Which mode of public transport for Penang?

What kind of public transport should Penang have? Elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT), on-ground trams, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), or others?

That’s the question some members of the public are deliberating as the state government works on the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

Many views have been shared from various perspectives, for instance on construction and operational cost, ridership, safety and traffic efficiency. What I find lacking is the passengers’ comfort. Which mode of public transport is the most comfortable?

I decided to find out by commuting using the different modes of public transport in the Klang Valley.

I started with the LRT to USJ 7, then I switched to the Sunway BRT until Setia Jaya where I transferred to KTM Komuter to KL Sentral. Then I took the monorail to Bukit Bintang to change to the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).

So in one day, I experienced five different modes: LRT, BRT, Komuter, monorail and MRT.

Here’s my take on each mode, starting with which has the most comfortable seat.

Seats

KTM Komuter has the best seating arrangement. The chairs have good back support with headrests. None of the other modes has this. Komuter chairs are also cushioned and clean.

LRT, MRT and monorail have similar plastic seats while BRT uses regular Rapid bus sponge chairs.

Given that the BRT jerks a lot, its chair is the most uncomfortable and causes neck pain after a while. The KTM Komuter is also quite jerky but the chair’s high back support helps.

Ride comfort

In terms of ride comfort, BRT is the worst. The inertia when the bus accelerates and stops often throws standing passengers back and forth, and when the vehicle turns, we are thrown to the side, giving us an exercise in balancing skills.

Even though the BRT moves on a dedicated bus lane, there are many yellow transverse bars painted on the road which cause the BRT driver to slow down and make the ride bumpy at many points.

In comparison, LRT, MRT and monorail passengers don’t feel much of the inertia when the train accelerates and stops.

While both the LRT and MRT turn smoothly, the monorail tends to tilt when turning. Besides, the monorail does not seem well maintained. It looks dilapidated compared to advanced monorails such as BYD’s unmanned SkyRail launched in Yinchuan, China, early this year.

Passengers who like to read or work on their phone while commuting will like the LRT and MRT. They give the least discomfort to those who tend to get motion sickness.

The Komuter’s railway track makes the ride more jerky than the LRT and MRT but less so than the BRT. Compared to the Komuter and BRT, the LRT and MRT are a smooth ride.

The LRT carriage is slightly smaller than the MRT but it doesn’t lack in comfort.

Stations

MRT stations are the best. They are air-conditioned, clean, informative and spacious. The quality of MRT stations sets them apart from the rest (they are seemingly more expensive as well).

In term of efficiency, the KTM doesn’t score that well. The Komuter has the longest waiting time, at 35 minutes between trains to KL Sentral.

The KTM ticketing system requires passengers to buy a RM5 card that cannot be returned or refunded. The card costs more than my RM3 trip. None of the other transport modes requires such needless charges.

For Penang

I wouldn’t want the BRT as it’s jerky, bumpy and uncomfortable, like regular buses. We cannot have KTM Komuter as it takes up too much road space for railway tracks.

The best would be a combination of the MRT with Komuter seats installed and cosy underground stations. That would deliver a splendid commuting experience for Penang. However, it would also be too expensive.

What comes closest would be the LRT with its own unique design for Penang. Or Yinchuan’s advanced monorail, but I wouldn’t know if it is as good as the LRT.

Penang Transport Master Plan: RM27bil to RM46bil, why?

Critics claim that Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) was originally estimated at RM27 billion, before SRS increased it to RM46 billion.

Although many have explained this before, but this wrong info still going around. From this wrong info, critics created other allegations such as the purpose of the increase is to benefit developers or cronies.

Want to find out why the current PTMP estimated at RM46 billion?

Simple, just remember 3 things:

1) SRS Consortium's submitted RM27 billion estimation

Actually SRS proposal submitted for the open Request For Proposal (RFP) tender was not estimated at RM46 billion, but at RM27 billion. This was widely reported back in 2015, when SRS won the bid. 

[https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2015/08/14/gamuda-gets-pdp-job-for-penang-project, http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1521374, https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1846212&page=3]

2) Increase to RM46 billion because of added components

The increase to RM46 billion came because of added components. Most of the added components to cover the 3 districts in the mainland, requested by the Seberang Perai Municipal Council. 

[http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/cost-penang-transport-master-plan-balloon-rm46b-says-project-delivery-partner]

Halcrow's RM27 billion report proposed only these for mainland:
i) 2 short tram or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines at Seberang Perai Tengah.
ii) Leverage on existing KTM rail line.

The current version of PTMP (with input from all relevant agencies including the mainland council) planned these for the mainland:
i) 1 monorail (from south Seberang Perai Utara to north Seberang Perai Selatan).
ii) 1 long BRT (from north Seberang Perai Tengah to south Seberang Perai Selatan).
iii) 1 LRT (from island across the canal to mid Seberang Perai Tengah to north Seberang Perai Tengah)

Comparison between Halcrow and current PTMP:

3) RM27 billion was officially and internally known by SRS

The fact that one of SRS' components Gamuda's managing director said that he was not aware of the increase to RM46 billion showed that SRS' submitted proposal was known internally to be only RM27 billion. [http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/gamudas-md-says-unaware-rm27b-penang-transport-master-plan-cost-rm46b]

Summary

The increase from RM27 billion to RM46 billion is not to benefit developers or cronies as alleged by critics.

First, SRS proposal was RM27 billion, same as Halcrow's.

Second, the increase was due to added components mostly for Seberang Perai.

Third, Gamuda's MD being not aware of the increase until after being informed showed that the original SRS proposal was understood internally as RM27 billion.

Public transport as not-for-profit public service

Developing and sustaining public transport is expensive. This is true for most countries around the world.

An expert from London’s Centre for Transport Studies recently claimed that the Penang state government will bear RM1.2 billion in losses if the ridership of the Light-Rail Transit (LRT) falls below the estimated number for ten years.

It is of course ideal for public transport to be financially sustainable without government grants and subsidies, such as the Hong Kong MTR system. However, ideals turn idealistic when based on the wrong assumptions.

Almost all good and elaborate public transport systems require expensive upgrades and operational costs paid by the government.

For instance, the operational cost of Curitiba’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system has to be paid for by the government to cover the accumulated RM1.3 billion financial loss incurred in seven years (2010-2017), while Bogota’s BRT needed the government’s financial aid of “hundreds of millions of pesos per year on top of already budgeted funds and revenue collected from passengers”.

Singapore’s government subsidised its elaborate public transport system with about RM120 billion for ten years. That is RM12 billion per year.

London’s public transport received an annual government grant of about RM3.7 billion. Nevertheless, the London public transport authority has been recording losses in the past years and it is expected to hit RM5 billion in 2018 alone. Balancing public transport expenditure is an uphill task even for London with all its learned experts at the Centre for Transport Studies.

Financially self-sustaining systems such as Hong Kong’s MTR depend heavily on transit-oriented development that capitalises on land use along with their public transport network. This is one of the strategies that the Penang Transport Master Plan will adopt to pay for operational costs.

This is not to say that Penang’s LRT will incur a loss, but to point out the wrong assumption that operating public transport is profitable. Yet, this is no reason for public transport operators to be lackadaisical, instead, they should strive hard to balance the book.