Highway "creates" demand for car usage? No.

There is a common saying in the public transport policy debate that, "Supplying more highways simply creates more demand for their use."

No. This is wrong. This is lazy thinking resulted from simplistic comparison between increase in highway and increase in cars. 

The real factors that create demand for private cars in a city with good public transport system are two: increasing population and increasing capital flow. 

When (A) people who can afford private cars move into the city, and (B) people in the city becoming more able to afford private car, there is increase in private car usage and increase traffic jam, despite the availability of good public transport. 

Unless the city restricts population growth and capital flow, there will always be increase demand for highway even when there is good public transport in place. 

Take Hong Kong as example. The city has one of the best public transport system in the world. About 90% of the city's population use public transport. Yet, new highway and roads are still being built to cater the increase demand for road usage.

> Central - Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link: HK$36bil/RM19.21bil

> Central Kowloon Route: HK$42.36bil/RM22.61bil

> Road expansion for West Kowloon Reclamation Development: HK$845.8mil/RM451.45mil

> Hiram’s Highway Improvement: HK$1.77bil/RM944.75mil

> Widening of Tolo Highway/Fanling Highway: HK$4.32bil/RM2.3bil

(Ref: https://www.hyd.gov.hk/en/road_and_railway/road_projects/projects_under_construction.html) 

These on-going highway and road construction projects cost about RM45.5bil. The amount spent on road projects alone in this city that has excellent public transport system is about the estimated cost of the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP). 

Unless Hong Kong restricts population growth and capital flow, they will need to continue to improve their traffic dispersal network and public transport to cater to the increasing demand for public mobility. 

The only possible experiment to disprove this observation is also one that no city with good public transport system is willing to conduct. It requires the city to restrict population growth and capital flow. 

But this is not the point. The point is that it is wrong to conclude that supplying more highway will create more demand for private car usage, as if the availability of highway itself causes the increase in private car usage. 

To pit the construction of new highway to disperse traffic against building good public transport infrastructure is a pseudo-conflict. No growing city adopts this pseudo-conflict as their principle to increase public mobility.

The NGOs' objection against PTMP is that it has plans to build highways and road to improve traffic dispersal network. They say that Penang has no good public transport system, so the focus should be to build one. But Hong Kong is spending billions to improve traffic dispersal network despite the fact that they have excellent public transport system and 90% of public transport usage. This is not only confined to Hong Kong. Other cities like Singapore and Zurich are doing the same.

This simple fact cannot register among the anti-PTMP NGOs because they have completely sold out to the pseudo-conflict mentioned above.

If Penang wants to continue growing, she has to continue to improve her traffic dispersal network and simultaneously build a good public transport infrastructure. This is precisely what the PTMP aims to do. 

The same goes to any other city. To improve public mobility, we need to ditch the pseudo-conflict and get on with actual work by improving traffic network and public transport. 

NGOs, experts free from accountability?

We are pleased that our article that raises critical questions about Penang’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has elicited responses from members of the public, including a transport expert from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).

We wish to offer a response in view of the interest from the public, especially among the NGOs.

Our previous article affirms that the society needs constructive contribution from good NGOs to grow. NGOs play a big role in society. As one of us (Timothy Tye) is a spoke person of the civil group AnakPinang, we certainly encourage NGOs to be constructive.

Therefore, the allegation that our article “attacks” NGOs in general or belittles the role of NGOs in society is a gross misreading.

The gist of our article remains that NGOs, given the role they play in society and their capability to sway public opinion over policies such as the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP), should be held accountable for their action. This, alas, is presently absent.

Instead of suggesting ways to make the NGOs more accountable, responders sidestepped the matter, and switched to making allegation that the PTMP lacks accountability. We are then accused of double-standard for raising questions about the NGOs’ own accountability while not doing the same on PTMP.

We are reluctant to dwell on this irrelevant allegation as it deviates from the subject matter. Nonetheless, as a matter of courtesy, we shall just briefly touch on PTMP.

As far as we are concerned, the PTMP was chosen through open Request-for-Proposal procurement method, a form of open tender employed by reputable institutions such as the World Bank and United Nations. The selection of the proposal is based on the recommendation by KPMG, an objective independent reviewer.

Besides using a widely recognized open procurement method, the State Government leaders championing PTMP are also held accountable through every election cycle.  The public is free to eject them from office if they fail to perform.

The same, however, cannot be said of the NGOs that continue to remain free from accountability. As it is, the public is unable to take action when NGOs act for their own self-interest.

Actually, the PTMP bidding process can serve as a model to instill an accountable mechanism to check the autonomy of NGOs.

Open selection of NGOs

AnakPinang recommends that NGOs appointed into public institutions such as the local councils and various public-interest committees be subjected to open selection.

Instead of reserving places for specific NGOs, the authorities should introduce an open selection process where NGOs wishing to be appointed have to register to be considered. The NGOs have to submit their proposal and bid for the place.

An expert objective reviewer will then make recommendation to the authorities which NGOs should be appointed. At the end of each term or a specific duration, the reviewer and the authorities will review the appointed NGOs to decide either to remove them or ban them, or to allow them to be considered for reappointment.

Specifically on local council, while local election cannot be decided at the state level, an open selection method is possible. Unlike party-appointed councilors, which is tied to the accountability of the party through general election, NGOs are accountability-free. The open selection method will hold the appointed NGOs accountable for their action.

Uninformed disagreement

We also noticed that the disagreement over our article is caused by the responders’ lack of information. Or, at least we hope not, caused by willful ignorance.

The two responders to our article alleged that the PTMP is inferior and has deviated from the earlier proposal recommended by the Halcrow’s study. NGOs and individuals objecting the PTMP have been insisting on this point.

For instance, the USM transport expert states that, “the PTMP, as it stands, is a developer-modified version of the original Halcrow study and recommendations which for all intents and purposes deviates entirely in form and functions,” and he went on to criticize the plan to build PIL1 expressway (which is one component of PTMP). He has argued the same point earlier in an article co-authored with Lim Mah Hui from anti-PTMP NGOs.

The other responder agrees with the USM expert, stating that the comments made by anti-PTMP NGOs “are well founded and backed by other experts, such as those from Universiti Sains Malaysia.”

Last week, a transport consultant with 30 years experiences condemned PTMP without understanding. This week, we have a USM transport expert doing the same.

To say that PTMP “deviates entirely in form and functions” from Halcrow is incredible.

PTMP is not a deviation but an improvisation based on Halcrow’s study. As in all improvisations, some components are retained, some improved upon, and some removed.

Take for instance, the PIL1. The plan to build this road was proposed by Halcrow’s study, where it is known as “George Town Outer Bypass”.

As stated in Halcrow’s study, “The George Town Outer Bypass is being promoted as a high-quality highway link joining the Jelutong Expressway (now known as Lebuhraya Tun Dr. Lim Chong Eu) on the east coast of Penang Island to Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah on the north coast. As such it is envisioned to be a limited-access highway providing intermediate connections to Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah, Jalan Bukit Gambir, Jalan Thean Teik and the Gurney Drive area… Construction of the George Town Outer Bypass will require some 30 percent of the scheme to be constructed within tunnel beneath the Penang Hills.” (Halcrow's Report: The Highway Improvement Plan, May 2013, page 9, 15).

Those who have seen the PIL1 alignment would know that it is in essence the alignment proposed as “George Town Outer Bypass” by Halcrow. Therefore, we found it odd for people of claimed academic expertise to make a bold and generalized statement that PTMP “deviates entirely” from Halcrow.

Are we supposed to believe these “experts” just because they have doctorates? In the same way that NGOs are spared from accountability, should these “experts” be likewise spared accountability when they make statements that demonstrate a lack of homework?

Timothy Tye is a spokesperson of civil group AnakPinang and a former council member of Penang Heritage Trust. Joshua Woo is a former councillor of the Seberang Perai Municipal Council.

Penang NGOs – an opposition force without accountability?

Our society needs constructive contribution from good NGOs (non-governmental organisations) to grow. Unfortunately in Penang, NGOs have descended to rally unwholesome causes that are discriminative, destructive and divisive.

There are more than 5,000 NGOs in Penang, according to Penang2030 Guide. Some of these are actually NGI (non-governmental individual). NGI is a civil group that claims to be representative yet led and managed only by one individual. These NGIs often issue statement under the individual’s name, conduct press conference by the individual alone, and do social media Live video in selfie-mode.

Certain NGOs are at the forefront of criticising Penang State Government’s projects. We want to be clear that we support critical questioning of government’s projects, regardless they are at State or Federal level, as long as those questions are constructive and proposals are subjected to accountability.

However, more often than not, we find that these NGOs have failed in these two aspects. Their questions are not constructive and their proposals lack accountability.

When State Government wanted to redevelop the Penang International Sports Arena (PISA) in 2010, the NGOs objected against it. The State Government went ahead and transformed PISA into the present Subterranean Penang International Convention and Exhibition Centre (SPICE).

SPICE is currently the largest convention centre in the northern region of West Malaysia.  It certified as a Green Building, and has become the first hybrid solar-powered convention centre in the world.

SPICE has contributed to Penang’s business events industry that has an estimated economic value of RM1.3 billion in 2018. This is a 31 percent increase from 2017, since the opening of SPICE. Local restaurants, hotels, local suppliers, and other commercial businesses have benefited from this multiplying effect.

The construction of the Second Bridge, the upgrading of Penang Hill funicular train, the widening of Jalan Masjid Negeri, and other projects were similarly met with NGOs’ objections, though these projects, now completed, are benefiting Penangites and the state.

We were fortunate that the Bayan Lepas Free Industrial Zone could be developed on former paddy fields before the NGOs came around to voice their opposition. Yes, farmers were affected. Yet, without this development, Penang would have remained a farming state today, and the majority of this present generation would remain farmers. If the NGOs have had their way, would they be held accountable for the loss of jobs, business opportunities and benefits?

No. They will be let off without any consequence while Penangites are deprived of these developments and their benefits.

Bayan Lepas industrial zone. Photo taken from Google Earth.

The NGOs claim to be neutral and conflict-free, yet we find that those NGOs that object against certain development are often driven by their own interest.

For instance, NGOs opposing the construction of certain road are composed of resident associations of property owners who are afraid that the new road will lower their property prices. Similarly, NGIs claiming to preserve old buildings for their historical values are actually in the business of publication and tourism that are based in these structures.

This is what Peter Gourevitch, David Lake, and Janice Stein warned us about: “NGOs may develop specific organizational interests and cultures, sometimes referred to as pathologies, which can lead them away from their ethical principles.” (The Credibility of Transnational NGOs, Cambridge University Press, 2012)

Politicians are held accountable by election. If politicians do not perform well, they will be voted out.

NGOs are spared from such accountability. For instance, NGOs are not answerable to anyone when job opportunity is lost and economic growth stagnated due to their objection against certain projects. They can go on with their lives without risking any consequences for their action.

In other words, the NGOs are not subjected to external verification. They can say anything they want and criticise anything they like, while still remain as NGOs.

A good example is the NGOs’ allegation that the construction of the Pan Island Link 1 will affect precision manufacturing factories in Bayan Lepas area, despite the fact that daily high-frequency flights and the construction and high usage of the Bayan Lepas expressway have not resulted in any complaint from the nearby factories.

Politicians put their career at risk through their campaign. The cost for accountability is extremely high for them. But not so for the NGOs. They are sheltered from the consequences of their action, with zero cost of accountability.

NGOs stir public opinion yet deny that they have political influence. At times, NGOs and political party share common cause, like Penang Barisan Nasional GE14 manifesto that was said to be in line with some of Penang’s most vocal NGOs.

NGOs would naturally deny that they have any political power. Nevertheless, the fact that they have the capability to sway public opinion to side with one or another political party shows that this is a lie which they want the world to believe in so that their political power can remain masked.  These NGOs would want everyone to think that their objection against the present government is without political agenda.

If there is a difference between NGOs and politicians, it is that the latter is subjected to election as their cost for accountability, while NGOs has no such cost. NGOs are accountability-free.

While we appreciate the role played by NGOs within a democratic context, we should remain mindful and conscious that the appearance of impartiality projected by them could well be a deceiving camouflage of any hidden agendas. Therefore, NGOs must be held accountable too.

Timothy Tye is a spokesperson of civil group AnakPinang and a former council member of Penang Heritage Trust. Joshua Woo is a former councillor of the Seberang Perai Municipal Council.

PTMP models best practices - Response to Rosli Khan

Earlier this week I was in a working group organized by Penang Green Council on the topic on sustainable mobility and connectivity. The objective of the group is to prepare an official recommendation to the state authorities.

As part of the deliberation, we interacted consecutively with three experts on transportation. All three were academically qualified and experienced expert in the field. All three had different view on the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

The first one was of the view that Penang needed a good hierarchy of transport system, with the Light Rail Transit (LRT) given top priority. The second expert dismisses the LRT and recommended on-ground tram. The third expert promoted the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

This should not surprise anyone as it is common for experts to disagree among themselves. One just need to read enough doctoral theses to know that it is necessary for each expert to outsmart every other expert. This is not to deny scholarly consensus but pointing out the nature of the academia that is driven by the prestige of originality.

A recent comment by a transport consultant added another take on the PTMP, although not a new one. I will respond to some of the points he made.

The author questions PTMP for its multidimensional approach that includes the building of an inter-modal public transport system and the construction of a traffic dispersal network. With all his tirade against the latter, it seems that his alternative plan for PTMP is to stop building road.

This is very odd as not one city with good public transport system has stopped building roads. Hong Kong with more than 90 percent of public transport usage still continues to build roads to improve traffic dispersal network.

The author insists that PTMP should look to Singapore as model. Singapore spent more than RM502 million building roads in 2017, excluding the RM23 billion North-South Corridor. Yet, when Penang plans its own traffic dispersal network, the author condemns.

It is a pseudo-conflict to pit the building of public transport versus construction of traffic network. If we look at cities like Hong Kong and Singapore, it is not about ‘to build or not to build road?’, but ‘where to build roads to disperse the traffic?’

The suggestion for congestion charges in Penang is premature as such policy can only be implemented when there exists a good public transport system. When Singapore started their congestion charges, there was already a widely used public transport system in place (begun with all-bus system before transformed into bus-rail system from 1970s to 1980s). Besides, the author is wrong to say that Singapore’s Area Road Pricing Scheme was introduced in the late 1980s, as the actual year was 1975.

The author also questions the PTMP for its inter-modal public transport system that consists of LRT, monorail, tram, BRT and sky cab. This is odd as cities with high number of public transport usage have inter-modal system.

Hong Kong has MTR, tram, bus, taxi, boats and cable car. Singapore has MRT, LRT, bus, taxi, and cable car. Inter-modal public transport is common given the different traffic demand in various location. This is so common that in fact the consultancy firm the author has worked at provide consultation on multi-modal or inter-modal system. It therefore boggles the mind why when it comes to PTMP, there is such condemnation.

The author seems to imply that the PTMP is planned “relying solely on politicians” and hence lacks expertise. Again, if only the author had actually studied the PTMP documents during the public display, he would have known that the team of experts behind PTMP comprise of individuals with doctorate in relevant fields and technical consultancy with track record of hundreds of projects.

It is not surprising to see experts having different view on PTMP. What is surprising is for expert to condemn a plan without demonstrating detailed knowledge about it.

Sustainable development needs realism

"[Sustainable cities] must promote efficient economic activities, ensure that all citizens can benefit from them, and must do so in a way to preserve the biodiversity, safe air and water, and physical health and safety of the citizens..." (Jeffrey Sachs, Age of Sustainable Development, 366)

Hardly can one find fault with such utopian ideal. The problem is that it is talking about heavenly city and its angels, not earth and its humans.

How to promote efficient economy that all citizens can benefit?

Any market-influenced (efficient) economy will definitely have competition, which means not all citizens can benefit, not to mention the other elements in the sentence.

History has shown there is no such thing.

Simple case, if I only have enough money to buy one book from two books on sustainable development that I have shortlisted, I can only choose to buy one and contribute the book royalty to one of the authors and not both.

Unfortunately many undiscerning readers buy into such utopian ideal and lobby against government's policy which falls short of being utopian. This is not only non-constructive but also democratically disruptive for its lack of grasp of the social and human condition.

Therefore, a healthy dose of realism is needed in deliberating over sustainable development. Only realism able to provide a sure foundation to evaluate the sustainability of a policy.