KUALA LUMPUR: Any decision on whether to continue the monorail project or implement the Automated Rapid Transit (ART) trackless tram line in Putrajaya should be based on a detailed evaluation of technological suitability and cost efficiency, according to transport experts.
They emphasised the importance of considering integration with current infrastructure, environmental impact and the specific public transport needs of Putrajaya.
Transport analyst Dr Rosli Azad Khan said the government should carry out a detailed cost-benefit analysis to decide if continuing the monorail project provides better value for money than initiating an ART system.
"This includes assessing the costs of resuming construction, updating technology, and the projected benefits upon completion," he told Business Times.
There is the need to avoid the sunk cost fallacy, he said, cautioning against continuing a project just because of the money that had already been invested. "Decisions should be based on future benefits and costs, not past investments."
Rosli also highlighted the importance of the government assessing Putrajaya's current transportation needs and determining whether the monorail or ART projects aligns with these priorities.
"Gathering input from residents, businesses, visitors and other stakeholders in Putrajaya can provide valuable insights into which option might be more beneficial for the community," he added.
Rosli explained that the choice to pursue an ART trackless tram line instead of the existing monorail project hinges on factors like technological progress, cost efficiency, urban planning and environmental impact.
"The ART system might offer more advanced and flexible solutions compared to the monorail system that was planned two decades ago.
"Trackless trams are quicker to deploy, more adaptable to existing road networks, does not necessarily require dedicated right of way, and can be scaled up or down based on demand," he said.
Rosli said reviving an old monorail project might be more costly due to the possible deterioration of earlier work and the use of outdated technology.
"The ART system might present a more cost-effective and modern alternative, without incurring high and elevated station costs," he added.
The analyst also pointed out that the ART system may be more easily integrated with current urban planning initiatives and the existing transportation network in Putrajaya, as the flexibility might address current transportation needs more effectively than the monorail project.
"The environmental footprint of both options should be compared. ART systems might have a lower environmental impact during construction and operation compared to traditional monorail systems," he said.
Proponent of monorail
Business Times also spoke to Monorail Guideway Engineering (MGE) to get more insights into the topic.
MGE vice chairman Rosly Mohamad Noor said with ART, it is more difficult to get the frequency of every five minutes as the buses would need to be lined up continuously.
ART, he said, is still essentially a bus in physical form and uses public roads and doesn't have its own dedicated line.
"As for the monorail, since Putrajaya already has the line in place and it has been built, we just need to complete it, which already has the physical structure and the station near Putrajaya Sentral.
"Even though there are other private sector companies trying to build a tram, the tram is the same - it also uses existing roads. We are now trying to reduce road congestion, but if we put ART or a tram there, from four lanes it will become three lanes, and that's happening in Kuching.
"Our aim is to ease traffic. The monorail uses a separate route, elevated and also through tunnels, and that's the case in Putrajaya," he added.
He pointed out that since the government had already invested RM800 million, continuing the project from MRT 2 makes sense since it follows the same alignment and stops near the monorail, ensuring a seamless continuation without causing any issues.
"Ideally, the monorail should be connected because it has underground stations, for example, at the Ministry of Finance, the mosque, near the Home Ministry. There are four underground stations, and they're already there and ready.
"If we create a different system, we would need new stations. ART requires stations, and when there are stations, they need a place for people to gather, and for people to park their cars, so for the monorail, the stations are already there.
"If it's another form, there won't be stations; it would just stop by the roadside, and during the rainy season, it's difficult to stop, so a lot of issues arise."
Rosly noted that extending the ART project to Kajang and Bangi would make things very complicated.
"The main issue right now is that many people who work in Putrajaya commute from Kajang and Bangi.
"We believe a highway is unnecessary if there is a monorail system that facilitates travel for people coming from Kajang and Bangi."
Rosly added that it makes sense to proceed with the monorail project since the underground station is already constructed.
Construction of the Putrajaya monorail started during the development stage in the administrative capital around 2001 and 2003 before it was suspended in 2004.
On Oct 1, 2020, the government had said it was initiating a request for proposal to resume Putrajaya's monorail because some companies had shown interest in collaborating in the project.
This came more than a year after Perbadanan Putrajaya reportedly said that construction for the project would be restarted since it was suspended in mid-2004.
In February last year, former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said the monorail project could have been completed if it was handed over to the private sector. There were companies ready to take over the project but that it had previously been ignored by the government.
"It was a project that we can be proud of because it is a local project. If the private sector was allowed to do it, it could have been done through a process of tender, and I think the project could have been completed.
"I do not understand (why the project was put on hold) because it was decided that we should develop the monorail project in Putrajaya. In fact, the monorail's suspension bridge was completed, and the project could have continued," he reportedly said.
He responded to a question by the press about the Auditor General's Report 2021 Series 2, which stated that the government lost an estimated RM812.91 million from the development of its administrative capital in Putrajaya.
The biggest portion of these losses, or RM799.34 million, was because of the monorail project.
Dr Mahathir questions whether the project was cancelled due to a lack of funds or because the government simply refused to continue with it.
In June 2023, Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook reportedly said the government had no plans to complete the construction of the Putrajaya monorail project to reduce traffic congestion there.
This was because the construction site for the project had been long abandoned since the project's suspension in 2004.
Another (ART) opinion
Meanwhile, tourism and transport business consultant YS Chan recently voiced strong opinions on the debate regarding the choice between ART and monorail for Putrajaya.
Chan said the costs of building an elevated monorail track and stations, along with the purchase of trains and operational systems, are extremely high.
"Such an investment might be justifiable in densely populated cities with severe traffic congestion, but this was never the case for Putrajaya," he said.
In contrast, Chan believes that ART is a more suitable and cost-effective solution for the city.
ART, which operates on existing road infrastructure with minimal adjustments, can be implemented quickly and efficiently.
"The fact that Mobilus Sdn Bhd will be conducting a three-month pilot run shows that ART is ready for implementation at Putrajaya, and the pilot run would fine tune and iron out all the kinks," he said.