Let’s face it. An underground rail system would be too expensive for Penang and, with 700,000 people on the island, it is doubtful if Penang has the passenger loads to justify such a heavy investment. They say a subway system would cost many times what a monorail would.
But even a 35-km monorail network would cost RM3.5 billion! I don’t see many cities using a monorail system as an effective people mover. (More often it is a tourist gimmick.) And even fewer heritage cities opt for monorails. KL is not exactly a shining advertisement for an efficient monorail system, is it? Remember how it had to be bailed out? Can you imagine how those ugly pillars will mar the heritage backdrop of George Town. It is for that reason that the city of Milan opted for trams rather than monorail.
And the Penang Outer (or is that “Outta”?) Ring Road (Porr) for RM1.1 billion? Come off it, we don’t need more cars, with oil prices spiralling and tolls skyrocketing and feeder roads already congested.
Monorail and Porr won’t be good for Penang – though it will surely be good for MRCB’s order book! (Don’t they just love such multi-billion ringgit projects!)
The bottom line should be the investment cost per passenger per kilometre compared to expected returns. Trams and buses would win hands down anytime. Not convinced? Ask the heritage city of Edinburgh.
Maybe the main reason a monorail system is so attractive is that the companies involved are politically well connected. Notice the name Scomi in this Edge report. Does it ring a bell? Remember Scomi was also reported as receiving the contract to supply the buses for RapidPenang.
27-03-2008: MRCB: Subway system is several times costlier than monorail
by Jose Barrock
KUALA LUMPUR: While the suggestion from Penang’s new Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to build a subway system in Penang as opposed to a monorail is technically feasible, it will cost considerably more, said Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd (MRCB) managing director Shahril Ridza Ridzuan at Invest Malaysia 2008.
MRCB was picked to build the monorail system by the Federal government.
“Engineering-wise it is not so much an issue. At the end of the day, it is whether it meets the requirements of what they (the state and federal governments) are trying to achieve on a technical point, or whether from a cost point of view it is attractive.
“A tunnel solution for public transport will cost substantially more, you are talking about maybe a factor of four or five times more depending on soil conditions,” said Shahril.
Lim said recently that a subway rail system could be considered over an overhead structure, as a subway system could also double up as a flood mitigation tunnel.
If the state government led by Lim insists on a subway system and not a monorail, this could trigger a bout of fresh negotiations. The estimated cost for the proposed overhead monorail system, which spans 35km, is RM3.5 billion.
A consortium headed by MRCB (other members include Scomi Group Bhd and Penang Port Sdn Bhd) had been given a letter of intent to build the Penang monorail system late last year. The letter of award, however, is pending with negotiations on the salient features still ongoing.
“At this stage, we have been awarded a letter of intent and we are in the final stages of negotiations with the potential client, Syarikat Prasarana (Negara Bhd).
“Syarikat Prasarana and the state will have to work together closely to determine the configurations. We stand ready to be guided by our potential client as to how they want to take this further,” Shahril added.
MRCB had recently commenced base level negotiations with Syarikat Prasarana, a company under the Minister of Finance Inc, which is in charge of the country’s public transportation system. However, it is still awaiting the conclusion of negotiations with the state authorities.
In Penang, other than the proposed monorail or subway project, MRCB’s Shahril said the group would also bid for the RM1.1 billion Penang Outer Ring Road project, which was mooted by the Government during the last budget. If secured, these projects would give a strong boost to MRCB’s existing orderbook of RM3 billion.
For the financial year ended Dec 31, 2007, MRCB posted a net profit of RM40.7 million on the back of RM903.7 million in sales.
MRCB closed three sen lower at RM1.36 yesterday. The stock has shed about 50% of its value since the beginning of the year.
In contrast, Edinburgh (pop 500,000) is one of latest cities to opt for trams. And like Penang, Edinburgh is a heritage city, its streets not any wider than Penang’s. The city is looking at trams to complement its excellent bus service. Check out this report. Notice that “every £1 invested to introduce trams provides £1.63 of benefits for Edinburgh. This return makes it an extremely good project”.
Why trams?
Edinburgh has an excellent bus system, and the highest bus patronage per capita of any UK city except London. However, even with the current excellent bus services, further public transport improvements are essential to keep pace with the increasing growth of the city. Trams add a new element to Edinburgh’s existing public transport network and trams are more appealing to car users. Trams will be reliable, fast and will carry about 260 passengers each, reducing the environmental impact of vehicle emissions and helping to alleviate congestion.
The tram has been planned to work with the city’s bus network. Both Edinburgh trams and Lothian Buses will be owned by the City of Edinburgh Council, creating ideal conditions to run the bus and tram network as a truly integrated system. Trams will also work with other bus and train companies to try to achieve integration across the city and the region.
What are the benefits of trams?
Trams are an efficient, attractive and reliable way to get around. They will be easily accessible, particularly to those with mobility difficulties, and will provide level boarding at all stops. Other features will include highly visible stops, real time information, easy to purchase tickets and security measures which include passenger attendants on every tram.The introduction of trams will have a positive impact on the image and status of the city. Benefits include attracting investment, increasing the attractiveness of Edinburgh to business, improving access for customers and staff, encouraging tourists to visit the city and an increase in civic pride and civic status.
Trams enable more people to travel to the city centre and retail areas. For example, Dublin has seen a 35% increase in footfall at an end-of-line shopping mall. In Strasbourg, the number of shoppers in the city centre on a Saturday rose from 88,000 in 1992 to 163,000 in 1997 after the opening of two tram lines.
Trams will help reduce congestion and are aimed to be successful in attracting motorists. Recent research shows that 20% of peak hour and 50% of weekend UK tram passengers previously travelled by car. In Nottingham and Dublin, two other cities which have recently introduced trams, passenger numbers have exceeded expectations. 8.5 million passengers used the Nottingham tram line in its first year, surpassing the predicted levels by around 14%. In the second year, there were 9.7 million trips, a further rise of 8%. One year after opening in June 2004, the LUAS tram system in Dublin had carried nearly 16.5 million passengers.
Also, every £1 invested to introduce trams provides £1.63 of benefits for Edinburgh. This return makes it an extremely good project.
How were the tram routes selected?
The routes were assessed on a number of criteria, in line with guidance from the Scottish Executive. These included environmental impact; economic and employment benefits; integration with other transport modes; improved safety and security; and ease of access to the residential and business community.
The line from Leith to Edinburgh Airport provides direct links from the city centre to the city’s economic growth areas, both commercial and residential, in the west of Edinburgh and Leith. It will also see the creation of major transport hubs at Haymarket, the foot of the Walk, St Andrew Square and Edinburgh Airport.
And how about this BBC report:
‘Trams bring many unique benefits’
Work on the project to bring trams to Edinburgh is well under way. Phil Wheeler, Edinburgh City Council’s transport convener, looks at the benefits he believes they will bring.
Over the past few years Edinburgh’s economy has been booming and all indications are that this period of prosperity is likely to continue.
With forecasters predicting as many as 30,000 new jobs in the next 10 years we have to plan for how a small city manages this type of growth.
We cannot build roads to meet the needs of our future, and present citizens, nor can we create more car parks to accommodate the growing number of vehicles coming into the city.
Edinburgh just does not have the space for this. So we must look for practical solutions and creating an integrated, high capacity public transport system is just such a solution.
Trams are integral to this. While Edinburgh has excellent bus services, buses are not the answer on their own.
They share the road network with other users, and can suffer from the consequences of road congestion, which means less reliability and higher operating costs.
‘Growing demand’
With a dedicated track and many sections off-road, trams are less susceptible to these problems and can carry three times more people than buses.
Without trams, there is no practical way to meet the growing demand for public transport along the booming waterfront to Airport route.
Buses will continue to be a hugely important part of our transport network though and will be integrated with trams.
Evidence from other cities where the introduction of trams has been hugely successful shows that commuters, residents, businesses and visitors enjoy quicker journeys to work and shops, more investment in the city, more accessible public transport and cleaner air.
Trams bring many more unique benefits to a city. People love using trams, so they bring new shoppers and residents into areas.
Critically, businesses know just how popular and beneficial trams are and are so very keen to be sited near them.
Extensive planning
This leads to more investment to a city. This can take the form of new jobs, new shops, new housing and new leisure opportunities.
Of course we’re aware that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs and there will be disruption across the route while construction of the tram scheme is under way.
We do apologise for this, but the work that’s gone on so far has been undertaken with extensive planning and consultation with local communities and our contractors have striven where possible to ensure any disruption to homes and businesses is kept to a minimum and this will continue whenever a new work site gets under way.
It’s taken us a long time to get to this point and the proposals have not been without their detractors.
However, I believe the case for trams has been well made and I look forward to seeing them up-and-running on our streets in 2011.
So how is Penang any different from Edinburgh – though our bus service still has a long, long way to go. The point is why opt for expensive multi-billion ringgit solutions with either questionable returns or environmental problems? Notice that the RM4.3 billion (and rising?) second Penang bridge has already been delayed by nine months before actual construction work can even start. If we go down this path, expect huge cost-overruns, further delays and more disputes between consortium partners. What will happen to the fishing communities? Or are they irrelevant in this age of rising food prices?
Public transport can be improved in several ways:
- Come up with a state-wide public transport master plan to make sure the system is integrated. Don’t make the same mistakes that KL did with its piece-meal LRT and monorail systems.
- Get the interchanges right between ferry terminals and trams/buses, between trams and buses, between cross channel over-sea rail link and buses/trams, between KTM rail on the mainland and buses/trams. This is crucial for an integrated system.
- Think of a cross-channel rail link instead of the second road bridge. The additional lane on the Penang Bridge could be used for rail transport or build a parallel rail link.
- Expand the ferry service and build more terminals at other locations on both the mainland and the island. Remember, the ferry service has been intentionally neglected ever since the Penang Bridge was built, contributing to the congestion on the bridge. The old ferry terminal (which operated alongside the new one) that collapsed in Butterworth was never rebuilt. In fact, today there are only about half the number of ferries compared to the number plying the channel in the 1970s.
- Allow for trams and buses to complement each other. For an excellent bus network, check out the Curitiba rapid bus transit system.
- Appoint independent public transport consultants with no vested interests in large companies selling their monorail/LRT/subway/bridge wares. The prime objective should be what’s good for the people of Penang including local communities, and the state rather than for the order books of giant infrastructure firms.
- Discourage private vehicle ownership and stop building infrastructure for cars and other private vehicles. This will be easier to do once we have an excellent public transport system so that people have a viable and attractive alternative.
- Remember pedestrians and cyclists. Make the streets safer for them. Turn some of the streets in Penang to pedestrian walkways with sidewalk cafes.
- Don’t reinvent the wheel. Learn from Curitiba’s rapid bus transit system and its innovative urban development programme. Small can be beautiful and visionary too!
Curitiba and its visionary mayor
Residents of Curitiba, Brazil, think they live in the best city in the world, and a lot of outsiders agree. Curibita has 17 new parks, 90 miles of bike paths, trees everywhere, and traffic and garbage systems that officials from other cities come to study. Curibita’s mayor for twelve years, Jaime Lerner, has a 92 per cent approval rating.
There is nothing special about Curitiba’s history, location or population. Like all Latin American cities, the city has grown enormously – from 150,000 people in the 1950s to 1.6 million now. It has its share of squatter settlements, where fewer than half the people are literate. Curibita’s secret, insofar that it has one, seems to be simple willingness from the people at the top to get their kicks from solving problems.
Those people at the top started in the 1960s with a group of young architects who were not impressed by the urban fashion of borrowing money for big highways, massive buildings, shopping malls and other showy projects. They were thinking about the environment and about human needs. They approached Curibita’s mayor, pointed to the rapid growth of the city and made a case for better planning.
The mayor sponsored a contest for a Curibita master plan. He circulated the best entries, debated them with the citizens, and then turned the people’s comments over to the upstart architects, asking them to develop and implement a final plan.
Jaime Lerner was one of these architects. In 1971 he was appointed mayor by the then military government of Brazil.
Given Brazil’s economic situation, Lerner had to think small, cheap and participatory – which was how he was thinking anyway. He provided 1.5 million tree seedlings to neighbourhoods for them to plant and care for. (‘There is little in the architecture of a city that is more beautifully designed than a tree,’ says Lerner.)
He solved the city’s flood problems by diverting water from lowlands into lakes in the new parks. He hired teenagers to keep the parks clean.
He met resistance from shopkeepers when he proposed turning the downtown shopping district into a pedestrian zone, so he suggested a thirty-day trial. The zone was so popular that shopkeepers on the other streets asked to be included. Now one pedestrian street, the Rua das Flores, is lined with gardens tended by street children.
Orphaned or abandoned street children are a problem all over Brazil. Lerner got each industry, shop and institution to ‘adopt’ a few children, providing them with a daily meal and a small wage in exchange for simple maintenance gardening or office chores.
Another Lerner innovation was to organise the street vendors into a mobile, open-air fair that circulates through the city’s neighbourhoods.
Concentric circles of local bus lines connect to five lines that radiate from the centre of the city in a spider web pattern. On the radial lines, triple-compartment buses in their own traffic lanes carry three hundred passengers each. They go as fast as subway cars, but at one-eightieth the construction cost.
The buses stop at Plexiglas tube stations designed by Lerner. Passengers pay their fares, enter through one end of the tube, and exit from the other end. This system eliminates paying on board, and allows faster loading and unloading, less idling and air pollution, and a sheltered place for waiting – though the system is so efficient that there isn’t much waiting. There isn’t much littering either. There isn’t time.
Curitiba’s citizens separate their trash into just two categories, organic and inorganic, for pick-up by two kinds of trucks. Poor families in squatter settlements that are unreachable by trucks bring their trash bags to neighbourhood centres, where they can exchange them for bus tickets or for eggs, milk, oranges and potatoes, all bought from outlying farms.
The trash goes to a plant (itself built of recycled materials) that employs people to separate bottles from cans from plastic. The workers are handicapped people, recent immigrants, alcoholics.
Recovered materials are sold to local industries. Styrofoam is shredded to stuff quilt for the poor. The recycling programme costs no more than the old landfill, but the city is cleaner, there are more jobs, farmers are supported and the poor get food and transportation. Curitiba recycles two-thirds of it garbage – one of the highest rates of any city, north or south.
Curitiba builders get a tax break if their projects include green areas.
Jaime Lerner says, ‘There is no endeavour more noble than the attempt to achieve a collective dream. When a city accepts as a mandate its quality of life; when it respects the people who live in it; when it respects the environment; when it prepares for future generations, the people share the responsibility for that mandate, and this shared cause is the only way to achieve that collective dream.’ (globalideasbank.org)
