What is so interesting in or around the three reclaimed islands to the point that 75% of all migration to Penang would settle at these islands, and to the point that 367,379 people would squeeze themselves in these three islands when there are less dense areas available elsewhere in the state?Firstly, I accept that the comparison of construction costs of highways and railways is akin to comparing apples and oranges as they have different technical specifications.
In addition to the “independent studies from local universities and NGOs”, whose work I cited in my previous article, I would also like to remind SRS that even the consultants who wrote the detailed environmental impact assessment for PIL 1 also came to a similar conclusion, which forecasted that traffic congestion will return to Penang within just seven years of PIL 1’s operation .
It is more likely that SRS arrived at the 42 million ridership via this reasoning: SRS has estimated the annual operating cost of the LRT at RM170 million and the average cost per trip at RM4. To break even, annual ridership would have to reach 42 million per year, or a daily ridership of 115,000 . While there is no doubt that most governments usually fund the initial operations of public transport systems with a small deficit, the problem for the Penang LRT is the magnitude of deficit that might not be sustainably covered by the state, given the highly inflated ridership projection.
SRS’ main arguments are that it is possible to attain a 40% public transport modal share by 2030, and roads are still needed to cater to the remaining 60% private modal share. Is there a serious conflict of interest for SRS in functioning as a proposer, planner and PDP in the PTMP?