PENANG’S UNBALANCED APPROACH
IN May, we voted for a change of government. Pakatan Harapan went from being the opposition to becoming the government. When it was the opposition, it could only voice objections and concerns.
But today, it is in power to carry out what it hoped and fought for. Is it carrying out the trust that we placed on it?
Let us examine this in relation to the biggest project confronting the people of Penang: the RM46 billion Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).
Phase I of this plan includes the proposed Penang Island Link 1 (PIL 1) and the LRT project. PIL 1 is an extension of the aborted Penang Outer Ring Road (PORR).
When Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow was an opposition member of parliament in 2002, he said: “If the findings of the Halcrow Report are true, Dr Koh Tsu Koon (then the Penang CM) would be irresponsible in pushing the PORR through as this will not be a long-term solution to the traffic congestion on the island.”
There were two other reasons why Chow opposed PORR: because it was a tolled road and no open tender was used to award the project.
DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang, on May 28, 2002, said: “The nightmare of the Penang traffic congestion is likely to be back to square one, not in eight years, but probably less than five years, after the completion of PORR.
“What Penang needs is an efficient public transport system, based on sustainable transport policy; PORR is not a mediumterm let alone long-term solution to the traffic congestion nightmare on the island.”
These two DAP leaders could not be clearer on why they opposed PORR. But how does Chow now justify PIL 1?
According to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of PIL 1, the consultants reported in chapter 8 that by 2030 (between five and seven years after completion), the traffic volume would reach up to 8,000 pcu/hour (passenger car unit) during evening peak hours. This means we would be back to square one in terms of traffic congestion.
This was what the transport report by international consultant Halcrow said of PORR in 1998.
Public policy must be based on scientific study, analysis and evidence, not on whims and fancies.
That is why the Penang government funds the Penang Institute to provide policy analysis and advice.
If the EIA’s conclusion is that PIL 1 will not solve traffic congestion in the medium and long terms, then Chow must justify to the people of Penang on what other grounds did he base his decision to spend RM8 billion on a highway that will not solve traffic congestion, and is fraught with safety risks, on top of financial, environmental, social and health costs.
Lim made it clear that the only alternative is to have an efficient public transport system.
This is a golden opportunity for these leaders to implement what they preached.
Chow said at a townhall on Sept 20 that the state was proposing a balanced approach to solving the transport problem: building roads and public transport.
Let us examine the facts:
island has 2.8 times more highways on a per capita basis than Singapore (84 metres per 1,000 persons in Penang versus 30 metres per 1,000 persons in Singapore);
state government under the PTMP is planning to build another 70km of highways, many of them elevated, marring the city landscape, thereby doubling the state’s highway per capita to 4.5 times that of Singapore; and,
public modal share of transport is dismal at five per cent, that is, only five per cent of people who travel use public transport, compared with 67 per cent in Singapore.
From the above, it is clear that Penang’s transport situation is tilted towards roads and against public transport.
A balanced approach must prioritise improving public transport and not building more highways.
PTMP’s goal is to raise the public transport modal share to 40 per cent by 2030.
But spending RM15 billion on building highways in the first phase of the PTMP (RM8 billion on PIL 1 plus RM6.5 billion on three paired roads and tunnel under the Zenith package) and RM8 billion on one LRT line is not a balanced approach.
In fact, under the Halcrow PTMP, an integrated public transport network consisting of trams, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and new cross-channel ferry service was estimated to cost RM10 billion.
But all these are shelved or relegated to future dates while priority is given to building highways.
Chow must explain why such an unbalanced approach is adopted. Is the policy based on scientific evidence or on other interests that we are unaware of ?
The saying that “justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done” applies in this case.
The people of Penang must be given clear and credible answers.