AUG 20 — My fellow councillor Nicholas Theng basically made two points in his article ‘Penang transport improvement initiatives being discussed and implemented’.
First, he disagreed that cost is a good reason to ask for a review of the PTMP, claiming that it is ‘secondary compared to the suitability of the proposed system’. I had argued that the high cost estimates of the South Reclamation Scheme (SRS) Consortium’s version of the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP), coupled with the length of time it will take to construct, make it reasonable for us to request for a review of the whole PTMP so that we can seriously consider other alternatives.
SRS’s PTMP is estimated to cost RM46 billion in total, and the first phase will include, among other highways and an undersea tunnel, an RM8 billion highway (PIL 1) and one RM8.4 billion LRT line (from George Town to Bayan Lepas). I had highlighted how the earlier Halcrow’s version of the PTMP (that was officially adopted by the Penang state government in 2013) was only estimated to cost RM10 billion for the public transport component (using modern tram systems and bus rapid transit) and only RM27 billion for the whole proposal.
Theng’s second point is that I should not compare the cost estimations of Halcrow’s PTMP and SRS’s PTMP, because the former is a ‘broad-construction-cost-only’ estimate and ‘unsubstantiated and understated in its cost’ while the latter is based on ‘studies carried out by internationally reputable engineering consultants’.
It should be noted however that our Chief Minister himself has pointed out that the RM46 billion for SRS’s PTMP are also estimates that can only be finalised after approval is given, an agreement signed (between the state government and the consortium), and ‘more detailed engineering designs and call for tenders for the various work packages’.
But let us address Theng’s first point. If cost is indeed ‘secondary compared to the suitability of the proposed system’, then we need to ask how is the SRS’s proposed PTMP ‘suitable’ to the transportation needs of Penang’s population? What are the methodologies used to assess the costs and benefits of different public transport systems, and what criteria did SRS Consortium use to select LRTs and monorails over trams and BRTs? Penangites will not be able to know this answer or understand the methodologies used unless the detailed SRS Penang Transport Master Plan is uploaded online for public scrutiny, assuming that this detailed plan contains all the information needed to answer these questions.
As of today, Penangites have witnessed a lack of transparency in the handling of the PIL1 highway. For example, only the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is currently on public display due to requirements for it to obtain DOE approval. However, even the Transport Impact Assessment (TIA), the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and surveys that are mentioned in the EIA are not publicly available.
Instead of a systematic cost-benefit comparison of various options based on realistic populations and ridership figures, Theng gives spurious arguments using selective case examples. It is disingenuous for example to use the Sydney tram line construction as the reason for why Penang should not have a tramway system. Sydney’s problems could be due to many reasons, and one report cites inadequate planning and poor governance, with some seeing it as ‘the legacy of a rushed process designed to deliver an outcome by a politically motivated deadline’.
One could also cite other examples of very successful tram systems, such as the ones in Rio de Janeiro and Kaohsiung, or examples of cost overruns in LRT construction, such as in Hawaii. Likewise, it is dishonest to imply that BRTs where buses have dedicated right of way will mean ‘intentionally cutting road space’ and will ‘upset the logistic needs of businesses’. BRTs, unlike LRTs, are more flexible, and could also be elevated if necessary. Furthermore, a bus can take 40 cars off the road, while a modern tram can take 200 cars off the road, hence freeing up road space.
Indeed, I accept that there will be disagreements among us, but let us not confuse the issues by conflating different arguments. For example, it is one thing to agree that a ‘healthy road network’ is necessary, but whether or not a 19.5 km PIL1 highway (that consists half of tunnels through our fragile hills and the other half on elevated viaducts) is healthy or necessary is another issue altogether.
For better or for worse, the PTMP will have vast and lasting effects on Penang’s environment and will affect the lives of all Penang residents as well as future generations. It is therefore important that we are all encouraged to take part in the discussions and debates, and it is in everyone’s interest that these can be done in a civil manner, without name-calling and the use of pejorative words to discredit those who disagree with us.
* Chee Heng Leng is a Penang City Councillor
**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
