Jumaat, 11 Mac 2011

Philosophy Politics Economics

Philosophy Politics Economics


MRT: Failed Integration Test

Posted: 11 Mar 2011 03:11 PM PST

The proposed MRT system fails the integration test and poses the question as to whether the Gamuda-MMC driven project and designed alignment serves the interest of the public transport users, or other hidden commercial interest
It has already been reported that the proposed site for the "KL Sentral MRT station" in front of the National Musuem will be a significant distance away from the current KL Sentral Transport Hub, which houses the KTM, KTM Komuter, KLIA Transit and Express as well as the Putra LRT services. The proposed location risks making the same mistake as the location of the KL Sentral Monorail station which is ludicrously disconnected from the Hub.

However, the KL Sentral MRT Station isn't the only one which is sited at the baffling location. The Bandar Utama (BU) MRT Station is similarly placed more than a kilometre away from the existing bus terminal which is currently catering to shuttle, feeder, stagecoach and inter-city buses.

The BU MRT Station is expected to be the busiest station in the northern part of the alignment serving some 46,900 passengers daily, and is the 5th busiest of the 35 proposed stations. Only Pusat Bandar Damansara (60,700), Pasar Seni (73,800), Pasar Rakyat (67,300) and Plaza Phoenix (54,000) are expected to cope with more passengers.


Given the importance and high ridership expected at the station, why is the MRT station intentionally located approximately 1-kilometre's walk away from the bus terminal? Instead, it is located along the LDP, right in front of Media Prima broadcast centre for TV3 etc.

The integration is particularly important since buses are expected to be the key dispersal mode of transport for such high passenger volume. What we will face otherwise, is that buses and private vehicles will crowd the roads leading to the MRT stations to pick up and drop passengers. It brings to question whether the consultants took into consideration the severe congestion along the LDP during peak hours when deciding on the location of the MRT stations. And based on the plans provided by SPAD, there is no expected major road infrastructure work to cope with the increase in traffic.


In addition, the ability of the station to achieve the 46,900 passenger target is also severely compromised by the fact that there is no public parking facilities with the exception of those in the 1 Utama shopping mall or the OneWorld Hotel.

What confounds us further is the fact that there is plenty of space to build an MRT station next to the bus terminal which is also supported by a fairly large open space car park at this point in time. In fact, from press reports, we are made to understand that an underground carpark can also be built underneath the existing Central Park next to the bus terminal. It doesn't take a traffic consultant or an MRT specialist to conclude that the existing site for the Bandar Utama station is a very very bad idea.

Singapore, as the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) would agree, has one of the best public transport systems in the world. If one were to visit their MRT stations at key suburbs, it is highly integrated with a bus terminal within the town centre. In fact out of the 17 elevated stations outside of the Central Business District along the North-South Line, 10 are integrated with bus terminals.

In the northern and central township of Yishun and Ang Mo Kio for example, are served not only by the MRT but also a bus terminal which runs 22 and 18 trunk, feeder and intra-town services respectively. The townships have a population of 176,000 and 162,000 respectively. This is comparable to the population of Bandar Utama (120,000) and Damansara Utama (140,000) which are to be served by the BU MRT Station. In contrast, there are only 4 trunk services available at the BU bus terminal and SPAD has proposed 3 feeder services for the MRT station.

The BU MRT station plan is the perfect example of what is likely to go wrong when the country's biggest public transport infrastructure investment is proposed and designed almost entirely by commercial parties with vested interest. SPAD, which is meant to be the regulator to protect the interest of the public transport user in this case, only play the bridesmaid's role.

Instead of the land public transport masterplan which is due only in September this year to be the plan that dictates the public transport infrastructure development, the reverse is happening where the Gamuda-MMC proposed MRT plans are dictating how the public transport masterplan will be designed.

The outcome of such vendor-driven, "first-come-first-served" approach to building our key public transport infrastructure, is the proposed BU station where the interest of the commuters are made secondary to the interest of the commercial project developer.

We call upon SPAD to review the design, placement and overall public transport plans for the BU MRT station to ensure the interest of the local residents are prioritised. At the same time, the same review should be made on all the other stations to prevent negative or less desirable outcomes.

MITI Minister SHould Not Crow Too Early

Posted: 11 Mar 2011 04:44 AM PST

Lebih baik Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI) jangan "berkokok" terlalu awal

Semasa sesi soaljawab Parlimen dua hari yang lalu, Menteri MITI Dato' Sri Mustapa Mohamed memberikan jawapan mengenai kemajuan pelaburan asing dengan begitu angkuh terhadap pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat.

Beliau menyatakan bahawa
"…angka terkini berkaitan pelaburan asing di negara kita menunjukkan aliran masuk sebanyak USD9 bilion pada seluruh tahun lalu berbanding cuma USD1.4 bilion pada tahun 2009 iaitu peningkatan lebih lima kali ganda. Secara khususnya 536 peratus itu peratusan peningkatan lima kali ganda."
Dato' Sri Mustapa mencabar YB Selayang, YB Permatang Pauh dan saya, yang tidak berada di dalam Dewan pada masa itu, "saya mahu tanya mereka apa respons mereka apabila angka terkini".

Kami tidak membisu. Saya ingin memberikan respons, tetapi sebelum beri respons, saya perlukan data yang tepat, menyeluruh dan terperinci daripada MITI. Malangnya jawapan bertulis yang diberikan oleh Menteri kepada soalan saya terhadap permintaan tersebut lebih teruk daripada jawapan budak sekolah.

Saya meminta supaya MITI memberikan jumlah pelaburan asing yang diluluskan berbanding dengan jumlah sebenar yang dilaburkan. Perbezaan ini penting sebab pelaburan yang diluluskan mungkin tak terjadi atau tertangguh.

Misalnya, jumlah pelaburan asing yang diluluskan pada tahun 2009 adalah US$6.5 bilion (RM22.1b). Akan tetapi, pelaburan sebenar seperti yang dicatatkan dalam statistik UNCTAD adalah hanya US$1.4 bilion.

Mengikut statistik yang sedia ada dalam halaman internet MIDA, jumlah pelaburan asing yang diluluskan pada tahun 2010 adalah RM29.1 bilion. Ini bermaksud peningkatan jumlah pelaburan asing yang diluluskan oleh MITI hanya sebanyak 31.2%, jauh berbeza daripada "536%" yang diheboh-hebohkan oleh Menteri.

Oleh sebab itu, saya telah meminta MITI untuk membekalkan angka pelaburan sebenar sejak tahun 1996 untuk membuat perbandingan yang lebih tepat dan wajar. Malangnya, jawapan Menteri memberikan perbandingan antara pelaburan yang diluluskan untuk pelabur tempatan dengan pelabur asing!

Saya juga meminta Menteri untuk memberikan senarai 10 projek yang terbesar yang telah diluluskan tetapi belum lagi dilaburkan ataupun telah dibatalkan setiap tahun. Malangnya, Menteri menjawab hanya dengan jumlah nilai 10 projek yang terbesar sejak 1996, termasuk yang telah, tengah dan tidak dilaburkan.

Jika Menteri inginkan respons penuh daripada saya, saya harap MITI dapat membekalkan secara terperinci, angka-angka seperti yang dimintakan dan bukannya jawapan yang tidak berkaitan dengan soalan atau dengan angka yang terpilih sahaja.

Walau bagaimanapun, sama ada pelaburan asing meningkat hanya 31.2% ataupun 536% daripada detik terendah pelaburan asing di negara kita pada tahun 2009, Menteri tidak berlayak untuk bersifat angkuh. Apabila kita hanya mencapai 10 mata dalam peperiksaan sebelum ini, pencapaian 50 mata bukannya sesuatu yang amat membanggakan, terutamanya jika jiran-jiran kita mencapai keputusan dan trend yang jauh lebih baik daripada kita.

Tiada ulasan:

Nuffnang