More highways would be disastrous for Penang

41
57

Despite calls from many concerned Penangites for more sustainable transport in the state, the Penang state government is adamant about building more highways and a tunnel, arguing that it does not have control over public transport in the state.

The draft Penang transport master plan is most disappointing. Instead of coming up with just one proposal for sustainable transport, the consultants have come up with two alternative approaches: a so-called ‘balanced approach’ that emphasises public transport and an alternative ‘fall-back’ proposal that emphasises building seven highways at a cost of RM12.5bn. Very conveniently, the fall-back option is RM0.5bn cheaper than the ‘balanced approach’.

This ‘fall-back’ approach for more highways is actually a disgraceful cop-out that will be disastrous for Penang. For one thing, the costs are heavily under-stated: RM12.5bn is just the cost of the infrastructure. It does not measure motorists’ fuel costs (oil prices are rising as reserves dwindle), labour hours lost waiting in traffic jams when the highways eventually get jammed, depletion of resources used in building cars and roads (and a tunnel), and the emissions costs (climate change) during construction and commuting. All this will add up to a colossal amount in coming years.

Sure, the federal government and its agencies control Rapid Penang buses, Penang Port (which is being sold to Syed Mokhtar?) and the ferries, the airport, and Penang Bridge. And these outfits don’t even seem to be coordinating with one another.

But it is a fallacy that the Penang government can’t do anything about sustainable transport just because public transport operators come under the federal goverment.

READ MORE:  Packing them into the Penang Hill Railway trains

Ironically, the documentary movie “Urbanized’ jointly screened by Penang Institute (a state government-funded think tank) and Think City (funded by the federal government) showed what is possible for transport and other urban issues under visionary leadership. (By the way, if Penang Institute/MPPP and Think City can work with each other, why not the Penang state government and RapidPenang?) Look at the bus rapid transit and bicycle lanes of Bogota where the interests of bus commuters and cyclists have been given more importance than private motorists. Thus Bogota has an efficient BRT and excellent cycle lanes.

The then mayor of Bogota, Enrique Penalosa, sees this as the democratisation of transport. After all, why should a few motorists have more right of way than a bus-load of 50-100 passengers? “A protected bicycle way is important as it protects cyclists but it is also very important as it is a symbol that shows that a citizen on a US$30 bicycle is equally important as one in a US$30000 car,” he asserts. “It is a very powerful symbol of democracy.”

Penalosa said that motorists even seem to think that they have some bizarre basic human right right to park. But he says he has read the human rights charter, which spells out that people have the right to certain basic freedoms, and nowhere does it state that people have the right to adequate parking! On the contrary, governments can do more to promote public transport while making it more expensive for people to park their cars.

Another example: Copenhagen has 37 per cent of its residents cycling. To increase cycle ridership in Penang does NOT require federal government intervention. Of course, there will be a few namby-pambies around arguing that the weather here is too hot (haven’t we heard of shady trees?) and giving all kinds of reasons why cycling is not feasible. Don’t pay too much attention to them; instead listen to the growing number of young and enthusiastic cyclists and would-be/potential cyclists. Why, just today, I saw a long convoy of 30 cyclists happily pedalling along Gurney Drive while cars were crawling along the same road.

READ MORE:  What you don't know about the proposed three major roads in Penang

For that matter, what has the Penang government done to encourage more people to use Rapid Penang buses? Not much. It has come up with a couple of praiseworthy initiatives such as Best (the Penang bridge shuttle bus) and the free circular bus service within George Town. That is only a beginning. The state government should be more creative in encouraging Penangites to take the bus or cycle while making the streets conducive and safer for pedestrians and cycling. You don’t need the useless federal government for that.

So please, please, no more major highways for Penang. It is time to wean Penangites away from their obsession with private motor vehicles.

We should demand that the transport master plan consultants scrap the ‘build-more-highways’ strategy from their final draft. This approach only panders to the big construction boys – at the expense of the public. Once we go down the highway route, it will become more and more difficult to go back to a more sustainable approach. Surely this is not the legacy the Pakatan government in Penang wants to leave behind.

Proposing more highways is not what we paid the transport consultants RM3m out of public funds for. Why are they recommending the discredited and regressive model of more highways? Any schoolchild could come up with a proposal for more highways. That is not visionary leadership.

When Penalosa came into office, he received a big transport study for Bogota that had been done by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency. This study proposed (along with some bus lanes and public transport) seven highways (the same number proposed in the Penang master plan under the highway approach!) at a cost of more than US$5bn. The city rejected the study and instead opted for more efficient public transport. That is visionary leadership.

READ MORE:  Poor enforcement against illegal parking: Penang Forum dialogue with CM

But then again the Penang transport master plan consultants probably included the highway approach because they know this is what the state government wants – and the state government is the paymaster.

This is backward policy making. The Penang state government came up with their ‘solution’ first (more highways) and then probably told the consultants that this is what has been “committed”. The consultants then blindly accepted whatever the state government dished out to them and came up with a “more highways” approach to keep their paymasters happy. Does this reflect a progressive vision of sustainable transport? Surely not.

The challenge is to come up with a more sustainable approach for Penang. In this, we can learn a thing or two from Penalosa, who is now the President of the New York-based Institute of Transport and Development Policy, which promotes sustainable and equitable transport worldwide. Ask him what he thinks of the “more highways” approach for Penang!

Please help to support this blog if you can.

Read the commenting guidlelines for this blog.

41 COMMENTS

  1. Dear Anilnetto,

    I have read your article with interest.

    I would like to clarify a number of issues raised therein.

    The exhibition on the Overarching Transport Master Plan sets out a Core Strategy for implementation before 2020 and two possible ways forward after that date.

    We (the Consultants) are recommending that the Core Strategy be adopted and are consulting the public on the two alternative longer term ways forward.

    The Core Strategy is targeted primarily at making the existing transport systems within Penang work properly

    The two longer term alternatives are based either around

    – Building only new roads

    OR

    – Taking a more Balanced approach, whereby some roads are built, but the main emphasis is targeted towards improving public transport and persuading Penangites to use it through initially increasing parking charges and ultimately imposing access charges (road user charges) on those that drive into George Town and Butterworth.

    In terms of the strategy study objectives, the Balanced Approach is the preferred way forward. However, it has a number of features that might be unacceptable to the general public – these revolve around firstly the need to take away road space so as to achieve the necessary public transport improvements and secondly the need (in the longer term) to impose new road user charges on motorists who drive into George Town and Butterworth.

    Both of these issues are, in our opinion, likely be just as controversial and that of building new roads

    At this point in time, we have therefore made no definitive recommendations in terms of the appropriate loner term way forward. Instead, we are seeking public opinion on these issues.

    After the public consultation it is likely that we will be making a definitive recommendation, taking into account both the technical work we have already completed and the response we get from the public.

    In my view, setting out the pros and cons of each option and seeking public comments at this time is the right way forward – It is a much better way forward than us, as outsiders to Penang, simply imposing our solutions on the residents of the State and offering no choice.

    Ultimately, it is our believe that the validity of the finally selected Penang Transport Master Plan Strategy will be considerably strengthened as a result of going through this process.

    For any one who is interested in these issues, the exhibition material can be viewed at http://www.ptc.penang.gov.my and details of the consultation process can also be obtained from this website.

    • Unfortunately, there are quite a number in Penang & Malaysia who think the solution is build more roads & widen more lanes. And also the mindset of the motor car as a status symbol to show wealth… or that he is “moving up”. This mindset is quite frequently observed in economically developing nations… developed countries tend to have less of this mentality.

      But with more awareness, we can convince these people that this method is unsustainable in the near future. This is where Penang’s NGOs & lobby groups can step in.

      In 10 years time, when the current young generation grows up… I believe they will have a more pro-public transport mindset

      • Simple arithmetic:
        Increasing cars on the road + limited space on the island = more hellish traffic jams (to come).
        Example: Just queue up on the way home everyday at Air Itam / Green Lane traffic junction starting 5.30pm – 7.30pm. This was none existent 5 years ago except for traffic lights konk-out or floods!
        Still want more highways & more “Bing Chui” cars?
        BTW, lethal fireworks at Straits of Hormuz are already in place to fire anytime soon for the hellish launch of rise in petrol price. Happy driving!!!

  2. Anil,

    I think your response is too pessimistic and doesn’t see the Balanced Approach portion in the proposal… the ones with BRTs, Komuter rail on mainland, and prioritization of public transports.

    To me, the Highway Only option serves as a contrast to the Balanced Approach option. It is also pointed out that the H.O option will only encourage private car ownership, leading to unsustainability in the future.

    As for the third link, it should be built, but should be a rail-only tunnel. At the same time, the Bayan Lepas-KOMTAR-Weld Quay BRT should be upgraded to some form of rail to optimize use of this third link rail tunnel.

    FYI, here’s the link to the proposal…

    http://ptc.penang.gov.my/images/stories/news%20latest/Display%20%20Article-Version%20+%20Consultation%20Programme_1.pdf

    BTW, you might want to check out this term called Peak Car. In developed nations like Europe, Japan, USA, car usage has peaked and is now decreasing.

    • Yes, I saw the Balanced Approach. Problem is, I think the state government is in favour of the Highway Option, which should not have been included in the master plan.

  3. I just don’t understand the Penang people mindset. Penang is a SMALL Island. It seems many people REFUSE to look into the map. It is SMALL-SMALL-SMALL. Open googlemap, map a route from one point to another point, The furthest P237 highway to north east Tanjub bungah = 33km , get a longer route? 44km.

    Yes, it is good millions spend on the pro-highway reports/study. But is that mean Penang state government take the “Sunk cost fallacy” and continue the pro-highway mentality ? I will keep my finger crossed.

    OTH. I also tired of state government claims they have no rights on the road. If Penang government really kind on experiment with alternate transport , such as bicycle and electricity bicycle, they can start draft safety rules to ENABLE a township bicycle road. A none-car grade “town-road” always cheaper and should be outside the context of “federal control”, e.g. road inside those housing estate, pavement -slow-walkway. And charging on “bicycle-registration”, is a good start to fund some of this road. Also, with this kind of system, it is possible to let loose those 15-20km/h limit or 200watts output limit electricity bicycle, that will provide lots of mobility for Senior citizen as well as working classes that don’t want to pedal.

    Some may take the stupid mentality of RTD and claim that electric bicycle is not safe. Well, Malaysia has 4000++ people killed in CAR crash, thanks to the good old weight of the car and speed. OTH, a bicycle that travel ~ 15km/h. with the rider weight, rarely more than 150kg, that speed and weight are not going to do much harm. OTH, a 1000kg compact car that travel around 15km/h, the momentum from the weight, can kill any minor in seconds!

    • Some blokes don’t see it your way – pro bicycles, manual or electric. All they think of is Speedy Gonzales habits. Rapid Bus is not spared if it goes slow & careful. I have taken rides on some of these buses & truly appreciate their drivers’ care compared to Yellow Bus drivers of the 80’s. No wonder the Feds are always happy to create such Speedy ‘G’ conveniences at a ‘hefty’ price for us foolish Penangites to pay.
      I had been to China to see first hand the wonders of bicycles & the creative use for personal travel & side-business opportunities as human taxis! Just b’cos it is of no status symbol doesn’t rightly rendered it impractical in our climate or narrow streets of Penang.
      If we can think of undersea tunnel & all the complex logistics, an engineering so expensive to undertake, why can’t we think out of the box on how to ride a bicycle plus hop onto a bus to work, safe, healthy, economical & save money.
      The time bomb is still ticking at the Straits of Hormuz. And ticking faster since the mood change of Israel Defence Minister Ehud Barak & Obama’s flounder with back lane cheapskate deals.
      A Bengali bicycle is still a safe bet against such eventuality of insane petrol price spiral comes global fireworks displays of anybody’s guess!
      BTW, who will be booking a super penthouse at Dubai’s The Burj to witness the lethal surface to air fireworks dangerously?

  4. The following topic can be included in the discuss paper:
    1) What are the challenges and future approaches for Penang ferry?
    2) What are the challenges and future approaches for pedestrian and cycling?
    3) What are the challenges and future approaches for public shared bicycle program?
    4) How to provide transport need to the industrial zones (Penang FTZ, Perai and Butterworth Industrial Zones), the service industries (Georgetown innner city) and the tourism industries (north-east coastal zones) for enocomonic growth?

    • You should have a short message to direct readers to your blog, instead of flooding your opinion here as not many people can appreciate your analysis/comment.

  5. Why not give us a discussion paper? Why not give us one whole year for public feedback and formulating the right policies and plan? Why the rush? Obsolete overtime? It is already obsolete before it is even ready Dr Lim Mah Hui! Stupid!

  6. If the lgE administration ever sincere in public participation and consultant, the consultant should prepare a discussion paper with the following contents:
    THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION PAPER
    1.1 What is the state Government’s vision for transport?
    1.2 What is the aim of the Long Term Transport Master Plan? 5
    1.3 What is the consultation process to help develop the Long Term Transport Master Plan?
    1.4 How can I respond to this Discussion Paper?
    2 PROGRESS TO DATE
    2.1 What is the state Government doing to improve public transport?
    2.2 What is the satate Government doing to improve the road system ?
    2.3 What is the stat eGovernment doing to improve transport in the regional?
    3 THE STATEGOVERNMENT AND TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES
    3.1 What should be the objectives of future transport?
    3.2 What is the role of the state Government in transport?
    4 THE 20 YEAR CHALLENGE
    4.1 What are the major challenges with changing customer needs and preferences?
    4.2 What are the major population challenges for the next 20 years?
    4.3 What are the major economic challenges for the next 20 years?
    4.4 What are the major energy challenges for the next 20 years?
    4.5 What are the implications of these major challenges for future transport?
    5 Penang TRANSPORT
    5.1 What are the challenges for transport in Penang?
    5.2 What are the possible future approaches to transport in Penang? 41
    6 REGIONAL TRANSPORT 61
    6.1 What are the transport requirements for regional need? 61
    6.2 What are the challenges and future approaches for the highway network?
    6.3 What are the challenges and future approaches for rail and coach networks?
    6.4 What are the challenges for local bus services, factory and school buses?
    6.5 What are the challenges and future approaches associated with high speed rail, tram or monorail?
    6.6 What are the challenges and future approaches for regional aviation?
    6.7 What are the specific transport challenges for your region?
    6.8 Will each region have its own Regional Transport Plan?
    7 FREIGHT TRANSPORT 77
    7.1 What are the challenges for freight transport?
    7.2 What are the possible future approaches for freight transport in Penang?
    7.3. Will the proposal undersea tunnel poses a challenge for future expansion of Penang port?
    8 FUNDING
    8.1 What are the challenges for transport funding?
    8.2 What are the potential future approaches to transport funding?

    Instead of a discussion paper, we are given a list of simple questions as a feedback, which worth RM3million??????????????????

  7. Halcrow fails to set the public transport priorities! How road upgrade priorities going to complement public transit? How those public transport priorities will support housing and employment growth across the state and deliver a safer road network.? How it going to reduce travel times for motorists using the motorway and surrounding roads and support planned residential and employment growth in the state? Just build more roads? Especially the inner ring road? Only the dumb and dumber never learn from the fiasco of PGCC and Penang inner ring road episode which led to the downfall of KTK administration.

  8. Halcrow also fails in showing any land use strategies how it going to affect the master plan and public transport, allowing lgE administration freely messing around with the development density without any provision for public transit!

    Halcrow also fails in using cyclying and pdestrians walkway to compliment public transit and has no ideas about public shared bicycles….

  9. What is more stunting is that there is no draft copy of master plan at all? The so called master plan is only in a conceptual stage with some preliminary suggestions which see the compromise of the consultant to the demand of lgE administration.
    On March 2010, soon after the state government announced the plan to have another transport master plan, I immediately voiced my concern over the short lead time given to prepare the so called master plan. (Read Penang Transport Plan A Pipedream? at
    http://eusoon.blogspot.com/2010/03/penang-transport-plan-pipedream.html)
    This led to the unwarranted attack by Dr Lim Mah Hui (http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/131507 ), who claimed the study cannot be stretched out for too long, or the study will become outdated by the time it is completed.
    The complaints by local NGOs that the plan is lacking “depth” and “thoroughness” is no accurate. The truth is after so many moons have passed by with the period extended , not a single draft of the plan is in signs.
    When I questioned the Halcrow Fox staff at Sunshine Mall on last Saturday, the lady has no choice but to admit that there is no drafted plan yet. While the CEO promised me that it should be ready by June.
    Is the 1999 Halcrow Fox Studies on Penang transportation also as simple as what the so called master plan is? That probably explained why it never got to see the light of the day.

    With this too simplistic plan, Halcrow fails to outline current transport trends, emerging issues and key challenges facing our State over
    the next 20 years and beyond.

    Halcrow fails to emphasis the need of a long term to shape decision making and the state government’s commitments on public transport.

    Halcrow also fails to note that Penang faced the most peculiar problem of total lacks of transit stations on planet Earth! The CEO told me that Penang has a trasit station at Komtar! Just wonder what kind of transport expert is this consultant? …

    Halcrow has no solution on how to build more transit transit. It fails to mention about the lacks of route networks visibility. How it affect commuters in their decision to use private or public vehicles.
    Halcrow fails to note that the building or the extension of road system should be to compliment the development of public mass transit system like Bus Rapid Trasit.
    Halcrow has no concrete solutions to plan, develop and deliver an integrated transport system that will ensure the needs of the public are reflected in the development of transport infrastructure and the delivery of transport services.

    This so called public display and feedback on the master plan should be launched one years a go, not now when the plan are supposed to be ready. The sad truth is that after realising that there is no way to deliver the so called master plan, lgE try to spin public opinion by given us such a lousy and unprepared so called public participation and consultation.

    Once again it proved beyond doubt that lgE is totally incompetent in the running the state. It not only show his foolishness but also his arrogant and his adamant stand on building his day dreamed undersea tunnel without due regards for a proper public transit system.

  10. More time given to LGE administration would be disastrous for Penang. What LGE does until now is just contradicting with federal government efforts. BN love and encourage state government to build more low cost housing, LGE just did the opposite. BN push for public transport, LGE push for more HIGHWAYs.

    LGE memang NO GOOD.

    • Yes, go and vote for BN. We shall see the results soon enough. No need to waste so much time here and annoy everybody.

    • Hey, under the past 40 years the Gerakan Gomen Penang’s solution to traffic is just to build more and more flyovers, highways, and roads. But I don’t blame you guys only… BN basically allowed our rail & bus systems to stagnate so more Protons could be sold.

  11. that’s what we call “cycle at own risk” in penang island
    no point to regret when unfortunate events have happened.
    be safety alert on our own is not a guarantee unless there is a dedicated lane meant solely for manual bikers.

    i love to cycle but dare not do so during my time in Penang. Now i have moved (anil calls it being “displaced”) to Sungai Petani i have all the joy and fun riding sunrise or sunset moments at my Taman with no worry of irresponsible motorists knocking me down.

    call that blessing in disguise…… I love SP !

  12. My main concern is the safety of cyclists as many motorists can care about the safety of others. Observe at pedestrian crossings. Even when the light is red, motorists esp motorcyclists do not stop if they see that they is no one crossing. Even if they stop, they will shoot off as soon as the lights go red for the pedestrians and the light is still red for the motorists

  13. Deidcated buslanes? – PR Government which received kacang putih from Income tax contributed and UMNO Government bus operators . Rapid reap all the rewards and pocket them, everyone would like to operate such system.

  14. It has all been said before, but the moster of fascism will not be defeated. First, they bring “development” by way of flyovers, smoky buses, broken sidewalks, incentives to buy cars, etc. that turn habitable towns into urban ghettos. Next, they start new “townships” unnecessarily far away. Then come the big-ticket items: toll higways, syndicated cars, ever more expensive petrol and benign neglect of buses.

    Developing countries are “developing” at 6 to 10% GDP p.a. because multinationals get away with activities here that have become illegal in “developed” countries. Transport is only an incidental part of life but now an avenue for major blood-sucking.

    If you object loudly, they wait and try again later when other matters are occupying you. All the aspects of urban life you see in certain parts of the West and South America that stand up to capitalist gigantism – preservation of old buildings, bicycle paths, planning for the priority of people and not cars – were hardwon victories. They were not achieved by kissing the hands of politcal servants.

  15. I’ve been to Bogota, and the system work very well, but the same consultants have been in Jakarta trying to work on easing their traffic woes and have not had the same success as it requires a coordinated commitment from multiple agencies. You can see the Trans Jakarta busses having good potential, but these was a lot of resistance.

    Perhaps Penang could speak to those consultants whom I believe also work with UN agencies? I understand the person who came up with the plan in Bogota also included implementing green belts along with the public transport solutions for a comprehensive plan. This sounds like they’re looking at finding a solution from a perspective that Penangites would like.

    • Just look at UMNO running the show in KL. Mayor – UMNO, Federal Minister – UMNO, Federal Government – UMNO. Traffic and Public Transport – Nightmare since UMNO has been in power.

  16. I like to cycle. When I was in Australia, I take my bicycle on the train to go to the city and then cycle to office. Yet I totally disagree with you when you try to compare Pg and Copenhagen ……. Anil not in our hot humid weather that makes you sweat like a pig.

    Secondly, I do not think you can make the majority of Pg people cycle, these are people who won’t even walk a few yards and they so pamper their children by not allowing them to strain their muscles when they dropped them off or pick the up from their schools.

    Dream on…not in the next generation or two….

    • It might not work for everyone, but we should do all we can to make it feasible/safe for all those so inclined. Even if 10-20 of commuters cycle to work or school, that would be a big drop in the number of cars, and even ease congestion on the roads.

      It should be a multi-prong strategy with other modes of sustainable transport, all integrated of course.

    • Yes, weather’s nice and suitable for cycling and walking in Denmark or Germany as I have tried it with much enjoyment there but the hot and humid weather and terrible attitude of our drivers won’t make it enjoyable or safe for us here but the govt could try at least by implementing some safety rules and shade for cyclists.
      As for the tunnel, I don’t have much objection to it if it makes the 1st & 2nd Pg Bridge operators wary of holding us Penangites to ransom.

      • Please people, I cycled home last Thursday .It was raining and 4c. If you want to cycle you just go ahead and do it. Super 95 is €1.67!! in Germany. Rain lah hot lah .stop bitching and just do it. Go out by the thousands and see what happens.

      • Either we choose to sweat a lot paying these dizzy petrol or sweat a lot by cycling for health & save some money.
        The Straits of Hormuz will shut down anytime for lethal fireworks display in the sky & underwater!

  17. 1) For a start, equip Rapid buses with cycle racks for cyclist using bus+bicycles to work.
    2) Plant more fast growing shady trees with dedicated cycle lanes (some will kau peh kau boh).
    3) Near heavy traffic junctions, install mist fans for cyclists to cool down.
    4) Reserve more bicycle parking spaces with locking brackets.
    5) Gomen can give ‘encouragement’ RM500 for individual 1st purchase of a bicycle of own choice. Give another RM500 if after 6 months of cycling he/she loses 10lbs!
    6) Create a pilot project of Rent-A-Bicycle (RAB) within George Town. Make it cheap to rent and easy to collect & hand back rental bicycles at numerous (RAB) points. This is business opportunity.
    7) State gomen can create a bicycle carnival monthly or bimonthly.
    8) Hawkers, do your part. Get yourselves or assistants to cycle & make the street rounds with hawker’s call. No only will it bring more business 60’s style, it will also create interest on the Bengali bicycles (is it still sold in Penang?)
    9) Najib can give more bicycles (this time to anyone), if and only if he is still not sure of Penangites’ sentiments. Gerakan K can lend his sundry shops as free Najib bicycle collection centre.
    10) See me if anyone want to learn & pass riding bicycle. Hawkers can learn one-hand cycling while balancing a square tray with stacked up 6 bowls full of hot soup. And still can call out: “Mee Yop” (that’s cycling hawker’s call for Hokkien Mee)

    • Good idea but not realistic.

      How many bicycles can Rapid bus carries? The rider must be king as the driver has to unload the bicycle if there are many bicycle stops along the way.

      The only way is to have free loop buses for season pass holders like those in Auckland City. If one holds a tag pass, he can travel FOC any amount. Those w/o one only pays 50 cents. The loop bus runs past 11pm.

    • 2 bus+bicycle commuters per Rapid Bus trip means:
      2 less car drivers, 2 less cars, 2 less car space congestion
      Less polution
      Less traffic anger management
      More healthy & cash in bank Penangites

      Manageable calculation:
      100 Rapid bus trips x 2 bus+bicycle commuters = 200 less cars.
      In one day how many Rapid buses on the round trips, just figure out brother.
      It’s been done & proven:

      • Very good calcs. 2 bicycles – 50 passengers. Takes 5 mintues to load and unload means 10 min wasted and for 2 bicycles means 20 mintues x 50 passengers = 100 min wasted by Penang per bus. Imagine for 100 trips per day, how many mintues one have to stand or sit waiting just for the bicycle. People will abandon riding Rapid buses and we go back to sqaure one taking private vehicles.

      • How about light-weight foldable bicycles we can carry on board the buses?

        Need to think out-of-the-box here.

        Or we can have storage rooms at BRT hubs where we can park and lock the bikes. This has been done in other cities.

    • Another note:
      Rapid Bus drivers are a patient lots. Rapid Bus is not like Penang Hill’s Speedy Gonzales Fridge Train.
      I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike (in George Town).

      • Not sure the patient Rapid Penang any different than Rapid KL, where Rapid bus can wait at certain station for 5-10 minutes. Perhaps to counter their “rapid” image?

  18. More Deepest Purple music but for clean & green Penang less highways if possible.

    Enjoy my friends while the GE13 is on the highway then we’re all shall on stairway to heaven when the people vote for righteouness.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here