LETTERS: TAKING the middle ground in the debate over the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) may just be the solution.
To recap, the state government, due to budgetary and fiscal constraints, has had no choice but to opt for land reclamation and land swaps to fund the overhaul and massive upgrading of the transportation system.
The construction of a 6.5km-long undersea tunnel was already in the original Halcrow Plan. But construction was pushed forward to 2030 as the earliest timeframe. The PTMP situates the tunnel route connecting Gurney Drive with Bagan Ajam, and earmarked for construction in 2023.
However, the first phase of the works was scheduled to have begun in October last year respectively.
At the same time, for shorter routes connecting the tunnel to feeder bus stops and taxi/e-hailing stands on both the island and mainland side, travelators can be built for pedestrians.
For pedestrians and PMDs, separate lanes can be designed with the former in the form of underground trams or autonomous rail system (ART).This arrangement can complement and supplement the proposed 4.8km-long cable car or ‘sky cab’ system currently underway.
As an aside, to protect against possible tsunami, the outer concrete or layer of the undersea tunnel should be reinforced by very thick walls and steel fibre reinforced shotcrete.
To be seismic-resistant, the reinforced curved concrete segments should alternate with water-proof, rubber-based ‘flexible joints’, located in between the lining.
On the three-paired road scheduled for completion in 2025, perhaps two should be dedicated to the bus rapid transit (BRT) system.
Package Two, namely from Air Itam to the Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway, would make a good candidate as it is strategically in proximity with George Town, and along areas where many of the B40 reside, as represented by the Dhoby Ghaut-MacCallum Street low-cost flats built by the Penang Development Corporationon reclaimed land.
On the other hand, Package One, i.e. the Tanjung Tokong-Tanjung Bungah paired road, can be scrapped altogether.
In its place should be a mini coastal bridge (crooked bridge!) serving as the bypass, integrated with an elevated inland structure comprising perhaps only 20 per cent in total. The force of the non-governmental organisations’ objections, however, are ultimately aimed at the Pan-Island Link (PIL 1), which constitutes the ‘fulcrum’ and hub by which the PTMP revolves around, both topographically and geographically also constituting the ‘central spine’ of the island’s transportation strategy for the next decade and beyond.
Now that 70 per cent of the PIL 1 alignment will comprise a series of deep underground tunnels created by ‘drill and blast’ method involving ‘metre by metre’ controlled chemical blasting, environmental concerns of hill slope and tree cutting should be allayed.
The ‘drill and blast’ method would most likely utilise the variable density tunnel boring machine technology that has been used successfully for the Storm Water Management and Road Transport System (SMART), Pahang-Selangor Raw Water Transfer Tunnel, and the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit Sungai Buloh-Kajang (SBK) Line.
Again, in the spirit of accommodation, perhaps one of the lanes (both sides) can be used solely for the BRT system.
At the same time, PIL 1 should be based on the concept of the Central Forest Spine of Malaysia (most prominently covering the forest complexes of Banjaran Titiwangsa-Banjaran Bintang-Banjaran Nakawan, Taman Negara-Banjaran Timur) in terms of wildlife corridors.
A series of eco-links or bridges can be created that allow for safe and secure passageway for animals living in the habitat of the Penang Hill range or forest catchment area.
Arguments against the George Town-Bayan Lepas-Island A LRT line are mainly on the basis of cost. But, as pointed out by Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow, a tram system would not be suitable for flood-prone Penang.
Trams are run by electronic systems installed at the base of the tracks and will be exposed to short circuit during floods.
Lack of space prevents a discussion on the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project.
Suffice to say, a compromise should be explored.
As has been highlighted by others, rehabilitation of the underwater ecosystem, impacted by land reclamation, in utilising artificial reef balls has been successful and is widely promoted.
A compromise is not only possible but necessary. Why? Ironically, for the sake of a more realistic method of financing by the state or, in short, cost.
JASON LOH SEONG WEI
EMIR Research
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times