Penang Transport Master Plan

PTMP

Addressing NGO Penang Forum

Alternative TMP Website & Online Petition
22nd July 2016 1
What is a Transport Master Plan?

2
 Steps In Developing A Transport Master Plan

WHAT HALCROW HAS DONE:

CONCEPTUAL No economic and constructability evaluation.

1 IDEA 2 STUDY Serves as guideline for possible implementation.

WHAT SRS CONSORTIUM HAS DONE:

PRELIMINARY
CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY
1 IDEA 2 STUDY 3 STUDY 4 ENGINEERING
DESIGN
5 TMP

WHAT PENANG FORUM HAS DONE:

No economic and constructability evaluation.

1 IDEA No transport and feasibility study.
Aspirational and not practical no funding model.
3
Why NOT Tram?

4
 Penang Forums Talk

TRAM BRT

Removing road space for Tram and BRT.

Is this PRACTICAL and REALISTIC?

5
 Current Scenario: Penangs Congested Roads

Can at-grade Tram

be built WITHOUT
causing traffic
Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah
havoc?

Jalan Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu (LCE)

6
 Penang Islands Roads Wide Enough?
New transit lines need to be PARACHUTED ON THE ROAD SPACE TO
MINIMISE LAND ACQUISITION AND SOCIAL IMPACT
To achieve State Governments objective 40% public transport mode share:
Proposed system needs to cater for HIGH CAPACITY (HIGHER SPEED)
transit, hence the need for a DEDICATED CORRIDOR. Transit line should
NOT mix with existing traffic.

7
Are Penang Roads Spacious Enough For Trams?

Shenyang Tram, China Casablanca Tram, Morocco

Kaohsiung Tram, Taiwan Tianjin Tram, China 8

 Can Penang Afford To Close Roads?
WHY NOT TRAMS? In Penangs case, in order to build trams:
State needs to SACRIFICE TRAFFIC LANES for a dedicated corridor
(at least 2 TRAFFIC LANES)
Cause severe TRAFFIC HAVOC to already congested road system
If the State Government were to maintain the number of traffic lanes:
State needs to ACQUIRE LAND AND BUILDINGS
Cause MASSIVE PUBLIC OUTCRY

9
 Can FIZ/ Business Areas Cope With Road Closures?
Long period of disruption to local communities during construction:
ROAD CLOSURES (> 2 years) to allow for utilities relocations
Extend construction 6 TO 8 YEARS

Tram works roadworks at Princes Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

10
Access Will Be Severely Hampered

11
Trams Cannot Be Built Without Utilities Relocation
2.5m 3.5m 3.35m 3.35m 2.2m
Walkway Lane 1 Tram Lane 1 Tram Lane 2
6.7m TRAM LANES

Excavation

Utilities relocated under Road Lane

for future maintenance/replacement Utilities under Tram Lane to be relocated

Underground utilities relocation is required BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.

NO OPPORTUNITY for future utility maintenance under tramway after it
is completed.
Digging underneath tramway for utilities repair will DISRUPT TRAM
SERVICE and CAUSE CONGESTION on roads.
12
 Street Level Transit System Is Not Cheaper

Construction of street level transit

system on existing road network will
ALWAYS CAUSE BUDGET OVERRUN!

EXAMPLE: SYDNEY CBD AND SOUTH

EAST 12km LRV project (street level),
reported a budget overrun of
AUD$600mil to AUD$2.2bil @
AUD$183mil/km

EXAMPLE: EDINBURGH TRAM 14km

(street level), registered a 3-year
delay and budget overrun of 401mil
to MORE THAN 2X ORIGINAL COST at
776mil @ 55mil/ km
Include loan interest, total cost
exceed 1bil
City residents endured six years of disruption as
roads have been closed for construction including a
10-month closure of Princes Street while
businesses have complained of lost trade.
13
 Edinburgh Tram: Cost-Overrun & Contractual Disputes
Original plan to build 18.5km tram from Edinburgh Scottish Gov. raised
Airport to Newhaven only 14km completed to-date statutory inquiry on 7
from airport to York Place (FUNDING CRISIS). Nov 2014 to scrutinise
the delivery of the
Main Issues: Contractual disputes (tramway project cost overrun &
construction), major delays and cost increase. delays.

Court Case (Arbitration) in 2009: Legal proceedings Another 144.7 million

initiated by Transport Initiative Edinburgh (TIE extension to Newhaven
project manager) against BSC Consortium (contractor) (4.5km) approved by
Edinburgh Council on 19
due to CLAIM DISPUTES (all works stopped).
Nov 2015, as originally
Heavy Criticisms: intended for Line 1.
1. Local Businesses Income losses from prolonged road
closures.
2. Cycling Groups Safety concerns & accidents (injured
cyclists, tyre stuck in tram tracks).
3. Local Residents Safety concerns & outright protests
(overhead electric cables above residential buildings).
14
Severe Inconveniences: Local Businesses & Residents
Road closure between Haymarket and
Shandwick Place from Mac. 2012 to
Oct. 2013 led to major complaints from
businesses and residents
TOTAL CLOSURE 19 MONTHS.

15
 Tram & LRT Systems - Use LRV As Rolling Stock
LRT SYSTEM = LRV (RUNNING ON ELEVATED STRUCTURE)

LRV TRAM LRT

LRV running on street. LRV running on elevated structure.

Sharing road space with Dedicated corridor (high

cars (low capacity) HIGH capacity) NO RISK & NO
OPERATIONS RISK LANE CLOSURE

Rolling stock/ Dedicated road lane (high

vehicle for a rail capacity) CLOSURE OF
system. VEHICLE LANES

16
 Cost Escalation? - Apple vs Orange

PTMP as it stands today is DIFFERENT from that in the

RFP submission Apple vs Orange comparison.
ADDITIONAL TMP COMPONENTS WERE ADDED
subsequently, after discussions & workshops with State
agencies & stakeholders, prior to State EXCO
endorsement.
PHASE 1 of PTMP by SRS Consortium involves BAYAN
LEPAS LRT, PIL 1 and RECLAMATION OF ISLANDS A & B.
The actual cost of PTMP Phase 1 will only be known
AFTER COMPLETION OF TENDER AWARD.

17
LRT For Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor.

18
 Why LRT For Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor?
LRT system is required because:
The corridor requires ELEVATED system.
Forms high-capacity MAIN N-S BACKBONE connecting Komtar direct to
the airport cater for high ridership.
Links MUST-GO POINTS primary industrial, commercial & residential
hubs.
It will CONNECT TO SEBERANG PERAI in future.
Can be served by SYSTEMATIC FEEDER BUS NETWORK within 3km
radius to ferry commuters to and from stations (last mile).

Railway scheme alignment currently reviewed by SPAD is the MOST

OPTIMUM ALIGNMENT CENTRALLY LOCATED WITHIN CORRIDOR
CATCHMENT with minimum land acquisition and social impact (common
sense).
Prior to submission, WORKSHOPS/ ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS WITH STATE
AGENCIES AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS WERE HELD.
19
 Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor: Constraints
Based on study, OVER 91% OF TOTAL BAYAN LEPAS Only after the LRT is
LRT ALIGNMENT HAS TO BE ELEVATED (19km out of completed with a
21km). Why? safety net in public
To AVOID: transport, the State
Gov. may look into
Traffic conflicts reducing traffic lanes for
Congestion dedicated pedestrian
walkways, bicycle and
Lane closures bus lanes.

ELEVATED RAIL TRANSIT = LRT

20
 Alignment Selection
MATRIX OF FACTORS for optimum alignment
selection carried out by professional Malaysian
engineering consultants

21
 TRAFFIC CONFLICTS @ IJM DEVELOPMENT

e-GATE FUTURE IJM DEVELOPMENT

INCOMING TRAFFIC

2-WAY TRAM

OUTGOING TRAFFIC

LEBUHRAYA TUN DR LIM CHONG EU

BEFORE AFTER

TRAM
TRAM
ACCESS FOR IJM ACCESS FOR IJM
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

SIGNALISED
T-JUNCTION 22
 TRAFFIC CONFLICTS & LANE CLOSURE @ SPICE

SPICE

TURNING TRAFFIC

JALAN MAHSURI

2-WAY TRAM

2 LANES CLOSED
OUTGOING TRAFFIC
PERSIARAN MAHSURI

BEFORE AFTER

TRAM STOP

TRAM
TRAM
23
 Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor - TRAMS
Lane Closure & Parking Removal
ALONG FIZ STRETCH = 2KM

Example Scenario:
FIZ SOUTH STATION
Lane reduction
Side parking removed

Side Side
Fence
Parking Fence Fence
Parking
Fence
RENESAS
BOSCH

2 lanes service road with Divider Traffic lane Divider Traffic lane Divider One Lane Service Road
Side Parking 6.4 m 11.3 m 2.6 m 10.9 m 2.4 m with Side Parking
11.1 m 7.1 m

Pedestrian Link Bridge

Reduction of traffic lanes -

dual three to dual two lanes
Side Parking
Removed
Separator Separator
0.6m 0.6m
Side Fence
Fence Parking Fence
BOSCH
RENESAS

2 lanes service road with 5.7 m Tram Lane Tram Stop Tram Lane 1.5 m 3.0 m 5.0 m Note: No drop-
Traffic lane Traffic lane
Side Parking 3.65 m Walkway Space One Lane off / lay-by areas
7.6 m 3.0 m 3.65 m 7.6 m
11.1 m for Service Road
FIZ SOUTH Link Bridge
STATION
24
 BURMAH ROAD - EXISTING

3 TRTAFFIC LANES
2-storey shop
Chinese Temple
Car Park

3 lanes carriageway (11m) 25

 BURMAH ROAD WITH MONORAIL

Monorail

1 lane reduction
for monorail piers

2-storey shop
Chinese Temple
Car Park
2 lanes carriageway 26
 BURMAH ROAD WITH TRAM

2 lanes reduction
for Tram way
Tram

2-storey shop
Chinese Temple
Car Park
1 lane carriageway 27
 Penang Needs
Strategic Bypass Highway.

28
 Highways Still Needed - PIL 1 Economically Viable
40% public transport mode shift CANNOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT NEEDS
TO BE ENCOURAGED PROGRESSIVELY.
Eg. Full electronic tolling took >25 years to implement in Klang Valley.
PTMPs motto: Moving People, Not Cars applicable to States 40% public
transport mode share target by the year 2030.
HIGHWAYS STILL NEEDED to cater for the 60% PRIVATE VEHICLES.

Lesson from Singapore After achieving

60% public transport mode share, the
island republic still continues to build new
highways.

As of 2014, there were 163 km of

expressways in Singapore, and its road
network is still expanding.

29
 PIL 1 Crucial To Relieve Traffic
CURRENT (Without PIL 1) FUTURE (With PIL 1)
LCE now heavily congested Alternative to LCE for traffic relief

STATE
TMP
(PHASE 1)

Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu (LCE) Expressway is the ONLY With the Pan Island Link 1 (PIL 1) Highway,
north-south highway on Penang Island with no vehicles may BYPASS LCE and travel DIRECTLY
alternative. from Airport/ 2nd Bridge to Komtar/ Gurney Drive.
30
Other Halcrow Recommendations.

31
 What Happened to Halcrows TMP Recommendations?
Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) report by Halcrow (Short term up to
2030) was adopted as Penang State Governments official document on 25
March 2013.
Based on the Halcrow's recommendations, State Government had come out
with several project as per the study, which included:
3 MAJOR HIGHWAYS & UNDERSEA TUNNEL constructed by Zenith-
BUCG
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN progressively done by MBPP
PENANG ACCESSIBILITY ACTION GROUP (PAAG) to look into the
accessibility improvement plan
The RFP called by the Penang State Gov. requested for a PDP MODEL TO
IMPLEMENT THE PENANG TMP, INCLUDING A FUNDING MODEL.
It also allowed proponents to propose an ALTERNATIVE TMP.
All the short-term, long-term including cost effective measures
recommended by Halcrow were carried out by State Gov. in a holistic way.
32
Role of PDP.

33
 What is a PDP?

SRS CONSORTIUM CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPER

SRS CONSORTIUM = PROJECT DELIVERY PARTNER

A Project Delivery Partner (PDP) works as the States partner to develop,

design, procure and manage the work package contractors (WPCs) to
deliver the TMP components.

PDP agreement is NOT a construction contract. The PDP does not

carry out any construction directly, but manages the construction works
carried out by the WPCs.

Infrastructure type/ transit system selection is decided by Asset Owner

situation does NOT arise for PDP to inflate project cost for higher fee.

The PDP has the ability to step-in to rescue the project in the event of
non-performing WPCs due to its own skill and experience as a
contractor.
34
 Benefits of PDP Model
The PDP ensures the successful delivery of all of the project components within
time and budget, in accordance with the design and specifications approved by
the State Gov. SINGLE POINT ACCOUNTABILITY

Key benefits:
PDP assumes all design, construction & integration risks of the project
PDP fees will be reduced if project outcomes is not met (Pain-Gain System)
PDP is responsible in obtaining the necessary licenses & approvals

The PDP ensures the implementation from top to toe of the entire delivery
process, including:
Feasibility & EIA studies
Regulatory Approvals (DEIA, SPAD & NPPC approvals)
Design development, engineering design & specifications for construction
Land acquisition
Construction procurement by tender
Construction approvals (EMP, utilities relocations and traffic diversions etc.)
Managing and coordinating the construction including supervision
Interface management between contractors (minimise potential for claims & cost overruns)
Managing the testing & commissioning process 35
36
Global Best Practices PDP Used For Complex Projects

Project Crossrail Project, London London Olympics 2012 New Doha International Korea High Speed Rail
(duration)
(2009-2017) (2006 2012) Airport (NDIA), (2003 2011) (1991 - 2002)
Value (USD
bil)
12 10 15 16
Crossrail Ltd Olympic Delivery Authority Qatar Civil Aviation Authority & Korea High Speed Rail
Client (subsidiary of TfL) (ODA) NDIA Steering Committee Construction Authority (KHRC)
PDP Bechtel CLM Consortium Overseas Bechtel International Bechtel
(CHRM Hill, Laing ORourke & Mace)

PDPs role & Bechtel as Project Delivery
relation- Partner (PDP), manages the
ship with safe delivery of the central
GoM tunnel section to time, cost
and quality.
The central tunnel section is
to be designed and
constructed through a number
of contracts
The PDP is responsible for the
procurement and management
of contracts & for managing all
the consequent interfaces,
reporting to the Crossrail Ltd.
Implementation Director and
his team
TfL Board Delegation paper
Source
www.bechtel.com
CLM as Delivery Partner
supports ODA in managing the
cost & delivery of the
construction programme
Contracts will be let by the
ODA, which will also retain
ownership of approval
processes & financial syst.
CLM delivers parcels of ODAs
work; pre-approving all tasks
and the resources allocated
for that task prior to the work
starting
Profit earned if CLM hits KPI
set by ODA
CLM s media briefing note
Overseas Bechtel International Bechtel provided project
(OBI) provides engineering,
project management, &
construction management
services
The project was sub-divided
into 60 Construction Packages
NDIA Project Profile
management services, working
with KHRC as part of an
Integrated Project
Management Organization
(IPMO) that guides project
design & construction
Work includes design
management, railway
operations, quality control,
safety, and cost & schedule
management.
Helped the team evaluate
railway technologies & applied
its global knowledge of
procurement cycles & contract
management.
KHSR project profile
Bechtel briefs April 2001

36
PTMP FUNDING MODEL

37
 Penang South Reclamation
Reclaimed land and PTMP components BELONG SOLELY TO THE STATE
GOVERNMENT.
Proceeds from SALE OF RECLAIMED LAND VIA PUBLIC AUCTION by the State
Government will be used to fund PTMP components.
Implementation of each PTMP component (whether rail or road) depends on:
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
PTMP developed in phases
FUND AVAILABILITY
Each PTMP component will be tendered out via OPEN TENDER.

38
 LRT Sustainable Model
BAYAN LEPAS LRT NOTE:
CAPEX OPEX
FUNDING 1. Build-Operate-Transfer
(BOT) Model for Ampang/
Reclamation - Kelana Jaya LRT and KL
Monorail are NOT
Fare Revenue - SUITABLE revenue has
to support Capex & Opex.
Non-Fare Revenue
(TOD)
- 2. Initial projected ridership &
revenue had to be HIGH to
Examples of Public-Private Partnership be financially feasible
Model: Bangkok (Thailand) and Singapore resulting in shortfall.

39
 Penangs Future
PENANG SOUTH RECLAMATION Funding Model
1. A catalyst for ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION that is MOST CRUCIAL to take
Penang to the next level.

2. Resolves land and transport issues in ONE MOVE to further enhance Penangs
liveability.

3. It is the key to UNLOCKING THE FUTURE that will benefit Penangs future
generations.

4. THE ONLY KEY THAT IS REALISTICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE STATE.

40
 Transformative Development
A New Chapter For Penang
New reclaimed land from PSR is Penangs answer for:
GREENER environment
SUSTAINABLE & COMPETITIVE ECONOMY
Shortage of SKILLED LABOUR
Housing AFFORDABILITY
BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE for all Penangites
Future TRAM LINE

41
THANK YOU

42