather than LRTs. As I mentioned earlier in my article, public infrastructure are costly and urban planners need to incorporate long-term horizon in the early planning process. It is in the State’s interest to ensure that future ridership demand is met, instead of just the present demand, because these transport assets are expected to last one’s lifetime and beyond. Being myopic about ridership demand will plunge the State into financial chaos, as the State will be forced to expand the system not long after its completion when it gets overloaded from growing demand. This in turn will cause nothing but misery to the public, as evidenced by Sydney’s recent chaos with its tramway extensions.

Lastly, Dr Chee argues that if buses have right of way in a bus rapid transit network, people will be encouraged to switch to public transport. Putting aside that this is an unproven assumption, she forgets that roads are used not just to carry people, but also goods. Penang already has immensely narrow roads, intentionally cutting road space to force an adoption of public transport will inadvertently upset the logistic needs of businesses that rely on goods being delivered on time. In her relentless single-mindedness to move people around, she has failed to see the big picture. A healthy road network is crucial to support the movement of people and goods. This explains why developed countries and cities with high adoption of public transport systems such as Singapore and Hong Kong are still building roads and highways. As a State Government, we must always have the interests of all in mind.

Despite all my disagreements with Dr Chee, I echo Dr Chee’s call that we need a well-connected flexible transport system that is easy and convenient to use, that has the first and last mile connectivity, and is reliable to the extent that people can plan their journeys on time tables because that is exactly what the State Government is striving to achieve with the Penang Transport Master Plan.

The Halcrow’s recommendations, which Dr Chee advocates with such ferocity, is both unsubstantiated and understated in its cost. Without a solid feasibility and constructibility study or report, Dr Chee is advocating that we spend massive public funds on a unfounded concept as compared to the PTMP which already has feasibility studies on its engineering design, constructibility, socio-impact and traffic impact.

This, I cannot agree with.

* Nicholas Theng is city councillor for Penang

 

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail