Buses don't fly. Do LRTs float in the air?

By Lim Mah Hui

Yes, buses don’t fly in the air, but does the elevated light rail transit (LRT) system, proposed by Penang transport minister Zairil Khir Johari float in the air?

People in Penang keep hearing the standard and tired refrain that the elevated light rail is needed because there isn’t enough road space for buses. Don’t the huge pylons that support the overhead tracks take up at least one lane of road space?

No one disagrees that public transport is vital to addressing Penang’s congestion and mobility challenges. For the record, it was civil society that initiated the steps for the then-newly formed Penang state government to commission a transport masterplan around 2010. Rather than being naysayers, we were proactive in proposing public transport projects for the state.

What we in civil society disagree with radically is the mode of public transport that suits Penang state. The state has chosen mega-infrastructure like an elevated light rail system that exceeds the needs of Penang’s small population. These systems are inflexible and unable to reach the dispersed population of the state.

The system is also environmentally destructive, disrespectful of heritage value, and financially unviable.

Just consider the eye-watering costs: the elevated light rail project now carries a price tag of RM17bn, whilst the Penang Island Link (PIL) highway is estimated at RM10bn. Is this the best use of public funds, especially given the federal government debt of RM1.3tn and rising?

Crucially, the authorities haven’t told us who would bear the elevated light rail’s annual deficits if ridership targets aren’t met. Ultimately, it will be the people.

What about the opportunity cost? Think how that money could have been used for other essential public services.

The humble buses, with dedicated right of way, are best suited to penetrate and serve the people of Penang. For major routes with heavier traffic, the autonomous rapid transit (ART) with a higher carrying capacity is a cheaper and more suitable option.

Does the Penang state transport minister know that in Singapore, buses carry 3.8 million passengers daily compared to the 3.4 million that the mass rapid transit (MRT) carries.

If buses can ferry 3.8 million people in Singapore, are we to believe they cannot cater to the needs of the 1.8 million inhabitants of Penang? Consider that Singapore has over 5,000 buses, whereas Penang has only about 300 buses running. Isn’t this a crying shame?

Of course, to be effective and avoid getting snarled in traffic, buses should have dedicated bus lanes. In the initial stages, we can start by applying these lanes during peak hours. With proper planning and first-mile and last-mile connectivity, quicker journeys on bus lanes and fuel savings will prompt more people to switch to public transport instead of getting stuck in traffic jams.

As for enforcement, it’s a matter of political will. A surveillance camera at the back of each bus plus heavy penalties for errant drivers should do the trick. If Manila, a ‘cowboy city’, is able to enforce discipline for dedicated bus lanes, Penang should have no excuse.

And what happened to the water taxi proposal? This could have provided an alternative transport mode that uses Penang’s natural geography without the massive infrastructure costs. It could reduce traffic on the island (heading north out of the first Penang bridge without the need for pricier mega-transport infrastructure.

Moreover, given that Penang’s population is stagnant and even ageing, with more people working from home these days, traffic volume could actually shrink. This is especially true if public transport is improved through dedicated bus lanes and better connectivity.

Zairil also singled me out and said: “(Lim) also said the Spice Convention Centre would be a white elephant and that Penang didn’t need a large convention centre. But due to overwhelming demand, even bigger centres have since been built. So I wouldn’t take what he says seriously.”

At no time did I say Penang did not need a large convention centre. What others and I said was that it is not the business of government to build convention centres. Let private developers do it. But if the government enters into such projects through public-private partnerships, it should secure adequate benefits.

We criticised the non-transparent and lopsided agreement between the Penang Island City Council and SP Setia, the private developer for the Spice project.

Our local government provided the land free to SP Setia (through a 30-year concession and lease, extendable for another two further terms of 15 years each). The only land SP Setia paid for was a three-acre site to build a hotel. It was sold at RM100 per square foot, which was perceived to be below market rate.

On top of that, the council contributed upfront RM50m towards construction costs plus a host of concessions such as waiving development charges, assessment rates and quit rent for the buildings (except retail outlets). The council also provided extra density for SP Setia’s projects in other parts of the island. The value of these other concessions could add up to another RM50m.

For RM100m, what does our government get in return? A right to use the convention facilities for free for 42 days per year? Is this a balanced agreement?

If Zairil claims Spice is a roaring financial success, then it validates our position even more.

The government has been taken to the cleaners. All these agreements were signed despite our caution and objections to the unbalanced nature of the agreement by a government that prides itself on being ‘competent, accountable and transparent’ (CAT).

Let the people judge whether it’s CAT or cat (the Malay word for paint or whitewash).

Dr Lim Mah Hui, an economist and former international banker, served as a Penang Transport Council member and Penang Island city councillor.