Mass Rapid Turmoil- The Malaysian Insider
March 30, 2011— On the face of it, any innovations to the Klang Valley public transport system should be embraced with open arms by the residents. The exploding population of cars, poor driving skills and lack of integration of the various means of public transport have made traffic gridlock and road rage a ubiquitous sight across the metropolis.
But the number of heated letters to the editors of newspapers seems to suggest otherwise. TTDI residents seem to be the most vocal in their opposition to the MRT, citing fears of increased pollution, traffic jams, loss of security and sliding property values.
On the other hand, political opposition has come in terms of fears of cost overruns and cronyism in the award of contracts.
Essentially, it is a no brainer that an integrated, comfortable and cost efficient mass transit transportation system would lead to a host of benefits.
It is just the speed at which it is being pushed down our throats that is causing suspicion and hostility. Especially when you take into account the current state of the LRT and feeder bus systems, where integration seems a lost cause.
What certainly does not help is that within one month of its announcement, the estimate of the cost of the entire project, including the Sungai Buloh-Kajang line has escalated from RM36 billion to possibly RM 50 billion, raising doubts on the financial feasibility of the entire project.
Ridership and ticket price projections are also being hotly contested. Fears of land acquisition and cynicism over project implementation, utility and delivery are being expressed daily.
There is also an emerging rich versus poor discourse, where TTDI protestors are being cast as affluent minority voices trying to override the legitimate needs of the masses.
Is there another way to look at this whole issue? The overarching aim of the exercise is to stimulate the economy through the injection of vast amounts of money into the system while at the same time improving our transport infrastructure.
In that case, should the cost of the project be an overriding consideration? Put another way, if the cost of taking the whole project underground was say RM80 billion, would it be worth it in order to allay the myriad fears being expressed?
If the entire line was underground, there would be no unsightly pillars, no noise pollution and no degradation of adjoining properties values after construction was over. The additional money required would still be coming from the government, and it would still help stimulate the economy.
Just as in the case of toll roads, the expected increase in population would ensure steady growth of ridership and eventual recovery of the investment, whether in the projected time frame or with an extension. The comfort levels of passengers would be the same.
Of course, the devil is still in the details. Rigorous quality and cost standards must still be adhered to and there should be ample time for the public to absorb all the specific implications and to record their objections.
Having a larger budget should not automatically translate into more “leakages” and hidden costs surfacing at a later date, like palaces which suddenly seem to cost double of what was initially estimated. The demand that the money be spent carefully, wisely and transparently is a just one.
A project with long-term benefits should be analysed with a long-term lens. In itself, a higher cost should be no barrier to delivering as perfect a solution as possible, because this kind of underground system will keep returning benefits for the foreseeable future.
Just because an artificial deadline of commencement in July exists, there is no reason why it cannot be pushed back to accommodate diverging points of view, allowing for competing tenders and allaying public scepticism.
Instead of using cost as the deciding criteria, the most state of the art system available should be our paramount yardstick for judging the project.
Minimal disruption to residents, maximum accessibility, great comfort and convenience for passengers and a fast and efficient service should be what we should expect from a MRT, because our children and grandchildren would expect nothing less.
The MRT in the final analysis is a legacy for future generations. Let’s choose the best possible option.
But the number of heated letters to the editors of newspapers seems to suggest otherwise. TTDI residents seem to be the most vocal in their opposition to the MRT, citing fears of increased pollution, traffic jams, loss of security and sliding property values.
On the other hand, political opposition has come in terms of fears of cost overruns and cronyism in the award of contracts.
Essentially, it is a no brainer that an integrated, comfortable and cost efficient mass transit transportation system would lead to a host of benefits.
It is just the speed at which it is being pushed down our throats that is causing suspicion and hostility. Especially when you take into account the current state of the LRT and feeder bus systems, where integration seems a lost cause.
What certainly does not help is that within one month of its announcement, the estimate of the cost of the entire project, including the Sungai Buloh-Kajang line has escalated from RM36 billion to possibly RM 50 billion, raising doubts on the financial feasibility of the entire project.
Ridership and ticket price projections are also being hotly contested. Fears of land acquisition and cynicism over project implementation, utility and delivery are being expressed daily.
There is also an emerging rich versus poor discourse, where TTDI protestors are being cast as affluent minority voices trying to override the legitimate needs of the masses.
Is there another way to look at this whole issue? The overarching aim of the exercise is to stimulate the economy through the injection of vast amounts of money into the system while at the same time improving our transport infrastructure.
In that case, should the cost of the project be an overriding consideration? Put another way, if the cost of taking the whole project underground was say RM80 billion, would it be worth it in order to allay the myriad fears being expressed?
If the entire line was underground, there would be no unsightly pillars, no noise pollution and no degradation of adjoining properties values after construction was over. The additional money required would still be coming from the government, and it would still help stimulate the economy.
Just as in the case of toll roads, the expected increase in population would ensure steady growth of ridership and eventual recovery of the investment, whether in the projected time frame or with an extension. The comfort levels of passengers would be the same.
Of course, the devil is still in the details. Rigorous quality and cost standards must still be adhered to and there should be ample time for the public to absorb all the specific implications and to record their objections.
Having a larger budget should not automatically translate into more “leakages” and hidden costs surfacing at a later date, like palaces which suddenly seem to cost double of what was initially estimated. The demand that the money be spent carefully, wisely and transparently is a just one.
A project with long-term benefits should be analysed with a long-term lens. In itself, a higher cost should be no barrier to delivering as perfect a solution as possible, because this kind of underground system will keep returning benefits for the foreseeable future.
Just because an artificial deadline of commencement in July exists, there is no reason why it cannot be pushed back to accommodate diverging points of view, allowing for competing tenders and allaying public scepticism.
Instead of using cost as the deciding criteria, the most state of the art system available should be our paramount yardstick for judging the project.
Minimal disruption to residents, maximum accessibility, great comfort and convenience for passengers and a fast and efficient service should be what we should expect from a MRT, because our children and grandchildren would expect nothing less.
The MRT in the final analysis is a legacy for future generations. Let’s choose the best possible option.
Comments
Post a Comment