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.