PENANG government has not given evidence-based answers to clear the air over the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP). Five critical statements are raised here.
1. Population density in the reclaimed islands projected to be higher than many cities
The South Reclamation Scheme has been pitched as necessary to fund the Pan Island Link 1 (PIL1) highway and Penang LRT. However, questionable population projections were used to justify there will be sufficient demand for the sale of land in these islands.
According to a statement, the three reclaimed islands (16.98 sq km) are projected to have a population of 367,379 in 2030. This translates to a density of 21,636 people per square kilometre in the islands (higher than many metropolitan cities).
What is so interesting in or around the islands that population density is projected to be higher than London and Paris? Why would 367,379 people want to squeeze themselves in these islands by 2030 when there are less dense areas in the state?
2. PIL1 will be one of the most expensive transport infrastructures
The projected cost for the PIL1 highway (RM 9.6 billion) will be one of the most expensive transport infrastructures in Malaysia, and only the KL Sungai Buluh-Putrajaya MRT2 (which serves a larger population base and involves a more complex construction environment in an urban conurbation) is more expensive in terms of the cost per km.
Perhaps shockingly, the cost per km for the PIL1 highway is 56% higher than the KL-Singapore high-speed rail (deferred due to high costs), and around 7.5 times higher relative to the revised price tag of the East Coast Rail Link. Even the Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (said to be the most expensive highway in Malaysia but cancelled), costs 67% lower on a per km basis.
While the federal government has reiterated its commitment to reduce the high debt levels of the country by scrapping or re-negotiating projects, Penang continues to spend lavishly. Somehow the rules set by the federal government do not apply to Penang.
3. Economic benefits of Penang LRT artificially inflated
A highly exaggerated annual ridership of 42 million trips (within one year after the Penang LRT is operational) is assumed, likely to artificially inflate the economic benefits and justify the high construction costs (RM9 billion). To put this into perspective, this projected annual ridership is significantly higher than most MRT lines in London, Singapore and KL on a per capita basis.
For an absolute comparison, despite KL having a larger population, the Sungai-Buloh Kajang MRT only managed to achieve an annual ridership of 22.25 million (or 11.1 annual passenger journeys per capita) in its first year, 48% lower than the forecasted annual ridership for the Penang LRT.
Of course, the proposed LRT is great, but can Penang afford it? The financial viability of the LRT project and the state’s financial health could be threatened if a more realistic ridership projection is used: Not only the projected economic benefits would be significantly lower, the loss in ticket revenues could also cost at least RM120 million a year (24% of the estimated revenue for the Penang State Budget in 2019). What about the opportunity costs of foregoing alternative public transport systems that are shown to be cheaper to build, operate and maintain, and could significantly expand the public transport catchment area?
4. Traffic congestion will only get worse without a paradigm shift
While more highways are expected to relieve traffic congestion between inter-urban trips, local traffic problems within an urban area will continue to worsen. Transport studies have shown that a two-lane highway to a city centre typically adds around 10,000 additional vehicles a day to the streets, and around 80% of vehicular traffic in a city centre can be associated with drivers looking for parking. However, due to land constraints, it is no longer feasible to expand roads and parking space within urban centres in Penang to cater to increased traffic from PIL1.
Studies estimate that free-flowing traffic in the PIL1 can only be maintained for about seven years after it is operational. Beyond that, Penang is expected to return to worsening traffic congestion, despite spending RM9.6 billion on a highway.
While proponents of the PTMP will argue that I have neglected the potential benefits of the LRT in reducing traffic congestion, the next subsection will show that this benefit will be unlikely to materialise.
5. Goal of 40% public transport modal share by 2030 will be missed
Scientific evidence warns that more highways are strongly correlated to the increase in car modal share and dependence in a city, while relying on new public transport infrastructure in isolation (such as the LRT) in encouraging commuters to shift from cars to public transport only has a limited effect.
Phase one of the PTMP aims to build only one LRT line (30km), but significantly more roads and highways (totalling 70km, including the PIL1, 3 Zenith paired roads, Gurney Expressway and undersea tunnel); this is in violation of the cause-effect relationships in reducing the car modal share in a city.
Investments in public transport must be implemented in synergy with other policies (ie improving city walkability, station accessibility, public transport coverage and integration, and safety).
London, despite introducing car restraint policies such as congestion charging and removing road capacity only managed to reduce its car modal share from 49% (1995) to 37% (2016), while a car-dependent city such as Phoenix (US) took 17 years to reduce its car modal share marginally from 94% (1995) to 84% (2012).
Given these case studies and the policy approaches outlined in PTMP, there appears to be a lack of political will from the state government to achieve its 40% public transport modal share target by 2030. Modelling results suggest that, despite the high capital expenditure incurred by the LRT, the public transport modal share is likely to be in the range of 10% in 2030, only a marginal increase from 3.2% now.
A white elephant masterplan
On the whole, the quantitative evidence summarised in this article shows that the extremely high costs of the PTMP cannot be justified. We are entering a dangerous precedent, especially when politicians can get away with ignoring hard scientific evidence in favour of rhetoric and the whims of certain interest groups.
Given the large sums involved, it is likely that the future government in power will no longer have the financial flexibility to turn things around should the PTMP run into financial trouble. There will be no turning back once the agreement is signed and work commenced.
Roger Teoh is a PhD postgraduate studying at the Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College London. The opinion of the author is expressed from a neutral standpoint, and he is not a member or affiliate of any political party or NGOs in Malaysia.
