1

Penang Transport Master Plan

PTMP

Addressing NGO Penang Forum

– Alternative TMP Website & Online Petition

22nd July 2016

2

What is a Transport Master Plan?

3

IDEA1 CONCEPTUAL STUDY2 FEASIBILITY

STUDY3PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

DESIGN4 TMP5

Steps In Developing A Transport Master Plan

WHAT HALCROW HAS DONE:

WHAT SRS CONSORTIUM HAS DONE:

WHAT PENANG FORUM HAS DONE:

IDEA1

IDEA1 CONCEPTUAL STUDY2

• No economic and constructability evaluation.

• No transport and feasibility study.

• Aspirational and not practical – no funding model.

• No economic and constructability evaluation.

• Serves as guideline for possible implementation.

4

Why NOT Tram?

5

TRAM

Is this PRACTICAL and REALISTIC?

BRT

Removing road space for Tram and BRT.

Penang Forum’s Talk

6

Current Scenario: Penang’s Congested Roads

Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah

Jalan Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu (LCE)

Can at-grade Tram

be built WITHOUT

causing traffic

havoc?

7

• To achieve State Government’s 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.

Penang Island’s Roads Wide Enough?

• New transit lines need to be PARACHUTED ON THE ROAD SPACE TO MINIMISE LAND ACQUISITION AND SOCIAL IMPACT

8

Are Penang Roads Spacious Enough For Trams?

Casablanca Tram, Morocco

Tianjin Tram, China

Shenyang Tram, China

Kaohsiung Tram, Taiwan

9

Can Penang Afford To Close Roads?

• If the State Government were to maintain the number of traffic lanes:

State needs to ACQUIRE LAND AND BUILDINGS Cause MASSIVE PUBLIC OUTCRY

• WHY NOT TRAMS? In Penang’s 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

10

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

11

Access Will Be Severely Hampered

12

Utilities relocated under Road Lane

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

3.35m

Tram Lane 1Lane 13.5m 3.35m

Tram Lane 2

6.7m TRAM LANES

2.5m

Walkway

2.2m

Excavation

Trams Cannot Be Built Without Utilities Relocation

• 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.

13

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 £401milto 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.”

14

Edinburgh Tram: Cost-Overrun & Contractual Disputes

• Original plan to build 18.5km tram from Edinburgh Airport to Newhaven – only 14km completed to-date from airport to York Place (FUNDING CRISIS).

• Main Issues: Contractual disputes (tramway construction), major delays and cost increase.

• Court Case (Arbitration) in 2009: – Legal proceedings initiated by Transport Initiative Edinburgh (TIE –project manager) against BSC Consortium (contractor) due to CLAIM DISPUTES (all works stopped).

• Heavy Criticisms: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).

Scottish Gov. raised

statutory inquiry on 7

Nov 2014 to scrutinise

the delivery of the

project – cost overrun &

delays.

Another £144.7 million

extension to Newhaven

(4.5km) – approved by

Edinburgh Council on 19

Nov 2015, as originally

intended for Line 1.

15

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.

16

Tram & LRT Systems - Use LRV As Rolling Stock

LRV TRAM LRT

Rolling stock/

vehicle for a rail

system.

LRV running on street.

• Sharing road space with

cars (low capacity) – HIGH

OPERATIONS RISK

• Dedicated road lane (high

capacity) – CLOSURE OF

VEHICLE LANES

LRV running on elevated structure.

• Dedicated corridor (high

capacity) – NO RISK & NO

LANE CLOSURE

LRT SYSTEM = LRV (RUNNING ON ELEVATED STRUCTURE)

17

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.

18

LRT For Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor.

19

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.

20

Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor: Constraints

• Based on study, OVER 91% OF TOTAL BAYAN LEPAS LRT ALIGNMENT HAS TO BE ELEVATED (19km out of 21km). Why?

• To AVOID:

Traffic conflicts

Congestion

Lane closures

ELEVATED RAIL TRANSIT = LRT

Only after the LRT is

completed – with a

‘safety net’ in public

transport, the State

Gov. may look into

reducing traffic lanes for

dedicated pedestrian

walkways, bicycle and

bus lanes.

21

Alignment Selection

MATRIX OF FACTORS for optimum alignment

selection carried out by professional Malaysian

engineering consultants

22

TRAFFIC CONFLICTS @ IJM DEVELOPMENT

BEFORE AFTER

TR

AM

TR

AM

SIGNALISED

T-JUNCTION

ACCESS FOR IJM

DEVELOPMENT

ACCESS FOR IJM

DEVELOPMENT

FUTURE IJM DEVELOPMENTe-GATE

LEBUHRAYA TUN DR LIM CHONG EU

INCOMING TRAFFIC

OUTGOING TRAFFIC

2-WAY TRAM

23

TRAFFIC CONFLICTS & LANE CLOSURE @ SPICE

SPICE

PERSIARAN MAHSURI

JALAN MAHSURI

BEFORE AFTER

TR

AM

TR

AM

TR

AM

ST

OP

OUTGOING TRAFFIC

TURNING TRAFFIC

2-WAY TRAM

2 LANES CLOSED

24

RENESASBOSCH

2 lanes service road with

Side Parking

11.1 m

One Lane Service Road

with Side Parking

7.1 m

FenceFenceFenceFence

Traffic lane

11.3 m

Traffic lane

10.9 m

Divider

2.6 mDivider

6.4 mDivider

2.4 m

ALONG FIZ STRETCH = 2KM

Side

Parking

Side

Parking

FenceFence

RENESASBOSCH

Side

Parking

2 lanes service road with

Side Parking

11.1 m

Tram Stop

3.0 m

Tram Lane

3.65 m

Tram Lane

3.65 m

Separator

0.6m

Separator

0.6m

Traffic lane

7.6 mTraffic lane

7.6 m

5.7 m 1.5 m

Walkway

3.0 m

Space

for

Link Bridge

5.0 m

One Lane

Service Road

Fence

Pedestrian Link Bridge

Reduction of traffic lanes -

dual three to dual two lanes

FIZ SOUTH

STATION

Side Parking

Removed

Note: No drop-

off / lay-by areas

Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor - TRAMS

Lane Closure & Parking Removal

FIZ SOUTH STATION

Lane reduction

Side parking removed

Example Scenario:

25

BURMAH ROAD - EXISTING

2-storey shopChinese Temple

3 lanes carriageway (11m)

Car Park

3 TRTAFFIC LANES

26

BURMAH ROAD – WITH MONORAIL

Monorail

2-storey shopChinese Temple

2 lanes carriageway

Car Park

1 lane reduction

for monorail piers

27

BURMAH ROAD – WITH TRAM

Tram

2-storey shopChinese Temple

1 lane carriageway

Car Park

2 lanes reduction

for Tram way

28

Penang Needs Strategic Bypass Highway.

29

• Eg. Full electronic tolling – took >25 years to implement in Klang Valley.

Highways Still Needed - PIL 1 Economically Viable

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.

• 40% public transport mode shift CANNOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT – NEEDS TO BE ENCOURAGED PROGRESSIVELY.

PTMP’s motto: ‘Moving People, Not Cars’ – applicable to State’s 40% public transport mode share target by the year 2030.

HIGHWAYS STILL NEEDED to cater for the 60% PRIVATE VEHICLES.

30

CURRENT (Without PIL 1)

LCE now heavily congested

FUTURE (With PIL 1)

Alternative to LCE for traffic relief

STATE

TMP(PHASE 1)

PIL 1 – Crucial To Relieve Traffic

Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu (LCE) Expressway is the ONLYnorth-south highway on Penang Island – with no alternative.

With the Pan Island Link 1 (PIL 1) Highway, vehicles may BYPASS LCE and travel DIRECTLY from Airport/ 2nd Bridge to Komtar/ Gurney Drive.

31

Other Halcrow Recommendations.

32

What Happened to Halcrow’s TMP Recommendations?

• Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) report by Halcrow (Short term –up to 2030) was adopted as Penang State Government’s 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.

33

Role of PDP.

34

What is a PDP?

• A Project Delivery Partner (PDP) works as the State’s 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.

SRS CONSORTIUM ≠ CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPER

SRS CONSORTIUM = PROJECT DELIVERY PARTNER

35

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

36

Global Best Practices – PDP Used For Complex Projects36

Project(duration)

Client

PDP

PDP’s role &

relation-

ship with

GoM

Source

Value (USD

bil)

New Doha International

Airport (NDIA), (2003 – 2011)

Qatar Civil Aviation Authority &

NDIA Steering Committee

Overseas Bechtel International

• NDIA Project Profile

15

• Overseas Bechtel International

(OBI) provides engineering,

project management, &

construction management

services

• The project was sub-divided

into 60 Construction Packages

Korea High Speed Rail(1991 - 2002)

Korea High Speed Rail

Construction Authority (KHRC)

Bechtel

• Bechtel provided project

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

16

London Olympics 2012(2006 – 2012)

Olympic Delivery Authority

(ODA)

CLM Consortium

(CHRM Hill, Laing O’Rourke & Mace)

• CLM ‘s media briefing note

10

• 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 ODA’s

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

Crossrail Project, London(2009-2017)

Crossrail Ltd(subsidiary of TfL)

Bechtel

• TfL Board Delegation paper

• www.bechtel.com

12

• Bechtel as Project Delivery

Partner (PDP), manages the

safe delivery of the central

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

37

PTMP FUNDING MODEL

38

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 • FUND AVAILABILITY

• Each PTMP component will be tendered out via OPEN TENDER.

PTMP developed in phases

39

BAYAN LEPAS LRT

FUNDING CAPEX OPEX

Reclamation -

Fare Revenue -

Non-Fare Revenue

(TOD)-

LRT Sustainable Model

Examples of Public-Private Partnership

Model: Bangkok (Thailand) and Singapore

NOTE:

1. Build-Operate-Transfer

(BOT) Model for Ampang/

Kelana Jaya LRT and KL

Monorail are NOT

SUITABLE – revenue has

to support Capex & Opex.

2. Initial projected ridership &

revenue had to be HIGH to

be financially ‘feasible’ –

resulting in shortfall.

40

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 Penang’s

liveability.

3. It is the key to UNLOCKING THE FUTURE that will benefit Penang’s future

generations.

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

Penang’s Future

41

A New Chapter For Penang

New reclaimed land from PSR is Penang’s answer for:

GREENER environment

SUSTAINABLE & COMPETITIVE ECONOMY

Shortage of SKILLED LABOUR

Housing AFFORDABILITY

BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE for all Penangites

Future TRAM LINE

Transformative Development

42

THANK YOU