Penang Transport Master Plan PTMP

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:
1
2
IDEA
CONCEPTUAL
STUDY
•
•
No economic and constructability evaluation.
Serves as guideline for possible implementation.
WHAT SRS CONSORTIUM HAS DONE:
1
IDEA
2
CONCEPTUAL
STUDY
3
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
4
PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING
DESIGN
5
TMP
WHAT PENANG FORUM HAS DONE:
1
IDEA
•
•
•
No economic and constructability evaluation.
No transport and feasibility study.
Aspirational and not practical – no funding model.
3
Why NOT Tram?
4
Penang Forum’s Talk
TRAM
BRT
Removing road space for Tram and BRT.
Is this PRACTICAL and REALISTIC?
5
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?
6
Penang Island’s Roads Wide Enough?
• New transit lines need to be PARACHUTED ON THE ROAD SPACE TO
MINIMISE LAND ACQUISITION AND SOCIAL IMPACT
• 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.
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 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
• 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
Walkway
3.5m
Lane 1
3.35m
3.35m
Tram Lane 2
Tram Lane 1
6.7m TRAM LANES
2.2m
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
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.
2.
3.
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.
Local Businesses – Income losses from prolonged road
closures.
Cycling Groups – Safety concerns & accidents (injured
cyclists, tyre stuck in tram tracks).
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
cars (low capacity) – HIGH
OPERATIONS RISK
• Dedicated corridor (high
capacity) – NO RISK & NO
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
LRT ALIGNMENT HAS TO BE ELEVATED (19km out of
21km). Why?
• To AVOID:
 Traffic conflicts
 Congestion
 Lane closures
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.
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
ACCESS FOR IJM
DEVELOPMENT
TRAM
AFTER
TRAM
BEFORE
ACCESS FOR IJM
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
TRAM
TRAM STOP
AFTER
TRAM
BEFORE
23
Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor - TRAMS
Lane Closure & Parking Removal
ALONG FIZ STRETCH = 2KM
Example Scenario:
FIZ SOUTH STATION
 Lane reduction
 Side parking removed
Fence
BOSCH
Side
Parking Fence
2 lanes service road with
Side Parking
11.1 m
Divider
6.4 m
Fence
Traffic lane
11.3 m
Divider
2.6 m
Traffic lane
10.9 m
Side
Fence
Parking
RENESAS
Divider One Lane Service Road
with Side Parking
2.4 m
7.1 m
Pedestrian Link Bridge
Reduction of traffic lanes dual three to dual two lanes
Separator
0.6m
Separator
0.6m
Fence
BOSCH

Side Fence
Parking
Side Parking
Removed

Fence
RENESAS
2 lanes service road with
Side Parking
11.1 m
5.7 m
Traffic lane
7.6 m
Tram Lane Tram Stop Tram Lane
3.65 m
3.0 m
3.65 m
FIZ SOUTH
STATION
Traffic lane
7.6 m
Note: No drop5.0 m
1.5 m 3.0 m
off / lay-by areas
One Lane
Walkway Space
Service
Road
for
Link Bridge
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.
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.
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)
LCE now heavily congested
FUTURE (With PIL 1)
Alternative to LCE for traffic relief
STATE
TMP
(PHASE 1)
Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu (LCE) Expressway is the ONLY
north-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.
30
Other Halcrow Recommendations.
31
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 ZenithBUCG
 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 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.
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
(duration)
Value (USD
bil)
Client
PDP
Crossrail Project, London
London Olympics 2012
(2006 – 2012)
New Doha International
Airport (NDIA), (2003 – 2011)
Korea High Speed Rail
(2009-2017)
12
10
15
16
Olympic Delivery Authority
(ODA)
Qatar Civil Aviation Authority &
NDIA Steering Committee
Korea High Speed Rail
Construction Authority (KHRC)
CLM Consortium
Overseas Bechtel International
Bechtel
• Overseas Bechtel International
(OBI) provides engineering,
project management, &
construction management
services
• Bechtel provided project
management services, working
with KHRC as part of an
Integrated Project
Management Organization
(IPMO) that guides project
design & construction
Crossrail Ltd
(subsidiary of TfL)
Bechtel
(1991 - 2002)
(CHRM Hill, Laing O’Rourke & Mace)
PDP’s role & • Bechtel as Project Delivery
relationPartner (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
Source
• TfL Board Delegation paper
• 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.
• The project was sub-divided
into 60 Construction Packages
• Work includes design
management, railway
operations, quality control,
safety, and cost & schedule
management.
• CLM delivers parcels of ODA’s
work; pre-approving all tasks
and the resources allocated
for that task prior to the work
starting
• Helped the team evaluate
railway technologies & applied
its global knowledge of
procurement cycles & contract
management.
• Profit earned if CLM hits KPI
set by ODA
• CLM ‘s media briefing note
• NDIA Project Profile
• 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
FUNDING
CAPEX
OPEX
Reclamation

-
Fare Revenue
-

Non-Fare Revenue
(TOD)
-

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.
39
Penang’s 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 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.
40
Transformative Development
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
41
THANK YOU
42