Cities need complementary public transport system

Planning public transportation for a city with population of 10 million, the government of Jakarta knew that they needed more than the TransJakarta Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). That's why they are currently building Light-Rail Transit (LRT) and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).

The advocates for buses such as the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) disagreed with rail-based system. They preferred to have the BRT system be expanded with more buses and routes with better services.

Jakarta's deputy governor in-charge of transportation, Sutanto Soehodho (former professor of transport modelling at University of Indonesia with doctorate from University of Tokyo) thought that the city required a complementary network of bus-based and rail-based system.

On ITDP, Sutanto said, "They have been monitoring our Transjakarta buses for 10 years and they are not getting better. The number of passengers is even declining."

Each public transport system has merits and weaknesses. One weakness of BRT is that it is accident-prone. TransJakarta, even with its dedicated lanes, has seen increasing road accidents. Here are the data from 2015 to 2018:

TransJakarta-related Incidents	2015	2016	2017	2018 (until Nov)
Accidents	23	96	43	54
Deaths	3	7	5	10

In four years, there were 134% and 233% increase of BRT-related accidents and deaths respectively. It is therefore not wrong for Jakarta to build other system as safer alternative for the public, instead of expanding the BRT.

Think tanks such as ITDP has exclusive preference for bus-based transit, and this is rather unusual. The organisation's self-description states that their "primary programs include the development of bus rapid transit (BRT)".

Urban planning expert, Diego Silva Ardila has observed that these think tanks "have focused on BRT systems as the only plausible solution for urban transport in the developing world, and have not seriously and rigorously analyzed the possibilities that rail-based systems have in high-demand corridors in the intervened urban agglomerations."

This has led Diego to note that "the think tanks and their claims have been deemed biased by the fact that they represented the interests of funding sources and donors of these think tanks, mostly foundations of companies related to certain level with the automobile and oil industry."

Development studies expert, Matteo Rizzo in his research on BRT has made similar observation, that "the narrative of BRT, as a ‘win–win’ intervention to solve the public transport crisis in developing countries, obscures the many tensions associated with their implementation. Such a narrative stems from research sponsored by international finance, its NGO brokers, and BRT vehicle manufacturers, and is functional to their interests in opening up public transport markets in developing countries." (Matteo Rizzo, Taken For A Ride, Oxford University Press, 170)

A city's public transport should be a network of several systems complementing each other to leverage on different merits and closes the gap of weaknesses. That is the approach adopted by Penang Transport Master Plan with various types of systems working together.

As to why there are think tanks that advocate only one type of system is anyone's guess.

ART still lacks proven track record

My previous article posits seven reasons why Light-Rail Transit (LRT) beats Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) as better public transport for Penang. Lim Mah Hui and Jackie Moey have written responses that I wish to engage as my contribution to the on-going public discourse on this matter.  Regrettably, I can only address the more repeated counterpoints to keep this reply brief.

Ambiguous ART

The 12th InnoTrans – the world’s largest rail industry fair – was held at Berlin in September last year. There were 3,062 exhibitors from 61 countries, with more than 400 rail-related innovations displayed.  Industrial giants showcase their most advanced, top technology at InnoTrans. And curiously, the ART was not there.

CRRC, the maker of ART, had an elaborate booth and launched their track-based train Cetrovo at InnoTrans, but nowhere was the trackless ART seen.  This has prompted internationally-renowned public transport expert Graham Currie to wonder, “Why would they not bring that along?” 

To many in the industry, the ART is basically a tram that moves on tyres, like a bus. The founding director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at University of Sydney, David Hensher calls the ART a “BRT system.” To him, the branding of ART as “trackless tram” is a “clever use” to give “emotional attachment” to tram, while it is practically a bus. 

This is not surprising as the label “Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit” is also a reference used by CRRC for self-driving bus. (See screenshot below) 

The ambiguous ART has also been examined by other transport experts. Public transport researcher Zhuxiao Wong had written to “debunk some misconceptions” about the ART, responding to inflated claims and potentials of the technology. Wong’s list of misconceptions about the ART are the claims that it is a “revolutionary technology,” “have better ride quality,” and a “game-changing” system.

After considering the ART, the New South Wales government is of the view that it is an “untested technology” and not a “viable option” for mass public transport.  Graham Currie, who wonders over the absence of ART at InnoTrans, says that the information about ART is “speculative data” that needs another 10 years of test to ascertain its feasibility.  In other words, the ART still lacks of track record.

Unlike the LRT, a transit system being used in many parts of the world and tested through time, the ART has not achieved consensus among transport experts as a viable option. Urban mobility expert from University of Adelaide, Jennifer Bonham is cautious to recommend ART just because it is cheap, “I certainly wouldn’t invest straight away based on the cost savings because they are still only assumptions.”

Despite its ambiguity, proponents of ART insist that the state government should buy the unproven system for Penang – treating the rest of us as guinea pigs for their “emotional attachment” to tram?

Diversion from on-ground public transport risk

Lim and Jackie have raised question over the construction of highway in view of road accidents. They state that the concern for accidents should stop new highway from being built, as there are more accidents on the road than accidents caused by bus and tram.  This is nothing but a diversion.

The main issue is deciding among modes of public transport system for Penang, not deciding between public transport system and building roads. As shown previously, LRT has the least risk compares to BRT and ART, and therefore it is a safer public transport mode.

Bringing in statistics of road accidents does not make LRT more accident-prone than BRT and ART. Neither does it make BRT and ART less accident-prone. The fact remains that LRT is safer than the other two as it has zero chances of colliding with road vehicles. In fact, it gives us more reason to abandon BRT and ART precisely because they use roads which is accident-prone.

Diversion is neither constructive nor illuminating. We should keep to the topic when discussing which mode of public transport should be implemented, and not divert to other things such as the pros and cons of building highway.

When being revealed the disadvantages of one’s preferred mode of public transport, one should explain or make counter-claim over the revelation. Diverting to other topic is a desperate attempt to dismiss the revelation.

Free up road space?

Lim and others often claim that bus and tram free up road space. Public transport – be it LRT, BRT, or ART – does not free up road space. It is private car users who free up road space when they do not use their vehicle.

Likewise, bus or tram system with dedicated lane does not take away cars from roads too. They take away roads.

Taking away roads from the current condition of 97% private car usage will only frustrate private car users and also bus and tram users as their journey are disrupted by intersection, junctions, and pedestrian crossings. One just need to visit Kota Tua in Jakarta to experience this.

Doesn’t LRT elevated track take up road space too? That depends on the alignment design, where to build the supporting beams with minimal reduction of road space. This option is not available for dedicated bus/tram lane unless new roads are built.

Besides, I cannot see how is choking the 97% of current road users being democratic and fair, as believed by Lim. He wrote that, “Road space should be shared with all users – public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.” As far as I know, there is no banning of buses, cyclists and pedestrians from using the roads.

It is undeniable that certain roads are user-friendlier to one group than others, yet to write as if bus passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians are banned from using the roads is rhetorical rather than factual. Besides, if most road users are private car users, then the most democratic way is to allocate more space for them, since 97% is by any count very representative of the people.

Any policy change to public mobility should therefore take very serious consideration of the plight of the 97%. The focus of public mobility should be to educate and encourage. Not by choking the traffic to force private vehicle users to use public transport, which is authoritarian.

Better mobile option with least traffic disruption, more comfortable ride experience, and safer mode of transportation must be made available to incentivise more private vehicle users to free up road space.

That option was definitely not the one missing at InnoTrans 2018.

7 reasons why LRT plan in Penang beats BRT and ART

Since the Light-Rail Transit (LRT) project in Penang was first unveiled in 2015, a small group of people have objected against it. Although the objections have been addressed at numerous occasions, they are still being used at various outlet and season. Latest being Lim Mah Hui’s article “Proposed LRT in Penang is both too early and too late.”

There are two alternatives suggested to replace the LRT plan. First, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and second, the Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART). In this article, I want to point out seven reasons why the LRT is better than BRT and ART.

My focus will be on the proposed Bayan Lepas to Komtar LRT alignment and not the comprehensive network covering whole of Penang.

Reason 1 – LRT is safer for commuters and road users

By being elevated, without sharing the same road with other vehicles, the LRT has no chance of colliding with other vehicles and road users.

Having to share road, the BRT and ART have high chances of collision.  Even with dedicated lane, they are still sharing junction, intersection, and pedestrian crossing, where accident is waiting to happen.

Reason 2 – LRT is more comfortable for commuters

Anyone who has taken the bus and the LRT will know the different comfort level for both. The bus is jerky and bumpy, while the LRT is not perfect but it is much more comfortable.

To test this, one can try reading a book in the bus and in the LRT. We can often readily read a book in LRT, but not in a bus. Why? It is because the LRT’s acceleration and brake are much more predictable and managed compared to the BRT and ART that are more chaotic as they same road space with other vehicles and road users.

Reason 3 – LRT provides smooth journey, unaffected by road accident

Just today, a lorry that has overturned on Penang Bridge blocked two lanes off the three-lane road. The congestion was horrendous as vehicles from three lanes were squeezing into the remaining lane.

If a BRT or ART meets a similar situation, it will get stuck in the congestion like other vehicles. It will be worse if an accident has blocked the opening of the dedicated lane of the BRT or ART, their service has to be completely stopped until the obstacle removed. LRT on its own elevated track will not have such problem.

Reason 4 – LRT does not cause other vehicles to emit more CO2

Giving priority for the right of way for BRT and ART at junction and intersection will cause other vehicles to spend more time on the road. This will increase their carbon footprint.

LRT does not need the right of way as it moves on elevated track, and therefore does not require vehicles to spend more time on the road, thus does not leads to the increase of CO2 production.

Reason 5 – Adding carriages to LRT does not affect road users

As the LRT moves on elevated track, the adding of more carriage to the train to increase its passenger capacity will not disrupt road users.

Using articulated vehicles to increase passenger capacity for BRT and ART poses high risk for accident with other road users. That is the reason why articulated buses in London (known as bendy bus) were replaced after they were found to be involved in 75% more accident than regular buses.  It is estimated that the articulated vehicle comprised only 5% of London’s buses but involved in 20% of all bus-related deaths.

In other words, LRT is still safe with the increment of passenger capacity, but the same cannot be said of the BRT and ART.

Reason 6 – LRT station’s high benefit for the public

Being big and elevated, the LRT stations are much conducive as a shelter for pedestrians and cyclists during raining season. This is an advantage to the public that cannot be overlooked for a place with tropical climate like Penang.

A step further, LRT stations can be used as emergency shelter too. Countries such as Singapore even build their MRT stations as crisis or bomb shelter equipped with “protective blast doors, decontamination facilities, ventilation system, power and water supply systems and dry toilet system.” The potential for LRT stations be utilised as emergency shelter (e.g. relief centers during flood or disaster, crisis gathering points, etc) is there and should be explored.

It is uncommon to have big station for BRT and ART that are on the ground as the space is constrained. Their station has lesser capacity as a shelter, limited in public benefit.

Reason 7 – LRT upholds people’s democratic rights to choose

Finally, the LRT plan provides an alternative mode of transport for people to choose from, instead of forcing them to stop using their private vehicle.

The BRT and ART requires the closure of at least one lane for their dedicated use. This will take away road space and worsen congestion which then makes driving unbearable. BRT and ART would create such a stressful condition that pressures people to abandon their private car and use them

LRT does not crowd into the current roads like the BRT and ART. The LRT plan does not pressure people with more congestion stress. The LRT gives people choices to choose from, as that is a mark of democracy.

When it comes to improving mobility, a good policy educates, a bad one coerces. Surprising that the opposers of the LRT plan would resort to authoritarianism to coerce people to use public transport.

The proponent of BRT and ART may argue that the LRT is more expensive to be built and operated. That may or may not be true, depending on how much land acquisition was needed.

Nonetheless, what is certain is that the seven reasons above have shown how much better the LRT is compared to the other two suggestions. Cost is important but it is not all that matters.

Safety, comfort, smooth journey, carbon footprint, ability to increase capacity, public benefits, and democratic rights are likewise important. Why would anyone want a cheap transit system that is dangerous, uncomfortable, with disruptive journey, produces more carbon footprint, cannot increase capacity, with limited benefits, and coercive?

Give us the LRT please.

The rule of thumb for religious ethics

Someone named Publicola wrote to the great Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, asking: If a Christian is starving and on the point of death, and they see food in an idol’s temple, may they eat it?

Augustine replied: ‘It is better to reject it with Christian fortitude’.

This same Augustine who wrote the magisterial City of God was also the one who penned:

‘That all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!’

As we compare Augustine to some of today's well-known leaders of religions, we can notice the same worldview that leads to extremism.

We humans have natural tendency to create imaginary divine laws.

How often we hear religious teachers say, "This is God's laws, we must follow out of gratitude"?

Perhaps the rule of thumb to discern what is divine or not is whether the rule celebrates tangible signs of human flourishing such as life, joy, friendship, self-responsibility and social bond.

Dying from starvation by rejecting available food is against the celebration of life.

Annihilating other widely accepted religious beliefs is against the celebration of joy and friendship.

Extremism that raises racial or religious wall to separate people is against healthy social bond.

As Kenan Malik observes: "Moral questions may not have objective answer but they do have rational ones, answers rooted in a rationality that emerges out of social need."

Doctrines and religious teachings have to be thought through this rule of thumb. If not, one would go down the path of extremism like what is happening around today.

How this rule is connected to divinity is up to each religion's interpretation.

The point is that, this rule of thumb at least sets the boundary where teachings that are outside of it is probably not divine.

I can't imagine a divine commandment in the present era that requires people to go against life, joy, friendship, self-responsibility and social bond. 

Contemporary books introducing any particular global religion testify to this. They assume this rule of thumb and condemn extremism or fanatical interpretation of that religion. True version of their religion, they say, is against death, despair, enmity, self-recklessness and disintegrate society. They all promote their respective religion as celebrating the rule of thumb.

Request For Proposal differentiates PTMP from other mega projects

There are some misconceptions that the PTMP is the same as other mega projects that should be reviewed, if not cancelled. Some have even lobbied all the way to the Prime Minister Office and the Council of Eminent Persons against PTMP.

These misconceptions are based on the wrong understanding about PTMP. It is therefore important for the public to know the uniqueness of PTMP in order to discern properly.

What sets the PTMP apart from other mega projects is the use of an open tender process known as Request For Proposal (RFP). The RFP is a type of open tender that allows for competitive evaluation among different innovative proposals before a decision is made.

The RFP differentiates PTMP from other projects, such as the RM81 billion East Coast Rail Link (ECRL), that do not use open tender. 

Regular open tender and RFP

There are several types of open tender. Each type is employed according to the scale and limitation of the project. I will only elaborate on the tender processes related to PTMP.

Let's say you are hungry and desire for a burger. Regular open tender is like going to the pasar malam and coming back with the cheapest burger.

RFP on the other hand is like holding a contest, and inviting all the pasar malam burger stalls to participate. The stall that makes the tastiest burger and at the best price - but not necessarily the cheapest - gets the prize.

The main difference between the two is that price is the primary consideration in regular open tender whereas other factors come into play in RFP.

RFP allows bidders to offer their own proposal, with room for innovation. This tendering method was first employed by Penang state government in 2010 to develop landmark and restore heritage sites.

Goh Ban Lee, a former associate professor at Universiti Sains Malaysia, has this to say about RFP:

“I find the RFP idea very refreshing and interesting. If it is left to state planners or architects, it will only be one design. Generally, planners working in the civil service, as government officers, follow the normal procedures and plans and rarely take risks. However, by opening it up to the private sector, it will provide a myriad of ideas and, with competition, the bidders strive to give their best shot — and the sky is the limit to their innovation... This is new thinking, it... gives the state government the pick of the best proposals. Ultimately, the state government decides and picks on the best options offered.”

Closed and open RFP

RFP can be either closed or open. Closed RFP is like holding a contest where you only invite one burger stall to participate.  No need to guess who's the winner. No alternative to be considered or compared.

Open RFP, on the other hand, is an invitation to any one in the market to bid or tender for the job. It is competitive, as the submitted proposals will be evaluated with alternative.

Double open RFP for PTMP

Penang state government employed open RFP twice for PTMP. Let's call this double open RFP.

Double open RFP is like, you want to open a restaurant, but first you hold a contest to choose a restaurant consultant to advise you what food to serve. Say the winning consultant's choice is burger. Next you hold a second contest to choose the chef who can prepare the best burger.

For PTMP, the first open RFP was conducted to appoint a consultant to prepare an initial study of building an integrated transport infrastructure in Penang. Many criteria were set, one of which is that the project has to have a funding mechanism.

The first open RFP began on 12 March 2010 and ended on 30 April 2010. There were six companies that applied. They were AECOM Perunding Sdn Bhd, Melewar Metro Penang Sdn Bhd, Jurutera Zaaba Sdn Bhd, Systra MVA Singapore Pte Ltd, Perunding Trafik Klasik Sdn Bhd, and AJC Planning Consultants Sdn Bhd.

On 27 April 2011, the RM3.2 million project was awarded to AJC Planning Consultants Sdn Bhd, which was set up by Halcrow, Singapore Cruise Centre, and AJC. The cost was shared between the Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCIA) and Penang state government at RM1.5 million and RM1.7 million respectively. The consultant produced a recommendation with estimated cost of RM27 billion.

The second open RFP was carried out from 15 August 2014 to 16 December 2014, and was then extended to February 2015, looking for the Project Delivery Partner (PDP) to implement PTMP. 

Fifty-five local and overseas companies expressed interest, with six submitted proposal through the open RFP. Among them were Gamuda, IJM Corp, MMC Corp Bhd, Scomi Group Bhd, and WCT. The consultancy and audit firm KPMG was appointed to provide independent evaluation of the six proposals for their technical expertise and funding model. 

Based on KPMG's evaluation, on 14 August 2015, SRS Consortium (formed by Gamuda, Loh Phoy Yen Holdings, and Ideal Property Development) was appointed as the PDP.

SRS Consortium was selected after it went through the competitive open RFP.

Open RFP is internationally recognised as open tender

Despite the open and transparent nature of the RFP used in PTMP, there are deliberate allegations stating that the RFP is not open tender.

For example, Lim Mah Hui and Ahmad Hilmy wrote that, “In RFP, bidders are not placed on a level playing field. The criteria for bidding under the RFP are not transparent or necessarily consistent. Clearly, RFPs are not open tenders...”

They also argued that “the best way to evaluate open tenders is for a government to follow the guidelines established by the World Bank,” implying that the World Bank does not practice RFP.

They are mistaken. As mentioned above, the RFP used in PTMP is open tender. Moreover, World Bank itself uses RFP and even has its own standard guidelines for RFP. This method is used by World Bank for its global meetings management programs, data center, digital entrepreneurship, and many others.

Open RFP is sometimes used interchangeably with open tender by other international institutions such as the United Nations. In the United Nations Development Programme's procurement notice, “open tender” is bracketed as “RFP.” (See the photo below.)

"Open request for proposal tender" is similarly employed by a Queensland government's project and the National University of Singapore Society.
 

Whether it is Penang's PTMP, World Bank's guidelines, United Nations' procurement notices, Australia's project, or Singapore's institution, open RFP is internationally recognised as open tender.

Lim and Ahmad have therefore misinformed the public. Their misinformation has been taken up and disseminated by others such as the Consumers Association of Penang.

Both Lim and Ahmad may have preferred the regular open tender over against open RFP because of their concern for the cost. They want the cheapest transport infrastructure. But given our local road condition, geography, socioeconomic outlook, and other considerations, the cheapest is not necessarily the best for Penang.

Neither is the most expensive proposal the best. Therefore, the open RFP was necessary to enable the state government to evaluate different proposals with different estimated cost and suggestion, based on independent review, to decide the best for Penang.

As a competitive and transparent tendering process, open RFP allows for innovative solution at a reasonable cost. This sets apart PTMP from other mega projects.

Light Rail Transit is safer than on-ground tram

The Penang state government has adopted an elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT) system instead of an on-ground tram system for the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

One of the reasons the state government abandoned the previously proposed on-ground tram system is that it poses a danger to other road users, pedestrians and infrastructure.

Statistics from the Australian Transport Safety Victoria record a rise in incidents of tram collisions involving people, infrastructure and road vehicles of 85%, 175% and 17% respectively over the past five years from 2013 to 2017.

In that period, 192 people were hurt, 40 structures were damaged and 4,445 vehicles crashed.

Accidents happen due to various causes. But banning all privately owned cars from the roads is utterly impractical. No credible government in the world has attempted that.

While governments should constantly improve road safety for private car users, they should also build a public transport infrastructure which has the least danger of accidents occurring. Thousands of people use public transport every day. Safety is non-negotiable. A responsible government must take this into consideration when choosing which public transport system to build.

It is therefore surprising that highly educated individuals would lobby and write a series of articles demanding that the Penang government replace the elevated LRT with trams.

One of them who is pursuing doctorate even bizarrely compared the safety of a mode of public transport (tram) to a highway. That is like comparing the safety of an escalator (a type of lift) to that of a building. I am not sure what conclusion should be made from it, so if an escalator (or tram) is safer, then we should just build an escalator and not build the building (or highway)?

It is even more surprising that there are local councilors, responsible for ensuring the well-being of the people, would persuade the state government to implement on-ground tram and stir up public opinion towards public transport system which poses more risk to the people.

If the Transport Safety Victoria statistics on tram collisions are of any indication, the PTMP’s elevated LRT would pose less risk to the public than an on-ground tram system.

When choosing a public transport system, we need to evaluate cost, feasibility, foreseeable risk, public safety and other factors to reach the best balance. Public safety is an essential factor that should not be compromised.

A government that willingly spends RM8.4 billion on a safer transport system for the people is better and more responsible than one that spends less but builds a riskier system that endangers the public.

The Genesis of Penang Transport Master Plan

The Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) has an elaborate genesis. There are distorted versions being spread around by certain groups to call for endless review for the project. 

This has delayed PTMP's implementation unnecessarily while daily Penangites continue to suffer traffic jam and Penang continues to be deprived of a much needed infrastructural development. It is therefore important to learn about PTMP's beginning, to avoid being deceived.

 

PTMP has its root in the state government’s 2009 initiative to establish the Penang Transport Council, which included 10 NGOs as members. This then led to the state government's opening a Request-For-Proposal (RFP) tender to invite interested organisation to bid for the role to prepare a study. The open tender received six submissions.

An international team comprised of Malaysia’s AJC Planning, UK’s Halcrow and Singapore’s Cruise Centre was selected. The cost of the study was RM3.2 million. The cost was split between the Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCIA) and Penang state government at RM1.5 million and RM1.7 million respectively.

With the study as a guide, the state government had called for another RFP from August until December 2014 with the purpose to appoint a Project Delivery Partner (PDP). The open tender was further extended to February 2015.

The appointed PDP will manage the implementation of the PTMP projects together with the state government – which means, both the PDP and state government will conduct open tenders for all contractors and manage them to ensure timely delivery of the projects and they are within budget.

Also, the RFP allowed bidders to propose alternative plans. With that, a total of 55 local and foreign companies expressed interest, with six different proposals submitted.

The proposals were evaluated by the globally reputable audit and advisory firm KPMG, with head office in the Netherlands. The competitive evaluation criteria ranges from the required technical expertise to financial and business model to fund the project. 

After a thorough review of all the alternatives, the state government based on KPMG’s evaluation appointed SRS Consortium with its RM27 billion proposal in August 2015 as PDP to implement the PTMP.

A further review was carried out with workshops and consultation attended by state and federal agencies and authorities. Changes were added to the PDP proposal then and formed the present PTMP with estimated cost of RM46 billion. But the review did not stop there. The Penang state government had subsequently engaged Universiti Sains Malaysia as peer review consultant for PTMP.

In addition to all the reviews, the state government has conducted more than 30 official engagement sessions and seminars within a span of two years to collect feedback and comments from the public and various stakeholders in Penang. This was way before any approval was granted for the proposal. 

The state earnestly carried out the engagements openly, without being legally required to do so. From 2015 until August 2018, there were 965 engagement sessions conducted, involving 17,000 stakeholders.

To summarise, the present PTMP was decided after alternatives were considered and international studies, professional reviews, and public engagements were conducted.

It is either a joke or malicious to accuse the state government of being ‘closed-minded’ with regards to the PTMP. The state government’s handling of the PTMP so far has been open, transparent, and international.

An expert review is an expert review, regardless whether it pleases certain group or not. There are groups that only acknowledge views pleasing to them as “expert” and credible. Views that are alternate to theirs are dismissed. This is ironic as some of them accuse the state government for not being open to alternatives.

Some of the groups produce their own so-called alternative proposal which has no financing plan and thus is not feasible, to begin with. Nonetheless, they still persistently ask the government to spend according to their demand, such as conducting further reviews by international experts, without providing any funding strategy on how this will be financed. How is this sustainable?

Pakatan Harapan government reduced inflation by 84%

Malaysians are eager to know what has Pakatan Harapan (PH) government has accomplished since May 9, while the opposition has gone on its propaganda spree, telling the world that the government has not improved the country’s economy. Latest being MCA’s Wee Ka Siong who condescendingly urged the finance minister Lim Guan Eng to work his magic.

In general, Malaysians are patient and understand that the new government needs time to improve the economy. No economist or politician can fix the RM1 trillion indebted economy overnight or over a year or two.

The past six months, however, have shown signs of significant improvement. For one, our inflation rate has been reduced by 84%. The average inflation rate from June to October 2017 was 3.6%, which is very high compared to the same period this year, at 0.56%.

Figure 1: Comparison of average inflation rate in the period of June to October 2017 and June to October 2018.

Average inflation rate under BN government (June-October 2017)	Average inflation rate under PH government (June-October 2018)	Difference
3.6%	0.56%	-84%

The current opposition, the then government, has engineered an economy model that had confiscated much from the people, the dark side of the so-called “Najibnomics.” Let me explain.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) introduced in April 2015 had enabled the government to tax every single transaction in the country, except certain zero-rated and exempted products. By the end of the year, the BN government has collected RM27 billion. The following year, GST has channelled RM41 billion to the government. 

How GST works is that the more expensive goods and services become, the more collection will be made. 6% of a RM100 item is RM6, while 6% of a RM150 item is RM9. In order to collect more, prices need to be inflated. Government can manipulate prices in the economy to extract more tax money. "By a continuing process of inflation,” as John Maynard Keynes wrote, “government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."

But how to gradually inflate prices in the economy?

One way to do that is to make volatile an essential commodity. When the price of that commodity becomes unpredictable, the prices in the economy will increase to curb losses or anticipate higher production cost. So, what is that commodity in Malaysia? Petrol.

That is why five months before the introduction of GST, the BN administration ended oil subsidies, allowing market forces to make volatile the price of that commodity.

The plan worked, the volatility of petrol prices gradually increased inflation. By February 2016, our inflation rate hit 4.2%, which later overtaken by 4.9% in March 2017, the highest inflation increase since 2009. GST collection in 2017 was RM44 billion, highest since its implementation. Citizens’ wealth was confiscated secretly and unobserved.

Of course, the volatility of petrol prices is not the sole factor for inflation. Other factors such as currency devaluation had a role too. The point is that the volatility of petrol, an essential commodity, exposed our economy to high destability risk.

When we look back the past five years, it seems that inflation was an imperative in Najibnomics. The Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek is right,“Economic history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflation that is engineered by government for the gain of government.” Malaysia’s average inflation rate from 2013 to 2017 was higher than our neighbours and some advanced economies.

Figure 2: Comparison of average inflation rate from 2013 to 2017 among several countries.

Country	Average inflation rate (2013-2017)
Brunei	-0.2%
Singapore	0.68%
Thailand	0.82%
Japan	0.88%
Germany	0.92%
United States of America	1.32%
Malaysia	2.65%

The downside of inflation is not confined only to confiscation of people’s money by the government but also increases welfare spending and reduces the value of our savings and Employees Provident Fund (EPF). This is horrifying as we work our whole life with the hope to enjoy retirement but only to realise that the value of our savings and EPF have shrunk.

The PH government’s policy has managed to temporarily slow down inflation. By fixing the price of RON95 and diesel, the new government has reduced the volatility of prices in the economy.

On top of that, the switch from GST to Sales and Services Tax (SST) with the three-month tax-less interval has reduced tax collection and thus increased people’s disposable income by RM22 billion. These two measures have stabilised the market and show a drastic difference between the inflation rates before and after the 14th general election. 

Figure 3: Comparison of inflation rate between before and after the 14th general election (GE14).

Before GE14	After GE14
January 2.7%	June 0.8%
February 1.4%	July 0.9%
March 1.3%	August 0.2%
April 1.4%	September 0.3%
May 1.8%	October 0.6%
Average: 1.72%	Average: 0.56%

PH has proven its ability to stabilize the economy, reduce inflation, protects our savings and EPF, and abolished Najibnomics. “Low and stable inflation,” as noted by Ben Bernanke, “is an important accomplishment that will continue to bring significant benefits.”

Notwithstanding those who cannot see the improvement, it is nothing short of magical to have our inflation rate reduced by 84% in the past five months by the new government.

Penang can learn from Jakarta's experience with BRT

Which mode of public transport should be implemented in Penang? The state government’s Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) proposes an elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT) serving as the public transport backbone on the island, in the first phase of the massive project.

Since the announcement of the LRT plan three years ago, there have been counter-proposals with alternatives such as Bus Rapid Transit system (BRT) believed to be cheaper and quicker in implementation.

However, many do not know what the BRT is and how it is different from regular bus services like the present Rapid Penang buses. The only example in Malaysia is the RM634 million Sunway BRT with its own 5.4 km elevated road, launched in June 2015.

Two features of BRT

There are two distinct features of the BRT that are absent in regular bus services. First is the dedicated lane and given priority at road intersections for buses to move with the least interruption from other vehicles. Some BRT systems come with two dedicated lanes in one direction to optimise the movement of the bus fleet.

Second is the fare-payment system that requires passengers to pay the fare before entering the station to wait for the bus in order to facilitate faster boarding.

Although the Sunway BRT has these two features, the system’s dedicated lane is actually an elevated road, not a lane carved out from existing roads. Having an elevated bus lane on Penang island is not a serious counter-proposal to LRT as the LRT can carry more passengers with more comfort than a bus. Not to mention that one of the objections against the elevated LRT is that the elevated structure will diminish the scenery of the island. So it makes no difference with an elevated bus lane.

Therefore, an actual bus-based alternative to an elevated LRT would be a BRT system with dedicated lane carved out from existing roads. Alas, we have no such system in Malaysia. So we would not know its actual pros and cons. In order to have first-hand knowledge about BRT, I went to Jakarta to see and experience for myself the TransJakarta, one of the longest BRT systems in the world.

TransJakarta - “Busway”

TransJakarta was launched in February 2004 as the first BRT in Southeast Asia based on the TransMilenio BRT in Bogota, Columbia. Over the years TransJakarta has grown to now having 128 routes with 13,000 buses and ferrying over 524,000 passengers each day.

The first thing I learned about TransJakarta is that it is colloquially known as “busway.” When I asked a local where can I get on a TransJakarta bus, they asked if I was referring to the “busway”? I guess the moniker is derived from its dedicated bus lane, a distinct feature of the BRT, that they call “jalur busway.”

Even with a dedicated lane, BRT buses cannot avoid sharing roads with other vehicles and pedestrians. There are intersections and narrow roads where dedicated bus lanes cannot be designated.

At crowded places such as Kota Tua, even the BRT with dedicated lane cannot reduce traffic gridlock and likewise is stranded in the congestion at junctions, prolonging commuting time. Dedicated lanes are not feasibly implemented at busy roads. The lanes are mostly found along and near bus stations.

BRT station

TransJakarta’s bus stations, called “halte,” operates like an LRT station. Each halte is equipped with a screen to show the estimated arrival time of the buses.

The service requires passengers to pay the fare after stepping into the bus. Large crowds during rush hour will create long queues, delaying the boarding process.

By requiring passengers to pay for the fare before getting onto the boarding platform, the BRT eliminates the need for long queues, allowing immediate boarding when the bus arrives. Commuting duration is shortened not at the time the passengers step into the bus, but at the time when they enter the halte. Like the LRT.

The halte is a raised platform, 110 cm from the ground. This is to avoid having stairs on the bus which again is to reduce boarding and alighting times.

This platform design comes with its own weakness. Unlike the LRT, the gap between the BRT bus and the platform is wide, a risk to passengers who can fall in between the bus and the raised platform. People with disability will have difficulty boarding the bus. The LRT’s gap is much narrower and poses a lesser risk for passengers.

To overcome this, each TransJakarta bus comes with a service officer to assist with the boarding and alighting process. At each stop, the officer will stand between the bus and the platform to remind passengers to mind the gap. After the platform is cleared, the officer informs the driver to move, avoiding disastrous situations where the bus accelerates while passengers are still crossing the gap.

Inside the bus

Like Rapid Penang buses, the TransJakarta’s interior is compact and clean, with spacious standing room and plastic chairs. However, like the Sunway BRT and regular buses, the TransJakarta jolts a lot, causing discomfort to passengers’ shoulders and necks after a while. The inertia from the bus’s movement on the road often thrusts standing passengers in all directions. It can be an unpleasant ride for passengers with motion sickness.

The BRT is meant for short trips. It is not comfortable for trips that are more than 30 minutes. When the buses are caught in a traffic jam the passengers are as helpless as car drivers. Motorcycles are the best option in such places. That is the reason why bike-hailing services such as GrabBike and Go-Jek are very popular in Jakarta.

BRT for Penang?

 

Learning from my first-hand experience on one of the world’s largest BRT systems, Penang needs to first expand its road network by building more roads in order to install the BRT.

The present narrow roads on the island do not seem to be able to cater for an optimised BRT system with two dedicated lanes per direction. Jakarta has large roads with six to eight lanes in two directions. They can, therefore, implement the BRT. However, the buses are still caught in congestion in crowded areas like Kota Tua even with dedicated lanes.

To build more roads for the BRT and also the special bus stations will necessarily require more land which will tremendously add to construction costs. The BRT may be more suitable on the Penang mainland with vast land for wide roads.

Given the unique conditions of Penang island, an elevated LRT is more feasible. Not only does the LRT not need new roads for dedicated bus lanes next to existing roads, the elevated track saves the train from being delayed at intersections and pedestrian walkways, not to mention that the LRT provides a more comfortable commuting experience for passengers.

That is the reason why Jakarta is currently building its own elevated LRT as well as an underground Mass Rapid Transit system. The BRT has been around since 2004 and they have come to terms with its limitations. Penang can learn from Jakarta’s experience.