UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 1

Special Issue on the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) & Pan Island Link 1 (PIL1)

July-August 2018 Vol. 48 No. 4 W. M’sia: RM2.00 E. M’sia: RM2.50 ISSN 012-950JX PP1597/10/2012(030960) Email: [email protected] www.consumer.org.my ...... The SRS-Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) Scarring a Heritage City & Not Designed to Solve Transport Woes

KEK LOK SI SRS/FMT Star

he Penang Transport Master The Pan Island Plan proposed by SRS will Link 1 (PIL1) change the face of the heritage T magine PIL1 as a dual 3-lane city of Penang forever. carriage way and a dual 3-lane The plan by SRS is not a transport tunnel snaking its way through plan per se, but is a development Ithe hills, parks, residential and com- plan to reclaim 3 new islands, build mercial areas of Penang. an undersea tunnel, a sky cab, LRTs A dual 3-lane carriage way via- duct is equivalent to the width of and monorails, dual 3-lane highways Penang Bridge minus the 2 motor- and viaducts, and dual 3-lane tunnels cycle lanes. cutting through the hills of Penang It will be wider than the present Gottlieb Road when it is constructed among others. on top of the whole stretch of Gott- The SRS Consortium is a joint lieb Road. venture between Gamuda Bhd, Loh A similar monstrosity in the Phoy Yen Holdings Sdn Bhd, and form of a cable stayed bridge will go through Youth Park, directly over the Ideal Property Development Sdn Bhd. amphitheatre and a Hindu temple. They will benefit while the people Another viaduct will mar the of Penang will suffer. views of Kek Lok Si being only 465 YOUTH PARK metres away and less than 100 metres On the whole, the PTMP is a highly from the Columbarium. ineffective short-term solution, lacks The popular Taman Jajar Lin- transparency, is wildly overpriced ear Park in Sg Ara will also have a and significantly deteriorates the viaduct running on top of the whole length of it along the Sungei Kluang environment. which will be straightened.

The Pan Island Link 1 (PIL1) is part of the Penang Transport Master Plan. Its EIA is open for comments. OPPOSE the PIL1 Environment Impact Assessment to stop the

project NOW! Post your comments before 7 September 2018. PIL 1 EIA 2 UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN

The Penang Transport Master Plan Costs RM46 Billion THE Penang Transport Master Plan

Graphic by Penang Forum anilnetto.com PIL 1 EIA

RIGHT: Residents protest against PIL1 at Taman Jajar in Sg Ara. PIL 1 EIA A proposed dual 3-lane viaduct that will go over the full length of Taman Jajar in Sg Ara.

The Pan Island Link 1 (PIL1) Samshee photography/www.bikelah.com PIL 1 EIA The popular and picturesque Taman Jajar will be scarred and polluted by the PIL1 project. THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 3

THIS summary was posted to the United Kingdom and Eire a Summary of the Penang Transport (Ireland) Council of Malaysian Students (UKEC) Master Plan (PTMP) Controversy By Roger Teoh* to cost below Rm10 billion. On the whole, the PTMP is a sortium have both remained is a highly ineff ective short- eaR malaysians, have When the plan was nearly completely silent regarding term solution, lacks transpar- you heard about the fi nalised, Halcrow was pres- highly ineffective short-term this matter. ency, is wildly overpriced and Rm46 billion Pen- sured to include an undersea according to the UK gov- signifi cantly deteriorates the Dang Transport master Plan tunnel and 3 major highways solution, lacks transparency, is ernment’s green Book on environment. (PTmP) that the DaP-led on the island with a projected appraisal and evaluation, it is given that a number of Penang State government is total cost of Rm27 billion. In wildly overpriced and signifi cantly mandatory for an alternative mega projects such as the attempting to push through? may 2013, the Halcrow Plan proposal to be considered for east Coast Rail Link and KL- Why is the PTmP generating was offi cially endorsed by the deteriorates the environment. every project. Singapore High Speed Rail are so much controversy and me- Penang government. However, alternative currently being reviewed, the dia attention lately? Lacking technical resourc- PTmP proposals (https://www. new PH government must be and how does the PTmP es, the Penang government to our surprise, the Penang is forecasted to be signifi cantly bettercheaperfaster.my/) were re- consistent by reviewing the relate to you even if you are not decided to appoint a project government had refused to higher than most mRT lines jected outright by the Penang PTmP too. a Penangite? I understand that delivery partner (PDP) to im- upload these documents on- in London, Singapore and government without conduct- However, calls for an inde- this post is a bit lengthy, but I plement the Halcrow Plan. line for public scrutiny. Kuala Lumpur on a per capita ing any comparative study or pendent review of the PTmP hope that you will be able to Th is was done through a The fact that the SRS basis within its first year of quantitative evidence. have fallen on deaf ears. bear with me while I provide Request for Proposal. Th e win- Transport master Plan is not operations (http://www.free- On top of that, we have also I am not able to go through a summary on the topic and ning bid was submitted by SRS available online for public malaysiatoday.com/category/ witnessed continued attempts the topic in detail in one post. raise some key concerns on Consortium, a joint venture scrutiny creates a breeding opinion/2018/08/13/penang- by the Penang State govern- nevertheless, concerned par- why the PTmP should be high- between gamuda Bhd, Loh ground for misinformation transport-master-plan-a-mul- ment to engage in rhetoric and ties have written a number of lighted to the general public. Phoy Yen Holdings Sdn Bhd, and confusion on the subject. tidimensional-fallacy/). to suppress productive debate articles on the PTmP. In January 2009, the Pen- and Ideal Property Develop- a former Penang aDUn from Failure to achieve the fore- by labelling concerned par- Personally, I have already ang Transport Council (PTC), ment Sdn Bhd. the DaP had even spoken casted ridership could lead to ties as “spreading fake news” written 12 articles on the topic made up of about a dozen pro- Th e SRS proposal ignored out on this matter (https:// at least Rm1.2 billion in loss (http://www.freemalaysiatoday. and have compiled a list of rel- fessionals from civil society, all the institutional, short www.facebook.com/penangfo- ticket revenues over 10 years, com/category/nation/2018/07/26/ evant articlesfor any interested was established to engage a and medium-term measures rum/videos/672829743078507/ threatening the fi nancial vi- chow-regrets-misrepresentation- parties for further reading. transport consultant to pro- recommended in the Halcrow UzpfSTewmDawmDI1nDe0n- ability of the LRT project and of-highway-by-ngos/). duce a comprehensive trans- plan and introduced new ele- zQ0mToymDe3nDc0mDgxn- the state’s fi nancial health. ngOs and opponents of * ROgER TEOH is a PhD post- port master plan for Penang. ments such as LRT, monorails ja0mzc3/) but had received Why is SRS Consortium the PTmP were also vilifi ed graduate studying at the Centre Halcrow, a transport con- and highway. Initially pitched no response from the Penang allowed to carry out their own and treated as enemies of the for Transport Studies, Imperial sultant from the UK was ap- at Rm27 billion, the SRS plan government. feasibility studies and traffi c state. essentially, what we are College London. The opinion pointed and subsequently quickly ballooned to Rm46 To make matters worse, ridership forecasts for the Pen- witnessing now is a continu- of the author is expressed from drew up a Recommended billion. serious concerns were also ang State government with a ation of malpractices that are a neutral standpoint and he is potential conflict of interest no diff erent from those of the Transport master Plan Strat- given the mammoth Rm46 identified by ngOs in the not a member or affiliate of SRS Plan. arising? previous Barisan nasional egy (“Halcrow Plan”) featuring billion price tag, malaysians any political party or NGOs in should expect more transpar- For example, the annual Until today, the Penang administration. an extensive network of trams Malaysia. and BRT, which was estimated ency on the PTmP. However, ridership for the Penang LRT government and SRS Con- On the whole, the PTmP

Part 1 of a series of articles on the Penang Transport Master Plan Need to Relook at the by Dr Lim Mah Hui and Dr Ahmad Hilmy Dr. Lim Mah Hui is a former Penang Transport Master Plan professor, international banker and Penang Island ronmental impact to City Councillor such a liveable herit- ture projects, especially build- whether the proposed LRT provision of planning, design of public consultation by Hal- age city”. ing highways and a tunnel, project is fi nancially sustain- and management services for crow also showed overwhelm- Dr. Ahmad Hilmy is Associate that are unlikely to solve the able. infrastructure development, ing support to make better use Professor, USM. (Technology He Penang Transport mobility and transport prob- The FInaL article will was appointed to deliver a of the State’s existing transport cluster-transport system) master Plan (PTmP) lems in Penang. address what is the way for- Rm3.2 million study (in part- systems and to adopt a bal- should be highlighted to even some public transport ward. nership with aJC and Sin- anced approach, i.e. a com- Tthe public for two reasons. projects like the proposed LRT It must be made clear from gapore cruise consultants) bination of improving public On 16 May 2018, the First, it is the largest project from george Town to the air- the start that civil society does to provide a transport plan transport, building some new the State plans to undertake, port are questionable in terms not question the need for to cover a period of 20 years highways and introducing Vice President of of fi nancial sustainability. Th e a transport master plan for (2010-2030). policy-based measures to re- the Chartered Insti- estimated at Rm46 billion. Hence it must be closely scru- state should consider other Penang. a major objective of the duce growth in private vehicle tute of Logistics and tinised. Does Penang need more sustainable forms of On the contrary, members Plan is to move public modal usage, to solving the State’s Transport (CILT-M), such mega projects? Is it the transportation that are less of civil society initiated and share of transport from a low transportation problems. Rosli Khan, called best use of public funds? Is it costly and more environmen- recommended the idea to the 5% to 40% by 2030. Prior to its fi nal acceptance tally friendly. newly elected Pakatan govern- Halcrow began its study by the State, the consultants for a review of mega fi nancially sound? Second, the former and This FIRST article will ment in 2008. in July 2011 and completed were pressured to include the projects like the ECRL, present chief ministers of provide a brief history of the In January 2009, the State it at year end 2012. In the 18 tunnel and 3 highway projects KL-Singapore High Penang have made this a top PTmP. government established the months period, it undertook into the report despite the Speed Rail and the priority and touted it as a plan Th eSeCOnD will analyse Penang Transport Council an extensive series of surveys earlier mentioned findings to deliver Penang people from how the SRS PTmP deviates (PTC) made up of about a on travel patterns and held and the consultants’ view that Penang Tunnel that do from the officially adopted dozen professionals from civil series of meetings and work- the tunnel may not be needed not refl ect high level the woes of traffi c congestion. Will it solve Penang’s traffi c Halcrow PTmP. society, of which Dr Lim was shops with representatives until 2030. of economic benefi ts. congestion? are there better Th e THIRD will question a member. from government bodies as The Halcrow report was On the last project he alternatives? whether the Request for Pro- The PTC, among many well as members of public to completed in December 2012 said, “Penang Tunnel Th is is the fi rst in a series posal process used by the State other things, worked on the get their input and feedback. and offi cially adopted by the is an open tender system. terms of reference to engage One of the most impor- Penang State government in will induce more car of 6 articles on why the SRS -PTmP should be relooked Th e FOURTH article will a transport consultant to pro- tant findings was that only march 2013 as the blueprint travel and will lead to and reviewed. ask whether the tunnel is nec- duce a comprehensive trans- 7% of travels are made across for implementation (referred massive traffi c grid- The present proposed essary or able to solve Penang’s port master plan. the channel between Penang to from here on as the Halcrow locks in Penang Island, PTmP is too car-centric and traffi c woes. In may 2011,Halcrow, a island and mainland during PTmP (2013-2030)) at an esti- The FIFTH examines a very damaging envi- focused on mega infrastruc- consultancy specialised in the peak morning hours. Results mated cost of Rm27 billion. 4 UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN

Part 2 of a series of articles on the Penang Transport Master Plan Deviations of the SRS- by Dr Lim Mah Hui and Dr Ahmad Hilmy he Halcrow PTMP was Penang Transport Master Plan adopted by the Penang State Government in MTarch 2013. Lacking in tech- nical and financial capabilities, the State decided to implement from the Halcrow Plan the plan using the project-de- livery-partner (PDP) method. The Penang State Government allocated million has been paid for The role of a PDP is to man- these studies and the amount age the implementation of the RM305 million just to do the feasibility and of work done does not appear master plan and to guarantee to match the amount drawn its timely and acceptable com- detail design studies for the tunnel and 3 down. MACC is investigating pletion for a fee (in this case this matter. 6% of the total project). highways in Penang island. To date over The SRS proposal ignored The State also decided to all the institutional and short use a Request-for-Proposal RM200 million has been paid for these and medium measures of the (RFP), rather than an open- Halcrow Plan and only focused tender system, to select a PDP studies and the amount of work done does on adding more mega infra- to implement the Halcrow structures and highways. For PTMP. In August 2014, a ten- not appear to match the amount drawn the public transport system, der was called for bidders.A SRS ditched Halcrow’s rec- total of 6 bids were received down. MACC is investigating this matter. ommended BRT and tram for on the closing date in Febru- monorail and LRT. Monorail ary 2015. In August 2015 the is an outdated technology and State awarded the project to Dr Lim Mah Hui is a former Dr Ahmad Hilmy is transport related development northern and southern coasts hardly used anywhere in the the SRS Consortium made professor, international Associate Professor, USM. contributions and transport of the island. world as a means of public up of Gamuda and 2 property banker and Penang Island City (Technology cluster-transport accessibility audits. The consultants cautioned transportation. Sydney and developers (Ideal Properties Councillor system) In terms of public trans- that this might be difficult if Moscow have torn down their and Loh Poh Yean). port, the Halcrow Plan talks the State does not have the sup- monorail systems. An RFP is not an open- shift towards moving people structures (iv) concurrently of upgrading existing bus port of the federal authorities. Even the former chief min- tender bidding. In an open not cars. institute traffic management services to bus rapid transit Given that the Pakatan Hara- ister, Lim Guan Eng, stated tender, a client that calls for a It aims to improve the policies aimed at reducing fur- (BRT) services or tram serv- pan coalition now has control on 15 March 2013 that “BN’s tender defines the project with street environment by mak- ther growth of private vehicle ices. Nowhere did the Halcrow over the state and federal agen- monorail is inappropriate for detailed specifications.A ll par- ing roads safer and more user activity. Plan recommend monorails cies, this should no longer be a a world heritage city like Pen- ties submit tenders conform- friendly for all especially pe- Strategies (i) and (ii) call and LRT as they were probably stumbling block. ang, as its elevated structure ing to the original design so destrians, cyclists and the for: more expensive and inap- Finally, the Halcrow Plan will destroy Penang’s charms.” that the cheapest tender can be physically disadvantaged. l improving regulation propriate. suggested that the undersea The same can be said for the selected, whereas the tenderers A main objective is to in- and enforcement of illegal In order for public trans- tunnel and new highways proposed LRTs. submit different proposals to crease public modal share of waiting, parking, loading and port to take off, the Halcrow should only be considered With all these mega the client in an RFP. No two transport from 5% to 40% in hawker activities Plan emphasised the need to once the short and medium- projects, the cost of the SRS proposals submitted under an 20 years (2011 to 2030). l better management significantly improve pedes- term priorities are achieved. proposal ballooned (from RFP are similar, and therefore To achieve the 40% public of on-street parking control trian accessibility in terms of However, instead of im- RM27 billion under the Hal- they cannot be compared.The transport modal share target, regime shaded walkways integrated plementing Halcrow’s recom- crow Plan) to an astounding procurement and negotiation a series of short, medium and l reorganising existing with bus stops and buildings. mended short and medium- RM46 billion, an increase of process thus becomes more long-term steps were proposed bus networks into a series of Clearing of five-foot walkways term strategies, the State Gov- 70% . What happened to the prone to rigging or abuse. by Halcrow. core and secondary bus routes is a priority so that pedestrians ernment decided to endorse funding allocated for institu- The SRS proposal deviated These consist of 4 strate- plus feeder bus routes to serve can walk comfortably and the SRS proposal, which is an tional reforms, pedestrian and substantially from the Halcrow gies: (i) make better use of the residential and industrial com- safely. Not much expenses are outright contradiction to the cycling infrastructures, water PTMP. State’s existing roads and trans- munities necessary to achieve this. Halcrow Plan. transport and feeder buses The initial Halcrow Plan port networks (ii) strengthen- l changing the way de- The Halcrow Plan also It allocated RM305 million that constitute the necessary aims to adopt a holistic ap- ing institutional capabilities velopment applications are recommended improving the just to do the feasibility and de- elements for a holistic and bal- proach to solving Penang’s (iii) longer term proposals to approved away from Traffic ferry services and introducing tail design studies for the tun- anced transportation system? mobility and transport prob- provide additional highway Impact Assessment which has other water transport services nel and 3 highways in Penang Something has gone ter- lem, adopting a paradigm and public transport infra- failed to a system based on to link George Town to the island. To date over RM200 ribly wrong. Request for Proposal (RFP) is Not Open Tender Our question is whether ding to all contractors to ten- (RFP) and claimed that they negotiation process thus be- should be brought in to review Part 3 the request for proposal (RFP) der. Second, all the contractors are open tenders. We need to comes more prone to rigging them, in order to prevent col- of a series of articles on the method used by the Penang must be prequalified based on distinguish clearly between or abuse. RFPs are therefore lusion and bid-rigging. Penang Transport Master State Government to award both their technical and finan- the two as they are not the not open tenders and will not In the case of the award of Plan mega infrastructure projects cial ability. Then they must same or even equivalent. The give taxpayers value for their the Penang Master Transport such as the tunnel and 3 paired submit tenders conforming two terms should not be used money. The criteria for bidding Master Plan by the Penang by Dr Lim Mah Hui and highways to Zenith-Ewein, to the original design so that interchangeably. under the RFP is not transpar- State Government to the SRS Dr Ahmad Hilmy and the implementation of the the cheapest tender can be In open tenders, all parties ent and not consistent. Consortium through RFP, the Penang Transport Master Plan selected. If all the contractors are bidding based on the same Infrastructure projects final proposal by SRS deviated to the SRS Consortium counts are prequalified, the Govern- specifications provided by the should be by open tender. significantly from the officially he Federal Government as open tender. ment tender board has only client. The award is given to the RFP should only be used when adopted Halcrow masterplan. is reviewing all mega According to Gamuda to look at the tendered price. tenderer with the lowest price, the Government would like to The cost of the entire project projects with dubious founder, Koon Yew Yin, the Always award the contract to other things being equal. invite creative solutions to a ballooned from RM27 bil- economicT benefits and highly best way to evaluate open ten- the contractor who submits the Whereas in an RFP, the problem. Creative financing lion to RM46 billion. We call inflated costs. The PrimeM in- ders is for government to fol- cheapest tender assuming that tenderers submit different pro- solutions should be avoided for more consistency from ister Tun Dr Mahathir as well low the guidelines established all the other criteria are met.It posals to the clients. No two as it brings other problems the new Pakatan Harapan as the Minister of Finance Lim by the World Bank. is important not to allow any- proposals submitted under an with it. state and federal governments. Guan Eng have reiterated that “Firstly, the Government body from the Government to RFP are similar, and therefore We therefore call for a re- All non-open tender projects the selection of projects not must engage a reputable engi- negotiate with any contractor they cannot be compared. This view of all large projects that should be reviewed, not only based on open competitive neering consulting firm which to avoid corruption.” makes it difficult to compare have not been awarded based Barisan Nasional projects. tender system is subjected has experience with similar Some state governments the various proposals as it is on open tenders. Even for large An independent review to abuse and corruption and projects to put up a proposal have awarded mega projects akin to comparing apples and projects that have been award- should therefore be made of hence must be reviewed. and to open the project bid- based on request for proposal oranges. The procurement and ed by open tenders, the MACC this award. THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 5 Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel? siaran gurney to Bagan ajam Halcrow’s survey of traffi c pan controls both the state and the cost of upgrading the ferry coordination should look at in Seberang Perai. volume showed that in 2011 federal governments, it is in a service to acceptable standards providing a rail link on one Part 4 of the bridges between the of a series of articles on the The 3 main highway cross channel traffi c account position to consider cheaper as an option. projects comprise the 10 km for only 7% of total state traffi c and environmentally friend- Presently the rail serv- mainland and island. a cross Penang Transport Master channel commuter train would Plan paired road from Tanjung during peak hours. lier forms of public transport, ice of KTm has improved Bungah to Teluk Bahang, the We were also told that the notably improving the ferry signifi cantly but ends in the be much better than another air Itam-Tun Dr Lim Chong Halcrow consultants were service or/and possibly a rail Prai/Butterworth station. It is bridge for cars. It would also by Dr Lim Mah Hui and cut travel time considerably Dr Ahmad Hilmy eu expressway, and the Per- pressured, against their pro- link on one of the existing poorly integrated to the ferry siaran gurney-Tun Dr Lim fessional view, to include the bridges. service. and encourage people to use Chong eu expressway. tunnel project into the Hal- many Penangites love to It takes almost 1 hour for the train instead of driving to He chief minister YaB Th ese 4 projects are esti- crow plan. use the ferry service if it was ef- passengers to cross from the Kuala Lumpur. Chow Kon Yeow has mated to cost Rm 6.4 billion. Th e public was told that the fi ciently managed and brought Prai railway station to Weld For all the above reasons, again brought up the Why the need to rush the tunnel was needed because the up to the standard of the Hong Quay on the island, thereby this State government that tunnelT and other mega infra- tunnel project when the Hal- State could not get federal ap- Kong–Kowloon ferry serv- discouraging people to travel promises competence, ac- structure as a priority for his crow Plan, offi cially adopted by proval to build a third bridge ice. People were discouraged on trains. Th is is another com- countability, transparency and administration to solve the the State government, clearly across the channel or to agree from using it because it was pelling reason to improve the openness should have greater traffi c problems in Penang. states it is not an urgent prior- to the State taking over the infrequent, unreliable and not ferry service. public engagement and par- Th e 7.2 km undersea tun- ity; something that may only ferry service. pleasant. a proper compara- additionally, the State and ticipation before bulldozing nel project will connect Per- be needed in 2030. now that the Pakatan Har- tive study should be made on federal authorities working in through these mega projects. The Proposed LRT and Pan Island Link (PIL) Must be Reviewed Part 5 Table 1: Comparative Costs of LRT, Modern Tram, BRT Has the State done a fi nancial analysis on of a series of articles on the the expected annual defi cit of operating the Penang Transport Master 2 Plan George Town to Airport (17 km) LRT Modern Tram BRT** LRT, and is it putting the Penang state at Construction cost per km RM220 m* (elevated) RM50 m** RM25 m by Dr Lim Mah Hui and fi nancial risk? Dr Ahmad Hilmy (segregated (segregated at grade) at grade) Table 1 shows that it is 3 times more He Penang State gov- RM80 m (elevated) RM50 m expensive to construct an LRT ernment has prioritised (elevated) the building of an LRT (RM220 m/km when compared to a fromT george Town to the air- Annual Operating & RM170 m* RM22 m** NA port and also a Pan Island Link Maintenance tramline (RM80 m/km), or 4.5 times more expressway from Tanjung- expensive compared to an elevated BRT Tokong to the airport under Carrying Capacity (PPHPD= 18,500 7,000 to 20,000 the Penang master Transport persons per hour per direction) system (RM50 m/km). Plan. Serious questions should be Projected ridership trips in 2023 8m 8m raised as to why it is choosing Based on 8 million trips costing an average a public transport system (the Projected ticket revenue RM28 m RM28 m NA of RM3.50 per trip, the projected defi cit LRT) that is more expensive (RM3.50/trip) to build, operate and main- for operating the LRT is RM142 tain compared to alternatives Projected surplus (defi cit) (RM142 m) RM6 m NA such as a tram or Bus Rapid million per year vs a projected surplus of Transit (BRT) system that was Source: * LRT numbers from SRS proposal RM6 million for tram. (See Table 1) recommended by the offi cially ** Tram and BRT numbers from Halcrow Report Vol.2: Table 5.1; Table 11.5 adopted Halcrow transport master plan? The KL-Klang valley LRT experience is Why was no comparative trams and BRT’s, the same Halcrow Report estimated the day) is more realistic than the study done on the financial amount of allocated capital is O&m costs for the tram line to 42 million. In other words, instructive. Within the fi rst 2 years of its viability of alternative public able to construct 90 km worth be Rm22 million. projected ridership could be transport systems before a of tramlines, or 135 km worth overestimated by 80%. operation, the projects racked up massive choice was made? of BRT routes. Is SRS projected rider- Based on 8 million trips losses due to infl ated fi nancial projections; Is SRS Consortium’s pro- By increasing the number ship for the LRT at costing an average of Rm3.50 jected LRT ridership of 42 mil- of stations and public trans- 42 million per year per trip, the projected defi- the Federal Government had to pump lion trips per year realistic? port routes with dedicated (116,000) per day realis- cit for operating the LRT is in RM5 billion or more to bail out the Has the State done a fi nan- right-of-way, the accessibil- Rm142 million per year vs a cial analysis on the expected ity and convenience of using tic? Or is it infl ated? projected surplus of Rm6 mil- operators. annual defi cit of operating the public transport will be sig- as a comparison, the daily lion for tram. (See Table 1). total ridership for Penang LRT, as opposed to BRT or nifi cantly increased, making While this is a back-of-an- to inflated financial projec- In conclusion, we call on tram system, and is it putting it more attractive relative to Rapid for the whole state is envelope estimate, the State the State government to ex- still less than 100,000 per day, tions; the Federal government the Penang state at fi nancial the car and giving Penangites government must commission had to pump in Rm5 billion ercise fi scal prudence, do the risk? more value for money. after more than 10 years in an independent comparative proper studies and comparison operation. or more to bail out the opera- Table 1 shows that it is 3 Why does the Penang State fi nancial analysis of the vari- tors. with other cheaper and more times more expensive to con- government continue to opt Using the experience of ous modes of public transport sustainable public transport Kuala Lumpur’s 3 LRT lines It would be irresponsible struct an LRT (Rm220 m/km for the more expensive option systems, which it has not done, for the Penang State govern- systems before leading Penang when compared to a tramline with a shorter route? as a guide, the actual rider- before making a major deci- down a treacherous path. ship for the 3 LRT lines ranges ment to plunge the state into (Rm80 m/km), or 4.5 times more worrisome is why did sion on Penang’s biggest and fi nancial distress. more expensive compared to the state pick a LRT system from 3-20% of initial projected most expensive infrastructure an elevated BRT system (Rm50 that is many times more ex- ridership, with an average of project to date. 1 To make valid comparison across the diff erent systems, only the construc- 1 m/km). pensive to operate and main- 18%. Th e KL-Klang Valley LRT tion costs, inclusive of the electrical and operating systems, are used. Th ese In other words, if the Pen- tain (O&m) compared to tram Hence, we believe that a 8 experience is further instruc- numbers do not include land acquisition costs that vary signifi cantly. ang State government were or BRT. SRS estimated the million trips projection for the tive. Within the fi rst 2 years 2 Halcrow recommended 3 tram lines for the island, each with almost equal to replace the planned 30 km annual O&m cost for the LRT Penang LRT, (19% of original of its operation, the projects distance, with annual O&m costs of Rm67 million. We therefore used LRT route in favour of modern line at Rm170 million, while projection, i.e. 21,920 trips per racked up massive losses due Rm22 million as cost for one line (see Table 11.5, Halcrow Report Vol.2). 6 UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN Independent Review of the SRS Proposed Penang Transport Master Plan Needed has called for an independent dragged into this controversy cash fl ow mismatch between nancially burden the state and federal government. as such, Part 6 review. and hence should scrap the revenue and expenditure. Un- the people of Penang. no compensation is required of a series of articles on the project. This would make der the SRS proposal, the if the State does not proceed Penang Transport Master Political landscape has Rm6.4 bn available for a genu- State will sell reclaimed land Th e PDP model presents with the SRS proposal. Th ere Plan 1 4 changed inely sustainable transport to raise funds for its transport confl ict of interest is still time left to make things by Dr Lim Mah Hui and The original reasons for master plan. infrastructure spending. But right. Dr Ahmad Hilmy the Penang state to propose the process of land reclama- Th e project delivery part- an undersea tunnel were be- 2 The RM46 bn SRS plan tion to raise funds for the ner model presents a confl ict Engage globally recog- cause the previous Barisan seems to more of a property State might take a longer time of interest: i.e. consultants nised independent consult- enang FORUm has federal government might not play than a transport master frame, and that too depending recommending particular ants to review SRS. been vilified by some approve a bridge; and did not plan. on the property market. Th is modes of transport might quarters that it is op- allow the state to take over the It puts more emphasis on could expose the government end up involved in the actual For the above reasons, the Pposed to the State implement- ferry service. These reasons a 4,500-acre land reclamation to great fi nancial risks, as the construction as contractors, state should appoint globally ing a transport master plan. are no longer valid. Th e State (3 new artifi cial islands) than relatively small bridging loans whether directly or indirectly, recognised independent con- nothing can be further from can now work with the fed- a cost-effective sustainable to be taken out (Rm1-Rm2 bn) or suppliers of materials. It was sultants, experts in sustain- the truth. Penang Forum is eral government to improve transport plan. It focuses on might be insuffi cient to cover also discussed in the 3rd article able mobility, to evaluate the not opposed to a transport cross-channel traffi c through mega infrastructure without the Rm17 bn fi rst phase of the in this series that the Request SRS proposal in relation to master plan. upgrading the existing ferry creating an integrated public SRS expenditure. for Proposal (RFP) method the the original Halcrow transport On the contrary, some service or/and by introducing transport network. Under the moreover, SRS has cho- Penang state used to appoint masterplan. One such agency members of Penang Forum a rail link on one of the existing Rm17 bn fi rst phase, about half sen the most expensive pub- the project delivery partners is the award-winning Institute initiated and recommended bridges. Th ese alternatives are (Rm8 bn) will be incurred on lic transport modes i.e. LRT is not an open tender system of Transportation and De- to the newly formed Pakatan much less expensive and more a 20 km 6-lane highway, mak- and monorail in contrast to and hence does not deliver velopment Policy (ITDP), a government in 2008 the need environmentally friendly. ing the plan overly focused on the cheaper BRT and trams the best value for money for non-profi t organisation which for a comprehensive transport Th e tunnel and the 3-paired moving cars. proposed by Halcrow in the the people. has a 30-year track record master plan for Penang; follow- road projects are mired in original transport plan. It has in promoting environmen- ing which a Penang Transport controversy with ongoing 3 The Financial Model of not conducted a proper com- 5 No compensation pay- tally sustainable and equitable Council was established by the investigations by maCC over the PTMP puts the people parative analysis of the fi nan- able if State walks away transportation policies and State government. the high costs of the feasibility of Penang and ultimately the cial viability of operating these from agreement with SRS projects worldwide particu- many of Penang Forum studies and payment in the federal government at great various possible modes. Con- larly in medium income coun- members were appointed to form of a land swap that was fi nancial risk cerns have been raised over The agreement between tries. See https://www.itdp. sit on the Penang Transport not matched by concomitant Using proceeds from sale the projected ridership for the SRS and the Penang State org/ for more information. Council. completion of the studies. Th e of reclaimed land to fi nance LRT that is vastly infl ated and government has not yet been Th e consultants’ fees would be Below is a summary of 5 Pakatan Harapan government mega infrastructure projects unrealistic. Th e probable losses signed, pending several ap- fairly inexpensive in contrast reasons why Penang Forum should not allow itself to be is fi nancially risky because of from LRT operations could fi - provals required from the to the billions at stake.

By Zulfi kar Ali bin Abdul Aziz unsubstantiated claim? The The Previous PORR and the Present PIL1 PIL project was inserted by A HEATED controversy SRS Consortium. Th e mem- is going on now on bers of the SRS consortium are not traffi c experts; they are why the DAP was WHY THE COMPLETE infrastructure contractors and against PORR in 2002 developers. but is for PIL 1 (a vari- 2. Has the Penang State government practised genu- ation of PORR) now. I CHANGE OF VIEWS? ine open tender or only request was in Penang in 2002 for proposal (RFP)? It has YaB Chow Kon Yeow ended by calling for a when the issue of the ngOs were misleading the He continued, “For me- already been pointed out by public So I decided to google review of the PORR project and not to “bulldoze dium and long-term improve- Professor ahmad Hilmy of PORR was hotly de- to see what are the facts. In through the PORR project despite fi erce ments, the Halcrow report rec- USm and Dr Lim mah Hui bated and opposed by this age of Internet, it is easy ognised that a sensible option that RFP is nOT open tender. opposition from the people that the project NGOs and opposition to check for facts. in promoting continued and It is open bidding for diff erent I found this in the DaP is unnecessary and being carried out under a sustained growth for Penang proposals and susceptible to parties like DAP. I re- website, https://www.dap- would be for the car adapting rigging. (See http://www.free- live this debate now in malaysia.org/ all-archive/ shroud of secrecy…”. to the city as in the case of malaysiatoday. com/category/ english/2002/ may02/bul/ — speech on 29 May 2002 in www.dap-malaysia.org Singapore, rather than the city opinion/2018/07/ 30/an-rfp- the form of PIL 1(Pan bul1620.htm dap. YB Chow adapting to the car in the case is-not-an-open- tender/) Island Link). Kon Yeow in a speech on 29 review of the PORR project Hence readers should judge of Bangkok,” he added. 3. Does the PIL 1 re- may 2002, said he opposed and not to “bulldoze through for themselves as to who is The question I ask, as a ally complement other public am ZULFIKaR aLI, a PORR for several reasons. Th e the PORR project despite fi erce misleading whom? Penangite who voted for DaP, transport? In Phase 1 of the resident in Tanjong Bun- fi rst he said was, “if the fi ndings opposition from the people I decided to probe further is why the present DaP lead- SRS Penang Transport master gah . Like millions of ma- of the Halcrow Report is true, that the project is unnecessary and discovered a report in Ma- ership is going against its own Plan, Rm17 billion will be laysians,I I voted for Pakatan Dr Koh would be irresponsible and being carried out under a laysiakini dated 28 may 2002 stand? spent to build PIL 1 and an Harapan (PH) and support in pushing the PORR through shroud of secrecy….”. that cited YB Lim Kit Siang a poster is making the LRT. no other funds are al- a government that promises as this will not be a long-term On 15 June 2002, he reiter- who said the same thing. He rounds to justify the DaP’s located to implement other change and hope. But I am solution to the traffi c conges- ated the same points he raised could not have been clearer on support for PIL 1. It says, PIL components of public trans- saddened to see that even in tion on the island”. in Parliament as a motion the primary reason why DaP 1 is toll-free and open tender port. and it is unlikely other the early days of the Pakatan Halcrow incidentally was against PORR. See https:// rejected PORR. would be practised, it would funds are available. So how can government, some leaders also the consultant for the dapmalaysia.org/all- archive/ Lim Kit Siang said “the relieve traffi c for more than 20 PIL1 complement other public have begun to adopt the at- Penang Transport master Plan english/2002/jun02/ bul/ nightmare of the Penang traffi c years, and complement other transport components? titude of Barisan nasional, under this government. bul1655.htm congestion is likely to be back forms of public transport in 4. Finally, the Penang ignoring the voices of rakyat, Other reasons given were Hence it is clear that the to square one, not in 8 years Penang. On the other hand State government should and vilifying legitimate con- DaP was against collecting toll issues of toll and open tender but probably less than five PORR does not do all the not boast that PIL 1 is go- cerns raised by rakyat. I write and that open tender system were not the only reasons YaB years, aft er the completion of above. ing to be toll-free because it and speak from my heart, like was not practised…and (also) Chow was against the PORR. PORR… What Penang needs my questions are: is a financially and ecologi- former DaP aDUn Yap Soo Penangites are oblivious of Otherwise he would have said is an effi cient public transport 1. Did the present Hal- cally irresponsible policy and Huey who spoke at the Speak- the impact of the PORR on he supported PORR as long system based on sustainable crow report of the Penang State undermines its own stated ers Corner. Penang’s future and the qual- as tolls were not collected transport policy, as PORR is government claim PIL 1 will objective to increase public On 10 august, the Chief ity of life on this beautiful and open tender system was not a medium-term let alone relieve traffi c for more than 20 modal share of transport. Is the minister YaB Chow said he island because of the lack of practised. But nO, he was long-term solution to the traf- years? In the Halcrow report, Penang State government also opposed PORR because it was information. against PORR because it does fi c congestion nightmare on the PIL project was not even going to make the existing two proposed as a toll road and that He ended by calling for a not solve traffic congestion. the island”. mentioned. So who made this bridges and ferry toll free? THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 7 Penang Groups Raise Concern over Tunnel Cutting Through Hills By Opalyn Mok, malaymail.com 23 July 2018 Civil society groups in Penang are beginning to express misgivings over the proposed 19.5 km Pan Island Link 1 (PIL 1), 2 weeks after the Environmen- tal Impact Assessment (EIA) Second Schedule Report was put on public display.

he groups want the Penang Transport Mas- ter Plan (PTMP), of Twhich the PIL 1 is a compo- nent, to be reviewed due to the possible environmental damage and high costs. The Penang Consumers Association (CAP) reiterated its call for a comprehensive He was referring to PIL 1 review of the entire PTMP. that will have a 10 km stretch “The recent release of the of tunnel that cuts through Environmental Impact As- hills in Penang to connect sessment for the PIL shows Gurney Drive to the Second that many public amenities, Penang Bridge. including the Youth Park, “The 10 km of tunnels schools, temples, and sensitive along the hilly central spine areas such as Penang Hill and of Penang Island will be con- other hills will be seriously structed using the ‘drill and affected,” CAP president SM blast’ method,” Anil, who is Mohamed Idris said in a state- also active in Penang Forum, ment today. claimed in his blog. He claimed local com- He demanded that the State munities were now realising Government reveal how much that the PTMP would be sig- explosives will be used for the nificantly detrimental to their 6-lane highway. way of life as well as their sur- Anil noted that while the roundings. EIA stated that 717 kg of emu- The State Government lite would be used, it neglected should consequently shelve to mention if this was per deto- the PTMP until it undertakes nation or per cubic metre. a comprehensive review of the Another Penang Forum project and its implications, member, Lim Mah Hui, to- he added. gether with Universiti Sains He also expressed his shock Malaysia (USM) associate at the State Government’s pro- professor in technology clus- posal to apply for a RM1 bil- ter-transport system Ahmad lion soft loan from the federal Hilmy, issued the first of a government to start work on 6-part series of articles to high- PIL 1 and LRT projects under light why the PTMP should be the PTMP. reviewed. “If this loan goes through, “The present proposed it may put at risk the finan- PTMP is too car-centric and cial situation of the state of focused on mega infrastruc- Penang. ture projects, especially build- “There are large economic ing highways and a tunnel, that will be implemented under the and environmental risks as- are unlikely to solve the mobil- first phase the massive RM46 sociated with the PTMP and ity and transport problems in billion PTMP. it is doubtful that some key Penang,” they said in their first The public may view the projects linked to the plan can statement. EIA at 8 locations in Penang, generate revenue to pay for They said even some of at the DOE office in Putrajaya themselves,” he said. the public transport projects and the national library in Aliran member Anil Net- like the proposed LRT from Kuala Lumpur. to, in his blog, warned that George Town to the airport The EIA report is also ac- “thousands of tonnes of ex- are questionable in terms of cessible online via the doe. plosives (emulite) will be used financial sustainability. gov.my, penang.gov.my, pg- to blast through the slopes “The state should consider masterplan.penang.gov.my of Penang Hill to build these other more sustainable forms and wirandamsdnbhd.com tunnels which are part of the of transportation that are less websites. exorbitant RM8 billion 6-lane costly and more environmen- The public may also submit highway, courtesy of SRS Con- tally friendly,” they said. feedback and comments to the sortium’s mega transport shop- The proposed PIL 1, esti- Department of Environment ping spree”. mated to cost RM7.5 billion, before 7 September. 8 UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN Is the SRS Penang Transport Master Plan Another Financial Scandal? Comment by Roger Teoh SRS Consortium forecasts an annual ridership of 42 million for the Penang LRT, Recently, we have observed a renewed a number that is significantly higher than interest from the most MRT lines in London, Singapore and public regarding the Kuala Lumpur on a per capita basis. debate on the SRS Consortium-proposed Penang Transport If a more realistic ridership projection for Master Plan (PTMP). the Penang LRT is used, the loss in ticket Various concerned NGOs, academicians, revenues could amount to at least RM1.2 consultants, park billion over 10 years, threatening the users, residents and financial viability of the LRT project and parents-teachers associations have all the State’s financial health. spoken up en masse to highlight the lack annual passenger journeys of transparency and Ridiculous per person). Remember, this ineffectiveness of the Ridership annual ridership numbers for Looking at our capital city Kuala Lumpur, actual data collected SRS Transport Master the Penang LRT is forecast to be achieved within its first from the new Sungai Buloh–Kajang (SBK) MRT line showed that Plan. Forecasts for year of operations, while the it only managed to achieve an annual ridership of 22.25 million the Penang LRT Singapore East-West Line and My Points: the London Docklands Light (or 11.1 annual passenger journeys per person) during its first The annual ridership for Railway (DLR) have been the Bayan Lepas–George Town operating for 31 years. year of operations in 2017, 48% lower than the annual ridership SRS Consortium forecasts Looking at our capital city an annual ridership of 42 LRT that is forecast by SRS forecast for the Penang LRT in absolute terms, despite Kuala is 42 million passenger trips Kuala Lumpur, actual data million for the Penang LRT, collected from the new Sungai a number that is significantly within its first year of op- Lumpur having a bigger population relative to Penang Island. erations. Such ridership figures Buloh–Kajang (SBK) MRT line higher than most MRT lines in showed that it only managed London, Singapore and Kuala are partially derived based on a population projection which is to achieve an annual rider- highway, but 1 hour using the of 10 million for the Penang Why is the Penang govern- Lumpur on a per capita basis. ship of 22.25 million (or 11.1 If a more realistic rider- not supported by data from the LRT? LRT, this could still be an ment insisting on bulldozing Department of Statistics. annual passenger journeys per Therefore, based on this overestimate. through the SRS-recommend- ship projection for the Penang person) during its first year LRT is used, the loss in ticket To give the public a better analysis, we have a high degree When this financial scan- ed LRT and monorail as the perspective of how ridicu- of operations in 2017, 48% of confidence to conclude dal eventually happens, it is preferred public transport revenues could amount to at lower than the annual rider- least RM1.2 billion over 10 lously high this LRT ridership that the projected ridership the Penang government that systems, as opposed to trams forecast is, comparative data ship forecast for the Penang numbers for the Penang LRT will be forced to bail the LRT and BRTs that are shown in years, threatening the financial LRT in absolute terms, despite viability of the LRT project and on the actual ridership for are highly unrealistic and will project out of this mess, not the Halcrow Report to be other mass transit lines in dif- Kuala Lumpur having a bigger likely be missed by a signifi- SRS Consortium. We can only cheaper to build, operate and the State’s financial health. population relative to Penang Why did the Penang gov- ferent cities around the world cant margin. speculate that this heavily maintain? are presented (figure above). Island. inflated ridership forecast is Why is there a double ernment insist on bulldozing Even the LRT Kelana Jaya through the SRS-recommend- The metric of “annual passen- done for the sole purpose of standard where the Environ- ger journey per person” used Line (opened in 1998) in KL is And if the boosting up the Benefit Cost mental Impact Assessment ed LRT and monorail as the only able to achieve an annual preferred public transport in this comparative study is Ratio (BCR), and to justify (EIA) is uploaded online for calculated by dividing the an- passenger journey of 30.6 per Forecasted the high price tag of the LRT public scrutiny, but not the systems, as opposed to trams person after 19 years of op- and BRTs that is shown in nual passenger journey with project (RM8.4 billion). SRS RFP documents? Is the the city population for a fairer erations, compared to the 52.5 Ridership Fails? Penang government trying to the Halcrow Report to be annual passenger journeys per cheaper to build, operate and comparison of cities with dif- cover up these ridiculous LRT ferent population sizes. person for the Penang LRT. Using Kuala Lumpur’s new Do NGOs ridership forecasts and the maintain? Therefore, how is it possi- SBK MRT line as a benchmark, Rather than clearing the For the case of Penang, lack of justification in select- SRS Consortium projects that ble for the Penang LRT to have we estimate that the annual Really Oppose ing the most expensive public air, we have witnessed contin- an annual passenger journey ridership for the Penang LRT ued attempts by the Penang 42 million Penangites will use transport option from public the Bayan Lepas–George Town per person much higher than should be adjusted down to 10 All State scrutiny? state government to engage most MRT lines in London, million (12.5 annual passenger in rhetoric and to suppress LRT in just the first year after At the time of writing this, the LRT is operational. By Singapore and Kuala Lumpur journeys per person), and not Developments? the Halcrow Report has since productive debates by labelling when it is also not expected to 42 million (52.5 annual pas- concerned parties as “spread- dividing this number with the been silently removed from population of Penang Island have any interchange stations senger journeys per person) In a desperate attempt to the Penang state government’s ing fake news”. with other rail links during its as claimed by SRS Consor- rally public support, the Pen- Regardless, we will con- (approximately 800,000), this website. It is time for the Pen- translates to around 52.5 an- first year of operations? tium. The scaling down of the ang government has always ang government to live up to tinue to raise awareness on To make matters worse, the annual ridership projection relied on tarnishing the cred- the deficiencies of the SRS nual passenger journeys per its Competency, Accountabil- person. In other words, this heavy prioritisation in motor- from 42 million to 10 million ibility of NGOs and opponents ity and Transparency (CAT) Transport Master Plan directly ised vehicles in the SRS Trans- will no doubt bear negative of the SRS Transport Master- to the public. implies that on average, every slogan and stop this mess person in Penang Island is ex- port Masterplan will inevitably consequences that will affect plan by falsely accusing them from brewing into a financial This article will focus on make it more attractive for the financial viability of the of “spreading fake news” and the Bayan Lepas–George Town pected to make 52 trips using scandal. the LRT in a given year. Penangites to drive rather than Penang LRT project. being “against all state devel- LRT project, where the rid- to use public transport. Without sufficient ticket opments”. ership projections by SRS This analysis shows that the ROGER TEOH is a PhD post- annual ridership forecast for For example, the proposed revenue, the heavy operation To set things straight, we Consortium was identified to Pan-Island Link 1 (PIL 1) and maintenance costs of the would like to reiterate that graduate studying at the Centre be highly suspicious and un- the Penang LRT (52.5 annual for Transport Studies, Imperial passenger journeys per per- highway operates in a similar LRT will result in sustainable NGOs are not against all state realistic. These concerns, if left North-South corridor and deficits. If the ticket fare for the developments. Any develop- College London. The opinion unchecked and unexplained by son) is only around 10% lower than the Singapore East-West is expected to wrest modal LRT is assumed to be RM3.50 ment made by the state has to of the author is expressed from relevant authorities, could eas- share away from the LRT. Why per trip, the losses in ticket be financially, socially and en- a neutral standpoint and he is ily result in a financial scandal Line (58.5 annual passenger journeys per person), and would Penangites choose to revenue alone could amount vironmentally sustainable, but not a member or affiliate of as will be highlighted in this use the LRT ahead of driving to at least RM1.2 billion over this has clearly been lacking in article. 30% higher than the London any political party or NGOs in Docklands Light Railway (37.0 if journey times take around a 10-year period. Even with a the SRS-proposed Transport 15 minutes using the PIL 1 scaled down annual ridership Masterplan. Malaysia. THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 9 by Penang Forum ​ e do not have a clear idea of how Will it Bankrupt Penang? much each part of theW project will cost in terms of construction, much less On the basis of 3 financial scenarios (based the annual cost of operat- only on farebox revenue) with different ing and maintaining the ridership projections — 12.5 million (based proposed roads and public transport systems. on KL’s experience), 25 million (based on RM46 bn is such an as- PPHPD figures) and the SRS projection of 42.3 tronomical figure it is hard to comprehend, but it’s equal to million (116,000 per day) it is projected that RM100,000 for every house- the Bayan Lepas LRT will be operating hold and if RM46 bn was at a loss of between RM23 million and stacked in a pile of RM100 notes it would be 6 times RM126 million every year! Putting these higher than Mount Everest, deficits into perspective, Penang state’s and outside the stratosphere! Literally astronomical. budgeted revenue in 2016 is RM700 million. non-farebox revenue is only These numbers are too 15% of total revenue after 15 vast for us to comprehend. years of operation! So let us focus on the more 225,000! perience on the vast gap Putting these deficits into immediate planned expendi- The KL monorail pro- between actual and projected perspective, Penang state’s ture for the construction of jected 86,000 daily riders ridership is instructive. The budgeted revenue in 2016 is the Pan Island Link (PIL 1) in 2002, achieved 75,000 by average actual ridership for RM700 million. Assuming costing RM6.1 billion and an 2015, 13 years and it is still the 3 lines is just 18% of their the revenue doubles by 2023, LRT line from George Town to reach its original ridership projected number. RM126 million deficit on this to the airport at a cost of projection! On the basis of 3 financial one LRT line is about 10% of RM6.3 billion, while Zenith In KL both LRT compa- scenarios (based only on the State budget. What about BUCG are proposing to build nies ran into financial diffi- farebox revenue) with dif- the financial costs of all the the 3 roads between now and culties and could not service ferent ridership projections other LRT, monorail, tram, 2021. Have detailed studies their debt. — 12.5 million (based on BRT and highways? Penang could end up like develop modern tramways in been done for each and every The federal government KL’s experience), 25 million Why is the State not pre- Putrajaya or Jakarta if it is KL and Putrajaya. project proposed? had to issue RM4.5 billion in (based on PPHPD figures) sented with the financial pro- not careful. We must know in advance bonds for the debts of these and the SRS projection of jections and options of the Jakarta Experience what kind of financial situa- two companies while the KL 42.3 million (116,000 per different alternative modes Putrajaya Experience tion we are getting into before Monorail was provided with day) it is projected that the of public transport — LRT, Penang should learn deciding on a project. a RM300 million soft loan. Bayan Lepas LRT will be monorail, tram and BRT? The PutrajayaM onorail is from, and not repeat, Jakar- A major reason for the In November 2001, the operating at a loss of between Why is SRS proposing an incomplete monorail sys- ta’s “Big Bang” experience. financial failure of the KL Ministry of Finance pur- RM23 million and RM126 and the State agreeing to an tem. Putrajaya was originally It launched too many mega LRT and monorail projects chased the outstanding debts million every year! Putting LRT system that not only is set to have a modern tram transport projects at one time is the poor or inaccurate of the two LRT companies these deficits into perspec- more expensive to build but system, and construction of — building highways, mono- information given to the totalling RM5.5 billion via tive, Penang state’s budgeted costs 2-3 times more to oper- tunnels was ongoing, when rail, and waterways at the Government, preventing another bond issue. revenue in 2016 is RM700 ate and maintain? plans were changed, and a same time, only to see some it from making the correct Kuala Lumpur has the million. Is the State able to afford SCOMI monorail plan was of them running into difficul- decisions. Federal Government as sugar The State has said that it to such high deficits from selected with 2 lines; Line ties, delayed or abandoned. The Ampang LRT pro- daddy. But Penang state will expects to make up the dif- these projects? Will they 1, a 12 km monorail route Jakarta started its monorail jected a daily ridership of have no such luck. Each and ference from advertising and impair the financial stability with 17 stations and Line 2, construction in 2004, ran 170,000 when it opened in every Penangite will have to property-related businesses of the State? a 6 km monorail route with into trouble, aborted it in 1996, but only achieved this bear this financial burden! and points to Japan as an What if the State is unable 6 stations. These structures 2008, resumed in 2013 and by 2014, 18 years later than We are told the stand- example. However, the Japa- to finance the deficit and no have been abandoned for finally abandoned it in 2015 projected! alone LRT line from Kom- nese experience is not easily financial help is available 12 years, construction was despite some groundwork The Kelana Jaya LRT pro- tar to the airport will carry replicable for historical and from the federal govern- halted in 2004. It is now re- already laid. Urban planners jected a daily ridership of 116,000 a day in its first year cultural reasons. Again, it is ment? Will the project be visiting plans for a modern have advised that Jakarta 360,000, but after 18 years of operation! more relevant to look at Pras- stopped? Who will bail out tram. More recently, SPAD should focus on one public in operation is yet to reach The Kuala Lumpur ex- arana’s experience where its the projects? has commissioned a study to project at a time. CAP Against RM1 Bil Loan for Penang Transport Plan AP is shocked that the some key projects linked to the heavy rainfall and floods and temples, and sensitive areas Penang State Govern- plan can generate revenue to We have been told by the Federal government to prevent or minimise future such as Penang Hill and other ment is seeking a RM1 pay for themselves. that Malaysia cannot afford to have new such problems. hills will be seriously affected. Cbillion loan from the Federal Moreover, what if it is later The Penang government Many communities are now Government to jump start the found that the RM1 billion mega-projects because of the trillion-ringgit should be requesting the Fed- waking up to the fact that the Penang Transport Master Plan is insufficient and the State eral Government to urgently PTMP will have a disastrous (PTMP) to facilitate the Pan would have to borrow even national debt. finance a comprehensive strat- effect on the way of life and Island Link (PIL) and the Light more? This will only add a Why should an exception be made for the egy and plan to avoid future environment in Penang. Rail Transit (LRT) projects. heavier burden on the State floods and other environmen- This PTMP should be sus- Earlier, the Penang Chief and the people of Penang. PTMP? The estimated cost of the project is tal disasters. pended until a comprehen- Minister Chow Kon Yeow and We have been told by the The PTMP, especially with sive review is done and the his predecessor who is pres- Federal government, includ- over RM40 billion. the cutting of hills and the communities which will be ently the Finance Minister, ing the Finance Minister Lim massive land reclamation from seriously affected in Penang had assured the public that the Guan Eng that Malaysia can- But these funds are needed rehabilitation and conserva- the sea would add on to these are able to understand the project would not involve any not afford to have new mega- for essential expenses includ- tion of coastal areas such as- environmental problems rath- impacts of the Pan Island Link public funds. projects because of the trillion- ing the rehabilitation of hun- beaches and mangrove forests, er than solving them. (PIL) and are able to provide Now a different story is ringgit national debt. dreds of hillslopes and hill flood mitigation projects, and CAP reiterates its call for a feedback. being told and if this loan goes Why should an exception areas affected by landslides improving the living condi- comprehensive review of the The Penang State Govern- through, it may put at risk the be made for the PTMP? The and by neglect and improving tions of vulnerable and poor entire PTMP. ment should not be asking financial situation of the state estimated cost of the project is the state of our rivers and the communities. The recent release of the for the RM1 billion loan to of Penang. There are large over RM40 billion. creation of green spaces and These are all vital areas for Environmental Impact Assess- accelerate the PTMP’s imple- economic and environmen- Indeed, funds from the permeable surfaces to absorb financing if Penang is to recov- ment for the PIL shows that mentation and the Federal tal risks associated with the Federal Government are re- rain water. er from the damages caused many public amenities, includ- Government should not be PTMP and it is doubtful that quired for Penang. Funds are also needed for by recent storms, high winds, ing the Youth Park, schools, providing such a loan. 10 UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN Penang Transport Master Plan, a Multidimensional Fallacy? COMMENT By Roger Teoh COMPARING Penang’s PIL1 with FMT, 13 August 2018 Singapore’s North South Corridor his article on the Pen- Penang’s PIL1 ang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) is in re- Tsponse to various arguments by different proponents of the PTMP. In this article, the 2 state- ments highlighted in bold are extracts from a representative port than cars. For example, location of road space towards lighted in my previous article of the Penang State Govern- Zurich has almost 8.5 times more sustainable transport which raised a number of criti- ment and SRS Consortium. more public transport routes modes, the support of street- cal questions on the PTMP that These statements will be with a dedicated right-of-way related activities and the pro- have remained unanswered by critically analysed using both (440.9 m per 1,000 persons) vision of a high quality public the Penang government since quantitative and qualitative relative to its highway supply realm. 2016. evidence, and I will leave it to (52.0 m per 1,000 persons). This is unlike the 6-lane Most importantly, SRS Penangites to come up with It is worth noting that PIL 1 mega project that focuses Consortium simply failed to their own informed opinion Stockholm has the highest solely on providing a substan- acknowledge that Singapore on the topic. highway supply in this list (139 tial increase in road capacity. is constructing significantly Singapore’s North South Corridor Penangites deserve the m per 1,000 persons) because It is worth noting that the more MRT lines (Thomson- right to be accurately informed its urban layout and the popu- SRS Transport Master Plan East Coast MRT Line, Jurong of the true blueprint and con- lation is scattered over a large (formulated by property de- Region Line, and the Cross- sequences of the proposed area of multiple fjords. velopers) significantly devi- Island Line) than roads. PTMP. Despite Stockholm having ates from the original PTMP This is in addition to the the highest highway supply on (formulated by Halcrow, a fact that Singapore already has “Not a single country in the the list, it still has 42.4% more world-renowned independent 5 existing MRT lines with a car world has stopped using dedicated public transport transport consultant). modal share of only 33.2%, roads or stopped construct- routes relative to highways. The Halcrow report placed compared to Penang with no ing new ones as part of its Similarly, Singapore’s dedi- more focus on improving pub- form of public transport with strategy to increase public cated public transport route lic transport (7 proposed tram a dedicated right-of-way and a mobility. Zurich, Singapore (33.4 m per 1,000 persons) is routes and 3 BRT routes) while car modal share of 96.8%. and Stockholm are top sus- 11% higher compared with only proposing the construc- To make matters worse, the tainable cities in the world. its highway supply (30 m per tion of some new roads by representative of the Penang They have traffic jams too, 1,000 persons). 2030 at a much lower cost. government only stated the like Penang. To solve the Conversely, Penang island’s Essentially, the main differ- absolute costs spent by Sin- traffic problems, these 3 public transport infrastructure ence lies in the magnitude and gapore to improve the road cities develop better public is virtually non-existent as it scale of road building. network without providing a cerned NGOs for “spreading tium have both remained com- transport and build new has no form of public transport As a result of the heavy relative comparison with the fake news”, such an excuse pletely silent on the two seri- roads simultaneously. In with a dedicated right-of-way emphasis on vehicular traffic money spent on improving can no longer be used for the ous concerns that are found the case of Penang, the (0 m per 1,000 persons). in the SRS Transport Master mass transit. artist impression for the PIL in the detailed SRS Transport multidimensional and mul- Due to the lack of adequate Plan, the transport statistics While it is true that Singa- 1 expressway as it is obtained Master Plan: timodal approach has been public transport, Penangites also show that the highway pore’s 11th expressway (North- directly from the official Fa- 1. A highly unrealistic rid- adopted.” are forced to depend heavily supply in Penang will con- South Corridor) costs as much cebook page of Penang Chief ership forecast for the Penang on cars, as reflected in the vehi- tinue increasing at a faster as S$8 billion, such amounts Minister Chow Kon Yeow. LRT that is significantly higher The table above compares cle-to-population ratio where rate (+35.1 m per 1,000 per- pale by comparison to the According to a former Pen- than most MRT lines in Lon- some key transport statis- Penang has more vehicles than sons) than dedicated public money spent on constructing ang assemblyman, although don, Singapore and Kuala tics for the 3 cities of Zurich, the state’s population. transport routes (+25.88 m the Thomson-East Coast MRT SRS Consortium continu- Lumpur on a per capita basis. Singapore and Stockholm Despite the fact that Pen- per 1,000 persons) after the Line (S$24 billion), and the ously claimed that the PIL 1 2. Dubious population versus Penang island. Data ang is trailing far behind in SRS Transport Master Plan is Cross-Island MRT Line (S$41 expressway is expected to density projections for the 3 for Zurich, Singapore and public transport infrastruc- implemented. billion). have dedicated bus lanes, this SRS-reclaimed islands (21,636 Stockholm is obtained from ture, the SRS Transport Master Therefore, this quantitative It is also worth highlight- was not shown in the artist people per square km) which the UITP Mobilities in Cities Plan continues to place heavy and qualitative evidence clearly ing that Singapore’s new 21.5 impression of the PIL 1, nor is are higher than the city centres Database (2012), while data for emphasis on vehicular traffic. shows that the SRS Transport km North-South Expressway it officially recorded in the de- of London (11,522 people per Penang is obtained from vari- For example, Phase One of Master Plan is not “sustain- that was heavily cited by rep- tailed SRS-proposed Transport square km) and Paris (20,909 ous sources (Halcrow Report, the transport master plan plans able and multidimensional” resentatives of the Penang Master Plan RFP documents. people per square km). DEIA and own calculations). to construct only one LRT line as claimed by its proponents. government had since been The fact that the SRS Transport The people of Malaysia On every metric, the trans- from George Town to Bayan Penang urgently needs to catch redesigned as a North-South Master Plan is not available placed high hopes on the port statistics from Zurich, Lepas costing RM8 billion, but up with its significant public Corridor. online for public scrutiny also Pakatan Harapan government Singapore and Stockholm significantly more roads and transport deficit to reduce au- There is a clear distinction creates a breeding ground for by overwhelmingly voting clearly disprove SRS Consor- highways (PIL 1, PIL 2/2A, tomobile dependence before it between an “expressway” and misinformation and confusion for change in the last general tium’s argument that these North Coast Paired Road, and even considers building more a “corridor”, but this was not on the subject. election. However, what we cities are “placing an equal the Penang undersea tunnel) roads. adequately addressed by pro- If SRS Consortium claims are witnessing now is a con- emphasis on public transport that are projected to cost at ponents of the PIL 1. that its proposed transport tinuation of malpractices that and the road network”. least RM15 billion. “At the time of writing, Sin- Unlike the PIL 1 express- master plan is more superior are no different from those of Unlike Penang, which Yes, SRS Consortium cor- gapore is currently build- way that focuses primarily on and complete than the origi- the previous Barisan Nasional records one of the highest rectly pointed out that cities ing its 11th expressway, moving vehicular traffic, the nal Halcrow plan, why is the administration. It is time for car modal shares in the world around the world have not the 21.5 km North-South North-South Corridor will Penang State Government so the Penang government to (96.8%), the car modal shares stopped widening or con- Corridor with an estimated be Singapore’s first integrated afraid to upload the detailed walk the talk and live up to for Zurich, Singapore and structing new roads. cost of RM23 billion (S$8 transport corridor featuring SRS Transport Master Plan its principles of competency, Stockholm are all below 50%. However, these road im- billion).” continuous bus lanes, walking online for public scrutiny? accountability and transpar- So how do these cities provement projects are often and cycling trunk routes. And why is the Penang gov- ency. manage to achieve such a low done on much smaller scales SRS Consortium has The differences between ernment constantly defending car modal share while Pen- and are not meant to provide frequently used Singapore’s Penang’s upcoming PIL 1 the SRS-proposed Transport Roger Teoh is a PhD postgradu- ang has remained stuck on substantial new vehicle ca- continued road building to Expressway and Singapore’s Master Plan instead of criti- ate studying at the Centre for pacity. justify the case for even more North-South Corridor is car dependency for so many cally questioning it on the vari- Transport Studies, Imperial College Instead, the construction highways to be constructed in shown in the artist impres- ous deficiencies identified by decades? London. He is not a member or af- According to these trans- of some new roads aims to Penang. sions below. NGOs? port metrics, these cities place fulfil other objectives of the However, such arguments While the Penang govern- Until today, the Penang filiate of any political party or NGO more emphasis on public trans- road network, such as the real- are highly misleading as high- ment frequently chides con- government and SRS Consor- in Malaysia. UTUSAN KONSUMER July-AugJuly-Aug 2018 201811

Traffic Evaporation in Europe by Margot WALLSTRÖM Member of the European Commission responsible for Environment

Article is reproduced from the foreword of from Reclaiming Streets for People: Chaos or Quality of Life?, published by the Euro- pean Commission Directorate- General for Environment

he quality of the envi- ronment in urban areas Tis of vital importance. It is one of the main fac- tors that determine whether a city is a healthy place to live, whether we enjoy living there, and whether we want our chil- dren to grow up there. One of the key issues af- fecting the quality of the en- vironment and the quality of life in our towns and cities is road traffic. Heavy motor traffic means poor air quality, unacceptable levels of noise and a weakened sense of neighbourhood and ronmental — can be high and on sites that were once blocked local community. the relief short-lived. by regular traffic jams. Traffic also gives rise to More and more cities are If these are properly What is Traffic Evaporation? high costs for the economy opting for a different approach planned, they need not result through delays caused by con- where they work together in road traffic chaos, contrary l as a result the urban gestion. with their citizens to ensure to what might be expected. environment becomes more Every year more than 3 that they have access to the I hope that cities and their liveable in many respects. million cars are added to the goods and services they need citizens will consider this ap- The concept of traffic evap- car fleet in Europe. without having to depend on proach as part of the solution oration has been practised in Total road traffic kilome- road traffic. to the growing levels of road many European cities. tres in urban areas will grow by There are many traffic traffic. This complements our Many of these cities have 40% between 1995 and 2030. management techniques and earlier publications, Cycling: gone ahead with road space Local authorities and citi- approaches and any given city the way ahead for towns and reallocation schemes despite zens need to decide how to will probably need to develop cities and Kids on the move, predictions that traffic chaos respond to these pressures and a package of measures to man- which give examples of other would result. However, in each decide what sort of place they age traffic effectively. case studies. case any initial problems of want their town or city to be This new handbook sets I am convinced that traffic traffic congestion were short- in the future. out some case studies where management is the key to mak- lived, and after a “settling- One option is to try to road space has been reallo- ing our cities more attractive in” period a proportion of eliminate congestion by build- cated for other uses. places to live in and to improv- the traffic was found to have ing more roads, but the costs New, attractive and popu- ing the quality of our urban “evaporated”. — financial, social and envi- lar public areas can be created environment. In the attractive car-free spaces created in these cit- ies, pedestrians and cyclists now enjoy a cleaner, quieter he challenge facing ur- tion of highway capacity. When and safer environment. These ban planners and poli- the roads under consideration cases illustrate the potential ticians in many Euro- are already highly congested, for more effective uses of ur- peanT towns and cities is that it is typically assumed that ban road space, as “exchange of balancing the demand for reducing the capacity available space” rather than just “move- increasing personal mobil- for cars will result in increased ment space”, recognising the ity and economic growth, traffic congestion in the sur- social importance of streets with the need to respect the rounding streets. and squares. environment and provide an However, as the evidence Favouring more sustain- acceptable quality of life for in this document demon- able transport modes is an ap- all citizens. strates, this is not necessarily proach which promotes social While it is clear that provi- the case. inclusion and accessibility for sion for car-based mobility will The experience in a number the nearly 30% of European continue to be an important of European cities is that: households which have no ac- part of traffic management l traffic problems follow- cess to a private car. planning, finding ways to en- ing the implementation of a Such strategies are also courage more use of alternative scheme are usually far less more equitable, for they re- modes of transport (public serious than predicted; duce those negative impacts transport, cycling and walk- l after an initial period of of urban traffic and conges- ing) is the goal of any sustain- adjustment, some of the traf- tion which are experienced able urban policy. fic that was previously found by everyone, regardless of Where road space is re- in the vicinity of the scheme whether they are able to enjoy stricted, providing adequate “disappears” or “evaporates”, the benefits of car use. space for these alternative due to drivers changing their — Source: Reclaiming Streets for modes may require a realloca- travel behaviour; People: Chaos or Quality of Life? 12 UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 ENVIRONMENT In Malaysia, an Island Drowns in its Own Development by Keith Schneider, Mongabay, 6 July 2018 Has Penang Island’s growth become a hazard to life? Malaysia’s Penang Island has undergone massive de- velopment since the 1960s, a process that continues today with plans for transit and land-reclamation meg- aprojects. The island is increasingly facing floods and land- slides, problems environ- mentalists link to paving land and building on steep slopes.

GEORGE TOWN, Malaysia — Mud- dy carpets and soaked furniture lay in mouldering piles on the streets of this state capital. It was Sunday morning, 29 October 2017. 8 days earlier, torrents of water had poured off the steep slopes of the island’s central mountain range. Flash floods ripped through neighbour- hoods. A landslide killed 11 workers at a construction site for a high-rise apartment tower, burying them in mud. It was Penang Island’s second catastrophic deluge in 5 weeks. Picture by Keith Schneider, Mongabay Kam Suan Pheng, an island resi- dent and one of Malaysia’s most Chow is the lead proponent for building one of Gurmit Singh, founder and chairman of the prominent soil scientists, stepped to the microphone in front of 200 people the largest and most expensive transportation Centre for Environment, Technology and hastily gathered for an urgent forum on public safety. Calmly, as she’s done projects ever undertaken by a Malaysian city: a Development, Malaysia (CETDEM), and dean of several times before, Kam explained $11.4 billion scheme that includes an underwater the nation’s conservation activists, called Penang that the contest between Mother Earth’s increasingly fierce meteoro- tunnel linking to Peninsular Malaysia, 3 state government’s campaign for more growth logical outbursts and the islanders’ affection for building on steep slopes highways, a light rail line, a monorail, and a 4.8- and mega infrastructure development “a folly”. and replacing water-absorbing forest kilometer (3-mile) gondola from the island to and farmland with roads and build- “It exceeds the carrying capacity of the island. It ings would inevitably lead to more the rest of Penang state on the Malay peninsula. should never be approved”. tragedies. “When places get urbanised, the sponge gets smaller. So when there But Chow also favours more For a time the national govern- rain from pushing more mud into “It exceeds the carrying capacity is development, the excess rainwater growth. He is the lead proponent for ment stood with the fishermen. Wan of the island. It should never be ap- gets less absorbed into the ground apartment districts close by, the blue building one of the largest and most Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, the former tarps are a distinct signal of ecologi- proved,” he said in an interview in his and comes off as flash floods,” she expensive transportation projects minister of natural resources and en- Kuala Lumpur office. said. “The flood situation is bound to cal distress. ever undertaken by a Malaysian city: vironment and a member of Barisan Or the flood-damaged construc- Singh, who is in his 70s and still worsen if climate change brings more a $11.4 billion scheme that includes Nasional (BN), the ruling coalition, active, was raised on Penang Island. rain and more intense rainfall.” tion sites in Tanjung Bungah, a fast- an underwater tunnel linking to refused to allow the project. “The growing George Town suburb. A lone He is an eyewitness to the construc- 5 days later it got worse. Much Peninsular Malaysia, 3 highways, a 1,800-hectare project is too massive tion that made much of his boyhood worse. On 4 November, and for the guard keeps visitors from peering light rail line, a monorail, and a 4.8- and can change the shoreline in the through the gates of the empty apart- geography unrecognisable. “Every- next 2 days, Penang was inundated kilometer (3-mile) gondola from the area,” he told reporters. “It will not thing built there now is unsustain- by the heaviest rainfall ever recorded ment construction site where 11 men island to the rest of Penang state on only affect the environment but also died in the October 2017 landslide. able,” he said. on the island. Water flooded streets the Malay peninsula. the forest such as mangroves. Wildlife It’s taken decades to reach that 3.6 meters (12 feet) deep. 7 people About a mile away, a row of empty, The state plans to finance con- and marine life, their breeding habi- cracked, expensive and never-occu- point. Before 1969, when state au- died. The long-running civic discus- struction with proceeds from the sale tats will be destroyed.” thorities turned to Robert Nathan sion that weighed new construction pied hillside townhouses are pitched of 1,800 hectares (4,500 acres) of new The state, and Penang Island, how- beside a road buckled like an accor- and Associates, a US consultancy, to against the risks of increasingly fierce land reclaimed from the sea along the ever, have been governed since 2008 draw up a master plan for economic ecological impediments grew more dion. The retaining wall supporting island’s southern shore. The Southern by leaders of the Pakatan Harapan the road and development collapsed development, Penang Island was a urgent. Reclamation Project calls for building coalition, which supported the trans- 293-square-kilometer (113-square- George Town last year joined an in the November 2017 flood, causing 3 artificial islands for manufacturing, port and reclamation mega projects. expensive property damage. mile) haven of steep mountain forests, increasing number of the world’s retail, offices, and housing for 300,000 In May 2018, Pakatan Harapan routed ample rice paddies, and fishing vil- great coastal cities — Houston, New A row of empty, cracked, ex- residents. the BN in parliamentary elections. pensive and never-occupied hillside lages reachable only by boat. Orleans, New York, Cape Town, Awarded rights to build the rec- Former prime minister Mahathir For most residents, though, Pen- Chennai, Jakarta, Melbourne, São townhouses are pitched beside a lamation project in 2015, the SRS Mohamed, the leader of Pakatan road buckled like an accordion. The ang Island was no tropical paradise. Paulo — where the consequences are Consortium, the primary contrac- Harapan, assumed power once again. Nearly one out of 5 working adults especially vivid. retaining wall supporting the road tors, are a group of national and local Island leaders anticipate that their and development collapsed in a No- was jobless, and poverty was endemic Penang’s state government and construction companies awaiting the mega transport and reclamation in George Town, its colonial capital, Chow Kon Yeow, its new chief min- vember 2017 flood, causing extensive federal government’s decision to pro- projects will be approved. property damage. according to national records. ister, recognise the dilemma. 3 weeks ceed. Island fishermen and their allies It is plain, though, that last year’s Nathan proposed a path to pros- after being named inM ay to lead the Gurmit Singh, founder and chair- in Penang’s community of environ- floods opened a new era of civic re- man of the Centre for Environment, perity: recruiting electronics manu- island, Chow told 2 reporters from mental organisations and residential flection and reckoning with growth. facturers to settle on the island and The Starnewspaper that “[e]conomic Technology and Development, Ma- associations oppose the project, and Proof is everywhere, like the pro- laysia (CETDEM), and dean of the export their products globally. His growth with environmental sustain- they proposed a competing transport liferation of huge blue tarps draped plan emphasised the island’s location ability would be an ideal situation nation’s conservation activists, called plan that calls for constructing a across flood-scarred hillsides outside Penang state government’s campaign on the Straits of Malacca, a trading rather than sacrificing the environ- streetcar and bus rapid transit net- of George Town’s central business route popular since the 16th century ment for the sake of development.” for more growth and mega infrastruc- work at one-third the cost. district. Intended to block heavy ture development “a folly”. that tied George Town to Singapore ENVIRONMENT UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 13 In Malaysia, an Island Drowns in its Own Development That’s the story I’m covering.” Another young advocate for sustainable growth is Rexy Prakash Chacko, a 26-year-old engineer documenting illegal forest clearing. Chacko is an active participant in the Penang Forum, the citizens’ group that held the big meeting on flooding last October. Nearly 2 years ago, he helped launch Penang Hills Watch, an online site that uses satellite imagery and photographs from residents to identify and map big cuts in the Penang hills — cuts that are illegal according to seldom-enforced state and federal laws. Kam Suan Pheng and other sci- entists link the hill clearing to the proliferation of flash flooding and extensive landslides that occur on the island now, even with moderate rainfall. In 1960, Malaysia anticipated a future problem with erosion when it passed the Land Conservation Act that designated much of Penang Island’s mountain forests off-limits to development. In 2007, Penang state prohibited development on slopes above an elevation of 76 meters (250 feet), and any slope with an incline greater than 25 degrees, or 47%. Images on Penang Hills Watch Picture by Keith Schneider, Mongabay make it plainly apparent that both measures are routinely ignored. In and put other big Asian ports in close George Town last year joined the expanding deadly rain. 2015, the state confirmed as much proximity. Billions of dollars in new invest- when it made public a list of 55 blocks As a 20th century strategy focused list of cities forced by Nature to a profound ment are at stake. Apartment towers of high-rise housing, what the state on stimulating the economy, Nathan’s in the path of mudslides and flash called “special projects”, that had been plan yielded real dividends. The reckoning. Between 2013 and mid-October 2017, flooding rise on the north shore near built on hillsides above 76 meters or island’s population nearly doubled according to state records, Penang recorded 119 George Town. Fresh timber clearing on slopes steeper than 25 degrees. to 755,000, according to national continues apace on the steep slopes of The “special projects” encompassed estimates. Joblessness hovers in the flash floods. The annual incidence is increasing: the island’s central mountain range, 10,000 residences and buildings as 2% range. despite regulations that prohibit such tall as 45 stories. Foreign investors poured billions 22 in 2013; 30 in 2016. Residents talk about a activity. Demographers project that “There is a lot of water coming of dollars into manufacturing, retail change in weather patterns for an island that the island’s population could reach down the hills now,” Chacko said in and residential development, and all nearly 1 million by mid-century. That an interview. “It’s a lack of foresight. the supporting port, energy, road, and once was distinguished by a mild and gentle is, if the monstrous storms don’t drive Planning has to take into account water supply and wastewater treat- people and businesses away — a trend what happens when climate change ment infrastructure. climate but is now experiencing much more that has put Chennai’s new high-tech is a factor. Clearing is happening. In 1960, the island’s urbanised powerful storms with cyclone-force winds and corridor at risk. And in the last 2 years the rain is area totalled 29.5 square kilometers The urgency of the debate has getting worse. (11.4 square miles), almost all of it in deadly rain. pushed new advocates to join Kam “You can imagine. People are and immediately surrounding George Suan Pheng at the forefront of Penang concerned about this. There was so Town. In 2015, the urban area had Island’s environmental activism. much lost from the water and the spread across 112 square kilometers the worst of any Malaysian city. Air infrastructure development have One of them is Andrew Ng Yew mud last year.” (43 square miles) and replaced the pollution is increasing. Flooding is run headlong into the ferocious me- Han, a 34-year-old teacher and docu- Ignoring rules restricting devel- mangroves, rubber plantations, rice endemic. teorological conditions of the 21st mentary filmmaker whose “The Hills opment has consequences, as Kam paddies and fishing villages along the Nor in the years since have Pen- century. and the Sea” describes how big seabed Suan Pheng has pointed out since island’s northern and eastern coasts. ang’s civic authorities adequately Coastal cities, where 60% of the reclamation projects on the island’s getting involved in the civic discus- There are now 220,000 homes on heeded mounting evidence of im- world’s people live, are being chal- north end have significantly dimin- sion about growth in 2015. After the the island, with more than 10,000 pending catastrophes, despite a series lenged like never before by battering ished fish stocks and hurt fishing October 2017 landslide, she noted new units added annually, accord- of government-sponsored reports storms and deadly droughts. For villages. High-rise towers are swiftly that local officials insisted the apart- ing to National Property Informa- calling for economic and environ- instance, during a 2-year period that pushing a centuries-old way of life ment building where the 11 deaths tion Center. George Town’s colonial mental sustainability. ended in 2016, Chennai, India, along out of existence. The same could hap- occurred was under construction on center, which dates to its founding Things came to a head late last the Bay of Bengal, was brutalised by pen to the more than 2,000 licensed flat ground. But, she told Mongabay, in 1786, was designated a UNESCO year. Flooding caused thousands of a typhoon and floods that killed over fishermen and women contending an investigation by the State Commis- World Heritage site in 2008, like people to be evacuated from their 400 people, and by a drought that with the much bigger reclamation sion of Inquiry (SCI) found that the Venice and Angkor Wat. homes. Water tore at hillsides, open- prompted deadly protests over water proposals on the south coast. apartment construction site abutted The distinction helped George ing the forest to big muddy wounds scarcity. Houston drowned in a storm. “How are they going to survive?” a 60-degree slope made of granite, Town evolve into a seaside tourist the colour of dried blood. Never had Cape Town is in the midst of a 2-year Han said in an interview. “This gen- which is notoriously unstable when mecca. The state of Penang, which Penang Island sustained such damage drought emergency. eration of fishermen will be wiped it becomes rain-saturated. includes 751 square kilometers (290 from storms that have become more George Town last year joined out. None of their kids want to be “State authorities continued to square miles) on the Malay penin- frequent, according to meteorological the expanding list of cities forced fishermen. Penang is holding a world insist that development above pro- sula, attracts over 6 million visitors records. Rain in November that meas- by Nature to a profound reckoning. fishermen conference in 2019. The tected hill land is prohibited,” Kam annually, roughly half from outside ured over 400 millimeters (13 inches) Between 2013 and mid-October 2017, city had the gall to use a picture of said in an email. “There is little to Malaysia. Most of the visitors head in a day. The damage and deaths add- according to state records, Penang local fishermen as the poster.N o one show that more stringent enforce- to the island, according to Tourism ed fresh urgency and new recruits to recorded 119 flash floods. The annual who’s coming here knows, ‘Hey you ment on hill slope development has Malaysia. Penang Island’s longest-running civic incidence is increasing: 22 in 2013; are reclaiming land and destroying been undertaken. Hopefully the find- Nathan’s plan, though, did not argument: Had the island’s growth 30 in 2016. Residents talk about a livelihood of an entire fishing vil- ings of the SCI will serve as lessons anticipate the powerful ecological become a hazard to life? change in weather patterns for an l a g e .’” for more stringent monitoring and and social responses that runaway George Town is far from alone island that once was distinguished by “We all want Penang to be progres- enforcement of similar development shoreline and hillside development in considering the answer. The 20th a mild and gentle climate but is now sive. To grow. To become a great city,” projects so that the 11 lives have not would wreak in the 21st century. century-inspired patterns of ram- experiencing much more powerful he adds on one of his videos. “But at been sacrificed in vain.” Traffic congestion inG eorge Town is bunctious residential, industrial and storms with cyclone-force winds and whose expense? That’s the question. 14 UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 TRANSPORT Traffic Evaporation SUCCESSES

s car ownership and However, the principal use have increased over challenge for most European the past 30 years the re- cities is to find ways of using COPENHAGEN: City with a Vision actionA to the pressure created the existing road capacity more pedestrian street in Denmark efficiently. There is a growing ntil 1962, all streets Today the city of Copen- are full to capacity with people by additional traffic demand in the medieval city would never work. hagen has over 96,000 m2 enjoying the many outdoor so- has often been to increase recognition that this may re- However although scepti- quire giving greater priority centre were filled with (of which 33% is street and cial and cultural activities. the level of supply, in other carsU and all the squares were cism was high, the new car-free 67% city squares) of car-free In the winter months at- words provide additional road to more sustainable forms of environment proved extremely transport — public transport, used as car parks. As car traf- space. tractions include festivals, and space. fic increased, conditions for popular with local residents While pedestrian traffic outdoor ice skating. This traditional approach pedestrians and cyclists. from the first day. Some pioneering cities, pedestrians were rapidly de- levels have remained largely As the streets and squares of providing supply to meet teriorating. This marked the beginning unchanged over past decades, in the city centre have been demand is no longer always for example Copenhagen in of a gradual transformation Denmark, have adopted such On 17 November 1962, Co- activities connected with stop- pedestrianised and improved, appropriate. penhagen’s main street, Strøget that has continued ever since. ping and staying are almost 4 the area has become more at- There is a growing body a policy for many years with Today Copenhagen has a vi- great success. was pedestrianised. This con- times greater than in 1968. tractive yet also less accessible of evidence indicating that version was hotly debated at brant city centre that attracts During the summer months for the motorist. the benefits of creating ad- The greatest challenge is visitors throughout the year. presented in cities or areas the time. People argued that a many of the pedestrian streets The city authority has ditional road capacity are not adopted an integrated traffic as significant as was previously of cities where road condi- tions are already congested, in The pedestrianisation of Times Square in New York management strategy for the believed. In extreme cases the city centre: provision of new road links particular during peak times. l In these cases the only way limiting the number of may in fact increase conges- parking spaces (charges for tion problems. to provide more space for more sustainable modes of on-street parking are relatively This occurs through a high); process that is known as traf- transport is to take road space l reducing the number of fic “induction”. from private cars, either on a permanent 24-hour or on a lanes on several main routes In 1994, the UK Govern- into the city and using the ment-commissioned Sactra temporary “shift” basis. Taking capacity away from space for bus and cycle lanes report provided evidence on instead; the impact of new road build- the dominant road user (i.e. l the private car) is a brave deci- restricting through traf- ing on traffic levels in the area fic; of the scheme. sion for an authority to take. l Logic suggests that if a net- while developing the sub- The report revealed that urban train, bus and bicycle when new road capacity is work is already congested, the removal of capacity can only networks. provided, overall traffic levels In the city centre, 80% of in the vicinity of the scheme exacerbate the situation. In the face of such reac- all journeys are made on foot, may actually increase. The and 14% by bicycle. evidence does not offer a reli- tion, planning authorities and politicians may lose courage Car traffic in the city core able means of predicting the has been reduced and conges- extent of this traffic increase and abandon proposals to reallocate road space. In such tion is not a problem. but case studies suggest that The key to the success of it is typically around 10% in circumstances new ideas, such as the concept of “traffic evapo- these inner city transforma- the short term, and 20% in the tions was undoubtedly the longer term. ration” (which challenges the assumption that traffic conges- gradual way these rather dras- tion will necessarily worsen if tic changes were made. This n some cities where there incremental approach has is enough space it may be road capacity is reduced), can lend valuable support as to the given residents time to adapt, possible to promote non- to change from driving and carI modes of transport (e.g. technical feasibility of creative traffic management solutions. parking their cars to walk- pedestrianising some streets or ing, using bicycles and public restricting them to buses, bicy- Source: Reclaiming Streets for transport. cles and taxis only), without —Source: Reclaiming Streets for People: Chaos or Quality of Life? affecting the amount of road People: Chaos or Quality of Life? space available to cars. THE SRS-PENANG TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN UTUSAN KONSUMER July-Aug 2018 15

By Roger Teoh FMT, 22 July 2018 ealth studies show PTMP: Inaccurate Air that a prolonged expo- sure to vehicle-emitted pollutantsH greatly increases the risk of various heart and lung diseases and early death. Quality & Health Impacts Background air pollution levels published in the Envi- more than 15 µg/m3, how is (SO2) near major highways Dubious Air Quality ground NO2 and PM levels could be underreported and ronmental Impact Assessment and congested city roads. it possible that Penang is able near the proposed highway may even exceed the MAAQS. (EIA) do not appear to be Most of these pollutants are Measurement Results to achieve a concentration will continue to comply with If background pollution levels reasonable. released from vehicle exhaust level of lower than 1 µg/m3, future Malaysian air quality and congestion are included Air quality modelling re- (due to incomplete combus- While background con- which is 93% lower than outer standards. in the air quality model, the sults are likely underreported tion), and from brake and centrations of PM10, PM2.5, London? estimated pollution levels to comply with the Malaysia tyre wear. NO2 and CO were measured Looking closer to home, Questionable could very likely be higher Ambient Air Quality Standard Despite ongoing improve- and published in the EIA of even the hourly averaged back- Assumptions than reported in the EIA. (MAAQS). ments in engine technology, the highway, we can very confi- ground NO2 concentrations in The proposal to construct a the adverse environmental dently suggest that some of the the Kuala Lumpur metropoli- Prioritise More new 6-lane highway in Penang reported results are incorrect tan area ranged between 18 µg/ More vehicles on the road and health impacts of pol- will increase the background Sustainable Transport (Pan Island Link expressway, lution from vehicles remain and unrealistic. m3 and 94 µg/m3. PIL 1) has sparked a healthy For example, 10 of the 12 Hence, given the London levels of NO2 and PM when Modes significant. For example, par- the new highway is operation- debate on the plan’s effective- ticles emitted in the exhaust air quality monitoring stations and KL examples, the reported ness, financial cost and adverse reported negligible nitrogen background NO2 concentra- al. While we acknowledge that Governments in the devel- of a vehicle get increasingly simulation work has been car- environmental impact. smaller in size as combustion dioxide (NO2) concentrations tions in the EIA for the Pan oped world are now focusing Recently, the EIA for parts of less than 1 µg/m3 (micro- Island Link highway certainly ried out in the EIA to estimate more and more on improv- efficiency improves. the increase in pollution from of the Penang Transport Mas- Although not visible to grammes per cubic metre cannot be trusted. ing air quality in cities. In ter Plan (PTMP) was made air). Such values do not make What’s more, the EIA also the highway, the methodology fact, most European cities are the naked eye, these ultrafine of the air quality assessment available by the Penang State particles are more likely to logical sense. reported background PM10 emphasising on sustainable Government for public scru- To give the public a better concentrations ranging from makes highly questionable transport modes and pedes- penetrate deeper into the lungs assumptions. tiny. and subsequently enter the understanding and perspec- 39 µg/m3 to 65 µg/m3. How- trianising streets in city centres While credit should be tive of a realistic range of NO2 ever, any PM10 value above 50 For example, model inputs in an attempt to comply with blood circulation system and were oversimplified where given to the Penang State Gov- internal organs. values in a city, we will use the µg/m3 cannot be classified as the EU Air Quality Directive ernment for releasing these modelled annual average NO2 “good”, as claimed in the ex- background levels of NO2, (2008/50/EU). Recent health studies have PM2.5 and CO are assumed to documents online to improve shown that prolonged expo- concentrations in London as ecutive summary of the EIA. Yet, Penang continues to transparency, this article will a case study. Data from the Such values exceed the be zero. Given that background focus on the old way of pri- sure to vehicle-emitted pol- pollutants along the proposed critically analyse these pub- lutants greatly increases the London Air Quality Network recommended guidelines by oritising vehicles and build- lished results, focusing on air clearly showed that Central the World Health Organisation highway route were measured ing more highways. This is risk of heart and lung diseases, as discussed earlier, why are quality and human health to contributing to early death. London (with heavy road traf- (WHO) and the EU Directive despite the overwhelming further understand the adverse fic) and major roads leading on Air Quality (2008/50/EU), these values not included into scientific evidence pointing The PTMP in its present the air quality model? environmental and social im- form places heavy emphasis to the city typically has higher which state that safe levels of out that building more roads pacts of the 6-lane highway. than 40 µg/m3 of background PM10 concentrations (24- To make matters worse, not only fails to resolve traffic on vehicular traffic and exces- the air quality assessment sive highway construction. nitrogen oxide. hour mean) should not exceed congestion, but also worsens Health Effects of Pol- Remember, only 39% of 50 µg/m3. only includes modelling for air quality and human health Without a doubt, this will traffic flowing smoothly (i.e. lution from Vehicles increase the number of cars on Londoners use cars as com- Although current back- in cities. pared to 96.8% of Penangites. ground PM10 levels in Penang without congestion) around It is also appalling to learn the road and worsen Penang’s highway interchange areas. In The transport sector is a air quality. In fact, London has also im- are technically in compliance that alternative mass transit plemented the world’s largest with the current MAAQS, reality, vehicles are likely to options along a route similar major contributor to green- While the recent EIA re- experience congestion as they house gas emissions and air port suggested that air quality low emissions zone since 2008, these air quality guidelines will to the proposed highway were where certain vehicles that fail get more stringent over time. exit the high-capacity highway not even considered in the pollution in urban cities. A and human health impacts back into local urban roads. wide body of academic re- from the construction and to meet the minimum emis- Therefore, the expected EIA. What is with the rush to sions criteria are restricted tightening of air quality regu- The pollutants emitted along approve Penang’s biggest road search has unanimously shown operation of the 6-lane PIL 1 a congested road are usu- an elevated concentration of highway are insignificant, this from entering the city. lations in Malaysia must also infrastructure project to date If the outskirts of London be considered if the PTMP is ally higher than when traffic when alternative options are pollutants such as nitrogen could be an underestimation, is flowing smoothly. oxides (NOx), particulate as will be highlighted in this (with lower traffic) still man- really a “long-term solution” as not even considered? age to record an annual aver- claimed by SRS Consortium. Based on these two factors, matter (PM), carbon monox- article. the projected air quality results ide (CO) and sulphur dioxide age NO2 concentration that is We cannot assume that back- Know More About PTMP & What You Can Do Resources s/1657137/request-for-proposal-rfp- http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ master-plan/ Transport Master Plan – A scandal in the ent Review for an Optimised PTMP is-not-open-tender-ahmad-hilmy-and- category/opinion/2018/08/13/penang- making? https://www.malaysiakini.com/ 6. [Dr Lim’s Article, 19th December http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ letters/360367 lim-mah-hui transport-master-plan-a-multidimen- 2016] Answer The Questions, Not Attack bettercheaperfaster.my sional-fallacy/ category/opinion/2016/12/14/penang- PART 4 – Why Bulldoze through the the Messenger provides a critique of the PTMP and transport-master-plan-a-scandal-in- Comment on PIL1 EIA Penang Tunnel Project? 2. [30th July 2018] Is the Penang Trans- http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ the-making/ offers an alternative transport plan https://www.malaymail.com/ port Master Plan Headed for Financial category/opinion/2016/12/19/an- Submit written comments until 7th for Penang s/1658080/why-bulldoze-through- Trouble? swer-the-questions-not-attack-the- 11. [25th November 2016] Debunking September 2018 to: the-penang-tunnel-project-ahmad- http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ messenger/ the Penang Government’s Transport A Comprehensive 6-Part hilmy-and-lim-mah-hui category/opinion/2018/07/30/is-the- 7. [18th December 2016] PTMP Scan- Master Plan Spin Director-General srs-transport-master-plan-headed-for- Series on the PTMP by Dr PART 5 – Why Penang’s Expensive LRT dal: More personal attacks or answers? http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ Department of Environment financial-trouble/ category/opinion/2016/11/25/de- Lim Mah Hui & Professor Plan Must Be Reviewed http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ Ministry of Environment & Natural https://www.malaysiakini.com/ category/opinion/2016/12/18/ptmp- bunking-the-penang-governments- Resources http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ news/436481 Ahmad Hilmy: category/opinion/2018/08/03/why- scandal-more-personal-attacks-or- transport-master-plan-spin/ Level 2, Podium 3, Wisma Sumber Asli penangs-expensive-lrt-plan-must-be- 3. [22nd July 2018] New Penang answers/ No. 25, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4 PART 1 – A Need to Relook at the PTMP reviewed/ Highway: Impact on Air Quality, Health 12. [14th November 2016] Is the PTMP 62574 Putrajaya a Violation of Social Equity? https://www.malaymail.com/ not Accurately Reported. 8. [FMT News, 17th December 2016] (Attn: Assessment Division – PART 6 – Why Penang should Commission https://www.malaysiakini.com/ s/1655356/need-to-relook-at-the- http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ DAP Leaders Hit Back at Roger Teoh EIA Secretariat) an Independent Review on the PTMP letters/362763 penang-transport-master-plan-lim- category/opinion/2018/07/22/new- http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ Tel : 03-8871 2000, Faks : 03-8889 1045 mah-hui-and-ahmad-hi https://www.malaymail.com/ penang-highway-impact-on-air-quali- category/nation/2016/12/17/dap- s/1659553/why-penang-should-com- ty-health-not-accurately-reported/ leaders-hit-back-at-roger-teoh/ 13. [8th November 2016] Quantifying PART 2 – How does the SRS Penang mission-an-independent-review-lim- the Consequences of the PTMP The EIA is downloadable at Transport Master Plan deviate from the mah-hui-and-ahmad-hi 4. [4th July 2018] Critical PTMP Ques- 9. [FMT News, 17th December 2016] https://www.malaysiakini.com/ http://www.wirandamsdnbhd. original tions that Remain Unanswered Scholar wants Penang Transport Plans letters/362074 com/432852283 https://www.malaymail.com/ https://www.malaysiakini.com/ Posted Online s/1655795/how-srs-penang-transport- Articles on PTMP by news/432626 http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ 14. [1st November 2016] Why Penang Petition master-plan-deviates-from-the-origi- Roger Teoh: category/nation/2016/12/17/scholar- Needs More Urban Rail nal-ahmad-hilmy 5. [24th June 2018] More spin to prop wants-penang-transport-plans-posted- https://www.malaysiakini.com/ https://www.change.org/p/yab-tuan- 1. [12th August 2018] Penang Trans- up the Penang Transport Master Plan? letters/361194 PART 3 – Request for Proposal (RFP) is http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ online/ chow-cancel-pil1-highway-sos-keep- Not Open Tender port Master Plan, a multidimensional penang-beautiful-without-pollution- fallacy? category/opinion/2018/06/24/more- 15. [25th October 2016] An Independ- https://www.malaymail.com/ spin-to-prop-up-the-penang-transport- 10. [14th December 2016] Penang environmental-impact