Appendices

Transcription

Appendices

Appendix A
References
Projek Mass Rapid Transit Laluan 2: Sg. Buloh – Serdang – Putrajaya
Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
1)
BS 7445-1:1991 / ISO 1996-1:1982. Acoustics – Description and
Measurement of Environmental Noise. Part 1 1982: Basic quantities and
procedures
2)
BS 7445-3:1991 / ISO 1996-3: 1987. Acoustics – Description and
Measurement of Environmental Noise.
3)
Department of Environment (2015), Malaysia Environmental Quality Report
2013, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
4)
Department of Environment (2007), The Planning Guidelines For Vibration
Limits and Control in Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, Malaysia.
5)
Department of Environment (2007), The Planning Guidelines For
Environmental Noise Limits and Control, 2nd Edition, Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment, Malaysia.
6)
Department of Irrigation and Drainage (2013), Laporan Banjir WP Kuala
Lumpur Bagi Tahun 2013, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia.
7)
Department of Irrigation and Drainage (2011), Volume 14: Review of
National Water Resources (2000 – 2050) and Formulation of Natural Water
Resources Policy, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia
8)
Department of Statistics (2015), Population of Housing Census 2010,
Department of Statistics, Malaysia
9)
Department of Irrigation and Drainage (2010), Guideline for Erosion and
Sediment Control in Malaysia, Department of Irrigation and Drainage,
Malaysia
10)
Department of Occupational Safety and Health (2008), Guidelines for
Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC), Ministry
of Human Resources, Malaysia
11)
Department of Irrigation and Drainage (2010), Guideline for Erosion and
Sediment Control in Malaysia, Department of Irrigation and Drainage,
Malaysia
12)
Federal Transit Administration, USA (2006), Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment, Department of Transportation, USA
13)
Kuala Lumpur City Hall (2008), Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020, Kuala
Lumpur City Hall, Malaysia
ERE Consulting Group
Issue 1.0/April 2015
A-1
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
14)
Land Public Transport Commission (2011), Executive Summary: Greater
Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley Public Transport Master Plan, Land Public
Transport Commission, Malaysia
15)
Malaysian Meteorological Services (2008), Climate Data for Petaling Jaya,
1998 – 2009 and Climate Data for Subang Jaya 1998 – 2009
16)
Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (MPSJ), Rancangan Tempatan Majlis
Perbandaran Subang Jaya 2020: Peti Cadangan Dan Pernyataan Bertulis
17)
Majlis Perbandaran Sepang (MPSepang) (2012), Rancangan Tempatan
Majlis Perbandaran Sepang (Pengubahan 1) 2020, 1st Edition, Jabatan
Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Negeri Selangor, Malaysia
18)
Majlis Perbandaran Selayang (MPS), Draf Rancangan Tempatan Majlis
Perbandaran Selayang 2020: Peti Cadangan Dan Penyataan Bertulis,
Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Negeri Selangor, Malaysia
19)
Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ), Draf Rancangan Tempatan Majlis
Bandaraya Petaling Jaya: Peti Cadangan Dan Pernyataan Bertulis 2020
20)
Ministry of Works (2014), Road Traffic Volume Malaysia 2013, Ministry of
Works, Malaysia
A-2
Appendix B
DEIA Checklist
APPENDIX B: DEIA CHECKLIST
Item
Background of Proposed Project
1.1
Project Proponent
 Name, address, telephone and fax.
 Name of contact person.
1.2
1.3
Page/Figure
Page 1-2
Page 1-2
Site location
 Location map or key plan
 Location co-ordinate
Figure 1-1
Page 1-1
Project alignment
 Length of the alignment
 Layout plan showing alignment
Page 1-1
Figure 1-1
1.4
Statement of need
Justification for proposed Project
Page 2-1 to 2-7
1.5

Page 4-1 to 4-17
Figure 4-2 to Figure
4-11
1.6
Project concept and layout
 Concept/theme of Project
 Layout plan showing proposed
components
1.7
1.8
Alignment Selection Options
Project activities
Outline of main activities (type & scale)
involved in the proposed Project
Schedule of implementation
Development schedule showing
phases of development and time frame
involved
Consultant Information
2.1
EIA consultant
Name, Address, Academic
Qualifications and Authorized
signatures
Maps and Plans
3.1
Geological and soil maps
Maps showing geological units and soil
types
3.2
Drainage and Hydrological Map
Hydrological map indicating river
systems and catchment areas
3.3
Land use plan
3.4
Location of sampling
/monitoring stations
3.5
Photographs (land, aerial or satellite
image) showing existing physical
condition and landform of Project site
and surrounding areas
Issue1.0/April 2015
DOE’s
Comments
Page 3-1 to 3-3
Figure 3-1 to
Figure 3-4
Page 3-6 to 3-33
3-12
Page 3-34
Page 1-3 and
Declaration form
and project team
Figure 5-3, Figure 55, Figure 5-6 and
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-12
Figure 5-8a to
Figure 5-8g and
Figure 5-9
Figure 5-14a to
Figure 5-14d
Figure 5-8a to
Figure 5-8g
B-1
Item
Existing Environmental Database
4.1
Terrain features
 Description of terrain levels
based on topography map
4.2
Geology, Subsoil and Groundwater
4.3
Land use
 Land use characteristic of the
Project site as well as the
impact areas
4.4
Assessment of climatological data
4.5
Drainage and Hydrology
 Drainage system in Project
site
 Groundwater source
 Flood prone areas
4.6
4.7
Water Quality
 Baseline monitoring results for
pH, DO, BOD, TSS, NH3-N, oil
& grease, heavy metals, etc.
Air Quality
 Baseline monitoring results for
parameters such as TSP,
SOx, NOx, HCl, Dioxin &
Furan, etc.
4.8
Page/Figure
Page 5-1 to 5-2
Figure 5-1
Page 5-3 to 5-13
5-7
Page 5-13 to 5-31
Figure 5-8a to
Figure 5-8g and
Figure 5-9
Page 5-34 to 5-35
Figure 5-10 and
Figure 5-11
Page 5-35 to 5-39 &
(Figure 5-12 &
Figure 5-13)
Page 5-37 to 5-39
Page 5-39 to 5-49
Figure 5-14a to 514c
Page 5-47 to 5-49
Noise and vibration
 Baseline noise and vibration
levels
4.9
Socio-economic
4.10 Traffic
4.11 Ecology study
Impact & Mitigation Analyses Information
Pre Construction Phase
5.1
Soil investigation, land acquisition and
utilities relocation
Construction Phase
5.2
Traffic
Page 5-49 to 5-67
Page 5-77 to 5-89
Page 5-67 to 5-76
Page 5-89
5.3
Noise Pollution
Page 7-19 to 7-53
5.4
Public Safety
Page 7-63 to 7-71
5.5
Social Impact
Page 7-104 to 7-106
Issue1.0/April 2015
DOE’s
Comments
Page 7-1 to 7-5
Page 7-7 to 7-19
B-2
Item
Page/Figure
5.6
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Page 7-85 to 7-93
Figure 7-11 to 7-13
5.7
Air Pollution
Page 7-72 to 7-84
5.8
Flooding and Hydrology Changes
Page 7-94 to 7-95
5.9
Water Pollution
5.10
Waste Management
Page 7-96 to 7-101
Figure 7-14
Page 7-101 to 7-103
Operational Phase
5.11 Noise and Vibration Pollution
Noise and vibration prediction from
operation, conveyer and traffic
5.12 Traffic
Page 8-2 to 8-136
Page 8-137 to 8-149
5.13
Visual Impact
Page 8-150 to 8-168
5.14
Page 8-169 to 8-198
5.15
Air Pollution
Prediction of air pollutants
concentration
Public Safety
5.16
Socio-economic
Page 8-199 to 8-204
Page 8-204 to 8-210
5.17 Flooding
5.18 Depot Operation
Residual Issues
6.1
Significant impacts in terms of air
quality, human health, waste
management, etc.
Environmental Management Framework
7.1
Organization
 Assignment and authorization of
personnel with responsibilities to
perform task enforce measures
identified in the EIA
Page 8-211 to 8-212
Page 8-212 to 8-214
7.2
Page 10-10 to 10-18
Figure
10-2a
to
Figure 10-2d
Monitoring Programme
 Outline programme to inspect and
monitor the water, air and noise
Issue1.0/April 2015
DOE’s
Comments
Page 9-1 to 9-3
Page 10-5 to 10-6
B-3
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Issue1.0/April 2015
B-4
Appendix C
Terms Of References Approval
Appendix D
Baseline Laboratory Analysis Report
Appendix E
Social Survey Methodology And Findings
Projek Mass Rapid Transit Laluan 2: Sg Buloh – Serdang – Putrajaya
APPENDIX E : SOCIAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This appendix documents the methodology and the findings of the public perception
survey and the various stakeholder engagement sessions carried out over the
course of the DEIA.
1.1
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Multiple approaches were used to collect data for analysis. It combines a variety of
tools that range from use of secondary data for socioeconomic profiling to the use
of primary data collection using a perception survey and face-to-face encounters
such as focus group discussions (FGDs), case interviews, and public dialogues.
1.1.1
Secondary Data from Population and Housing Census 2010
A 400-metre corridor is identified from each side of the entire alignment. It serves
as a broad impact zone based on the planning principle that an acceptable walking
distance from a transit point is approximately 400 metres.
Secondary data was sourced from the Department of Statistics [DOS] (GIS unit) to
obtain the socio-economic profile in the impact zone from the Population and
Housing Census 2010. The information was extracted from the Census
enumeration blocks. To facilitate data extraction from the enumeration blocks, the
impact zone was subdivided into four major corridors as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Northern segment - from Damansara Damai to Jalan Ipoh;
Underground segment - from Jalan Ipoh to TRX and Bandar Malaysia
Southern elevated segment 1 – Bandar Malaysia to UPM
Southern elevated segment 2 - from UPM to Putrajaya
The corridors were also used as basis for the delineation of the initial zones for the
perception survey.
1.1.2
Perception Survey
The perception survey used a questionnaire, implemented through interviews by
enumerators. The survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix E1. The findings
were analysed through SPSS.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-1
The methodology of the perception survey is described below:
a) Sample Size1
An overall sample target of 1,500 was adopted for the perception survey. It was
based on the following criteria:
• 95% level of confidence;
• Margin of error of 5%;
• Stratification of sample across 4 corridors.
b) Stratification of Sample
A first level stratification of the sample was undertaken, dividing the sample into
residential and non-residential (commercial and industrial operators). A heavier
weight was assigned to residential respondents, assuming residents are
generally more sensitive to this type of infrastructure development and would be
among the first to express social concerns. The quota of 30% was assigned to
non-residential activities because much of the route is along major commercial
areas. The first level stratification of the 1,500 sample showed the following
targeted distribution:
Respondent Type
Residential
Non Residential
Total Sample
Distribution Ratio
0.70
0.30
Sample
Distribution
1,050
450
1,500
A second level stratification was carried out using the four corridors as the initial
broad survey zones. These zones were further subdivided to facilitate
implementation and management of the survey taking into consideration varying
spatial characteristics within each corridor. Altogether, 9 survey zones were
identified (see Appendix 1-4 for breakdown of the corridors into survey zones).
The sample distribution is shown in Table 1.1.
1
Formula for estimating sample size (Source: PennState Cooperative Extension)
{ P [1-P] }
N=
______________
2
A
+ {P [1-P]}
_____
_____
2
Z
N
Where
N= sample size required
P= estimated variance in population, as a decimal here (i.e. 0.5)
A= Precision desired 50%, as a decimal (i.e.0.05 )
Z= confidence level, either 95% (obtain values from z tables 95% -1.96)
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-2
Table 1-1: Distribution of Sample by Segment and Survey Zone
Corridor
Area Description
Northern Elevated
Segment
Sri Damansara/
Menjalara
Kepong/Jinjang
Batu/Jalan Ipoh
City Centre
TRX/Chan Sow Lin/Sg Besi
Airfield
Kuchai Lama/ Sg Besi
Serdang Jaya
Seri Kembangan/Sri Serdang
Equine/Putra Permai/
Cyberjaya/Putrajaya
Underground
Southern
Putrajaya
Extension
Total Sample
Survey
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sample
Distribution
500
150
125
375
350
1,500
Source: DEIA SSP Line December 2014/February 2015
c) A third level stratification was undertaken by dividing the sample in each survey
zone into two groups, i.e. (a) those who are within a 20-metre (20m) zone and
(b) those within the 21 metre to 400 metre zone (21m-400m). The 20m zone
was identified based on direct noise and vibrations impact. The aim is to assess
the perceptions of those staying near and compare them with those further
away from proposed alignment.
d) Survey Implementation
During the fieldwork, systematic random sampling was adopted in the sample
selection on ground. In the absence of very detailed maps on ground, the 20m
zone and 400m zones are indicative based on the identification of building and
streets during preliminary site visits. This was deemed the most practical and
effective way to carry the zone identification on ground.
e) Constraints during Survey Implementation
Some constraints during the survey are observed. Although a non-response
rate has been factored in, the survey team is required to ensure that there was
no fall-out from the targeted sample sizes. A larger survey team was organized
to undertake the survey. Stratification by different levels, i.e. respondent type,
survey zone and proximity to proposed alignment entailed detailed close
supervision on ground.
Enumerators were required to follow quotas and to adhere to the process of
systematic random sampling in order to reduce bias. The survey was carried out
from December 2014 to February 2015. Both periods involved extensive holiday
breaks which slowed down fieldwork. This was further complicated by a general
reluctance, especially among urban households and small and medium
manufacturers, to participate had posed numerous challenges to the survey
team in carrying out their tasks within the given time frame.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-3
1.1.3
Stakeholders’ Engagements
In order to give more depth to the perception survey findings, stakeholders’
engagements were carried out using various methods, combining focus Group
Discussions (FGDs), case interviews and public dialogues. The approach was to
target selected groups and institutions, especially those which are located close to
the proposed SSP Line and who could be significantly impacted by the project.
The general approach adopted in all these engagements included the use of
presentation slides to explain the purpose and intent of these engagements, to
show to participants the SSP Line alignment together with relevant information on
the proposed development. Participants were given time to discuss and to share
their views on the proposed project.
Case interviews were used mostly for institutions where face-to-face engagements
would be more meaningful, allowing them opportunities to discuss the potential
impacts on them. Focus groups were determined based on their locations and their
shared characteristics, e.g. residents or commercial operators. Where such groups
could be merged into larger groups, public dialogue sessions were held.
The initial target number for stakeholders’ engagement set out under the Terms of
Reference was 20 but during fieldwork, the number of engagements was raised to
33 after detailed site assessments on social impacts. While some groups have to
be combined taking into considerations; others have to be further segregated due to
their social characteristics. Some of such examples are given below:
a) The proposed FGD for Sri Damansara Commercial Group were subdivided into
2 groups due to their different socio-economic characteristics;
b) The FGD earmarked for occupants of Ampang Park was merged with those
from Jalan Binjai due to insufficient quorum from Ampang Park;
c) Two interviews with Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) were carried out; the initial
one with the technical personnel of HKL and another with the Director of the
Hospital who requested for a briefing.
d) Kg Malaysia group was separated from the Kuchai Lama residential group into
a different discussion group.
e) The landowners of commercial lots at Serdang Raya requested for a separate
discussion. An interview with them was conducted.
Table 1-2 lists the stakeholders’ engagements into various target groups, giving the
dates and time of interactions.Detailed findings from the interviews, FGDs and
public dialogues are given in Appendix E3.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-4
Table 1-2: List of Stakeholder Engagements
No
1
Type
Interview
Social Group
Institution
Date
Hospital Kuala Lumpur
1/12/14
16/12/14
Ref.
CI01
2
Interview
Institution
3
Interview
Institution
4
Interview
Institution
Hospital Kuala Lumpur
Kompleks Kraftangan, Jalan
Conlay
Perbadanan Pembangunan
Kampong Bharu
Istana Budaya
5
Interview
Institution
Perbadanan Putrajaya
6
Interview
Corporation
Cyberview Sdn Bhd
18/12/14
CI06
7
Interview
Corporation
Putrajaya Holdings
19/12/14
CI07
8
Interview
Commercial
Seri Kembangan
30/12/14
CI08
9
Interview
Serdang Raya
5/03/15
CI09
10
Interview
Salak Selatan Baru
7/03/15
CI10
11
Interview
Commercial
Commercial/
Residential
Institutional
Balai Polis, Pekan Sg Besi
9/03/15
CI11
12
Public Dialogue
Residential
Sri Damansara Community
11/12/14
PD1
13
Public Dialogue
Seri Kembangan North
30/12/14
PD2
14
Public Dialogue
Residential
Commercial/
Industrial
Kuchai Lama
25/02/15
PD3
15
Public Dialogue
Residential
16
Public Dialogue
17
4/12/14
CI02
4/12/14
CI03
8/12/14
CI04
15/12/14
CI05
25/02/15
PD4
Residential
Taman Salak Selatan –
Taman Naga Emas
PPR Laksamana Jalan Peel
26/02/15
PD5
Public Dialogue
Commercial
Pekan Sg Besi
5/03/15
PD6
18
Public Dialogue
Commercial
Serdang Raya
6/03/15
PD7
19
Public Dialogue
Residential
Serdang Raya
6/03/15
PD8
20
FGD
Commercial
Damansara Damai
7/12/14
FGD1
21
FGD
Commercial
Metro Prima-Kepong
13/12/14
FGD2
22
FGD
Residential
Kg Batu Delima
14/12/14
FGD3
23
FGD
Residential
PPR Pekan Batu
15/12/14
FGD4
24
FGD
Commercial
Sri Damansara
17/12/14
FGD5
25
FGD
Residential
Taman Jinjang Baru
17/12/14
FGD6
26
FGD
Commercial
Ampang Park-Jalan Binjai
18/12/14
FGD7
27
FGD
Commercial
19/12/14
FGD8
28
FGD
Residential
20/12/14
FGD9
29
FGD
Residential
21/12/14
FGD10
30
FGD
Commercial
Jinjang-Jalan Kepong
Seri Kembangan South
(Taman Equine/)
Putrajaya
(Precincts 7, 8 & 9)
Jalan Ipoh
23/12/14
FGD11
31
FGD
Kg. Malaysia Raya
25/02/15
FGD12
32
FGD
Jalan Chan Sow Lin
26/02/15
FGD13
33
FGD
Residential
Commercial/
Industrial
Residential
Sg Besi PPR Raya Permai
5/03/15
FGD14
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-5
1.2
SOCIAL PROFILE
1.2.1
Regional Context
The proposed SSP Line is among the measures identified to tackle the challenge of
inadequate public transport in the Greater Kuala Lumpur. According to the
Population and Housing Census 2010, population in the Greater Kuala Lumpur
(GKL) touched 6.3 million in 2010. The ETP targeted GKL population to 10 million
by 2020, with an immigrant population component of 2.5 million. With rapid
population growth, it believes that GKL contributions to Gross National Income
(GNI) would rise by 2.5 times from RM258 billion in 2010 to RM650 billion in 2020.
This implies that 40% of GNI would be generated from GKL. To achieve this, the
GKL NKEA identifies various measures to be undertaken.
Among them, is the implementation of a comprehensive MRT system to improve
public transportation which is said to be currently fragmented, often unreliable and
where roads are almost always congested.
The SSP Line would complement the SBK Line which is presently under
construction. Its proposed route covers six municipalities under GKL. Spatially, it
stretches from the northern tip of GKL and serves the eastern part of Kuala Lumpur
before cutting through Kuala Lumpur city centre towards the south of Kuala Lumpur
into the south-western part of GKL which is under the jurisdiction of Majlis
Perbandaran Subang Jaya. It then enters the municipality of Sepang tolink to
Cyberjaya city centre before terminating at Putrajaya Sentral, which is underthe
jurisdiction of Perbadanan Putrajaya. Along the way, it would integrate with other
public transportation systems like the monorail, KTM Komuter and LRT as well as
with SBK Line, enhancing connectivity, a factor critical for urban growth and for
improving the labour productivity of the urban population through enhanced
connectivity, faster travel time and savings in costs and travel time.
In 2010, total population of the 6 municipalities that serve as the regional corridor
for SSP Line was estimated at 3.9 million (Chart 1-1). By 2015, the regional
corridor population is estimated to rise to 4.1 million. By 2020, it would increase to
4.47 million or slightly less than half of GKL’s 10 million target. In 2025, the regional
corridor population is expected to increase to 4.7million (The estimates consider
state population projections undertaken by DOS (2040) and the target population
for Selangor under the recent structural plan study of Selangor).
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-6
Chart1.1: Population of SSP Line Regional Coverage in 2020 and 2025 (in million)
Note: Adjusted for under-enumeration
Estimates from 2014 to 2022 based on projected DBKL and Selangor State population growth and
DOS state population projections 2040
Sources: 1) Department of Statistics, “Population Distribution by Local Authority Areas and Mukim 2010
2) Department of Statistics, “Population Projections, 2040 by State” (Special Request)
3) Laporan Tinjauan Kajian Rancangan Struktur Negeri Selangor 2035 (Restricted)
4) Consultant’s Estimates from 2014 to 2025.
1.3
SOCIAL PROFILE OF THE SSP LINE IMPACT ZONE
1.3.1
Total Population
The impact zone of 400m from each side of the proposed alignment from Sungai
Buloh to Putrajaya is subdivided into 4 major corridors, i.e. Northern, Underground,
Southern 1 and Southern 2. The Northern corridor covers the stretch from Sungai
Buloh/Damansara Damai to Jalan Ipoh. The Underground corridor stretches from
Jalan Ipoh through to KLCC to Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) to Jalan Chan Sow Lin
up to the proposed development at Bandar Malaysia. The Southern 1 corridor
covers Kuchai Lama to UPM and Southern 2 stretches from UPM to Cyberjaya and
Putrajaya.
Total population in the impact zone in 2010 was estimated at 322,885 in 2010
(Chart 1-2). In 2014, overall population in the impact zone is estimated to have
increased to 342,900, an increase of around 6.2% over the past 4 years.
1.3.2
Population Distribution
Population distribution in the impact zone is as follows (Chart 1-3):
• 46% in the southern elevated 1 corridor;
• 23% in the northern corridor;
• 21% in the underground corridor;
• 10% in the southern elevated 2 corridor
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-7
Chart 1-2: Population in SSP Line in 400m Impact Zone, 2010 and 2014
Notes: (1) All figures rounded to nearest
(2) 2014 is estimated based on population estimates by state from Department of
Statistics
Sources: (1) Department of Statistics, Population & Housing Census 2010, “Special Request”
(December 2014/February 2015)
(2) Department of Statistics, “DOS Quick Info” (pqi.stats.gov.my)
(3) Laporan Tinjauan Kajian Rancangan Struktur Negeri Selangor 2035 (Restricted)
Chart 1-3: Population Distribution in the Impact Zone by Corridor
Source: Department of Statistics, Population & Housing Census 2010, “Special Request”
The Southern Elevated 2 sub-corridor has the lowest share because the stretch is
relatively underdeveloped, with lower population density compared to elsewhere in
the impact zone. The Southern 1 corridor covers parts of Kuchai Lama, Salak
Selatan, Sungai Besi, Bandar Baru Seri Petaling, Serdang Jaya and Seri
Kembangan; most of these areas are densely built up – hence the the huge
concentration of population here. Whilst the alignment itself follows major highways
and main roads where there are considerable commercial activities, the impact
zone covers residential areas surrounding these commercial centres.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-8
The four main corridors were further subdivided into seven sub-corridors in line with
its respective spatial characteristics. Population distribution across the sub-corridors
is summarised in Table 1-3.The main population concentration areas are in
Kepong-Jinjang sub-corridor (19%) and in Kuchai Lama-Salak South-Sg Besi subcorridor (29%). Overall, population distribution is relatively uniform with the
exception of Sri Damansara - Bandar Menjalara sub-corridor which has the lowest
proportion of population at 6%.
Table 1-3: Distribution of Population in Impact Zone by Sub-corridor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sub-corridor
DamansaraDamai,SriDamansara & Menjalara
Kepong, Jinjang , Delima & Batu
Underground -Jalan Ipoh, Sentul, Pekeliling, City Centre
Underground from TRX, Chan Sow Lin to Bandar Malaysia
Kuchai Lama/Salak South/Pekan Sg Besi
Serdang Raya/Seri Kembangan/Sri Serdang
Tmn Universiti Indah, Tmn Equine, Putra Permai, Cyberjaya,
Putrajaya
Total
Pop (2010)
18,771
56313
38,764
29,845
84,670
62,983
31,539
%
6
17
12
9
26
20
10
100
322,885
The Northern sub-corridor that runs from Damansara Damai to Jalan Ipoh falls
under three different municipalities, DBKL, MBPJ and MPS, but most of it falls
under DBKL jurisdiction. This area is segmented into 2 parts, i.e. Damansara
Damai/Sri Damansara and Menjalara which fall under MBPJ and MPS,and the
other part which is under DBKL comprises Kepong/Jinjang and Batu right up to the
northern tip of Jalan Ipoh before Segambut. Total population in this sub-corridor in
2010 was around 75,100; it is estimated to increase to 79,700 in 2014 (Table 1-4).
Table 1-4 : Northern and Underground Corridors -Population 2010 and 2014
Corridor
Damansara Damai,Sri Damansara & Menjalara
Kepong, Jinjang & Batu
Northern Corridor
Underground - Jalan Ipoh, Sentul, Pekeliling, City
Centre
Underground-TRX, Jalan Chan Sow Lin, Sg Besi
RMAF base (Bandar Malaysia)
Underground Corridor
Total Northern and Underground Corridors to
Total Impact Zone
2010
2014
18,800
56,300
75,100
19,900
59,800
79,700
% Share of
Impact
Zone
6
17
23
38,800
41,200
12
29,800
31,700
9
68,600
72,900
21
44
Note: 2014 is estimated based on population estimates by state from Department of Statistics
(December 2014/February 2015). (2) Department of Statistics, “DOS Quick Info” (pqi.stats.gov.my). (3)
Laporan Tinjauan Kajian Rancangan Struktur Negeri Selangor 2035 (Restricted)
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-9
The Underground sub-corridor runs through the east of Kuala Lumpur city centre
and through the city centre before turning south-west to an area of Kuala Lumpur
that is earmarked for urban regeneration and redevelopment, i.e. the Tun Razak
Exchange, which is proposed as the future financial district in Kuala Lumpur and
the proposed Bandar Malaysia development at the Sg. Besi RMAF Base. It
supports a combination of activities ranging from commercial to residential, with a
stronger emphasis on commercial and institutional activities.
Residential areas include those in Sentul, Kampong Bharu and institutional quarters
as well as some residential areas in the city centre and around Jalan Chan Sow Lin
and Sg Besi Airfield.
In 2010, it was estimated that there were around 38,800 people in the northern
undergroundsub-corridor and 29,800 people in the south-western underground subcorridor. Combined, its total population was 68,600 (Table 1-4). In 2014, it is
estimated that the population here has increased to 72,900. Its share of population
in the impact zone is 23% compared to 25% for the northern sub-corridor.
In the Southern 1 corridor and Southern 2 corridor, the SSP Line crosses over the
jurisdictions of 4 local authorities, from DBKL, MPSJ, MPSepang and PPJ.
Population along this stretch of the impact zone is estimated at 222,500 in 2014,
about 6% higher than 2010 population of 129,400 (Table 1-5). Most of the
population are concentrated in the area around Kuchai Lama, Salak South, Bandar
Seri Petaling, Sg Besi, Serdang Jaya, Seri Kembangan and Sri Serdang. Together
with the Putrajajaya extension, the impact zone in the southern corridor plus
Putrajaya extension accommodates more than half its population (53%).
Table 1-5: Southern 1 and Southern 2 Corridors - Population 2010 and 2014
2010
2014
%
Share
of
Impact
Zone
84,700
89,900
26
Southern 1corridor
Taman Universiti Indah, Taman Equine, Putra Permai,
Cyberjaya, Putrajaya
Total Southern 1 and Southern 2 Corridors
63,000
147,700
66,900
156,800
20
46
31,500
33,500
10
153,400
162,900
56
Corridor
Note: 2014 is estimated based on population estimates by state from Department of Statistics
(2) Department of Statistics, “DOS Quick Info” (pqi.stats.gov.my)
(3) Laporan,Tinjauan Kajian Rancangan Struktur Negeri Selangor 2035 (Restricted)
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-10
1.3.3
Households and Living Quarters
The total population of more than 323,000 comprises of 85,471households. The
household size of 3.8 persons per household is smaller when compared to the
national average of 4.2 persons per household (Table 1-6). Over the past ten
years, the average household size in Malaysia has fallen from an average of 4.6
persons in 2000 to 4.2 persons in 2010. In Selangor, the reduction in household
size has been relatively pronounced, with the average household size reduced to
3.9 persons in 2010. In Kuala Lumpur, the decline in average household size in
2010 was more pronounced at 3.7 persons in 2010. In Putrajaya, the average
household size was observed to be even lower at 3.5 persons per household,
largely due to the high concentration of single families comprising of workers. All
these affect the mean household size in the Impact Zone which resulted in an
average size that is smaller than the national average.
Table 1-6: Households and Living Quarters by Corridor, 2010
Corridor
Household (HH)
HH Size
Living Quarters (LQ)
LQ/HH
Northern
Underground
Southern 1
Southern 2
Total-Impact Zone
20,364
17,225
39,010
8,872
85,471
3.69
3.98
3.79
3.55
3.78
23,004
19,447
42,479
10,115
95,045
1.13
1.13
1.09
1.14
1,11
Across the different corridors, the place with the largest mean household size of
about 4 persons per household is in the underground corridor, which includes Kuala
Lumpur city centre. This occurs in both the area from Jalan Ipoh through to Sentul,
City Centre, TRX and Jalan Chan Sow Lin. The presence of a high concentration of
low income households in affordable public low-income housing the city may have
contributed to this. Poorer households often tend to stay closer to places of work in
the city centre to reduce travel expenses.
The average household size in the southern corridor at 3.8 persons is higher than
that in the northern corridor which has an average of 3.7 persons per household.
Larger household size indirectly implies density is higher, leading to greater traffic
congestion. It also implies that more people could be affected when acquisition
occurs in these areas where acquisition is likely to affect more than two-person or
3-person families. In this case, the more sensitive areas fall within the underground
corridor where acquisition is minimal and lesser number of households would be
negatively impacted upon by relocation.
The analysis on living quarters shows that there are more living units available than
occupied. Living quarters refer to homes and shelters and would include
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-11
institutional housing. On the average, the ratio is 1.11 living quarters to one
household (Table 1-6). A surplus of 11% is estimated, suggesting the presence of
vacant premises. The incidence of vacancy is higher in the northern corridor and in
the Putrajaya extension compared to elsewhere in the impact zone.
1.3.4
Ethnic and Gender Distribution
The dominant ethnic group in the impact zone are the Chinese who make up 46%
of the total population here. The second largest group are the Malay and other
Bumiputera with a share of 34%. The Indians and Others have a combined share of
9%. The non-Malaysians are relatively large. The group contributes to almost 10%
of the population in the impact zone (Table 1-7).
The Chinese are the predominant ethnic group in the northern and southern
1corridors of the route (Table 1-7). They are also found in large numbers in the
segment of the underground corridor around Jalan Chan Sow Lin (Table 1-8). The
Malays and Other Bumiputera are mostly concentrated in the Putrajaya extension
sub-corridor although they contribute slightly more than a third of the population in
the underground and southern corridors. The Non-Malaysians are mostly in the
underground sub-corridor, with a share of about 18% of its population.
Table 1-7: Population Distribution by Corridor and Ethnicity, 2010
Corridor
Northern
Underground
Southern 1
Southern 2
Impact Zone
Malay &
Other
Bumiputera
(%)
23.7
32.7
37.5
51.3
34.6
Chinese
(%)
Indians
(%)
Others
(%)
58.9
9.4
0.5
Non
Malaysian
Citizens
(%)
7.5
39.7
44.7
28.2
45.3
9.2
8.4
8.2
8.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.5
17.7
9.1
11.7
10.8
Table 1-8 shows that the Chinese are mostly concentrated in Kepong, Jinjang,
Jalan Chan Sow Lin, Kuchai Lama, Salak South, Sg. Besi and Serdang Raya. The
Malay and Other Bumiputera population are concentrated in the Southern 2 stretch
and contribute about a third of the population in sub-corridors like Jalan Chan Sow
Lin, Kuchai Lama/Salak South/Sg Besi, Jalan Ipoh/Sentul/KLCC/TRX and Serdang
Raya.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-12
Table1-8 : Distribution of Population by Sub-corridor and Ethnicity, 2010
Sub-corridor
Sri Damansara & Menjalara
Underground Jalan Ipoh,
Sentul, City Centre
Underground TRX/Chan Sow
Lin/Sg Besi Airfield
Kuchai Lama/Salak
South/PekanSg Besi
Serdang Raya/Seri
Kembangan/ Sri Serdang
Taman Universiti Indah,
Taman Equine, Putra Permai,
Cyberjaya, Putrajaya
Malay &
Other
Bumiput
era (%)
27.3
22.5
Chinese
(%)
Indians
(%)
Others
(%)
Non
Malaysian
(%)
Total
55.0
60.2
7.9
9.9
0.7
0.5
9.1
6.9
100.0
100.0
32.0
32.4
11.3
0.8
23.5
100.0
33.7
49.1
6.5
0.4
10.3
100.0
38.3
47.3
9.1
0.2
5.1
100.0
36.5
41.2
7.5
0.4
14.4
100.0
27.3
55.0
7.9
0.7
9.1
100.0
In terms of gender distribution, the average sex ratio of 108 males per 100 females
is higher than the universal gender ratio of 106 males per 100 females (Table 1-9).
In the northern corridor, there are more males than females and the sex ratio is
higher at 111 males per 100 females whereas in the underground corridor, the sex
ratio is lower at 103 males per 100 females, suggesting a stronger presence of
female population staying here. In the Southern 1 corridor and in the Southern 2
corridor, the sex ratio remains relatively high at 109 males per 100 females. In
Serdang Raya and Seri Kembangan, the sex ratio is observed to be similar to that
of Putrajaya extension corridor.
Table 1-9 : Distribution of Population by Sub-corridor and Gender, 2010
Sub-corridor
Kepong & Jinjang & Batu
Northern corridor
Underground Jalan Ipoh, Sentul, City Centre to TRX
Underground Chan Sow Lin/Sg Besi Airfield
Underground corridor
Serdang Raya/Sri Kembangan/Sri Serdang
Southern 1 corridor
Taman Universiti Indah, Taman Equine, Putra
Permai, Cyberjaya, Putrajaya
Southern 2 corridor
Total Impact Zone
Male (%)
Female (%)
Sex
Ratio
53.8
52.3
52.6
50.9
50.4
50.6
51.3
53.5
52.3
46.2
47.7
47.4
49.1
49.6
49.4
48.7
46.5
47.7
117
109
111
103
101
103
106
115
109
52.2
47.8
109
52.2
52.0
47.8
48.0
109
108
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-13
1.3.5
Age Composition
The population in the impact zone are relatively young. This is because a fifth of
them are below 14 years (Chart 1-4). The majority are also in the working age
group, aged between 15 years and 64 years (74%).
Chart1-4 : Impact Zone-Age Composition of Population by Corridor
At least three-quarters of the people staying in most corridors are in the working
age group except for the Underground and Southern 1 corridors where the
proportions are marginally lower (Chart 1-4). As a result, the proportion of elderly,
at 4% of total population, is relatively low in the impact zone. In fact, in the Southern
2 corridor, it is exceptionally low at 2%, suggesting that currently, a large proportion
of public sector retirees do not stay here in the corridor. As almost all corridors have
high proportions of working–age population ranging from 73% to 76% it does justify
having the MRT alignment passing through here because this group would be the
most likely beneficiary of having access to a comprehensive public transportation.
Chart 1-5 shows the distribution of population by age groups across the subcorridors. The age composition is almost similar although slight variations can be
observed across all sub-corridors in the impact zone. Serdang Jaya/Seri
Kembangan subcorridor has the highest proportion of working-age population
(78%). That of Sri Damansara/Menjarala is also the same. However, in Kuchai
Lama/ Salak South/Sg Besi sub-corridor, the share of the working age population is
the lowest at 72%. Here, the share of the elderly population is observed to be
higher at 5%. A similar observation is made for Kepong/Jinjang/Batu which has a
5% share of elderly population and a slightly smaller proportion of young people
aged below 14 years (20%).
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-14
Chart 1-5: Impact Zone -Age Composition of Population by Sub-corridor
With a large working-age group and low proportion of older and younger people, the
dependency ratios in these areas are found to be relatively low. The impact zone
itself has a low dependency ratio of 34% and a low median age of about 23 years,
indicating that the area has relatively young people (Table 1-10).
Table 1-10: Median Age of Population by Sub-corridor, 2010
0-14
%
15-64
%
65+
%
Dependency
Ratio
Median
Age
3,589
19
14,428
77
754
4
30.1%
24
Kepong & Jinjang
Underground
Jalan
Ipoh/Sentul/KLCC
/TRX
Underground
Chan Sow Lin/Sg
Besi Airfield
Kuchai
Lama/Salak
South/Pekan Sg
Besi
Serdang
Raya/Seri
Kembangan/Sri
Serdang
11,128
20
42,396
75
2,789
5
32.8%
24
8,846
23
28,201
73
1,717
4
37.5%
23
6,674
22
22,197
74
974
3
34.5%
22
19,550
23
60,903
72
4,217
5
39.0%
25
11,233
18
49,085
78
2,665
4
28.3%
22
Southern 2
7,204
23
23,808
75
527
2
32.5%
23
Impact Zone
63,584
21
221,060
74
12,428
4
34.0%
23
Sub-corridor
Sri Damansara &
Menjalara
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-15
1.3.6
Employment and Occupational Skills
The overall employment-population ratio in the impact zone is relatively high at
about 52%, indicating that more than half the population here are economically
productive (Table 1-11). The huge concentration of economically active population
in the impact zone would be significant for the MRT as its major target group is
likely to be the employed workers who need to access an efficient mode of
transportation.
Table 1-11: Economically Active Population by Sub-corridor, 2010
Population
Employment
EmploymentPopulation
Ratio (%)
18,771
9,790
52.2
Kepong & Jinjang
56,313
29,358
52.1
Sub-corridor
Underground Jalan Ipoh/Sentul/KLCC/TRX
38,764
19,549
50.4
Underground Chan Sow Lin/Sg Besi Airfield
29,845
15,627
52.4
84,670
43,380
51.2
62,983
30,893
49.0
Southern 2
31,539
18,920
60.0
Impact Zone
322,885
167,517
51.9
Source: Department of Statistics, Population & Housing Census 2010, “Special Request” (January/February 2015)
The distribution of employment by main economic sector shows that services
contribute significantly to employment in the impact zone. Almost 3/4 of employed
population are engaged in services (Table 1-12). Services are especially important
in the underground sub-corridor of from TRX-Jalan Chan Sow Lin (85.4%),
indicating that this area has successfully converted from manufacturing into
services. A similar pattern is found in Kuchai Lama/Salak South/Sg Besi (81%) and
in Southern 2 (78%). Manufacturing contributes around 12% of jobs among the
people in the impact zone. Industrial activities are limited in Kuala Lumpur, with
most of these being changed to service industries that are usually related to the
automotive industries. The sub-corridors that have relatively high proportion of
people engaged in manufacturing are in Sri Damansara and Bandar Menjalara
(18.6%); the underground sub-corridor of Jalan Ipoh/Sentul/KLCC/TRX (16%), and
Serdang Jaya/Seri Kembangan (13.7%). The manufacturing areas in the impact
zone are found in Sri Damansara, Kepong/Jinjang, upper Jalan Ipoh, west and
south of Jalan Chan Sow Lin, Kuchai Lama, Sg Besi and Seri Kembangan. Many of
these areas are small industrial areas, occupied mostly by small and medium
enterprises (SMEs), which are engaged in service-oriented industry such as car or
metal workshops.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-16
Table 1-12: Employment by Industry of Origin by Sub-corridor, 2010 (%)
Main Economic Sector (%)
Sub-segment
Agriculture,
forestry,
fisheries
Mining
Manufacturing
Construction
Services
1.8
1.0
18.6
11.4
67.2
0.3
0.1
12.4
17.7
69.5
Underground Jalan Ipoh,
Sentul, KLCC
0.1
0.3
16.0
18.9
64.8
Underground TRX, Jalan
Chan Sow Lin/Sg Besi
Airfield
0.1
0.1
9.4
5.1
85.4
Kuchai Lama/Salak
South/Pekan Sg Besi
0.1
0.3
7.7
10.9
81.1
0.3
0.2
13.7
14.3
71.5
0.5
0.2
11.8
9.9
77.6
0.3
0.2
11.9
13.0
74.6
Sri Damansara &
Menjalara
Serdang Raya/Seri
Kembangan/Sri Serdang
Southern Elevated
Segment 2
Impact Zone
The employed population is grouped by skill types, i.e.highly skilled, skilled, semiskilled and unskilled.2 The majority of employed persons in the impact zone (56%)
are semi-skilled workers (Table 1-13). A very small proportion is in the unskilled
category (8%). Most of the unskilled workers are found around Jalan Chan Sow Lin
(12.7%), and in Serdang Raya/Seri Kembangan (12.7%). The highly skilled made
up only 20.5% of the workforce in the impact zone; they are mostly in Kuala Lumpur
city centre, in Chan Sow Lin and in Kuchai Lama/Salak South/Sg Besi. Some of
these areas have contrasting combinations – a relatively high proportion of highly
skilled workers combined with relatively high proportions of unskilled workers,
indicating availability of a high diversity of occupations here. Combining the semiskilled and unskilled, more than two-thirds of the employed population (64.5%) in
the impact zone have low occupational skills (Table 1-13). It implies that in the
impact zone, there is a strong presence of people in the lower income group who
may be able to benefit most from having the MRT nearby.
2
Highly skilled refer to managers and professionals; Skilled refer to technicians and associate
professionals; Semi skilled refer to clerical support, sales and administrative, machine operators, etc.
Unskilled refer to elementary occupations
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-17
Table 1-13: Employment by Occupational Skill by Sub-corridor, 2010
Highly
Skilled (%)
Skilled
(%)
Semi- Skilled
(%)
Unskilled
(%)
Total
(%)
19.5
13.9
58.9
7.8
100.0
Underground Jalan Ipoh, Sentul,
KLCC, TRX
Underground Chan Sow Lin/Sg
Besi Airfield
Kuchai Lama/Salak South/Pekan
Sg Besi
Serdang Raya/Seri Kembangan
17.3
13.9
61.1
7.7
100.0
23.9
18.4
46.6
11.1
100.0
23.3
8.0
56.0
12.7
100.0
20.5
14.0
57.4
8.1
100.0
19.4
19.8
50.7
10.1
100.0
Putrajaya Extension
19.9
15.7
56.0
8.4
100.0
Impact Zone
20.3
15.2
55.3
9.2
100.0
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-18
2.
PERCEPTION SURVEY FINDINGS
The final distribution of the sample is summarised in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 gives a
more detailed breakdown of the sample in the impact zone by survey zone,
respondent type and proximity to the alignment of SSP LINE.
Table 2-2: Final Sample Distribution
Residential
Commercial & Industrial
Issue1.0/April 2015
Sample
1,060
440
%
70.7
29.3%
Within 20m
21m-400m
Sample
681
819
%
45.4%
54.6%
E-19
Table 2-2: Sample Distribution by Survey Zone, Respondent Type, and Proximity to Alignment
Survey
Zone
Residential
Commercial
& Industry
Within 20 m
Residential
Commercial
& Industry
21m -400 m
Impact Zone
Sri Damansara/Menjalara
1
73
25
98
97
25
122
220
Kepong/Jinjang
2
64
17
81
71
28
99
180
Description
Batu/Jalan Ipoh
3
27
18
45
33
22
55
100
Underground-Jalan Ipoh/KLCC
4
44
22
66
56
28
84
150
Underground-TRX-Chan Sow Lin-Sg Besi
Airfield
5
51
17
68
29
28
57
125
6
39
25
64
61
20
81
145
Serdang Jaya
7
32
13
45
68
17
85
130
Seri Kembangan/Sri Serdang
8
31
15
46
29
25
54
100
9
123
45
168
132
50
182
350
Impact Zone
484
197
681
576
243
819
1,500
(%)
71%
29%
45%
70%
30%
55%
100%
Equine/Putra Permai/
Cyberjaya/Putrajaya
Source: MRT2 Perception Survey December 2014/February 2015
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-20
2.1
SURVEY RESPONDENTS’ PROFILE
2.1.1
Ethnic Profile
The respondents’ profile across survey zone, as given in Table 2-3 shows the
ethnic composition of the surveyed respondents. The largest group are the
Malays/Other Bumiputera with a share of 48.3%, the Chinese at 34.1% and the
Indians and Others at 17.6%. The Malays/Other Bumiputera population are
predominantly in survey zone 5 and 6 while a larger Chinese majority is observed in
survey zone 2. In the remaining survey zones, the ethnic composition is relatively
balancedalthough in some zones, the Malays/Other Bumiputera form about half the
respondents surveyed. The Indian and Others are the minority group, contributing
about a quarter or less of the respondents in the perception survey.
Table 2-3: Ethnic Profile of Respondents by Survey Zone
Malay/Other
Bumiputera
Survey
Zone
Chinese
%
within
Zone
Indian & Others
Total
%
within
Zone
% within
Zone
1
2
111
43
50.5
23.9
56
108
25.5
60.0
53
29
24.1
16.1
220
180
%
within
Zone
100.0
100.0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
27
85
80
88
60
53
178
27.0
56.7
64.0
60.7
46.2
53.0
50.9
47
35
27
42
52
30
114
47.0
23.2
21.6
29.0
40.0
30.0
32.6
26
30
18
15
18
17
58
26.0
20.0
14.4
10.3
13.8
17.0
16.6
100
150
125
145
130
100
350
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Impact
Zone
725
48.3
511
34.1
264
17.6
1,500
100.0
The ethnic composition of respondents in terms of proximity to the alignment shows
that theMalays/Other Bumiputera have a slight majority with a share of 51% among
those within the 20m radius to the alignment/related structures. Outside of the 20m
radius, the ethnic distribution is more balanced, with the Malays/Other Bumiputera
contributing a share of 46%, the Chinese with a share of 36% and the
Indians/Others having a share of 18% (Table 2-4).
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-21
Table 2-4: Ethnic Profile of Respondents by Proximity to Alignment
< 20m
% within Radius
21m – 400m
% within Radius
Impact Zone
%
Malay/Other
Bumiputera
347
51.0
378
46.1
725
48.3
Chinese
Indian & Others
216
31.7
295
36.0
511
34.1
Total
118
17.3
146
17.9
264
17.6
681
100.0
819
100.0
1,500
100.0
2.1.2
Gender
The gender distribution among respondents is weighed heavily towards male
respondents who comprise 65% of respondents (Table 2-5). Females made up
35% of respondents.
Table 2-5: Gender Profile of Respondents by Survey Zone
Zone 1
% within Zone
Zone 2
% within Zone
Zone 3
% within Zone
Zone 4
% within Zone
Zone 5
% within Zone
Zone 6
% within Zone
Zone 7
% within Zone
Zone 8
% within Zone
Zone 9
% within Zone
Impact Zone
% within Zone
Male
136
61.8%
116
64.4%
57
57.0%
90
60.0%
86
68.8%
113
77.9%
88
67.7%
51
51.0%
232
66.3%
969
64.6%
Female
84
38.2%
64
35.6%
43
43.0%
60
40.0%
39
31.2%
32
22.1%
42
32.3%
49
49.0%
118
33.7%
531
35.4%
Total
220
100.0%
180
100.0%
100
100.0%
150
100.0%
125
100.0%
145
100.0%
130
100.0%
100
100.0%
350
100.0%
1,500
100.0%
2.1.3
Age Composition
More than 75% of the respondents are young, i.e. they are below 50 years (Chart
2-1). Among them, 57% are below 40 years. The older respondents form about
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-22
23% of respondents, with 8.5% above 60 years. The estimated mean age is 37
years, with the median age estimated at 38.5 years.
Chart 2-1: Age Profile of Respondents
2.1.4
Educational Attainment
The achieved educational level among respondents reflects and indicates, to some
extent, the distribution of skills and income levels among the respondents. Overall,
the respondents in the impact zone are relatively well-educated with more than 40%
holding certificate, diploma and degree (Table 2-6). Those with postgraduate
qualifications form a very small minority of less than 1.5%. In addition, only a very
small proportion have no formal education or have only primary school education
(8%). This indicates that most of the respondents are able to comprehend and
understand the questions posed in the perception survey.
Table 2.6: Level of Education of Respondents by Proximity to Alignment
Highest Education Level
Attained
20 metre
21m-400m
Impact Zone
Completed primary school only
4
50
%
0.6
7.3
2
67
0.2
8.2
6
117
0.4
7.8
Completed secondary school
329
48.3
397
48.5
726
48.4
Certificate/ Diploma/ Degree
Postgraduate Qualifications
288
10
42.3
1.5
343
10
41.9
1.2
631
20
42.1
1.3
Impact Zone
681
No formal education
%
819
%
1,500
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-23
2.1.5
Employment Status
Around 80% of the respondents are employed, of which 67.4% of them are
employees and the remaining are self-employed. Apart from these two large
groups, the remaining are retirees (6.9%), housewives (8.2%), students (1.7%) and
unemployed (0.6%) (Chart 2-2).
Chart 2-2: Employment Status of Respondents (%)
The distribution of respondents by their employment status across survey zones
shows that zone 1 and zone 7 have the highest concentration of employees, i.e.
68% and 63% respectively. The self-employed made up 27% in the impact zone. In
zones 2, 5 and 6, a third of the respondents are self-employed. In the other zones
(except for zone1), they comprise at least a fifth or a quarter of total respondents.
The remaining 20% comprises retirees, housewives, unemployed and students.
Retirees are mostly in zone 8 (13%) and zone 2 (11%). Housewives are mostly in
zone 3 (19%), zone 8 (12%) and zone 9 (9%).
2.1.6
Monthly Household Income Distribution
The mean monthly household income is estimated at RM5,266. The median
household income shows a lower estimate of RM3,530 a month. This is reflected in
the income distribution where 24% of the households earn between RM 3,000 a
month and RM 5,000 a month (Chart 2-3). About 58% earn below RM5,000 a
month; and 35% earn below RM3,000 a month. The proportion of poor families with
monthly income of less than RM2,000 is relatively high at 17%. These families
would likely use public transport and who are more likely to want a reasonable fare
for the MRT.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-24
Chart 2-3: Monthly Household Income Distribution of Respondents
2.1.7
Distribution of Tenure and Premise Types
The distribution of tenure indicates a larger proportion of tenanted premises
(48.1%) in contrast to owner-occupied (47.3%). (Chart 2-4). About 4.61% of the
premises have a different tenure, i.e. they are provided by employers.
The distribution of premise types in the impact zone comprises mostly residential
premises such as terrace houses (35.3%), apartments (15.3%), flats and quarters
(12.1%), and a small proportion of bungalows, townhouses and condominiums
(4.1%). Shophouses are common (23.9%) along the main roads where the
alignment runs (Chart 2-4). Some shophouses have apartments which are also
surveyed. Factories and showrooms’ share of surveyed premises is 5.2%.
Chart 2-4: Distribution of Tenure by Premise Type
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-25
Chart 2-5 shows the distribution of tenure by respondent type. Among residential
premises, the dominant tenure type is owner-occupied. For commercial premies,
the majority are tenanted. This raises a concern among commercial operators.
During the public engagements with various groups (residents and
commerial/industrial operators) for the DEIA, many respondents indicated that they
fear they would not be kept informed of the project because of their status as
tenants and they would not be compensated should they be affected by any
land/property acquisition by implementaton of the SSP Line. The situation is further
aggravated by the fact that many commercial operators have been staying in their
location for a long time (Chart 2-7).
Chart 2-5: Distribution of Tenure by Respondent Type
2.1.8
Length of Stay
The mean number of years is estimated at 10 years. However, about 12% of the
people here have been staying in the impact zone for more than 20 years (Chart 26). In short, the majority of people (58%), whether residents or businesses have
been in the impact zone for a long time. About 42% of them have shorter stay, ie. 5
years or less. Within the group with shorter stay, about 19% has been there for 2
years or less, and 23% are here for the duration of 3 years to 5 years. The length of
stay has implications on how they would react should the SSP Line cause
displacement. For those who have been here for a long time, any displacement or
relocation could pose adverse social and psychological impacts. This could explain
why participants in the public engagement are concerned of acquisition and
relocation. Chart 2-7 shows that 37.8% of residents have stayed here from 6 years
to 15 years; similarly 35.1% of commercial operators and half of the industrial
operators. It is also observed that 21.1% of residents, 15.3% of commercial
operators and 28.8% of industries have been staying here for longer than 15 years.
The estimated mean length of stay for residents is 11 years; for commercial
enterprises, it is 9 years, and for industrial operators, it is 14 years.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-26
Chart 2-6 : Length of Stay/Operation in the Impact Zone
Chart 2-7: Length of Stay/Operation by Respondent Type
2.1.9
Profile of Commercial and Industrial Activities
The range of non-residential activities in the impact zone indicates mostly retail
operations and manufacturing activities; with retail trade contributing more than half
of these activities in the 20m zone (Table 2-7). It remains relatively strong in the
area outside of the 20m zone with a share of 42%; more manufacturing activities
can be found here (22.3%).
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-27
Table 2-7: Non-Residential Activities in the Impact Zone
< 20 meter
Retail
Industry
Food
Transport
Workshop
Service
Finance
Institution
Hotel
Others
52.8
9.1
6.1
1.5
3.6
12.7
1.0
2.0
2.0
9.1
21 meter - 400
meter
42.5
22.3
6.9
0.4
4.0
7.7
1.6
1.2
0.8
12.6
Impact Zone
47.1
16.4
6.5
0.9
3.8
9.9
1.4
1.6
1.4
11.0
Where there are more manufacturing activities, the average number of workers
tend to be higher than the average 12 workers per firm for the impact zone. For
example, in areas around Jalan Ipoh (near to Segambut industrial area), the
average is 15 workers per firm; in Kuchai Lama, it is very high at 37 workers per
firm, and in Sg Besi, it is 12 workers per firm (Chart 2-8). A comparison of mean
number of workers per firm between the 20m zone and outside shows that a lower
mean of 11 workers per firm in the 20m zone and 13 workers per firm in the area
21m-400m.
Chart 2-8: Average Number of Workers per Commercial/Industrial Establishment by
Survey Zone
Business operations of the commercial and industrial firms provide an indication of
the intensity of activities in the impact zone at certain hours of a workday and
weekends (Chart 2-9 and 2-10). They could be useful for scheduling of certain
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-28
sensitive construction activities during implementation. On workdays, it is common
for most activities to run from 8 am to 5 pm (30.8%), there is a significant proportion
(38.2%) having different schedule in operating hours during weekdays as well as
during weekends. The various combinations of working hours grouped under
Others would pose a challenge in scheduling construction activities.
Chart 2-9: Business Operations of Commercial and Industrial Establishments
during Weekdays and Weekends in the Impact Zone
Business Operations during Weekdays
Business Operations during
Weekends
Chart 2-10: Business Operations of Commercial and Industrial
Establishments during by Proximity to Alignment
Busines Operations during Weekdays
Business Operations during
Weekends
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-29
2.1.10 Mode of Transport to Major Destinations and Travel Time
The observations on mode of transport provide a background on how people
staying in the impact zone travel, the mode of transport they frequently use and
their use of public transport. The latter is important for this study as it indicates the
extent to which people have turned to public transport in their daily commute.
The most common mode of transport is the car. Two-thirds of respondents rely on
cars (Chart 2-11) and use it frequently to carry out their daily chores such as travel
to work, send children to schools, shopping and entertainment as well as for other
activities such as going to the mosques and the hospitals (Chart 2-12). The
motorcycles is another popular mode – a fifth uses it, especially for work and other
activities.
Public transport as a group (including bus, taxi, KTMB, LRT, and monorai)
contributes only 7.2% of all modes, with bus being the more important among them
(Chart 2-11). In terms of use, it does not seem to play an important role especially
as a mode of transport for going to work (Chart 2-12).
Chart 2-11: Modes of Transport in Impact Zone
A good reason for this heavy usage of their own vehicles to carry out their common
daily travel is the estimated travel time to their destination. Despite the concerns
over traffic congestion, half (51.7%) of the respondents said that it took them from 5
to 15 minutes to reach their destinations (Chart 2-13). Another 34.6% said it that it
took up to 30 minutes to reach their destination. This means that most respondents
(86.3%) travel from 5 to 30 minutes to reach their destinations using mostly their
own vehicles, either cars or motorcycles. On the average, the estimated travel time
to their destinations is 19 minutes which may be relatively acceptable travel time for
most people. Using their own vehicles is considered more convenient as it takes
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-30
them directly to doorsteps of their destinations and back home, without having to
wait for a transport to arrive. Only about 13% took longer, up to 45 minutes/an hour
to reach their destinations. Less than 1% travel more than an hour to reach their
destinations.
Chart 2-12: Purpose of Travel in Impact Zone
Chart 2-13: Travel Time
2.1.11 Usage of Public Transport
Respondents in the impact zone were asked to indicate their use of public transport
in order to gauge the level of use at this point in time. The findings show that the
majority do not use public transport as a norm. Across all modes of public transport,
the use is occassional.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-31
On a daily basis, less than 10% use public transport in any form. The most frequent
is bus and even then, it is used by 7% of the respondents on a daily basis and it
scores the highest among all modes of public transport (Table 2-8). On a weekly or
monthly basis, usage continues to be low among respondents. Here, they may turn
more to KTMB or LRT but at once or twice a month, this is still low usage. Despite
the low usage, most of those who use public transport are satisfied with the
services, with LRT achieving almost 100% level of satisfaction, followed by the
monorail. The level of satisfaction is lower for bus (92%) and for KTMB (94%).A
comparison of use of different modes of public transport shows that users of bus,
taxi and KTMB are mostly those from zone 9, zone 1 and zone 2. LRT users are
mostly from zone 9, zone 6 and zone 4. Monorail users are mostly from zone 9,
zone 4 and zone 2 (Table 2-9).
Table 2-8: Type of Public Transport Used, Level of Satisfaction and Frequency
Bus
Taxi
KTMB
LRT
Monorail
% Usage
% Satisfied
Daily
1-2 times a
week
1-2 times a
month
Sometimes
41%
43%
37%
48%
17%
92%
95%
94%
99%
97%
6.4%
0.9%
1.8%
2.6%
1.2%
7.5%
6.4%
5.0%
8.0%
7.7%
11.9%
10.3%
16.7%
14.0%
11.7%
74.1%
82.4%
76.4%
75.3%
79.4%
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-32
Table 2-9: Use of Public Transport & Level of Satisfaction by Survey Zone
Bus
Zone 1
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 2
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 3
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 4
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 5
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 6
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 7
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 8
% satisfied
Column %
Zone 9
% satisfied
Column %
Use
109
17.8
85
13.8
63
10.3
58
9.4
44
7.2
37
6.0
22
3.6
46
7.5
150
24.4
Taxi
Satisfied
98
89.9
17.3
72
84.7
12.7
59
93.7
10.4
57
98.3
10.1
41
93.2
7.3
31
83.8
5.5
22
100.0
3.9
46
100.0
8.1
139
92.7
24.6
Use
95
14.6
78
12.0
54
8.3
68
10.4
73
11.2
49
7.5
46
7.1
35
5.4
154
23.6
KTMB
Satisfied
88
92.6
14.2
69
88.5
11.2
53
98.1
8.6
67
98.5
10.8
71
97.3
11.5
42
85.7
6.8
45
97.8
7.3
35
100.0
5.7
148
96.1
23.9
Use
111
19.9
78
14.0
45
8.1
56
10.1
20
3.6
36
6.5
42
7.5
37
6.6
132
23.7
LRT
Satisfied
106
95.5
20.3
71
91.0
13.6
44
97.8
8.4
53
94.6
10.2
19
95.0
3.6
33
91.7
6.3
41
97.6
7.9
36
97.3
6.9
119
90.2
22.8
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-33
Use
68
9.4
64
8.9
38
5.3
99
13.7
74
10.3
113
15.7
68
9.4
29
4.0
168
23.3
Monorail
Satisfied
68
100.0
9.5
63
98.4
8.8
38
100.0
5.3
97
98.0
13.6
74
100.0
10.3
112
99.1
15.7
68
100.0
9.5
29
100.0
4.1
166
98.8
23.2
Use
27
10.9
29
11.7
18
7.3
60
24.2
7
9.5
2.8
16
6.5
2
0.8
12
4.8
77
31.0
Satisfied
26
96.3
10.8
28
96.6
11.6
18
100.0
7.5
58
96.7
24.1
6
85.7
2.5
15
93.8
6.2
2
100.0
0.8
12
100.0
5.0
76
98.7
31.5
2.2
SATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD AND ITS ENVIRONMENT
2.2.1
Satisfaction with Overall Neighbourhood
The respondents’ satisfaction with their neighbourhood affects how they would
react to the presence of the proposed SSP Line, especially if it is to traverse
through their residential and commercial areas. Their satisfaction level is checked
against seven (7) neighbourhood parameters, i.e. (1) overall neighbourhood, (2)
location, (3) access to public transportation, (4) access to major roads or highways,
(5) safety and security of their neighbourhoods, (6) cleanliness of their
neighbourhoods, and (7) community cohesiveness.
In generally, respondents are satisfied with their neighbourhood (Table 2-10).
However, out of the 7 neighbourhood parameters assessed, the ones they found
the most satisfactory are location of neighbourhood (88%), access major roads and
highways (86%) and the overall neighbourhood (82%). The ones which scored
medium are community cohesiveness (76%) and cleanliness of neighbourhood
(74%). The lower ranked parameters are access to public transportation (68%) and
safety and security (67%).
Table 2-10: Level of Satisfaction with Overall Neighbourhood
Neighbour Parameter
Overall Neighbourhood (%)
Dissatisfied/Very
Satisfied/Very
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Overall neighbourhood
Location of neighbourhood
Access to public transportation
Access to major
roads/highways
Safety and security
Cleanliness of neighbourhood
1
1
15
20
12
15
79
87
70
4
8
5
12
25
23
84
66
72
Community cohesiveness
1
24
74
A scorecard analysis is used to obtain an overall satisfaction with the
neighbourhood by respondents in the impact zone. Weights are assigned to the
responses. They range from (1) for very dissatisfied; (2) for dissatisfied, (3) for
neutral, (4) for satisfied and (5) for very satisfied. For each survey zone, the
responses to each neighbourhood parameters are weighted and total scores
computed as shown in Table 2-11. The total scores on overall satisfaction with the
neighbourhood are checked against the possible maximum score that can be
obtained had respondents all agreed that their neighbourhood conditions are
excellent in all aspects. The results show that people are in the impact zone are
generally very satisfied with their neighbourhood.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-34
The average score is above 75% (76.6%); in most areas, the scores are relatively
high. The lowest is in zone 1 which is the Sri Damansara/Menjalara area with a
score of 73.8% that indicates dissatisfaction with cleanliness and poor access to
public transportation (Table 2-11). A comparison of rank scores in terms of
proximity to the alignment show that overall satisfaction with neighbourhood
remains relatively high at around 78% regardless of whether people stay near or far
from the alignment (Table 2-12).
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-35
Table 2-11: Level of Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Survey Zone
Survey
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Impact
Zone
Overall
neighbourh
ood
(a)
Location of
neighbourh
ood (b)
Access to
public
transportati
on (c)
858
728
372
598
487
574
479
391
1,415
858
739
377
598
483
588
516
410
1,452
778
697
398
579
431
575
511
345
1,155
Access to
major
roads/highwa
ys
(d)
845
738
404
604
494
588
512
404
1,373
5,902
6,021
5,469
5,962
Safety
and
security
(e)
Cleanliness
of
neighbourho
od (f)
Community
cohesiveness
(g)
Total
score
(h)
Max
Score
(i)
787
657
353
546
464
544
465
367
1,317
761
691
344
565
471
546
509
392
1,382
792
690
351
559
486
549
492
401
1,403
5,679
4,940
2,599
4,049
3,316
3,964
3,484
2,710
9,497
7,700
6,300
3,500
5,250
4,375
5,075
4,550
3,500
12,250
73.8%
78.4%
74.3%
77.1%
75.8%
78.1%
76.6%
77.4%
77.5%
5,500
5,661
5,723
40,238
52,500
76.6%
Notes: 1) Weights: Very dissatisfied (1); Dissatisfied (2); Neutral (3); Satisfied (4); Very satisfied (5)
2) Respondents: Zone 1(220); Zone 2 (180); Zone 3 (100); Zone 4 (150); Zone 5 (125); Zone 6 (145); Zone 7 (130); Zone 8 (100); Zone 9 (350). Total Respondents: 1,500
3) Total score for each zone: sum of weighted responses for each parameter
4) Maximum score for each zone: sum of maximum score for 7 parameters multiplied by total respondents in each zone
5) % rank score: column (h) divided by column (i)
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-36
% Rank
Score
(j)
Table 2-12: Level of Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Proximity to Alignment
20 m
21400m
Overall
neighbourh
ood
(a)
Location of
neighbourho
od (b)
Access to
public
transportatio
n (c)
Access to
major
roads/highw
ays
(d)
Safety
and
security
(e)
Cleanliness
of
neighbourh
ood (f)
Community
cohesivenes
s (g)
2,756
2,798
2,518
2,771
2,491
2,605
2,677
18,616
23,905
77.9%
3,273
3,321
2,949
3,282
3,036
3,145
3,160
22,166
28,595
77.5%
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-37
Total
score
(h)
Max
Score
(i)
% Rank
Score
2.2.2
Neighbourhood Environmental Issues and Level of Acceptance
Seven environmental issues commonly found in neighbourhood were listed and
respondents requested to indicate the existence of such issues in their respective
neighbourhoods as well as their level of acceptance. In general, the majority of
respondents do not encounter such issues in their neighbourhoods. Only 18%
indicated there are such neighbourhood environmental issues. The issue that most
identify as common is traffic congestion. More than half find that it is a problem
whereas only 20% complained of noise, 21% of air quality and dust, and 26%
complained of haphazard parking (Chart 2-14).
Chart 2-14: Environmental Issues in Neighbourhood
Despite facing these environmental issues, the respondents are generally tolerant
of them; either because they have learnt to accept them or that they believe nothing
could be done to tackle them. When probed, the response was that to find them
unacceptable would mean having to relocate and many do not want to do so.
From Chart 2-15, although 18% complained of environmental issues, only 4.3%
find them unacceptable. In the case of traffic congestion, 52% complained but only
5.1% find it unacceptable. Two areas that the public does appear to feel strongly
about is the issue of cleanliness and flash floods. In the former, 13% of residents
complained and 8.5% among them find such situation unacceptable. In the case of
flash floods, 4% of the respondents indicated this problem and 6.2% of them find it
intolerable.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-38
Chart 2-15: Level of Acceptance of Environmental Issues in Neighbourhood
Table 2-13: Environmental Issues by Survey Zone
Neighbourhood Issues
Survey Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Noise
28.2
21.1
24.0
22.7
28.8
21.4
20.8
14.0
10.3
Air & Dust
28.6
24.4
27.0
15.3
61.6
18.6
3.8
11.0
9.4
Traffic Congestion
56.8
47.2
54.0
62.0
73.6
33.1
56.9
41.0
49.7
Haphazard parking
44.5
33.9
51.0
24.7
16.0
29.7
13.8
21.0
12.3
Cleanliness
29.1
13.3
10.0
8.7
16.0
14.5
6.2
9.0
9.1
Flash Floods
4.5
6.7
1.0
8.0
5.6
4.1
0.0
15.0
0.6
17.3
14.4
23.0
1.3
5.6
10.3
0.2
3.0
1.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Privacy Loss (strangers loitering)
Others (industrial-smell)
From Table 2-13, the analysis by survey zone shows that in:
•
•
•
•
•
Zone 1, the three key environmental issues are traffic congestion, haphazard
parking, and lack of cleanliness.
In Zone 2, the three main issues are traffic congestion, haphazard parking and
air and dust pollution.
In Zone 3, the three main issues are traffic congestion, haphazard parking and
air and dust pollution.
In Zone 4, traffic congestion is a key issue, followed by a lower level of concern
over haphazard parking and noise pollution.
In Zone 5, the 3 main environmental concerns are traffic congestion, air and
dust pollution and noise pollution.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-39
•
•
•
•
In Zone 6, the three key concerns are traffic congestion, haphazard parking and
noise pollution.
In Zone 7, traffic congestion is identified as the key issue. Other areas of
concerns are noise pollution and haphazard parking.
In Zone 8, the three key issues are traffic congestion haphazard parking and
flash floods. Noise pollution is also identified as a major issue here.
In Zone 9, traffic congestion is identified as a key problem; other issues that
worry the public are haphazard parking and noise pollution.
A comparison between the group closer to the alignment and the one further
awayshowthey share two similar key concerns, i.e. (1) traffic congestion and (2)
haphazard parking. However, the group closer to the alignment is more worried
over noise pollution (22.4%) compared to the one further away (18.2%). In any
case, noise and air and dust pollution are issues that concern both groups (Chart 216).
Chart 2-16: Neighbourhood Environmental Issues by Proximity to Alignment
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-40
2.3
AWARENSS AND SUPPORT FOR SSP Line
2.3.1
Level of Awareness
Overall, the level of awareness about the SSP Line is observed to be low. Only
about half of respondents in the impact zone have over the past 6 months, read or
heard about the SSP Line. Across the survey zones, the level of awareness varies.
In some zones, the level of awareness is relatively poor. For example in Seri
Kembangan, slightly more than a third (34.4%) have heard of SSP Line; in
Kepong/Jinjang area, the proportion who has heard is also relatively low at 40%
(Table 2-14). In the Serdang Raya area (Zone 7), the awareness level is also
found to be relatively low at around 47%.
On whether respondents visited any website to read about SSP Line, the
awareness level is even lower as only 27.3% made the effort to read from any
website. It shows that while the SBK Line is under construction and it is likely
information on MRT or SSP Line could be on the MRT Corp website, yet few people
visit the website to find out more. A similar observation can also be seen from
Table 2-15 where about half of the respondents were not aware of the proposed
SSP Line prior to the perception survey. A comparison by zone and two groups that
is near and far from the alignment shows a relatively low level of awareness among
both groups (Table 2-16)
Table 2-14: Awareness of MRT by Survey Zone
Zone
Read/Heard of
SSP Line
% of
Total in
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
110
72
60
82
72
64
163
43
50.0
40.0
60.0
54.7
55.4
64.0
46.6
34.4
Visited any
website to
read about
MRT
57
55
50
57
8
41
117
15
9
Impact
Zone
94
64.8
760
50.7
% of Total
in Zone
Total in
Zone
25.9
30.6
50.0
38.0
6.2
41.0
33.4
12.0
220
180
100
150
130
100
350
125
9
6.2
145
409
27.3
1500
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-41
Table 2-15: Awareness of SSP Line by Proximity to Alignment
Heard of SSP Line prior to Survey
Yes
No
344
337
50.5%
49.5%
416
403
< 20m
% within Radius
21m-400m
% within Radius
50.8%
Total
681
100.0%
819
49.2%
100.0%
Total
760
740
% within Impact
50.7%
49.3%
Zone
1500
100.0%
Table 2-16: Awareness of SSP Line by Survey Zone and Proximity to Alignment
Zone
<
20m
1
53
2
24
3
28
4
33
5
36
6
28
7
81
8
17
9
45
Impa
ct
Zone
345
Read about the SSP Line
Total
21
in
Total
m21min
400
400
20m
%
m
m
54.
57
122
98
1
29.
48
99
81
6
62.
32
55
45
2
50.
49
84
66
0
80.
45
36
85
0
60.
36
54
46
9
48.
168
82
182
2
25.
68
26
57
0
70.
64
49
81
3
681
50.
7
415
819
Visited any Website to read about SSP Line
%
<
20
m
Tota
l
Near
% of
Close
Proximit
y
21m400
m
Tota
l
%
46.7
32
98
32.7
25
122
20.5
48.5
21
81
25.9
34
99
34.3
58.2
28
45
62.2
22
55
40.0
58.3
25
66
37.9
32
84
38.1
42.4
1
45
2.2
7
85
8.2
66.7
20
46
43.5
21
54
38.9
45.1
60
168
35.7
57
182
31.3
45.6
7
68
10.3
8
57
14.0
60.5
4
64
6.3
5
81
6.2
50.7
19
8
681
29.1
211
819
25.8
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-42
Among those who said they have heard about the MRT or SSP Line, knowledge
among them is scanty with less than 9% indicating that they know a lot or a fair bit
(8.4%). The majority (91.6%) have little or very little knowledge on the MRT (Table
2-17). In fact, a large number indicates that they know a little bit and a very small
proportion claims that they have no knowledge. A comparison between the extent
of awareness of the 2 groups who are near and further away shows similarities –
10% of those who are near and 9.7% of those further away claim they know a lot or
a fair (Table 2-17).
Table 2-17: Extent of Awareness of SSP Line by Proximity to Alignment and
Respondent Type
Proximity
A lot
< 20m
% within
Radius
% of Total
4
Extent of Awareness by Proximity
A fair
A little
Very little
amount
28
221
86
Not at all
Total
4
343
1.2%
8.2%
64.4%
25.1%
1.2%
100.0%
0.5%
3.7%
29.0%
11.3%
0.5%
45.0%
21m-400m
3
29
256
125
6
419
% within
Radius
% of Total
.7%
6.9%
61.1%
29.8%
1.4%
100.0%
0.4%
3.8%
33.6%
16.4%
0.8%
55.0%
7
0.9%
57
7.5%
477
62.6%
211
27.7%
10
1.3%
762
100.0%
Total
% within
Impact Zone
Respondent
Type
Extent of Awareness by Respondent Type
Total
Residential
6
A fair
amount
41
% within
Residents
1.1%
7.7%
63.0%
27.2%
.9%
100.0%
Commercial
& Industry
1
16
143
67
5
232
% within
Commercial
& Industry
0.4%
6.9%
61.6%
28.9%
2.2%
100.0%
A lot
A little
Very little
Not at all
334
144
5
530
For those who have not heard about the SSP Line, what they would like to know is
usually basic information about the project is shown in Table 2-18. What they want
to know most is the exact location of the stations and the alignment (44%) and
when construction would start and completion date (28%). The information they
want may be important for them to gauge and evaluate potential impact on them
from the project.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-43
Table 2-18: Information on SSP Line that Respondents want to know
Total
4
%
0.5
359
44.1
26
4.4
9
1.5
204
28.3
52
18
8.4
2.9
14
2.3
8
6
26
1.23
1.0
4.2
7
1.1
Is there any feeder bus provided by MRT
2
0.3
Want to know about compensation
Impact Zone
2
0.3
737
100.0
The numbers of railway coaches
The exact position of station and the alignment
The nearest station to my residence
Whether the new line is connected to the previous line
When to start and when it will be ready
Whether fares will increase compared to existing
Construction period is expected to be completed
Whether the premise will be taken for the construction of the MRT
Whether the roads in the affected area will be closed
How deep will be the underground tunnels
Other benefits of SSP Line to community
The frequency of trains within a day
2.3.2
Support for the SSP Line
Based on the show card of the alignment, respondents in the survey were given an
indication of the proposed alignment of SSP Line. They were then asked to indicate
their level of support for the proposed SSP Line. The results show a strong support
at 89% (Table 2-19) with about 7% taking a neutral stance. A small proportion of
4.4% does not support the SSP Line.
The proportion not in favour of the MRT varies by zone, with Zone 3 (Batu/Jalan
Ipoh) having the highest proportion of 10%, followed by Zone 7 (Serdang Raya/Seri
Kembangan) at 8%. For Zone 7, there is also a relatively high proportion (12%) of
people who adopt a neutral view of the SSP Line. A strong support for SSP Line
comes from Zone 5 (Jalan Chan Sow Lin/Sg Besi Airfield) and from Zone 9
(Putrajaya extension).
When the perceptions of the group nearer the proposed alignment and that of that
further away are compared, support for SSP Line remains relatively strong for both
group, with 88% of the group nearer to the alignment showing support and almost
90% of the group staying further away (Table 2.19). Often, these groups would
indicate their support based on the assumption that they would not be adversely
impacted by the MRT development. If they think they would be affected by
acquisition and relocation, their response could change towards being more
negative.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-44
Table 2-19: Support for the SSP Line
Total
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9
20 metre
21m-400m
Strongly/ Do not
Support (%)
Neutral (%)
Strongly/Support (%)
4.4
6.9
88.7
By Zone
4.1
4.5
4.4
8.9
10.0
9.0
4.0
6.0
0.0
1.6
6.2
11.0
3.8
8.5
8.0
12.0
3.1%
5.1
By Proximity to Alignment
5.3
3.7
7.0
6.7
91.4
86.7
78.2
90.0
98.4
82.8
87.7
80.0
91.7
87.7
89.6
2.3.3
Perceptions of Impacts on Individuals and their Families
Less than a fifth of the respondents believe they would or could be impacted upon
by the MRT development (Figure 2-17) and the remaining 82% think that they and
their families would not be affected. This explains why there is a strong support for
the SSP Line as most believe there will be minimal personal impacts on them.
Figure 2-17: Perceived Impacts on Individuals and their Families
Source: MRT2 Perception Survey
Decembe2014/February 2015
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-45
This positive perception permeates throughout all the survey zones as well as
between the groups that are near and further from the alignment. There are some
differences across survey zones, for example, in Zone 5 (Jalan Chan Sow Lin/Sg
Besi Airfield), and in Zone 7 (Serdang Jaya), the proportions who believe they
would not be impacted by SSP Line construction are higher than in other zones.
Between the groups who are near and further away from the alignment, the
proportion who believe they would not be affected is higher for the group who is
further away (84.5%) relative to the one nearer (78.4%).
Those who have indicated that they would be affected by the SSP Line were asked
to list two impacts (Table 2-20). Almost all impacts identified are negative with the
exception of two, i.e. an increase in sales due to proximity to MRT stations and
ease of movements. However, only a few indicate these two beneficial impacts. The
negative impacts dominate with the most worrying identified as traffic congestion
(Table 2-20). The next concern is noise. Noise is raised, especially by those who
are exposed to LRT operations, either near to their homes or to their workplaces.
Fears over traffic congestion continue to worry both groups who live near to the
alignment and further away. Both groups are also concerned over noise from the
SSP Line (Table 2-21). A comparison of among residential and
commercial/industrial groups shows that residents are more worried over traffic
congestion in contrast to commercial/industrial groups who also fear a loss of
business if the project takes too long to construct and a loss of customers as a
result of parking and traffic congestion (Table 2-22).
Table 2-5: Overall Perceived Impacts on Individuals and their Families
Type
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Type of Impact
Existing parking area will decrease with increasing number of vehicle during
MRT operation
Safety of children is affected if MRT is close to home
Difficulties for outdoor leisure activities if construction works being carried
out
Dusty conditions will affect health, especially children and elderly
Cracks to houses during construction
Roads will be damaged
Negative
Traffic congestion will worsen
Negative
Loss of business if the project construction is too long
Negative
Loss of customers due to parking problem and traffic congestion
Negative
Noise
Negative
Safety of people and property could be compromised
Negative
Rental rates will increase
Negative
Forced to move, difficulty getting home near the workplace
Positive
Sales increase when businesses are near to the MRT station
Positive
Easy to get to work/ other places
Impact Zone (%)
Impact
Zone%
3.9
2.6
1.9
6.8
1.9
1.0
42.9
8.4
9.0
11.9
5.8
0.3
1.9
1.0
0.6
100.0
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-46
Table 2-6: Perceived Impacts on Individuals and their Families by Proximity to
Alignment
Impact
20m %
21m-400m
%
Existing parking area will decrease with increasing number of
vehicle during MRT operation
4.7
2.9
Safety of children is affected if MRT is close to home
Difficulties for outdoor leisure activities if construction works
being carried out
2.3
2.9
2.3
1.4
7.6
5.8
Cracks to houses during construction
1.2
2.9
0
2.2
Traffic congestion will worsen
42.7
43.2
7.6
9.4
Roads will be damaged
Loss of customers due to parking problem and traffic congestion
8.8
9.4
Noise
12.3
11.5
5.8
5.8
0.6
0
2.9
0.7
Sales increase when businesses are near to the MRT station
0.6
1.4
0.6
0.7
100.0
100.0
Impact Zone
Table 2-7: Perceived Impacts on Individuals and Families by Respondent Type
Impact
Existing parking area will decrease with increasing number of
vehicle during MRT operation
Safety of children if it is close to home
Residential
(%)
Commercial
(%)
4.1
4.0
3.7
-
2.8
-
Difficulties for leisure activities due to construction work
Dusty conditions will affect health, especially children and
elderly
Fractures to the house during construction
7.4
6.0
2.3
0.7
The roads will surely damaged
1.4
-
Traffic congestion will get worse
43.3
28.5
3.7
21.9
Loss of customers due to parking and traffic problems
Noise
6.9
26.5
16.1
4.0
5.5
4.0
-
0.7
2.3
0.7
Sales increase when close to the MRT station
0.5
2.0
-
1.3
100.0
100.0
Impact Zone
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-47
2.4
PERCEIVED POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM MRT
2.4.1
Perceived Positive Impacts
Nine benefits were identified and respondents were asked to rank them in order of
importance to them. The first four are commonly known. They include savings in
travel expenses; savings in travel time; quick and convenient mode of transport;
and reduction in traffic congestion. The rankings of respondents are weighted, with
higher weights assigned to the higher rankings. The results are given in Table 2-23.
The mean benefit scores are estimated.
Based on the estimated mean benefit scores, the four main benefits are also those
that are commonly associated with an efficient public transport. According to
respondents, the key benefits are (1) reduced travel time (7.2); (2) quick and
convenient mode of transport; (3) savings in travel expenses (7.1); and reduction in
traffic congestion (6.6). Other benefits associated with improvement in air quality
and accidents’ risks do not score highly, with mean scores falling within the range of
4.2 and 4.4. Two economic benefits often associated with public infrastructure
development such as an LRT or an MRT being a growth catalyst and enhancing
property values do not stand out as important among respondents in the impact
zone. Their mean scores fall below the overall mean of 5.0.
Although the 4 key benefits are similarly identified for all survey zones, there are
variations in rankings across survey zones where in some zones such as zones 1,
2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, more people identify savings in travel expenses as an important
benefit, in zones 9, 10 and 11, they are not as important as savings in travel time
and reduction in traffic congestion (Table 2-24). When the perceptions on benefits
of the two groups near and further away from the alignment are compared, their
mean benefit scores are similar with both groups emphasizing the benefit of
reduced travel time and quick easy transport mode as more important than other
benefits (Table 2-25).
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-48
Mean
Score
Total
Scores
Table 2-8: Total Rank Scores and Mean Benefit Scores in Impact Zone
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Weights
Saves travel cost, both in terms
of toll and petrol expenses
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
4,590
1,680
1,750
1,476
575
512
45
26
13
10,667
7.1
Shortens travel time
Quick, easy and convenient
mode of transport
2,457
3,520
2,793
1,290
430
196
57
30
4
10,777
7.2
2,448
3,520
2,779
1,272
450
156
72
36
8
10,741
7.2
Reduces traffic congestion
Reduces air pollution in the
neighbourhood
2,799
1,928
1,491
2,106
1,000
344
186
48
12
9,914
6.6
288
192
700
984
1,710
1,232
768
176
186
6,236
4.2
180
352
371
876
2,185
1,672
627
224
61
6,548
4.4
594
344
357
780
700
1,152
1,023
484
199
5,633
3.8
54
48
98
108
285
484
1,095
1,210
308
3,690
2.5
81
416
154
96
205
252
630
764
705
3,303
2.2
13,491
12,000
10,493
8,988
7,540
6,000
4,503
2,998
1,496
67,509
5.0
Reduces risks of road accidents
Improves mobility i.e. easier
travel within Klang Valley
Creates new pockets of growth
Enhances the market value of
properties within the vicinity of
stations
Total Scores
Note: Weights were assigned to the rank, with value of 9 to Rank 1 and descending value to subsequent ranking
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-49
Table 2-9: Mean Benefit Scores by Survey Zone
Survey Zone
Saves travel cost, both in terms of toll and petrol expenses
Quick, easy and convenient mode of transport
Reduces air pollution in the neighbourhood
Improves mobility i.e. easier travel within Klang Valley
Enhances the market value of properties within the vicinity of
stations
Mean Benefit Score
1
7.6
7.0
6.7
6.3
3.7
4.6
4.0
2.5
2
7.9
7.3
6.9
5.9
4.0
4.2
3.8
2.5
3
7.9
7.2
6.9
6.3
4.4
4.1
3.6
2.2
Mean Benefit Score
4
5
6
7.8
5.6
5.7
7.3
7.5
6.8
7.1
7.3
7.2
6.0
7.8
7.1
4.2
3.7
4.8
4.1
4.6
4.7
3.7
4.7
4.5
2.6
1.9
2.6
7
5.1
7.3
7.8
7.5
4.1
4.8
4.1
2.4
8
7.4
7.3
7.7
6.8
4.8
4.2
2.7
2.3
7.7
7.2
7.3
6.5
4.2
4.2
3.2
2.6
2.8
5.0
2.6
5.0
2.4
5.0
2.3
5.0
1.8
5.0
1.8
5.0
2.1
4.9
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-50
1.9
5.0
1.8
4.9
9
Table 2-10: Mean Benefit Scores by Proximity to Alignment
Mean Benefit Scores
20m
21m400m
Improves mobility i.e. easier travel within Klang Valley
Enhances the market value of properties within the vicinity of stations
Mean benefit score
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.6
4.1
4.3
3.9
2.5
2.1
5.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
6.6
4.2
4.4
3.7
2.4
2.2
5.0
2.4.2
Perceived Negative Impacts during Construction
Respondents have perceived concerns over the SSP Line during its construction.
These concerns could stem from what they have read, heard, seen from the
present operations of the LRT and the ongoing construction activities of the SBK
Line. Although these are perceived concerns and the reality could be different but
for many, some of these concerns are especially worrying during construction.
The overall feedback is that 65% of them believe these negative impacts are
important to them during construction (Table 2-26). Top of the perceived negative
impact during construction is safety and security (90.3%). This perception could be
influenced by recent incidents on worksites of existing construction. The second
most important negative impact is traffic congestion (88.7%). Again, this perception
could be influenced by experiences with ongoing existing construction works on the
LRT and MRT. Other major negative impacts are dust and air pollution (84.3%),
vibrations and cracks (83.1%), and noise (74.8%). The impacts that have lower
priority are loss of aesthetics/vista (28%), and loss of business income (47.5%).
Around 61% of respondents believe acquisition of properties and relocation issues
is important during construction, with 10% believing it is not important. This differs
considerably from the feedback during stakeholders’ engagement where the topic
of acquisition frequently emerged as a problem.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-51
Table 2-11: Perceived Negative Impacts during Construction
Rank
Very important/
Important
Neutral
Very
Unimportant/
Unimportant
Total
Safety and security
1
90.3
0.1
2.3
92.6
Traffic congestion
2
88.7
0.1
2.1
90.8
Dust and air pollution
3
84.3
0.1
3.1
87.6
Vibration and cracks
4
83.1
0.1
3.0
86.2
Noise
5
74.8
0.1
3.2
78.1
Parking problems
6
74.1
0.2
3.3
77.6
Disruptions to utilities
7
67.6
0.2
3.3
71.1
8
63.6
0.2
5.1
68.9
9
63.1
0.2
6.8
70.1
Loss of privacy
Acquisition of properties
and relocation issues
Reduction of property
value
10
61.7
0.2
10.2
72.2
11
60.8
0.2
10.4
71.4
12
56.6
0.2
9.5
66.3
Flash floods
13
52.2
0.2
18.2
70.6
Loss of business income
14
47.5
0.3
22.3
70.1
Loss of aesthetics/ vista
15
28.0
0.4
22.0
50.4
65.1
0.2
8.6
74.0
Impact Zone
Close proximity to
worksites
Public inconveniences
Impact Zone
The negative impacts during construction are also analyzed here by survey zone
(Table 2-27) and Proximity to Alignment (Table 2-28). Across the survey zone,
safety and security and traffic congestion are frequently identified as key negative
impacts during construction. Also important are worries over vibrations and cracks
and dust and air pollution. Among the top 5 negative impacts, noise is frequently
placed last among them.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-52
Table 2-12: Perceived Negative Impacts during Construction by Survey Zone
Zone 1
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic
congestion
Safety and
security
Loss of
aesthetics/ vista
Parking
problems
Loss of privacy
Acquisition of
properties and
relocation
Loss of
business
income
Disruptions to
utilities
Close proximity
to worksites
Flash floods
Public
inconveniences
Reduction of
property value
Zones 1 & 2
Zone 2
Neutral
Very
Unimportant/
Unimportant
Very
Important/
Important
Neutra
l
81.7 [3]
16.1
2.2
81.7 [5]
16.1
Very
Unimportan
t/
Unimportan
t
2.2
74.1
18.2
7.7
80.6
17.8
1.7
80.0 [4]
11.8
8.2
83.3 [4]
15.6
1.1
89.1 [1]
5.9
5.0
91.1 [1]
7.8
1.1
82.3 [2]
13.2
4.5
87.2 [2]
11.7
1.1
30.9
45.5
23.6
37.2
46.1
16.7
76.4 [5]
17.7
5.9
84.4 [3]
13.9
1.7
55.9
29.5
14.5
66.7
28.3
5.0
68.9
24.4
6.7
68.9
24.4
6.7
33.2
40.0
26.8
53.3
24.4
22.2
65.9
27.7
6.4
71.7
26.7
1.7
59.5
31.8
8.6
73.3
26.1
0.6
55.5
25.5
19.1
63.9
27.2
8.9
59.5
28.2
12.3
74.4
23.9
1.7
49.5
34.5
15.9
64.4
28.9
6.7
63.9
24.8
11.3
72.1
22.6
5.3
Very
Important/
Important
Zone 3
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic
congestion
Safety and
security
Loss of
aesthetics/ vista
Parking
problems
Loss of privacy
Issue1.0/April 2015
Zone 4
Neutral
Very
unimportant
/Unimportant
Very
important/
Important
Neutra
l
88.0 [5]
12.0
0.0
83.3 [5]
13.3
Very
unimportan
t/
Unimportan
t
3.3
94.0 [4]
6.0
0.0
85.3 [4]
12.0
2.7
95.0 [2]
5.0
0.0
88.0 [2]
8.7
3.3
96.0 [1]
4.0
0.0
91.3 [1]
6.7
2.0
95.0 [3]
4.0
1.0
87.3 [3]
10.0
2.7
35.0
53.0
12.0
29.3
49.3
21.3
80.0
18.0
2.0
70.0
24.0
6.0
80.0
19.0
1.0
49.3
38.0
12.7
Very
important/
Important
E-53
Acquisition of
properties and
relocation
Loss of
business
income
Disruptions to
utilities
Close proximity
to worksites
67.0
30.0
3.0
55.3
35.3
9.3
60.0
19.0
21.0
45.3
30.0
24.7
63.0
34.0
3.0
72.7
21.3
6.0
68.0
27.0
5.0
65.3
27.3
7.3
Zone 3
Zone 4
Very
important/
Important
Neutral
Very
unimportant
/Unimportan
t
57.0
26.0
17.0
58.7
27.3
14.0
79.0
20.0
1.0
72.0
24.0
4.0
77.0
20.0
3.0
50.7
35.3
14.0
75.6
19.8
4.6
66.9
24.2
8.9
Flash floods
Public
inconvenience
s
Reduction of
property value
Zones 3 & 4
Very
important/
Important
Neutr
al
Very
unimportant/
Unimportant
Zone 5
Zone 6
Very
important/
Important
Neutral
Very
unimportant
/Unimportan
t
55.2 [5]
44.8
0.0
61.4
33.1
5.5
76.8 [1]
23.2
0.0
80.7 [4]
14.5
4.8
73.6 [2]
26.4
0.0
81.4 [3]
14.5
4.1
65.6 [3]
32.8
1.6
87.6 [2]
9.7
2.8
43.2
55.2
1.6
91.7 [1]
6.2
2.1
4.0
55.2
40.8
24.1
48.3
27.6
59.2 [4]
39.2
1.6
71.0 [5]
26.2
2.8
23.2
52.8
24.0
61.4
26.9
11.7
30.4
34.4
35.2
60.0
29.7
10.3
38.4
20.0
41.6
51.7
33.1
15.2
25.6
71.2
3.2
69.7
26.2
4.1
22.4
70.4
7.2
62.1
29.0
9.0
20.8
70.4
8.8
44.1
31.7
24.1
19.2
73.6
7.2
53.1
31.0
15.9
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic
congestion
Safety and
security
Loss of
aesthetics/
vista
Parking
problems
Loss of
privacy
Acquisition of
properties and
relocation
Loss of
business
income
Disruptions to
utilities
Close
proximity to
worksites
Flash floods
Public
Issue1.0/April 2015
Very
important/
Important
Neutr
al
Very
unimportant/
Unimportant
E-54
inconvenience
s
Reduction of
property value
Zones 5 & 6
28.0
67.2
4.8
44.1
40.7
15.2
39.0
49.1
11.8
62.9
26.7
10.3
Zone 7
Zone 8
Very
important/
Important
Neutr
al
53.1 [5]
45.4
Very
unimportan
t/
Unimportan
t
1.5
80.8 [3]
17.7
78.5 [4]
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic
congestion
Safety and
security
Loss of
aesthetics/
vista
Parking
problems
Loss of
privacy
Acquisition of
properties and
relocation
Loss of
business
income
Very
important/
Important
Neutra
l
91.0 [5]
9.0
Very
unimportan
t/
Unimportan
t
-
1.5
93.0 [4]
7.0
-
19.2
2.3
98.0[3]
2.0
-
86.9 [1]
10.8
2.3
98.0 [2]
2.0
-
81.5 [2]
15.4
3.1
98.0 [1]
2.0
-
5.4
67.7
26.9
34.0
50.0
16.0
61.5
33.8
4.6
81.0
19.0
-
44.6
32.3
23.1
86.0
14.0
-
51.5
29.2
19.2
81.0
19.0
-
48.5
30.8
20.8
49.0
41.0
10.0
50.8
48.5
0.8
87.0
12.0
1.0
36.2
57.7
6.2
85.0
14.0
1.0
37.7
46.2
16.2
51.0
17.0
32.0
31.5
50.8
17.7
81.0
18.0
1.0
32.3
50.0
17.7
76.0
22.0
2.0
52.1
37.0
10.9
16.5
4.2
Disruptions to
utilities
Close proximity
to worksites
Flash floods
Public
inconveniences
Reduction of
property value
Zones 7 & 8
79.3
Zone 9
Very Important/
Important
Neutral
Noise
82.9 [5]
13.7
3.4
87.1 [4]
9.4
3.4
Traffic congestion
98.0 [1]
90.6 [2]
2.0
7.7
1.7
Safety and security
90.3 [3]
7.4
2.3
35.7
46.6
17.7
Issue1.0/April 2015
Very Unimportant/
Unimportant
E-55
Parking problems
76.9
20.3
2.9
Loss of privacy
76.3
19.4
4.3
Acquisition of properties and
relocation issues
69.1
26.9
4.0
51.7
29.4
18.9
Close proximity to worksites
80.6
78.6
17.1
18.6
2.3
2.9
Flash floods
60.3
17.4
22.3
77.4
20.0
2.6
Reduction of property value
72.6
22.3
5.1
Zone 9
74.1
19.4
6.6
Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate ranking. Source: MRT2 Perception Survey December 2014/February 2015
The five major negative impacts during construction are summarized as follows:
• In zone 1, traffic congestion is the most important negative impact, followed by
safety and security, noise, dust and air pollution and parking problems;
• In zone 2, the most important concern is traffic congestion, followed by safety
and security, parking problems, dust and air pollution and noise;
• In zone 3, the most important negative impact is traffic congestion, with dust
and air pollution and safety and security sharing equal importance. The others
are vibrations and cracks, and noise;
• In zone 4, traffic congestion is identified as the most important negative impact,
followed by dust and air pollution, safety and security, vibrations and cracks and
noise.
• In zone 5, vibrations and noise is identified as the most important negative
impact, followed by dust and air pollution. Traffic congestion is ranked third, with
parking problems in fourth place and noise is ranked fifth. In this zone, the
incidence of neutrality is relatively high.
• In zone 6, the negative impacts are safety and security, traffic congestion, dust
and air pollution, vibrations and cracks, and parking problems.
• In zone 7, the key concern is traffic congestion, followed by safety and security,
vibrations and cracks, dust and air pollution, and noise.
• In zone 8, safety and security, traffic congestion and dust and air pollution are
ranked equally as important. The other negative impacts are vibrations and
cracks and noise.
• In zone 9, dust and air pollution is perceived to be very important, followed by
traffic congestion, safety and security, vibrations and cracks and noise.
The comparison between the two groups near and further from the alignment
indicates similarity in perceptions on the negative impacts during construction of the
MRT. Both groups identified traffic congestion as a key concern, followed by safety
and security. Third rank is concerns over dust and air pollution. In fourth place is the
fear over vibration and cracks and lastly noise. Concern over acquisition of
properties and relocation is higher for the group nearer to the alignment (71.9%)
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-56
compared to the level of concern for the group further away (66.2%). The group
which is near is also very concerned over public inconveniences generated from the
MRT construction (80.1%) whereas only 74.2% of the group further away shares
this concern.
Table 2-28: Perceived Negative Impacts during Construction by Proximity to
Alignment
<20 metre
Very
important/
Important
Neutral
21m-400m
Very
unimportan
t/Unimporta
nt
Very
important/
Important
Neutra
l
Very
unimportan
t/Unimporta
nt
Noise
85.1 [5]
12.0
2.9
83.0 [5]
13.6
3.4
87.3 [4]
10.0
2.8
86.5 [4]
10.2
3.3
89.5 [3]
7.8
2.8
87.8 [3]
8.9
3.3
Traffic congestion
91.7 [1]
6.7
1.6
93.4 [1]
Safety and security
89.6 [2]
8.3
2.0
91.1 [2]
Loss of aesthetics/
41.7
42.2
16.1
34.0
vista
Parking problems
82.0
15.7
2.3
78.0
Loss of privacy
75.8
19.3
4.8
68.8
Acquisition of
properties and
71.9
22.3
5.9
66.2
relocation issues
Loss of business
48.6
28.8
22.5
44.9
income
79.5
18.2
2.3
76.6
Close proximity to
78.5
18.3
3.2
72.2
worksites
Flash floods
64.4
17.7
17.9
55.9
80.1
17.4
2.5
74.2
Reduction of property
71.4
22.4
6.1
63.9
value
Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate ranking
4.5
6.9
2.1
2.1
45.5
20.4
18.2
24.4
3.8
6.9
27.1
6.7
28.9
26.2
19.6
3.8
23.1
4.7
20.1
21.3
24.0
4.5
26.7
9.4
2.4.3
Perceived Negative Impacts from MRT Operations
The five major negative impacts identified by respondents during the operations of
the SSP Line (Table 2-29) are (1) inadequate parking at stations (84.9%); (2) safety
and security (82.9%); and (3) vibration and cracks (80.6%); (4) dust and air
pollution (80.6%), and (5) inadequate or poor feeder bus services. Both vibrations
and cracks and dust and air pollution have equal scores. Their identification as two
major negative impacts related to the operations of the rail line indicates to a certain
extent a lack of information and comprehension on how the rail functions and its
impacts during operations. It suggests a need for dissemination of such information
to the public to raise better awareness.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-57
Table 2-29: Perceived Negative Impacts of MRT Operations
Very
Important/
Important
(%)
Neutral (%)
Very
Unimportant/
Unimportant (%)
Inadequate parking at stations [1]
84.9
12.4
2.7
Safety and security [2]
82.9
14.3
2.7
Vibration and cracks [3]
80.6
15.7
3.7
Inadequate parking at stations [1]
84.9
12.4
2.7
Safety and security [2]
82.9
14.3
2.7
Vibration and cracks [3]
80.6
15.7
3.7
Dust and air pollution [4]
80.6
15.5
3.9
Inadequate or poor feeder bus services [5]
77.2
18.7
4.1
Traffic congestion [6]
75.1
17.5
7.4
Noise [7]
74.5
21.9
3.6
Parking problems near stations [8]
74.5
22.0
3.5
Loss of privacy [9]
58.8
30.8
10.4
Loss of property values due to close proximity to
MRT Line [10]
52.9
33.3
13.7
Impact Zone
Across survey zones, respondents perceived negative impacts from MRT
operations as important or very important. In zone 1, 70.2% found them
important/very important; in zone 2, 71.4% have similar observations (Table 2-30).
In zone 3, the proportion is much higher at 78.4% and in zone 4, it is 68.5%. In
zone 5, the proportion that perceived to be important or very important is much
lower at 46.2%, with 37.9% adopting a neutral stance while in zone 6, the
proportion is 69%. In zone 7, 82.3% perceived the negative impacts to be important
or very important while in zone 8, it is also high at 82.3%, and in zone 9, it is 74.9%.
Overall, traffic congestion and inadequate parking or parking problems at stations
are uppermost in their minds when they consider possible negative impacts from
MRT operations. Another major concern is safety and security from its operations.
These perceived negative impacts would have to be addressed through
engagements and communications that focus more on technical aspects that
previously deemed necessary.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-58
Table 2-30: Perceived Negative Impacts of MRT Operations by Survey Zone
Zone 1
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic congestion
Safety and security
Loss of aesthetics/
vista
Parking problems
near stations
Loss of privacy
Loss of business
income
Loss of property
values due to
close proximity to
MRT Line
Inadequate
parking at
stations
Inadequate or
poor feeder bus
services
Zones 1 & 2
Very
important
/
Important
(%)
Neutra
l (%)
71.8
Zone 2
Very
unimportan
t/Unimport
ant (%)
Very
important
/
Important
(%)
Neutra
l (%)
Very
unimportan
t/Unimport
ant (%)
20.5
7.7
70.0
28.3
1.7
76.4
15.9
7.7
77.8
21.1
1.1
80.5 [5]
10.5
9.1
78.9 [5]
19.4
1.7
85.0 [2]
9.1
5.9
85.6 [1]
13.3
1.1
83.2 [4]
10.9
5.9
81.7 [4]
17.2
1.1
40.0
39.1
20.9
45.0
39.4
15.6
85.0 [3]
11.4
3.6
81.7 [3]
17.2
1.1
57.3
29.5
13.2
70.6
25.6
3.9
40.5
34.1
25.5
48.3
33.3
18.3
57.3
28.6
14.1
66.7
27.8
5.6
89.5 [1]
7.3
3.2
83.3 [2]
16.1
0.6
76.4
20.5
3.2
67.8
25.6
6.7
70.2
19.8
10.0
71.4
23.7
4.9
Zone 3
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic
congestion
Safety and
security
Loss of
aesthetics/ vista
Parking
Issue1.0/April 2015
Zone 4
Very
important
/Importan
t (%)
Neutra
l (%)
Very
unimportant
/Unimporta
nt (%)
85.0 [5]
13.0
2.0
Very
important
/
Important
(%)
79.3 [5]
90.0 [4]
8.0
2.0
91.0 [3]
7.0
94.0 [1]
Neutra
l (%)
Very
unimportan
t/Unimporta
nt (%)
16.7
4.0
82.0 [4]
14.0
4.0
2.0
87.3 [2]
9.3
3.3
4.0
2.0
92.0 [1]
4.7
3.3
93.0 [2]
5.0
2.0
84.0 [3]
12.0
4.0
43.0
46.0
11.0
32.0
48.7
19.3
84.0
15.0
1.0
74.7
20.0
5.3
E-59
problems near
stations
Loss of privacy
Loss of business
income
Loss of property
values due to
close proximity to
MRT Line
Inadequate
parking at
stations
Inadequate or
poor feeder bus
services
Zones3 & 4
80.0
17.0
3.0
48.7
38.0
13.3
60.0
20.0
20.0
45.3
34.0
20.7
62.0
33.0
5.0
50.7
30.7
18.7
77.0
20.0
3.0
74.7
16.0
9.3
82.0
15.0
3.0
71.3
20.7
8.0
78.4
16.9
4.7
68.5
22.1
9.4
Zone 5
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic congestion
Safety and security
Loss of aesthetics/
vista
Parking problems
near stations
Loss of privacy
Loss of business
income
Loss of property
values due to close
proximity to MRT
Line
Inadequate parking
at stations
Inadequate or poor
feeder bus services
Zones 5 & 6
Neutral
(%)
Very
unimport
ant/Unim
portant
(%)
Very
important
/Importan
t (%)
Neutra
l (%)
Very
unimportan
t/Unimport
ant (%)
46.4
52.8
0.8
78.6
15.2
6.2
60.0 [4]
40.0
-
81.4 [4]
11.7
6.9
56.8 [5]
42.4
0.8
75.2
17.9
6.9
48.0
51.2
0.8
86.9 [2]
8.3
4.8
38.4
59.2
2.4
91.0 [1]
5.5
3.4
10.4
43.2
46.4
44.1
26.9
29.0
60.8 [3]
35.2
4.0
56.6
33.8
9.7
10.4
43.2
46.4
57.2
29.7
13.1
42.4
16.0
41.6
46.2
35.9
17.9
20.0
32.0
48.0
46.9
40.0
13.1
80.8 [1]
19.2
-
83.4 [3]
11.7
4.8
80.0 [2]
20.0
-
80.7 [5]
15.2
4.1
46.2
37.9
15.9
69.0
21.0
10.0
Very
important/
Important
(%)
Zone 7
Issue1.0/April 2015
Zone 6
Zone 8
E-60
Very
important/
Important
(%)
Neutral
(%)
92.0
8.0
Very
unimport
ant/Unim
portant
(%)
0.0
94.0 [5]
6.0
Very
important
/Importan
t (%)
Neutra
l (%)
Very
unimportan
t/Unimport
ant (%)
92.0
8.0
-
0.0
94.0 [5]
6.0
-
Noise
Vibration and
cracks
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic congestion
97.0 [3]
3.0
0.0
97.0 [3]
3.0
-
98.0 [1]
2.0
0.0
98.0 [1]
2.0
-
Safety and security
97.0 [2]
3.0
0.0
97.0 [2]
3.0
-
47.0
48.0
5.0
47.0
48.0
5.0
86.0
14.0
0.0
86.0
14.0
-
79.0
21.0
0.0
79.0
21.0
-
49.0
38.0
13.0
49.0
38.0
13.0
68.0
32.0
0.0
68.0
32.0
-
96.0 [4]
4.0
0.0
96.0 [4]
4.0
-
85.0
15.0
0.0
85.0
15.0
-
82.3
16.2
1.5
82.3
16.2
1.5
Loss of aesthetics/
vista
Parking problems
near stations
Loss of privacy
Loss of business
income
Loss of property
values due to close
proximity to MRT
Line
Inadequate parking
at stations
Inadequate or poor
feeder bus services
Zones 7& 8
Zone 9
78.9
17.7
Very
unimportant/
Unimportant
(%)
3.4
83.4 [4]
12.3
4.3
82.3 [5]
13.7
4.0
Traffic congestion
87.7 [2]
9.7
2.6
Safety and security
88.9 [1]
9.4
1.7
Very important/
Important (%)
Noise
Neutral (%)
46.6
42.9
10.6
Parking problems near stations
79.4
18.3
2.3
Loss of privacy
71.4
24.3
4.3
Loss of property values due to
close proximity to MRT Line
Inadequate parking at stations
Inadequate or poor feeder bus
services
Zone 9
50.9
30.3
18.9
61.1
31.1
7.7
86.6 [3]
11.4
2.0
81.1
13.4
5.4
74.9
19.5
5.6
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-61
The perceptions on negative impacts from SSP Line operations are also compared
between the group that is near and the other further away, it is observed the group
near has a higher proportion (71.4%) that find the impacts important or very
important compared to the group that is further away (68.6%) (Table 2-31).
However, they share almost similar perceptions on the types of negative impacts
from MRT operations. The group that is nearer ranks inadequate parking at stations
as a key impact, followed by traffic congestion whereas the group further away
ranks traffic congestion as their main concern followed by inadequate parking. For
both groups, traffic is a major worry. They share the same perception on safety and
security, vibrations and cracks and dust and air pollution.
Table 2.31: Perceived Negative Impacts of SSP Line Operations by Proximity to
Alignment
20 metre
Noise
21m-400m
Very
important/
Important
Neutral
74.3
23.1
Very
unimportan
t/
Unimportan
t
2.6
80.6 [4]
16.7
Very
important
/
Important
Neutra
l
Very
unimportan
t/Unimporta
nt
74.7
20.9
4.4
2.6
80.6 [4]
14.8
4.6
Dust and air
pollution
Traffic congestion
80.6 [5]
16.7
2.6
80.6 [5]
14.8
4.6
84.9 [2]
12.5
2.6
85.5 [1]
11.6
2.9
Safety and security
81.9 [3]
16.0
2.1
83.8 [3]
12.9
3.3
41.0
22.0
23.1
4.4
30.9
12.8
34.4
22.7
34.1
15.4
12.9
3.4
19.7
4.8
22.6
8.8
Loss of aesthetics/
43.8
39.9
16.3
37.0
vista
Parking problems
76.8
20.7
2.5
72.5
near stations
Loss of privacy
61.8
30.7
7.5
56.3
Loss of business
50.8
28.8
20.4
42.9
income
Loss of property
values due to close
55.8
32.5
11.7
50.5
proximity to MRT
Line
Inadequate parking
86.3 [1]
11.7
1.9
83.6 [2]
at stations
Inadequate or poor
79.1
17.6
3.2
75.6
feeder bus services
Impact Zone
71.4
22.2
6.4
68.6
Respondents also indicated additional concerns they have. They are listed in Table
2-32. Some concerns are repetitive of the earlier stated impacts, for example,
concerns over traffic congestion, safety and security aspects, and parking issues.
They highlight the intensity of worries they on traffic congestion as a result of the
project.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-62
Table 2.32: Other Perceived Negative Impacts of SSP Line
Other Perceived Negative Impacts
Number
%
Increase in foreign workers bring problems to the locals
47
15.1
Severe traffic congestion
35
11.2
Safety and security aspects when using MRT
30
9.6
Roads in the surrounding area will be damaged
26
8.3
Worry about landslides
MRT users will be parking near the premise, customers facing difficulty to park
near the premise
Accidents at the project site should be avoided, public safety is priority
27
8.7
21
6.7
21
6.7
18
5.8
Functioning escalators
11
3.5
Lack of facilities for the elderly and the disabled
8
2.6
Roads will be damaged, the impact will be too late to work/office
8
2.6
Cracks to the house during construction
7
2.2
Make sure pedestrian walkways are not disturbed
7
2.2
Control of noise that cannot be solved
7
2.2
Reasonable compensation
7
2.2
Project delay
6
1.9
Thefts of cars and motorcycles will be increased
6
1.9
Worried green area for recreational activities will be undertaken for this project
6
1.9
Safety of children and property if the house adjacent to the station
5
1.6
Worry roads will be closed, customers cannot come to the shop
4
1.3
Heavy vehicles will be parking around the residences
3
1.0
Add more lighting in the pedestrian area and parking area
Impact Zone
2
0.6
312
100.0
2.4.4
Perceived Proximity to Alignment and Stations
An analysis of how people perceive their proximity to the alignment and its
structures and stations is undertaken. During public engagement, some people
raised concerns that they do not want to be near the alignment and its structures or
they do not want to be near stations. From the public engagement, the underlying
reason is the fear of acquisition. However, beyond acquisition, some have
mentioned that having viaducts outside of their premises is not good for business or
the spiritual welfare of residents. This analysis aims to quantify the perception of
being in close proximity to the alignment and stations.
Generally respondents do not want the alignment, its structures and stations to be
close to them (Table 2-33). The further the alignment and its structures including
stations are from someone’s premise, the more acceptable would be. Within a 10metre corridor from the both alignment and stations, many people find unacceptable
- 65.7% do not want to be near the alignment and 63.4% do not want to be near
stations. As the distance increases from both alignment and stations, the level of
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-63
acceptability improves. If these structures are more than 100m away, the level of
acceptability improves to 80.4% for alignment and 82% for stations as opposed for
3.5% who objects to alignment and 3.7% who objects to station.
Table 2-33 : Overall Perceptions on Proximity to Alignment and Stations
Proximity to Alignment/Structure
Proximity to Station
Highly/
Acceptable
(%)
Neutral
(%)
Totally
Unacceptable/
Unacceptable
(%)
Highly
/Acceptable
(%)
Neutral
(%)
Totally
Unacceptable/
Unacceptable
(%)
Within 10m
15.5
18.8
65.7
27.3
9.3
63.4
11m-50m
21.8
19.7
58.5
32.1
13.2
54.7
51m-100m
44.9
23.9
31.2
50.5
23.4
26.1
> 100m
80.4
16.1
3.5
82.0
14.3
3.7
When perceptions of the group nearer to the alignment and that further away are
compared, it shows both groups would not accept at all if the alignment and stations
fall within 10m from them (Table 2-34). The proportions are relatively higher for the
group that is near (67.1% for alignment and 64.3% for stations compared to 64.5%
for alignment and 62.6% for stations). As the distance increases, the level of
acceptability improves for both groups. At more than 100m away, 79.3% of the near
group accepts having the alignment and 80.0% accepts the stations; in the case of
the group further away, it is observed that 81.3% accepts the alignment and 82.9%
accepts the station. In both situations, the level of acceptability is higher for the
group that is further away compared to the group that is within 20m from the
alignment and stations.
Table 2-13 : Perceptions on Proximity to Alignment and Stations by Proximity to
Alignment
Proximity to Alignment - Within 20m (%)
Within
10m
11m50m
51m100m
> 100m
Proximity to MRT Stations - Within 20m
(%)
Highly/
Acceptable
Neutral
Totally
Unacceptable/
Unacceptable
Highly/
Acceptable
Neutral
Totally
Unacceptable/
Unacceptable
15.1
17.8
67.1
25.1
10.6
64.3
22.8
17.5
59.8
31.6
13.4
55.1
43.2
22.9
33.9
50.1
22.5
27.5
79.3
16.4
4.3
80.9
14.5
4.6
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-64
Proximity to Alignment -21m-400m (%)
Within
10m
11m50m
51m100m
> 100m
Proximity to MRT Stations- 21m-400m
(%)
Highly/
Acceptable
Neutral
Totally
Unacceptable/
Unacceptable
Highly/
Acceptable
Neutral
Totally
Unacceptable/
Unacceptable
15.9
19.7
64.5
29.2
8.2
62.6
21.0
21.6
57.4
32.5
13.1
54.5
46.3
24.8
28.9
50.8
24.2
25.0
81.3
15.8
2.9
82.9
14.0
3.1
2.4.5
Overall Assessment of Perceived Impacts from MRT
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with nine positive
statements on MRT development. The aim is to obtain an overview of respondents’
attitude and general perception of the MRT. The level of acceptability could indicate
the extent of positive perception the public has of the MRT and their support for
MRT despite their concerns and the fears over the negative impacts during
construction and after completion of the development.
From Table 2-35, it is observed that the level of acceptability of the MRT is still
relatively strong at 73.3%. Compared to the earlier support of 89%, it has dropped
but it continues to shows that people in general thinks the MRT is beneficial. Most
respondents believe the negative aspects could be managed and mitigated such as
traffic congestion (93.7%), security risks (90.7%), noise, dust and air pollution
(82.3%), and noise, dust, and vibrations (71.5%). They also have expectations on
the provision of park and ride facilities with 96.5% indicating that all MRT stations
must have such facilities. There are, however, four aspects that are not highly
acceptable such as:
• Acquisition of land and properties even if compensation could be good (56.1%);
• Proximity of station to premise (53.1%),
• Proximity of alignment (57.2%),
• Construction of alignment below their premises (58.1%)
These aspects remain relatively sensitive and should be taken into consideration
during the design and planning of the MRT route.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-65
Table 2-145: Perceptions on Positive Perception Statements on MRT
Strongly/
Disagree
(%)
Highly/
Agree
(%)
43.9
56.1
42.8
57.2
I don’t mind if the station is close to my premise
46.9
53.1
I think the noise, dust and vibrations from MRT will be tolerable
28.5
71.5
41.9
58.1
17.7
3.5
82.3
96.5
6.1
93.9
9.3
26.7
90.7
73.3
I don’t mind acquisition of my land or property if compensation is
good
I don’t mind if the alignment comes close to my premise provided
the mitigating measures are effective
I don’t mind if the alignment passes below my premise provided
safety measures are in place
I think the dust and air pollution will be minimal
I think park and ride facilities MUST be provided at all stations
I think traffic congestion will be reduced after the MRT is
operational
I think the security risk in my neighbourhood from MRT is minimal
Impact Zone
2.5
PERCEPTIONS ON PROPOSED MITIGATING ACTIONS
Adopting appropriate and effective mitigating actions for the SSP Line development
are important (1) to reduce concerns the public have over its construction and
operations; (2) to raise the public awareness that would enable them to make
informed judgments; and (3) to share information in a timely and transparent
manner that would enable the public to be more informed on the MRT and its
impacts on them.
2.5.1
Perceptions on Effectiveness of Existing Mitigating Actions
From Table 2-36 it is observed that the public places considerable emphasis on
various mitigating actions that they perceive could be effective in dispelling their
concerns. There is a general consensus that most of the proposed mitigating
actions are relatively effective. The five actions that they view as being most
effective are:
• Feeder bus service to and from station (71.5%)
• Safety and security measures (70.9%)
• Traffic management plan (65.6%)
• Noise buffering equipment (62.0%)
• Physical barriers to protect privacy (61.0%)
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-66
Table 2-15: Effectiveness of Existing Mitigating Actions
Ranking of
Effectiveness
of Actions
Effective
(%)
Impact Zone
Not
Effective
(%)
Don't know
(%)
Feeder bus service to and from
station
Safety and security measures
1
71.5
6.4
22.1
2
70.9
10.9
18.1
Traffic management plans
3
65.6
15.5
18.9
Noise buffering equipment
4
62.0
17.7
20.3
Physical barriers to protect privacy
5
61.0
14.0
25.0
Construction barriers/hoardings
Compensation for property
acquired
Preventive measures on vibrations
and cracks
Public engagement
6
59.6
17.6
22.8
7
58.9
8.9
32.2
8
57.7
19.0
23.3
9
57.3
13.3
29.4
Dust control measures
10
53.3
23.2
23.5
Relocation assistance
Water pollution control
11
12
52.7
52.5
11.5
20.3
35.8
27.1
60.3
14.9
24.9
Impact Zone
Table 2-37 shows the views on the efficacy of mitigating actions between the group
that is near to the alignment and the one that is further away. About 62% of the
group further away believes available mitigating actions are effective compared to
59% of the group nearer to the alignment, indicating marginal differences in
opinions between them.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-67
Table 2-37: Effectiveness of Mitigating Actions by Proximity to Alignment
20 metre
Not
Effective
Effective
(%)
(%)
Public engagement
Noise buffering equipment
Preventive measures on
vibrations and cracks
Construction
barriers/hoardings
Traffic management plans
Compensation for property
acquired
Relocation assistance
Physical barriers to protect
privacy
Feeder bus service to and
from station
Impact Zone
Don't
know
(%)
21m-400m
Not
Effective Effective
(%)
(%)
Don't
know
(%)
54.8
59.8
13.1
16.7
32.2
23.5
59.5
63.9
13.4
18.4
27.1
17.7
57.0
18.1
25.0
58.2
19.8
22.0
58.1
18.4
23.5
60.8
17.0
22.2
66.2
68.7
50.7
50.5
14.2
11.5
21.0
17.3
19.5
19.8
28.3
32.2
65.1
72.8
55.4
54.2
16.6
10.5
25.0
22.8
18.3
16.7
19.5
23.0
55.5
10.7
33.8
61.8
7.3
30.9
50.1
12.8
37.2
54.9
10.4
34.7
58.9
16.0
25.1
62.8
12.3
24.9
71.5
5.7
22.8
71.6
7.0
21.5
58.5
14.6
26.9
61.7
15.0
23.2
Some of the reasons given as to why they think the mitigating actions are not
effective comprise the following
• Accidents on site which are caused by negligence
• Traffic management is poor because traffic controllers are not trained
• Monitoring is weak and inconsistent
• Dust and noise control measures are usually not effective
• Relocation assistance will not solve residents’ problems when they have to
relocate
• Sound barrier is not effective, especially for those in high-rise buildings
• The equipment used to prevent noise and dust does not work
• Feeder buses aggravate traffic congestion rather than relieve it
• Barriers used during construction are fragile and easily displaced.
2.5.2
Suggested Mitigating Actions during Construction and Operations
To address their concerns during construction and even after completion of
construction, respondents have suggested some mitigating actions which they
perceive could help address their concerns. They have identified a set of three (3)
mitigating measures each for construction and operations. These are combined and
the results given in Table 2-38 and Table 2-39. Some respondents have made
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-68
additional suggestions (Table 2-40) that continue to reflect their concerns over
construction and safety.
During construction, the proposed actions are targeted at two major areas of
concern, i.e. traffic congestion through actions on traffic management (21.3%); and
on safety and security through actions on site and construction management
(39.6%); safety and risk management (20.2%), and management of foreign workers
(8.7%). Safety and security of construction site stands out as a key action area with
almost 69% of feedback on mitigating actions direct at this area of concern.
Table 2-38: Suggested Mitigating Actions during Construction
Tota
l
%
20 m
%
21m400
m
%
47
43
8.9
8.1
30
20
12.6
8.4
17
23
5.8
7.9
16
3.0
9
3.8
7
2.4
7
1.3
2
0.8
5
1.7
113
21.3
61
25.6
52
17.
8
Optimise the management of noise pollution
54
10.2
24
10.1
30
Construction works preferably at night
Ensure drainage system is good to avoid
flooding
Control occurrence of cement spill on public
road
Reduce vibration
Avoid pools of stagnant water which would breed
mosquito breeding and cause health issues
Repairs immediately if roads are damaged
Accelerate the construction period
Provide a generator for emergency purposes
(utilities disruptions)
Create Zebra crossing for people to cross
47
8.9
19
8.0
28
10.
3
9.6
39
7.4
20
8.4
19
6.5
16
3.0
8
3.4
8
2.7
14
2.6
8
3.4
6
2.1
7
1.3
4
1.7
3
1.0
8
8
1.5
1.5
2
3
0.8
1.3
6
5
2.1
1.7
4
0.8
1
0.4
3
1.0
13
2.5
3
1.3
10
Subtotal
210
39.6
92
38.7
118
3.4
40.
4
49
9.2
14
5.9
35
12.
0
44
8.3
25
10.5
19
6.5
14
2.6
5
2.1
9
3.1
Proposed Actions during
Construction
Traffic Management
Work with Police to manage traffic congestion
Traffic management needs to be more efficient
Create lanes for lorry only (construction
vehicle)
Create a special parking area for heavy vehicles
(construction vehicles)
Subtotal
Site and Construction Management
Safety and Risk Management
Authorities should monitor in terms of safety and
pollution level at least once a week
Just follow the S.O.P –this way accidents can be
reduced
Use the latest technology to reduce risk on
construction sites
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-69
Subtotal
Management of Foreign Workers
Placement of foreign workers in an area away
from residential areas
Must send back foreign workers upon completion
of their work
Subtotal
Communications Plan
Signboard in various languages
Establish One stop centre/ hotline
Subtotal
Other- Find an alternative route
Impact Zone
107
20.2
44
18.5
63
21.
6
24
4.5
11
4.6
13
4.5
22
4.2
6
2.5
16
5.5
46
8.7
17
29
9.9
44
4
48
6
530
8.3
0.8
9.1
1.1
100
16
4
20
4
238
7.1
6.7
1.7
8.4
1.7
100
28
0
28
2
292
9.6
0.0
9.6
0.7
100
During operations, the expected mitigating actions are mostly targeted at safety and
security measures (53.3%), especially working with the police to ensure public
safety and to minimise traffic congestion. Another main area where actions are
desired is the provision of social amenities and facilities (22.2%), where the
provision of covered pedestrian walkways is emphasised.
Table 2-39: Suggested Mitigating Actions during Operations
Proposed Actions during Operations
Safety and Security
Police cooperation is necessary to add to
monitoring of congestion and public safety
Add more CCTV especially at the project site
Add more police forces at each rail station
Gated parking area for safety purpose
Need regular monitoring by the authorities
Subtotal
Provision of Parking Facilities
Provide parking areas for rail far from shops
Increase parking space at station
Subtotal
Environmental Management
Reduce noise pollution
Use the latest technology to reduce risk
during operations
Make sure station locations are far from
shops
Subtotal
Provision of Social Amenities and
Facilities
Provide covered pedestrian walkways
Add more coach for ladies/ elderly/ disabled
Issue1.0/April 2015
Total
%
20
m
%
21m400m
%
100
28.5
49
32.0
51
25.8
17
23
11
36
187
4.8
6.6
3.1
10.3
53.3
6
7
4
21
87
3.9
4.6
2.6
13.7
56.9
11
16
7
15
100
5.6
8.1
3.5
7.6
50.5
13
33
46
3.7
9.4
13.1
10
13
23
6.5
8.5
15.0
3
20
23
1.5
10.1
11.6
11
3.1
5
3.3
6
3.0
20
5.7
5
3.3
15
7.6
6
1.7
3
2.0
3
1.5
37
10.5
13
8.5
24
12.1
48
16
13.7
4.6
14
10
9.2
6.5
34
6
17.2
3.0
E-70
and students
Need additional coaches so more
passengers can use
Provide comfortable waiting area
Subtotal
Other-find an alternative route
5
1.4
2
1.3
3
1.5
9
78
3
2.6
22.2
0.9
3
29
1
6
49
2
3.0
24.7
1.0
Impact Zone
351
100.0
153
2.0
19.0
0.7
100.
0
198
100
Table 2-40: Additional Proposed Mitigating Actions
Additional Proposed Mitigating
Actions
Actions on Construction Aspects
Ensure strict control in the construction area – for safety purpose
Doing construction in an area that is covered, enclosed and
protected
Need to use more advanced technology to address pollution
problems
Do not work during public holidays or weekends
There should be a contingency plan to address problems that
arise
Control of dust and noise pollution must be prioritised
The drainage system must be in good condition
Road barriers should be more durable
Immediately repair roads damaged by construction
activities
Provide masks for all residents
Actions on Route Design
Create a special route to the station so that it is faster for users
MRT Project should be moved from our area
Impact Zone
Respondents
%
73
54.9
10
7.5
9
6.8
8
60
6
4.5
4
3
4
3.0
23
3.0
1
0.8
1
0.8
9
5
133
6.8
3.8
100.0
2.5.3
Preferred Communications Media of respondents
The survey findings indicate a low level of awareness of the SSP Line. They also
show that the public does not know much about the project. Reaching out to them
on the MRT is important for them to have sufficient information to make informed
decision and to provide important feedback on the proposed development. Table 241 shows what could be the medium to reach out to the public, especially those in
the impact zone and in the various survey zones. According to the respondents, the
5 best ways to reach out to them are (1) pamphlets and brochures. (2) Short
message service (SMS). (3) Mail drops, (4) public notice boards, and (5) residents’
associations. The next best 5 communication types of media could include public
exhibitions and road shows, Facebook, MRT Info Centre and the MRT Corporation
website and public dialogues and engagements.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-71
Zone 1 (%)
Zone 2 (%)
Zone 3 (%)
Zone 4 (%)
Zone 9 (%)
Zone 10
(%)
Zone 11
(%)
Zone 7 (%)
Zone 8 (%)
Total (%)
Rank
Table 2-41: Preferred Communications Media by Survey Zone
Pamphlets and brochures
10.8
11.3
13.8
10.6
18.0
11.2
15.7
15.4
12.0
12.6
1
SMS
14.8
10.6
10.9
11.6
3.1
7.9
3.7
11.8
7.5
9.1
2
Mail drops
7.0
8.1
9.5
12.1
5.8
8.7
11.6
14.7
8.4
9.1
3
Public notice boards
6.3
7.7
8.0
8.5
4.8
11.8
11.8
10.2
9.8
8.9
4
Residents' Associations
4.9
9.7
7.7
6.6
12.7
10.7
10.4
12.3
8.9
9.0
5
Public exhibitions and road shows
4.9
5.1
7.4
6.5
2.5
8.4
11.2
8.4
7.0
6.7
6
Social Media-Facebook
7.1
6.7
4.9
3.2
6.2
6.2
3.9
3.1
7.7
6.0
7
MRT Info Centre
4.3
6.2
5.2
3.7
0.2
0.5
0.8
1.0
4.0
3.2
8
Public dialogues and engagements
3.9
4.2
3.7
6.6
8.5
5.3
6.5
7.1
5.1
5.5
9
MRT Corp Website
4.2
4.3
5.2
5.1
0.4
0.8
1.4
1.3
4.6
3.4
10
Kiosks at shopping malls
5.3
3.4
4.6
4.9
6.4
1.6
2.9
1.3
3.6
3.8
11
Email
6.0
3.6
6.0
3.4
5.2
2.6
1.6
1.8
4.2
3.9
12
Mainstream Media -Harian Metro
3.6
3.4
0.3
2.2
3.9
4.4
2.7
3.1
3.0
3.1
13
Television
4.5
3.1
0.9
2.8
1.5
0.3
2.0
0.5
2.1
2.2
14
Mainstream Media -The Star
1.8
2.3
3.4
1.8
2.1
3.1
1.0
1.0
2.2
2.1
15
Mainstream Media-Berita Harian
2.1
1.9
4.3
2.1
0.2
0.8
0.4
2.4
1.4
1.6
19
Hotline
1.4
1.9
2.3
2.4
0.4
0.2
-
0.5
1.5
1.3
16
Mainstream Media-Sin Chew Jit Poh/Nanyang
Siang Pau
1.4
1.7
-
0.9
2.7
2.0
3.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
18
Mainstream Media -New Straits Times
1.8
1.6
-
0.9
7.1
2.3
3.5
0.5
1.2
2.0
20
Communication Media
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-72
Communication Media
Zone 1 (%)
Zone 2 (%)
Zone 3 (%)
Zone 4 (%)
Zone 9 (%)
Zone 10
(%)
Zone 11
(%)
Zone 7 (%)
Zone 8 (%)
Total (%)
Rank
Table 2-41: Preferred Communications Media by Survey Zone (%) (cont’d)
Mobile Info Trucks
0.8
1.3
0.6
1.2
2.1
0.8
2.4
-
1.8
1.3
17
Mainstream Media -Sinar Harian/ Kosmo
0.8
1.1
-
1.0
0.4
2.1
-
0.5
0.5
0.8
22
Social Media-WhatsApp
0.4
0.1
-
1.2
0.4
3.8
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.1
21
Mainstream Media -Utusan Malaysia
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.3
4.6
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.8
23
Mainstream Media -Nanban/ Tamil Nesan
0.7
0.3
-
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
24
Social Media-Tweeter
-
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6
1.8
0.6
-
0.3
0.5
25
Radio.fm
-
-
0.6
-
-
0.3
-
-
0.1
0.1
26
Social Media-Instagram
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
27
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-73
In reaching out to the different groups of respondents, there are variations in their
choices of preferred communications media (Table 2-41). The residents and
commercial operators stated pick pamphlets and brochures as their top choice but
on the second rank choice, residents prefer the residents’ associations whereas
commercial operators prefer mail drops. Industries, on the other hand, prefer mail
drops, followed by pamphlets and brochures. Short Message Service (SMS)
appears popular with all three groups - residents and industrialists rank it in third
place and the commercial operators place it at fourth rank. Apart from the key
media identified, other media that could potentially be useful include public notice
boards, public exhibitions and road shows, Facebook, public dialogues and
engagements especially for residents, and mainstream media such as newspapers.
Table 2-42: Preferred Communications Media by Respondents
Residents
(%)
Commercial
(%)
Industry
(%)
11.9
14.8
14.1
SMS
9.0
9.1
9.9
Mail drops
8.5
10.0
14.5
8.8
9.3
7.3
Residents' Associations
11.2
3.4
3.8
7.1
5.9
4.6
Social Media-Facebook
6.2
5.5
4.6
MRT Info Centre
3.0
4.3
1.5
6.2
3.6
3.4
Communication Media
MRT Corp Website
3.2
3.9
3.4
3.6
4.9
1.5
Email
3.4
5.3
5.7
Mainstream Media -Harian Metro
3.5
2.4
0.8
Television
2.4
1.6
2.7
Mainstream Media -The Star
1.8
2.9
3.1
Mainstream Media-Berita Harian
1.0
3.0
3.8
Hotline
Mainstream Media-Sin Chew Jit
Poh/Nanyang Siang Pau
Mainstream Media -New Straits Times
1.2
1.6
0.4
1.1
2.4
4.6
2.3
1.1
0.4
Mobile Info Trucks
1.1
1.4
5.0
Mainstream Media -Sinar Harian/ Kosmo
0.7
0.9
1.9
Social Media-WhatsApp
1.1
1.0
0.4
Mainstream Media -Utusan Malaysia
0.8
0.6
0.8
Mainstream Media -Nanban/ Tamil Nesan
0.6
0.3
-
Social Media-Tweeter
0.3
0.7
1.9
Radio.fm
0.1
0.1
-
Social Media-Instagram
0.0
-
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-74
2.6
SUMMARY OF PERCEPTION SURVEY FINDINGS
1.
The perception survey covered residential, commercial and industrial groups
within the 400 impact zone from each side of the proposed SSP Line
alignment. The survey also covered those who supposedly stay near to the
proposed alignment (within 20m corridor) and outside of it. There are 9 survey
zones to cover the entire 52km length of the SSP Line. The zones stretch from
Damansara Damai into Sri Damansara and Kepong/Jinjang to Jalan Ipoh and
Jalan Tun Razak, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz to KLCC West, Jalan Binjai and
to the proposed Tun Razak Exchange before it enters the industrial area of
Jalan Chan Sow Lin and the proposed Bandar Malaysia and crossing the East
West Link into Kuchai Lama, Sg Besi, Serdang Raya, Seri Kembangan, UPM,
Taman Equine, Taman Putra Permai into Cyberjaya and eventually ends in
Putrajaya Sentral. A total of 1,500 respondents were interviewed.
2.
The average age of those interviewed is 37 years with a median age of 39
years. Most are educated; the majority have completed secondary education
and hold certificates or diplomas or degrees. Around 80% are employed; of
which two thirds are employees and the balance are self-employed. The mean
monthly household income is estimated at RM5,300 but the median is found to
be lower at RM3,500. It is observed that about 17% of the respondents have
household income of RM2,000 or less a month. This group is also expected to
turn to public transport if it is affordable and efficient compared to using their
own motor vehicles. For this group, a main competitor would be motorcycles.
At this point in time, cars and motorcycles are the most popular mode of
transport and are used mainly in people’s daily travels such as to work, to fetch
their children around, and to shop. The use of public transport, comprising bus,
taxi, KTMB, LRT and monorail makes up about 7% of their use and even then,
public transport is often used occasionally rather than on a regular, daily basis.
Those who use public transport are generally satisfied, especially with the LRT
and monorail and to some extent, KTMB but for now, they appear to rely more
on their automobiles and motorcycles to move around.
3.
The distribution between tenanted and owner-occupied premises is relatively
equal, with a slightly higher proportion of tenanted premises. Among residential
premises, more than half are owner-occupied but among commercial premises,
more than three-quarters are tenanted. This poses an issue among commercial
operators who, during public engagements, are worried that they would not be
involved in any negotiations over acquisition of land should the alignment
affects them directly. It explains also that many of them object to any possible
acquisition. Another dimension that lends weight to their concerns is that most
of them have been staying or operating in their premises for a considerable
length of time. On the average, they have been where they are for 10 years.
Twelve percent have been staying there for 20 years and there are some who
have been in their premises for more than 30 years. Although the survey
findings did not show considerable worries over acquisition, during
stakeholders’ engagements fears over such a possibility are quite obvious.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-75
Such fears are also fuelled by a lack of knowledge, information and
understanding on how the Land Acquisition Act works and impacts on them
during such a development. Some participants at the stakeholders
engagements raise questions on (1) how their propriety rights could be
protected in the face of the Land Acquisition Act (2) whether at the stage of the
Railway Scheme, it would be too late to object, (3) how does the compensation
arrangement works if they are affected, and (4) what are the tenants’ rights in
the entire process of acquisition and relocation. These gaps in their knowledge
and information generate fears and misconceptions on this aspect of social
impact, i.e. land/property acquisition and the immediate response for some is to
object to the SSP Line coming into their areas
4.
Respondents were asked to assess their level of satisfaction with their
neighbourhood. The aim is to find out if there is any underlying reason that
could prompt them to accept the development of the MRT within their
neighbourhood or in close proximity to them and relocation, should it happen.
The overall feedback is the majority are satisfied with their neighbourhoods.
They were asked to check against seven parameters that are believed to be
important for a neighbourhood to be considered good. The seven are (1)
overall neighbourhood, (2) location, (3) access to public transportation, (4)
access to major roads or highways, (5) safety and security of their
neighbourhoods, (6) cleanliness of their neighbourhoods, and (7) community
cohesiveness. Most people are satisfied with the location of neighbourhood
(88%), access major roads and highways (86%) and their overall
neighbourhoods (82%). Aspects that they ranked as medium include
community cohesiveness (76%) and cleanliness of neighbourhood (74%).
Those that scored low are access to public transportation (68%) and safety and
security (67%). The overall satisfaction score is relatively good at about 77%.
5. Overall, the level of awareness on the MRT is observed to be low. Only
about half of respondents in the impact zone have over the past 6 months read
or heard about the MRT. Across the survey zones, the level of awareness
varies. In some zones, the level of awareness is relatively poor, e.g. in Seri
Kembangan, slightly more than a third have read or heard of the MRT. In
Kepong/Jinjang, the proportion is observed at 40% -still relatively low. When
asked whether they have visited any website to read about MRT or MRT2, the
response is poor with 27.3% acknowledging that they did. Among those who
indicated that they have heard and are aware, two-thirds said that they know a
little about the MRT. There are gaps in information and awareness and this
could affect their attitude and responses to the project and how it could impact
them. This knowledge is also reflected at stakeholders’ engagement where the
key interest is to find out the whether the alignment affects them directly and if
it does not, the level of interest is reduced.
6.
Despite gaps in knowledge, when shown the show card depicting the broad
alignment, the majority of respondents (89%) support having an MRT. A small
proportion of 4.4% did not. Those who did not probably worried about any
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-76
direct impacts on them. When a comparison is made between the group that is
near and that further away, support for the SSP Line remains strong; with 88%
of the former and 90% of the latter saying they would support the proposed
development. It is possible that most people believe that they and their families
would not be directly and adversely affected by having the SSP Line. This is
apparent when less than a fifth of the respondents think that they could be
affected by the project. This positive perception permeates all through the
survey zones and between the groups that are near and far, thus, explaining
why they would support the MRT development. Among those who perceive
they could be impacted upon, the main fears are over traffic congestion and
noise.
7.
Positive impacts are based on perceptions. Nine benefits commonly identified
with mass public transportation are put forward to the respondents to rank in
order of importance. The more generic benefits that are usually associated with
public transport include (a) savings in travel expenses; (b) savings in travel
time; (c) quick and convenient mode of transport; and (d) reduction in traffic
congestion. These four are easily agreed by the respondents. They are
identified in order of importance as follows (1) Reduction in travel time, (2)
quick and convenient mode of transport; (3) savings in travel expenses; and (4)
reduction in traffic congestion.
8.
Perceived negative impacts usually occur during construction although the
public do have some concerns over operations of the rail transport. The
negative impacts during construction and operations are listed and
respondents asked to rank them in terms of importance to them. On the whole,
65% believe the negative impacts are important to them during construction.
Top of the perceived negative impact during construction is safety and security
(90.3%). This perception could be influenced by recent incidents on worksites
of existing construction. The second most important negative impact is traffic
congestion (88.7%). Again, this perception could be influenced by experiences
with ongoing existing construction works on the LRT and MRT. Others in terms
of their importance are dust and air pollution (84.3%), vibrations and cracks
(83.1%), and noise (74.8%). The last three impacts are usually associated with
the environment and they are accorded lower significance compared to safety
and security and traffic congestion. It is also interesting to note that people are
less concerned over the aesthetics or damage to the vista as a result of an
overhead MRT construction, and loss of business income. The last could be
due to an overwhelming presence of residents in the sample. This may not be
true when discussing with commercial operators during stakeholders
engagements. Quite a number of commercial operators, when met, do express
concerns that their business could be adversely impacted during construction.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-77
9. Perceptions on impacts during operations of the MRT2 are also explored. The
five major impacts identified as important to respondents during MRT operations
are (1) inadequate parking at stations (84.9%); (2) safety and security (82.9%);
and (3) vibration and cracks (80.6%); (4) dust and air pollution (80.6%), and (5)
inadequate or poor feeder bus services. Both vibrations and cracks and dust
and air pollution have equal scores. The two most important perceived negative
impacts are linked to MRT operations which reflect gaps in respondents’
knowledge on vital information such as availability of car parking and safety and
security features of the rail transport. The lack of information can cause undue
psychological fears over the rail operations when it should not. The identification
of over traffic congestion as a key negative impact is an irony because the MRT
is address traffic congestion when it is ready and operational and yet people
perceive that it would cause traffic congestion.
10. Perceptions of respondents on proximity to the MRT alignment and stations
were explored to gauge their acceptability to having the MRT in close proximity.
The overall response is a rejection of the alignment or stations being close to
them. Up to 50m distance, the level of rejection occurs among two-thirds of
respondents. As the distance increases, the level of acceptability improves. At
more than 100m away, 80% of respondents find it acceptable. During
stakeholders’ engagement, reasons for objecting to proximity include possible
acquisition, viaducts affecting their premises and hence, their luck, haphazard
parking near stations, lack of customer parking and traffic congestion around
stations.
11. The earlier analyses have looked at overall support for MRT combined with
perceived positive and negative impacts without yielding an overall
acceptability of MRT among the respondents. In an attempt to obtain an overall
gauge, respondents were asked to indicate their acceptance of a set of positive
statements on the MRT. The implications of these statements are to that many
of the issues related to the MRT can eventually be resolved through proper
mitigating actions. The result shows that a high level of acceptance to these
statements (73.3%) against 26.7% who disagreed/strong disagreed,
suggesting that despite perceived concerns and worries, there is a relatively
strong support for the MRT. For an infrastructure of this nature, it is usual for
the DEIA study to recommend an environmental management plan and traffic
management plan to address the concerns of the public. The general
consensus among respondents is most of the proposed mitigating actions are
relatively effective, especially those that cover (1) provision of feeder bus
service to and from station (71.5%(; (2) safety and security measures (70.9%);
(3) traffic management plan (65.6%); (4) noise buffering equipment (62.0%);
and (5) physical barriers to protect privacy (61.0%). These responses show a
high level of trust among the public that such actions would work even though
at this point in time, there is no example of an operational MRT for them to
base their opinions. However, despite this positive feedback, it must be
reminded that on the average, around 30% -40% of respondents have a
different view. There could be reasons. For example, during some
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-78
stakeholders’ engagement, there is negative feedback on noise and vibrations.
Participants from PPR Raya Permai and Pangsapuri Permai, including the
police personnel from Sg Besi Station indicated that the nearby LRT station
and its operations are noisy and disturbing to some of them. Some from PPR
Laksamana Peel indicated that the construction activities on the SBK Line near
to them are noisy and caused discomfort to some residents.
12. The respondents have suggested some mitigating actions to be taken during
construction and operations. The proposed actions appear to address directly
their concerns. The proposed actions during construction are directed at (1)
traffic management where they believe that it should be done jointly with the
police (an action that the police at Sg Besi station has also recommended) as
well as the management of movements and parking of construction vehicles;
(2) site and construction management, much of which are aimed at
management of noise, vibrations, damages to roads, utilities, maintenance of
drainage and cleanliness of site, languages of signboards, and safety
measures. During operations, the expected mitigating actions are mostly
targeted at safety and security measures (53.3%), especially working with the
police to ensure public safety and to minimise traffic congestion. Another main
area where actions are desired is the provision of social amenities and facilities
(22.2%), where the provision of covered pedestrian walkways is emphasised.
13. In earlier observations, information and knowledge gaps are identified and
have to be addressed. The respondents are asked to indicate how best to
reach out to them. This is important for SSP Line when it moves into
operational stage and wants to provide information to the public. The general
feedback is people rely most on the distribution of pamphlets and leaflets, short
message service (SMS), mail drops, public notice boards, and residents’
associations. Although there are similarities in choices of communication
modes, there are also variations across types of respondents. Residents and
commercial operators pick pamphlets and brochures as their top choice but on
their second rank choice, residents prefer the residents’ associations whereas
commercial operators prefer mail drops Industries, on the other hand, prefer
mail drops, followed by pamphlets and brochures. In selecting their top choice,
all groups seem to prefer a less personal touch in communicating with them.
Short Message Service (SMS) appears popular with all three groups.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-79
3.
FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS’ ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholders’ engagement is undertaken to complement the findings from the
perception survey. They are framed to allow further probing of perceptions,
especially from groups who are close to the proposed alignment and stations.
These groups may enjoy benefits from their proximity to the SSP Line; they may
also experience reservations and worries over such proximity, and if so, what
actions could be taken to mitigate the adverse impacts, and if possible, to reduce
their concerns, enabling them to move on with their lives when the SSP Line is
being implemented. This section identifies the various stakeholders along the
alignment for engagement and discusses the issues raised from such feedback.
3.1
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS IN THE SSP LINE CORRIDOR
The proposed SSP Line stretches over 52km. It is a long alignment, passing
through many town centres and residential areas along the fringes of Kuala Lumpur
and in the city centre itself. In order to identify stakeholders for engagement, the
communities along the SSP Line route are divided into two main social groups, i.e.
residential and business/commercial groups. The latter includes business
operators, institutions and industrialists. Each group may share similar views on
impacts; they also would have differing views, especially on impacts affecting them
directly. A further stratification is then taken by subdividing the SSP Line corridor
into zones, similar to the zones of the perception survey. This enabled and
expedited the targeting of the various residential and business groups for
engagement. There are nine zones as summarized in Table 3-1. Stakeholders
were identified and approached in various ways through the local authorities,
residents associations, KRT or JKP, survey respondents, and site visits. In many
instances, personal invitations were extended to invite shopkeepers and
commercial operators along the route, especially those near to the alignment to join
these engagements.
Table 3-1: List of Stakeholder Engagements and Types of Engagement
Stakeholder
No
Social Group
Type of En
Zone 1
1
Damansara Damai
Commercial
FGD
2
Sri Damansara – Menjalara
Commercial
FGD
3
Sri Damansara Community
Zone 2
Residential
Public Dialogue
4
Metro Prima-Kepong
Commercial
FGD
5
6
Taman Jinjang Baru
Residential
Commercial
FGD
FGD
Residential
FGD
Residential
FGD
Commercial
FGD
7
Kg Batu Delima
Zone 3
8
9
Pekan Batu PPR/Taman Rainbow/Taman
Bamboo
Jalan Ipoh
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-80
Zone 4
10
General Hospital Kuala Lumpur
Institution
Interview
11
12
Istana Budaya
Perbadanan Pembangunan Kampong Bharu
Institution
Institution
Interview
Interview
Institution
Commercial
Interview
FGD
13
Kompleks Kraftangan, Jalan Conlay
14
Ampang Park-Jalan Binjai
Zone 5
15
PPR Laksamana Jalan Peel
16
Chan Sow Lin
Zone 6
Residential
Public Dialogue
Commercial//Industrial
FGD
Commercial//Industrial
Commercial/Residential
Public Dialogue
Interview
17
18
Kuchai Lama
Salak Selatan Baru
19
20
Taman Salak Selatan – Taman Naga Emas
Kg Malaysia Raya
Residential
Residential
Public Dialogue
FGD
21
22
Police Station, Pekan Sg Besi
Pekan Sg Besi
Institution
Commercial
Interview
Public Dialogue
Residential
FGD
Serdang Raya
Serdang Raya
Corporate
Commercial
Interview
Public Dialogue
26
Serdang Raya
Zone 8
Residential
Public Dialogue
Residential
Residential
Public Dialogue
23
PPR Raya Permai – Pangsapuri Permai
Zone 7
24
25
27
28
Seri Kembangan North
Seri Kembangan South (Taman Equine/
Taman Dato’ Demang/ Taman Pinggiran
Putra)
Seri Kembangan (Commercial & Industrial)
Commercial
Interview
30
Putrajaya (Precincts 7, 8 & 9)
Residential
FGD
31
Institution
Interview
32
Cyberview Sdn Bhd
Corporation
Interview
33
Putrajaya Holdings
Corporation
Interview
29
Zone 9
FGD
Table 3-2 provides the rationale for the selection of stakeholders targeted for
engagements. The key criteria for their selection are: (a) their location throughout
the various spatial zones covered by the proposed SSP Line; and (b) possible
impacts on them from the development of SSP Line, especially the development of
its stations. The final selection is a broad mix of different social groups comprising
residents, businessmen, private corporations, and institutions.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-81
Table 3-2: Rationale for Selection of Stakeholders
1
2
3
Zone/Location
Damansara Damai
Sri Damansara –
Menjalara (Residents)
Sri Damansara Business
Community
4
Metro Prima Kepong
5
Taman Jinjang Baru
6
7
Kg Batu Delima
8
PPR Pekan Batu / Taman
Rainbow / Taman
Bamboo
9
Jalan Ipoh
10
General Hospital Kuala
Lumpur
11
Istana Budaya and
Kompleks Kraf
Issue1.0/April 2015
Rationale
There will be a station proposed in Damansara Damai
commercial centre. The focus was on the business community.
No major negative impact is anticipated here or on the
commercial group. They are consulted to detect issues and for
early buy-in.
The proposed station at Sri Damansara appears to come close to
the businesses here. A station is proposed where Jalan Kuala
Selangor meets with MRR2 and the LDP. Some possible impacts
on businesses are anticipated. In addition, the alignment enters
into a residential area in Sri Damansara. It appears to come close
to houses along Jalan Jati/ Persiaran Dagang. It is also likely
some commercial enterprises at Persiaran Cemara could be
impacted. In view of this, stakeholders’’ views were sought.
Target groups are business operators, institutions and residents
from this area.
A station is designated at Metro Prima where there are
considerable commercial activities. The target group comprises
business and food court operators along Jalan Kepong, and
especially in the Metro Prima area.
This residential group is along Jalan Kepong. It is a part of a huge
residential community in Kepong. The engagement was carried
out to seek their views on possible impacts of the SSP Line in
Kepong.
A station is proposed towards the part of Jalan Kepong where it is
near to Jinjang. There are many business operators at this
stretch. The proposed station is close to the office of the Selangor
Omnibus Company. This is likely to be a hot spot where
acquisition may occur. They were identified for engagement.
A station is proposed opposite Kg Batu Delima, a traditional
village. It also includes a Park & Ride facility. There could be
impacts from the SSP Line on the traditional village. There is
likely to be opposition to the alignment passing through the village
taking into consideration aspects related to culture and heritage.
The area around the proposed station at Pekan Batu is densely
populated. Access roads into this area are narrow and congested.
The proposed station is to be connected to KTMB Line. The
public engagement targeted residents from PPR Pekan Batu and
its surrounding areas including those from Jalan Ipoh such as the
resident committees of Taman Rainbow and Taman Bamboo.
At Jalan Ipoh, the SSP Line will go underground. It is to
accommodate the designed north portal. Site visits indicated that
the area around Batu Kentonmen and this end of Jalan Ipoh are
likely to be impacted, possibly through acquisition of properties.
The engagement was to focus on the business community here.
Hospitals are sensitive to noise and vibrations during
construction. The proposed underground station for HKL is to be
located across Jalan Tun Razak at Istana Budaya. Proximity to a
MRT station may be important to the hospital. The underground
section may run below the hospital. Engagement is needed.
The proposed SSP Line has identified stations that are very close
to these two premier cultural institutions in the country. The
stations are to be located in front of these institutions. They could
be affected by such development and engagements with them
would provide insights on their views on SSP Line.
E-82
12
Kampong Bharu
13
Ampang Park – Jalan
Binjai
14
PPR Laksamana
15
Chan Sow Lin
16
Bandar Malaysia
17
Kuchai Lama and Salak
Selatan Baru
18
Taman Salak Selatan and
Taman Naga Emas
Issue1.0/April 2015
Kampong Bharu is a traditional village located right in the heart of
Kuala Lumpur city. It is earmarked for redevelopment under the
management of Perbadanan Pembangunan Kampong Bharu
(PPKB). PPKB was identified for engagement to obtain early
feedback. PPKB is earmarked here as the voice of the village
community at this point in time.
This underground segment stretches from Ampang Park towards
Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC). It is a commercial area
comprising office space, shopping complex, hotels, and high-end
residential apartments. Ampang Park, in particular, is a key focus
as a station is proposed here to integrate with Kelana Jaya LRT
Line. The engagement earmarked the management of Ampang
Park and those of nearby buildings for feedback and discussion.
The underground segment continues to this area where there are
a large number of residential apartments, institutions and
commercial centres operating. This is also an area where the
stakeholders are experiencing the impacts of the ongoing
construction of SBK Line. The residents here may not enjoy direct
benefits as they are located between TRX and Chan Sow Lin
stations but they have a choice in using SSP Line. The
engagement aims to provide them with information and to obtain
feedback which they did not experience during the SBK Line.
The proposed SSP Line is to run underground in this busy area
which is a hub for industrial and commercial activities. The area
has seen urban regeneration taking place. The west is dominated
by Fraser’s Park which is a commercial centre. The east
continues to be an industrial area which is evolving into an
automotive hub. The alignment here provides potential link to an
existing LRT station and runs along the SMART tunnel. No
negative impacts are anticipated; the engagement is intended for
early buy-in and to provide briefing to the commercial and
industrial operators here.
TUDM Sungai Besi has been planned to be redeveloped into a
mixed development as Bandar Malaysia. There would also be a
station here for the proposed High Speed Rail. Opposite Bandar
Malaysia are industrial, commercial and residential activities sited
across Jalan Sungai Besi. The communities that are sandwiched
between Jalan Sungai Besi and Lebuhraya Kuala Lumpur –
Putrajaya (MEX) are expected to be beneficiaries of the SSP
Line. So would the development at Bandar Malaysia which would
have 2 stations.
The alignment is elevated after Bandar Malaysia. The site where
the station is proposed is an industrial area. Some acquisition of
industrial properties is expected here. Across BESRAYA, the
alignment moves into Salak South New Village and probably goes
into an area along Jalan 34, Jalan 35 and Jalan 38. Here, there is
a mix of residential houses and commercial activities in semiwooden buildings. From a site visit, it was observed that this area
has been cut off from the main village. This is seen as a hot spot
in terms of acquisition. An engagement is necessary.
This area is identified for engagement as the proposed SSP Line
passes through green areas fringed by the residential areas A
station is proposed station at Taman Naga Emas. Anticipated
issues are access to the proposed station and proximity.
Residents around here would require engagement for early
feedback.
E-83
19
Pekan Sungai Besi
20
Serdang Raya
21
Seri Kembangan/
Taman Bukit Serdang/
Taman Universiti (R )
Seri Kembangan
(Commercial &
Industrial) (C&I)
(Selangor Wholesale
Market, Farm in the
City & Restoran
Anjung)
Sri Kembangan
(S)Taman
Equine/Putra Permai
(R)
22
23
24
Issue1.0/April 2015
In order for SSP Line to build its station parallel to existing
LRT station at Sg Besi, it is highly probable that a few
blocks of police barracks including some food stalls
running parallel to the barracks have to be acquired. Site
visits indicated that the proposed station would be near to
night market site where trading is held twice a week.
Additionally, this part of the small town is observed to
experience severe traffic congestion due to its narrow
roads. This could pose difficulty during construction. The
target groups for engagement identified include a
residential group nearby (Kg Malaysia Raya), and
commercial operators in Pekan Sg Besi. As there is a large
population across the railway line and the LRT station at
PPR Raya Permai and Pangsapuri Permai, they were also
included in the stakeholders’ engagement. The Sg Besi
Police Station was also earmarked for consultation as they
could lose their residential quarters.
After Pekan Sg. Besi, the alignment passes through
Serdang Raya, through an area lying between Jalan
Serdang Raya / Jalan Utama and the Kuala LumpurSeremban Expressway. This area is expected to be
impacted due to potential acquisition. Affected businesses
range from used-car dealers, hardware shops, a food
court, furniture shops and petrol stations. This is a hot spot
area and objections to the SSP Line are expectedThe
target groups include the landowners, business operators
along Jalan Serdang Raya / Jalan Utama and the nearby
residential communities.
From Serdang Raya, the alignment continues to Jalan
Raya Satu in Seri Kembangan. Here, a station is proposed
near the fire station. It would move to the industrial area
before it crosses over a green space towards Taman
Universiti. The SSP Line is anticipated to bring benefits to
the area by enhancing its connectivity to Kuala Lumpur and
elsewhere. Two groups are identified for engagement.
They comprise a residential group from Seri Kembangan
and Bukit Serdang and a commercial and industrial group.
From Seri Kembangan, the MRT Line 2 is planned to enter
Taman Equine and Taman Pinggiran Putra through Jalan
Putra Permai. The proposed station is in the commercial
centre in Taman Dato’ Demang. The SSP Line is expected
to bring positive impacts to the area. The residential
community here is targeted for engagement.
Perbadanan Putrajaya is the local authority for Putrajaya,
the national administrative centre. A station is proposed at
Putrajaya Sentral. The SSP Line is important to Putrajaya
City as it would provide a quick and vital link to Kuala
Lumpur. As the local authority plays an important role here,
an engagement with it would help to create awareness and
early buy-in.
E-84
25
Cyberview Sdn Bhd
26
Putrajaya Holdings
27
Putrajaya (Presint 7, 8
& 9) (R)
3.2
Cyberview Sdn Bhd is the master developer for Cyberjaya.
Development of Cyberjaya has been relatively slow despite
its launch almost 10 years ago. The presence of the MRT
is likely to benefit the future development of Cyberjaya.
The engagement with the master developer is expected to
have positive feedback.
Putrajaya Holdings (PJH) is the master developer of
Putrajaya. Like Cyberjaya, development in Putrajaya would
benefit from the expected linkages to Kuala Lumpur and
parts of Greater KL that SSP Line can offer. The master
developer is included for consultation and to obtain early
feedback on the proposed SSP Line.
Residents in Presint 7, 8 and 9 from Putrajaya are
identified as a likely beneficiary group from the SSP Line.
Their homes are close to Putrajaya Sentral where the MRT
Line 2 would end its journey. They are included in the
engagement process.
FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS
The stakeholders feedback are summarised in Table 3-3. Detailed feedback are
given in Appendix E2.
Table 3-3: Feedback from Stakeholders Engagement Sessions
ZONE 1: SRI DAMANSARA
DAMANSARA DAMAI
Business Community (ref: FGD 1)
The business community supports the proposed
alignment and the proposed location of the
station at Damansara Damai. Although the
feedback is positive, some concerns are raised.
Environmental Concerns:
•
The site adjacent to the proposed
station serves as a dump site for the area.
•
Possible increase in dust and noise
levels
•
As the alignment and the location of the
station are on river reserve, there is a fear of
land subsidence here, which would cause
disruptions to water supplies.
Social Concerns:
• A concern over rising operating costs from
rental costs as they are mostly tenant
business operators. Although they expect
Issue1.0/April 2015
Comments
Overall, the feedback is positive. The SSP Line
would improve economic activities in
Damansara Damai, especially with a station
there. No acquisition of properties is envisaged.
The area near the site of the station will see
improved aesthetics as currently it is an illegal
dump site. The SSP Line is expected to make
the place more vibrant and attractive for
business in the long run.
There are fears that vibrations from construction
activities may damage shop houses, especially
those near the proposed station. Another issue
raised is land subsidence.
More importantly, the question of access is
seen as critical because at present Damansara
Damai has only one access road. During
construction, the present traffic congestion
E-85
their business to benefit from SSP Line, they
fear increasing in rentals.
would be aggravated This need to be
addressed at design stage.
Traffic concerns:
• A serious concern is that Damansara Damai
is only accessible through a single road, i.e.
Jalan PJU10/1. The road is already
congested during peak hours causing delays
and long queues. Construction of SSP Line
would worsen this situation if no alternative
routes are provided.
• There is currently an insufficient number of
parking bays in the commercial area. If the
SSP Line is operational, more people would
use parking bays in the commercial areas for
extended, causing inconvenience to their
customers, and hence to them.
As this is a busy commercial centre, it is
important that business operations should not
be unduly disturbed and interrupted during the
SSP Line construction. For them, traffic
congestion is detrimental to their business.
SRI DAMANSARA
Residential Community (ref: PD 1)
The feedback from the residential community is
mostly from those along Jalan Jati SD1 to Jalan
Jati SD4 and Persiaran Dagang. They are
worried over possible acquisition of properties.
Another concern is the proposed station at
Bandar Menjalara as they feel it would conflict
with the planned use for the site in question.
Comments
• Possibility of land subsidence. There is a
need for a risk assessment study.
• Noise, dust and vibrations as the alignment
and station are too close to residential units.
Social Concerns:
• Acquisition of their properties would displace
them. They fear compensation would not be
sufficient to enable them to find freehold
properties in a similar area that is quiet and
peaceful.
• Possible occurrences of crime, safety issues,
and loss of privacy due to close proximity to
the alignment and station during both
construction and operational phases.
• Likelihood of many foreign workers in the
neighbourhood during the construction.
• Their suggestion is to use the government
land between MRR2 and the residential area
for the SSP Line alignment. This should be
done rather than having the alignment in their
residential area and having to acquire their
Issue1.0/April 2015
The proposed Park & Ride facility at the
proposed station should provide sufficient bays
to cater for passengers of SSP Line, and that
the passengers should not be impinged on
using existing car parks intended for the
business community.
The community here acknowledges benefits
from SSP Line. As the map shows the
alignment traversing into their residential area
and some residential homes could be impacted
by acquisition, it raises objections from the
group. Some would only support if the
alignment is moved away from their properties.
There is real concern. Some of the residents
are retirees; some are elderly and most are not
prepared to move and relocate. Overall, the
residents registered strong objections.
The alignment entering into this part of Sri
Damansara, with possible acquisition of
residences, especially corner houses, would
impact negatively on the people here, especially
those who have been staying here for many
years.
All the usual environmental issue such as noise,
vibrations and dust are very likely to be faced
as the alignment draws very close to
residences.
Traffic congestions will occur at the residential
area during construction. In addition, during
operations, SSP Line users may park
haphazardly in the residential area to avoid
paying parking fees.
E-86
homes. According to them, the reserve land
is currently occupied by illegal commercial
activities.
• Alternatively, they propose the alignment to
go underground to avoid acquisition and
many physical obstructions above ground.
Traffic Concerns:
•
Anticipate traffic congestion during
construction and operational phases.
•
They await detailed plans to be
presented to them soonest by MRT Corp for
further feedback.
The feedback is from the business community
along Jalan Kuala Selangor, especially those
near the proposed station at Sri Damansara;
Jalan Jati (including FMM) and those along
Persiaran Cemara.
• Increased noise levels especially during
construction
Social Issues:
• The proposed station at Sri Damansara is too
close to their buildings, thus affecting their
aesthetics,
• Business operations could be badly affected
during construction, leading to loss of
income. Customers would refrain from
coming there during the construction stage.
• Unsure whether the foundation of their
buildings could withstand the heavy
construction works of SSP Line.
• The BHP dealer objects strongly to any
acquisition as his livelihood and those of his
staff would be severely affected by
acquisition.
• Many business operators here are tenants of
commercial premises. They stand to lose a
lot from acquisition, having no stake and no
rights in the properties under acquisition.
They lose their means of livelihood. Their
workers would lose their jobs. The older
workers would face difficulty in finding new
employment.
Traffic Concerns:
• FMM is worried the entrance to its premises
Issue1.0/April 2015
Participants give a conditional support for SSP
Line provided their businesses would not be
adversely affected by land acquisition. They are
worried that land acquisitions would occur and
they would lose their businesses, if this
happens.
On the whole, the proposed Sri Damansara
station is likely to benefit the business
community here, especially those near to it, e.g.
Hotel Sri Damansara, BHP petrol station, SSF
building, AIA and 8trium, provided there is no
land acquisition.
It is observed that the proposed alignment could
impact on some commercial establishments
such as MH Prestige Honda 3S, and Wisma
FMM along Jalan Jati as well as Proton Service
Centre and Esso fuel station at the end of
Persiaran Cemara. The impacts could either be
close proximity or land acquisition in which
case, there would be objections.
Some organisations such as Federation of
Malaysia Manufactures whose headquarters is
located here find the SSP Line beneficial as it
helps to increase their accessibility to members.
Vibration from construction activities is seen to
be a problem especially for properties that are
near to the proposed Sri Damansara station.
Furthermore, during construction, it is likely the
road leading to the proposed station be
congested. Another problem is car parking,
especially during operations. Participants
E-87
will be obstructed during construction.
• Persiaran Dagang is deemed too narrow to
accommodate heavy traffic from SSP Line.
• Feeder buses will be required to serve the
communities around to the station.
Suggestion:
• To swing the alignment and station across
Jalan Kuala Selangor to an area near Shell
petrol station and then to swing back to the
river reserve opposite the S. D. Business
Park.
KEPONG METRO PRIMA AND JINJANG
Business Community (ref: FGD 2 & FGD 8)
•
Increase in noise levels especially
during construction and operation of SSP Line.
•
Vibrations could affect their business
operations.
•
The position of viaducts could intrude on
the vista of the area, and block their buildings.
The hotels are concerned over this.
Social Issues:
•
Cordoning-off certain areas will affect
their business during construction.
•
Acquisition of commercial properties,
hawker centres, existing car parks, temples and
homes is not acceptable at all to all parties here.
•
The compensation mechanism is
deemed insufficient to allow them to purchase
another unit elsewhere.
•
The Selangor Omnibus business has
been in existence there since 1937. It will not
accept any relocation overtures as it believes it
cannot find a suitable alternative site to operate
from Kuala Lumpur. Its stand is it must be
located in Kuala Lumpur to carry on its business.
According to them, its current location is
extremely suitable for it to operate its route
between Kepong and Kuala Selangor/Rawang.
Hence, it does not want the proposed station to
be near to its office.
•
The Shell petrol station operator objects
strongly to being displaced by a possible
acquisition of the petrol station. He would lose
his livelihood and is too old to start all over
again.
•
Infringement of privacy when the
alignment comes too close to their businesses
and residences.
Issue1.0/April 2015
believe that haphazard car parking, especially
around the station, would occur and aggravate
traffic congestion. Actions should be taken to
resolve such problems.
It would appear that the participants’ suggestion
to swing the alignment across Jalan Kuala
Selangor may not be feasible because in doing
so there could be more acquisitions especially
when the alignment has to swing back to
continue along the river reserve.
Comments
Both Metro Prima and Jinjang business
communities support SSP Line because
according to them, Kepong needs a good mass
public transportation system that has been long
overdue. The Metro Prima business community
further iterates the current public transport
system there is bad even though they are
served by Metrobus, Wawasan Sutera,
RapidKL and Selangor Omnibus.
It is observed that the business people in
Jinjang only give conditional support to SSP
Line i.e. if it does not involve any land
acquisition.
When it is operational, the SSP Line can help to
ease daily traffic congestion along Jalan
Kepong but during construction, it is feared that
it may make traffic congestion worse. It would
also affect business operations and some fear a
loss in business income during construction.
Although the discussions with both groups
yielded relatively positive perception, the
commercial community at Jinjang is relatively
apprehensive due the location of the proposed
station and possibly land acquisition here.
The concerns over car parking are in line with
the concerns of most commercial operators
along the route. Many object to their car parks
being used by SSP Line passengers because
according to them, it would scare off their
customers.
The suggestion to move the proposed Park &
Ride facility away from its present location near
E-88
Traffic Concerns:
•
Need for adequate parking facilities at
Kepong Metro Prima to avoid indiscriminate
parking including in the residential areas.
•
Object to having a Park & Ride facility at
Jinjang as it will lead to acquisition of properties.
•
In addition, there is no assurance that
the Park & Ride will serve the users here as this
part of Jalan Kepong is mainly occupied by
business operators and industries where
pedestrian flow is minimal.
•
Both business communities foresee
traffic congestion during the construction phase.
KEPONG JINJANG BARU – KG BATU DELIMA
Residential Community (ref: FGD 6 & FGD 3)
Social Issues:
•
The key concern is possible land
acquisition. In Kg Batu Delima, residents object
to the possibility of acquisition of their traditional
houses. If they affected, they ask for an
adjustment of the proposed alignment.
•
Object to having a Park & Ride facility at
Kg Batu Delima. It will only serve a small
population near the village. They suggest the
Park & Ride facility be moved to the front of TNB
building.
•
The community at Taman Jinjang Baru
finds the proposed Park & Ride facility in Jinjang
to be inappropriate. They suggest that it be
shifted into the DBKL depot for towed vehicles
where access is available to people from Jinjang
North. (The same suggestion is also made by
Jinjang business community).
•
Safety and security concerns are raised,
especially among the ageing residents in Kg
Batu Delima.
Traffic Concerns:
• Participants from Jinjang Baru are concerned
more cars will be parked at their
neighbourhood which is already congested.
• Residents from Kg Batu Delima do not want
the narrow Jalan Kepong Lama to be used by
SSP Line as the road is already being used
by some road users to bypass traffic jams
along Jalan Kuching.
• Kg Batu Delima’s participants suggest some
adjustments of the alignment as follows,
Issue1.0/April 2015
to the Selangor Omnibus may have merit and
could be considered. A possible proposed site
is the DBKL towed car depot or the MCA office
across from Petronas.
Both Jinjang Baru and Kg Batu Delima
participants welcome the SSP Line. Despite the
support from both groups, the SSP Line could
pose some social risks to Kg Batu Delima,
especially if there is land acquisition here.
Kg Delima has experienced a reduction in its
size after a part of its settlements was taken
over for a condominium development at the
edge of Delima Lake. There is an ongoing
protest against the plan for an access road into
the condominium through the village. This does
not augur well for SSP Line if more lands have
to be acquired from Kg Batu Delima. The only
access road to the village (Jalan Kepong Lama)
is heavily used by those heading to Taman
Wahyu.
The community has suggested that the
proposed station be relocated to the DBKL
Depot. It believes this would avert the problem
of land acquisition as well as it would better
serve the large communities at Jinjang South
and Jinjang North (including Taman Rimbunan,
Fadason Park Jinjang). The villagers’ have also
suggested that the alignment be realigned
along the retention pond in order to reduce the
negative impacts on them and those in Taman
Wahyu.
Due consideration should also be given to avoid
displacement of members of this traditional
community. The social risks to them can be
considerable. As such the suggestion to move
E-89
either:
Go along JPS reserve and TNB pylons
near the banks of the Delima Lake (which
serves as a retention pond); or
ii. Go along JPS reserve along the banks of
Delima Lake close to Kg Batu Delima and
at the back of TM building towards the
fringes of Taman Wahyu to Batu
i.
PEKAN BATU – JALAN IPOH
Residential Community (ref: FGD 4)
• Increase in dust and noise levels during
construction and operational phases of SSP
Line.
Social Issues:
• Fear of acquisition of their properties,
especially along Jalan Ipoh.
• Fear for safety and security during
construction, emanating from recent spate of
accidents at the construction sites of SBK
Line and LRT2.
Traffic Concerns:
• Traffic congestion especially during the
construction period.
• Those from Taman Rainbow and Taman
Bamboo are sceptical of the benefits from
SSP Line as they claim no major public
transportation system serves their area at
Jalan Ipoh.
JALAN IPOH
Environmental concerns:
• Fear of dust and vibrations (causing cracks to
their properties) during construction.
• Aesthetics/vista to their business premises
would be obstructed.
Social Issues:
• Acquisition of their properties, which they
would oppose
• Fear for safety during construction,
emanating from recent spate of accidents
under SBK Line and LRT2. As there are
schools here, safety of school children is
raised, especially during construction.
Issue1.0/April 2015
the alignment onto JPS land reserve – TNB
pylon reserves – rear of TM building – fringes of
Taman Wahyu – Batu has merit if the intent is
to minimise unnecessary social impacts on Kg
Delima residents.
Comments
PPR Batu is a low income community. Having
the SSP Line here would give them better
access to public transportation. It connects with
the KTMB Line which serves them well.
The proposed station at Batu is likely to be
connected to the KTMB Line station for
seamless transfer of passengers. It is located
within a heavily congested area; including PPR
Batu located about 200m from the proposed
alignment. The proposed alignment traverses
residential and commercial communities that
are served by narrow roads and offer limited
accessibility. SSP Line would have a positive
impact of mobility for the low income residents
here.
Southbound along Jalan Ipoh, the alignment is
likely to provide benefits to the residential and
commercial communities within the service area
as they do not have easy access to public
transport.
Comments
The area between the complex and the portal
for underground segment has a number of
places of worship and schools; the latter has a
total enrolment of about 10,000 pupils. The
business community appreciates the SSP Line
serving their area but hope that it can be
realigned along Sg Batu reserve behind the
Mutiara Complex
The alignment passes in front of Mutiara
Complex. Around the Complex, there are
various business, petrol refuelling stations,
automotive second-hand dealers, schools and
places of worship. Between Kentonmen station
and Mutiara Complex, there are numerous
E-90
Traffic Concerns:
• The main road is narrow and congested, thus
the fear of aggravation to traffic congestion
during construction.
• Traffic congestion, especially during the
construction period. There are schools here
with huge enrolment which would add to
traffic congestion. The public and businesses
will suffer.
business establishments, squatters and scrap
metal businesses. The stretch from the Shell
petrol station and the north portal of SSP Line
has many diverse activities. Some shops may
be affected by acquisition, leading to loss of
livelihood and jobs.
TITIWANGSA - HKL
Institutional Community (ref: CI 1 and CI 4)
• Fear of vibrations as these may disrupt
power supply to the hospital; distort medical
results and functioning of operation theatres
of HKL.
• Fear of flash floods during construction in
and around the area where HKL is located.
• Fear of land subsidence at HKL. Similar
concern from Istana Budaya that could arise
from possible water seepage from Lake
Titiwangsa.
Comments
Traffic Concerns:
• Possible aggravation of daily traffic
congestion at the site of the proposed station
during construction.
Other Concerns:
• Fear of disruptions to unidentified (and
unknown) underground utility lines at GHKL.
• Underground linkages from the proposed
station at Istana Budaya to GHKL need to be
detailed out with GHKL.
KG BARU
Residential Community (ref: CI 3)
•
Possibility of land subsidence.
Other Concerns:
• The current location of station and the
alignment proposed at Kampong Baru
appears to have departed from that approved
location under the Kampong Bharu
Development Master Plan.
Issue1.0/April 2015
There is no indication of acceptance of the
alignment from participants. Many are wary of
the outcome of the proposed development and
implications on them. Some are concerned over
acquisition and want to know more ahead of the
Railway Scheme.
The proposed stations at Titiwangsa and Istana
Budaya would benefit the residential and
commercial communities here as well as
institutions such as Istana Budaya, GHKL,
National Visual Arts Gallery, National Blood
Centre, IJN, the National Library and institutions
around, as well as those heading to Lake
Titiwangsa.
Negative impacts, if any, are believed to be
minimal and are mostly related to concerns over
flash floods and land subsidence arising from
construction works, which could be easily
avoided through careful planning of construction
works.
Comments
The residents are represented by Perbadanan
Pembangunan Kampong Bharu (PPKB). SSP
Line is acknowledged by the PPKB as a ‘must
have’ high impact development project that will
serve as a further catalyst for the development
of Kg Baru.
The proposed location of the station at
Kampong Baru appears fine on the surface as it
would benefit the communities around the
E-91
proposed station. However, if the station
location is maintained, it could incur some
acquisition of business establishments. Under a
urban regeneration programme, land acquisition
can be resolved during the process.
However, PPKB is uncomfortable with the
proposed location which is not consistent with
its own Master Plan that has been approved
and believed to be acceptable to the residents
here. MRT Corp was asked to review and
reassess its current proposed station location.
AMPANG PARK – JALAN BINJAI – CONLAY
Institutional and Business Community (ref:
FGD 7 and CI 2)
• Noise level could rise (Ampang Park, Jalan
Binjai, and Kompleks Kraftangan).
• Vibrations from construction (Ampang Park,
Jalan Binjai) affect their premises.
• Possibility of flash floods occurring (Ampang
Park).
• Land subsidence occurring during
construction (Ampang Park, Jalan Binjai,
Kompleks Kraftangan)
Social Issues:
• Possibility of land acquisition (Ampang Park,
Kompleks Kraftangan).
Traffic Concerns:
• Narrow service road (Kompleks Kraftangan)
• Abuse of open car park facilities by SSP Line
users (Kompleks Kraftangan).
• Question asked is whether the KLCC
underground car parking facility currently
under construction would be connected to
SSP Line.
Other Concerns:
• Whether there is seamless connectivity
between Kelana Jaya Line and SSP Line at
Ampang Park station.
• Whether there could be acquisition of
properties outside Ampang Park Complex for
the SSP Line station.
PPR Laksamana (Jalan Peel)
Residential Community (ref: PD5)
Issue1.0/April 2015
Comments
Ampang Park and Jalan Binjai have a sizeable
number of business establishments. The Jalan
Binjai area also houses some residential units.
Ampang Park is currently served by Kelana
Jaya LRT Line. All groups welcome the
proposed project.
The stations at Ampang Park, Jalan Binjai and
Conlay are likely to benefit not only the
business communities but also the residential
communities, especially those in Jalan Binjai.
Possible adverse impact may occur during
construction when there could be obstructions
to the traffic flow. This negative impact could be
mitigated through traffic management plan.
There is likely to be acquisition of land for the
station at the rear of Ampang Park and also at
Kompleks Kraftangan. Kompleks Kraftangan
has open car parks that would be used by nonvisitors to the complex. They may be affected. It
would be good for the area if there is a linkage
from the KLCC underground car park to the
proposed station at Jalan Binjai.
Generally, we find the stakeholders receptive to
the proposed SSP Line. Whilst there could be
acquisition, this could be resolved through
consultations with Kraftangan to achieve a winwin situation.
Comments
E-92
• Noise and dust pollution especially
experiencing from current MRT 1
construction nearby
• Worried if there is rock blasting as well under
SSP Line as it may cause cracks to buildings.
• Likelihood of flash floods arising from
improper construction site management.
Social Issue:
• Health of residents affected by dust pollution
emanating from SBK Line
• Vibration from construction works may affect
the apartments, schools and mosque nearby
• Worried about land subsidence
• Worried flash floods (if any) will stifle traffic
flows and attendance at schools.
Traffic Concerns:
• Worried about traffic congestions and that
traffic could be diverted to Jalan Peel and
Jalan Keledek, and this has to be avoided at
all cost.
Suggestions:
• Want more stakeholders to be engaged in
the next stage.
• Expect project contractors to be monitored
closely on their safety and security
management outside the construction
surrounding.
Fraser’s Park and Chan Sow Lin
Business and Industrial Community (ref:
FGD13)
• Vibration and dust during and after
construction of SSP Line –could affect the
automotive hub at Chan Sow Lin.
• Worried of mud-floods
• Land subsidence
Social Issue:
• Concerned whether there are any acquisition
of the premises.
Traffic Concerns:
•
Likelihood of worsening traffic
congestion during construction and adverse
effects on the automotive service centres.
PPR Laksamana is located close to the existing
construction of SBK Line and where other
commercial development is taking place.
Residents here are affected by ongoing
construction works. They have been in touch
with MRT Corp and have been briefed about
noise and vibrations expected from SBK Line.
This group is relatively knowledgeable and
informed about MRT in general, which makes
them relatively receptive and supportive of the
project. They claim that they do experience
some disturbances from SBK Line construction
and are concerned that SSP Line could repeat
the same problems. When assured it is some
distance from them, the group is less worried.
They do have some additional concerns such
as traffic movement and voidance of airborne
health hazards. Although the alignment passes
underground, they want SSP Line to ensure the
area does not experience flash floods due to
blocked drains and avoid diversion of traffic into
their area.
Overall, we find this group of stakeholders to be
receptive and supportive of the SSP Line.
Comments
The business and industrial community here is
appreciative of the proposed alignment. Their
concern is mainly on traffic flows and traffic
congestion during construction of SSP Line.
Some raise the issue of soil conditions as this
area was once mining land. They cited previous
experiences during construction of the SMART
tunnel and SBK Line worksites examples of
land subsidence and sinkholes and are afraid
that this area could suffer from such incidents.
Traffic congestion could be a problem for them
as the place is an automotive hub and there is
high flow of cars moving in and out of this area
on daily basis. It is important, then, to put in
place traffic management and dispersal plan.
Other Concerns:
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-93
•
Any disruption of the utilities
underground will badly affect businesses.
•
Want to know more about procedures
and avenues for grievances.
Suggestions:
•
Widen existing roads
•
Need a traffic impact assessment study
especially at the site for station.
•
Have a traffic dispersal system
especially to BESRAYA
•
To be consulted further in the next
phase.
Taman Salak Selatan – Taman Naga Emas
• Anticipate noise pollution from moving
railway stock especially at curves
Social Issue:
• Oppose to any acquisition of their houses as
they do not want to be displaced.
Traffic Concerns:
• Service roads at the housing estates are
narrow for use by SSP Line during
construction. Would oppose if their roads are
used for the purpose.
• Likely no proper access to construction sites
and the proposed station
• Fear that users would park at Taman Naga
Emas residential area to avoid parking
charges at the Park & Ride facility. They
only want a pedestrian access lane to the
station from their housing estate.
• Request for a Park & Ride
• Proposed high-rise residential development
at the proposed site for SSP Line station add
to parking problems.
Other Concerns:
• The participants are currently opposing a
DBKL’s initiative to build high-rise, low-cost
residential units near the site of the
proposed station.
Suggestions:
• Have a new access road from the highway
into the proposed alignment.
Salak Selatan Baru
Residential and Business Community (ref: CI
Issue1.0/April 2015
There does not appear to be any land
acquisition problem with the alignment running
underground here.
Comments
The stakeholders have had previous bad
experiences over infrastructure development
and they came for the meeting reserved.
However the overall feedback from the
stakeholders is relatively positive.
There were some who are not happy that the
alignment shown to them has limited
information on affected lots and units. However,
once they are briefed on the EIA process and
the corridor shown, they are more receptive and
open, providing more opportunities to discuss
and exchange views.
They are generally supportive of having the
alignment and a station at Taman Naga Emas.
They do have some concerns over acquisition
and would oppose strongly if there are
acquisitions of their homes.
They raise the issue of access to the proposed
station, pointing out that their residential roads
are too narrow to cater to traffic moving to the
station. They want proper access roads that do
not use their internal roads, if possible. They
want a park and ride facility here so that the
SSP Line can service the residents here
On the whole, this group of stakeholders are
quite supportive of the SSP Line. However,
should there be acquisition of residential
properties, there could be objections..
Comments
E-94
10)
• Noise pollution
Social Issue:
• Would oppose strongly if the alignment is
brought to their land as they have been
there long enough and relocation will not be
able to find them a location that is cheap and
some are too old to move. Moving would
have adverse effects on their business
clientele and employment.
Traffic Concerns:
• BESRAYA is already facing traffic
congestions. SSP Line will add further to the
congestion.
• Existing serious parking problems.
Other Concerns:
• Unanimously oppose any acquisition or
relocation of their units.
Suggestions:
• Keep the alignment away from Jalan 34,
Jalan 35
• Consider going underground.
Kg Malaysia Raya
Residential Community (ref: FGD12)
• Noise pollution from existing TBS forewarns
them of potential noise from SSP Line during
operations.
• Worried about excessive development in
their area
Social Issue:
• Fear for safety of residents if any accidents
were to take place during SSP Line
operations.
• They fear excessive development will
deteriorate their life further. Their village has
been affected by all the development some
of which were empty promises on good
things to come. Trust is an issue.
Traffic Concerns:
• BESRAYA is already congested.
• Roads are narrow at their village.
• No feeder buses to enter their village.
Issue1.0/April 2015
The settlement here is an outcome of several
highways splitting it from the original Kg Baru
Salak Selatan. It now sits beside BESRAYA.
The area around Jalan 34, Jalan 35 and Jalan
38 is a neglected neighbourhood with poor road
conditions. The neighbourhood is not properly
kept and cleanliness is poor. The residential
area has since been turned over for nonresidential uses. Mixed with houses are car
workshops, storehouses, warehouses,
hardware store and recycling centres.
The feedback is negative as they do not want to
move if they are affected by the alignment.
They have been staying here for a long time.
We find that at present, the alignment does not
infringe into their area; it passes by it and there
are no benefits for the community here since
there is no identified station. If there is a
possible land acquisition, there could be strong
objections from the commercial operators.
Comments
The community is not affected by the alignment
which skirts its boundary. They joined the
discussion to know more about the SSP Line.
However, they came with a strong view to
object to any infrastructure development that is
within their vicinity or appear to be within their
vicinity. Their earlier experiences over other
infrastructure development such as BESRAYA
have made them extremely wary of such
proposals. They have expressed that such
development does not help them but cause
congestion in their village. According to them, it
is now harder to get out of their village as early
as 6am in the morning due to external
congestion. Their negative attitude is towards
public transport in general and do not see the
need for SSP Line to come even to the outskirt
of their village. They would oppose this
development and inform they would use all
possible channels to protest if the SSP Line
passes by their village.
E-95
Other Concerns:
• Don’t want alignment to encroach their
village.
• Asks why the area needs another rail
system when it is already served by LRT
Chan Sow Lin – Bandar Tasik Selatan – Sg
Besi. They consider this wastage of public
funds.
PPR Raya Permai – Pangsapuri Permai
Residential Community (ref: FGD14)
• Noise pollution and vibration from existing
LRT line which is too close to some of the
blocks.
• Fear of flooding if construction site is not
managed well.
Traffic Concerns:
• Parking woes.
• Anticipate traffic congestions during
construction.
Other Concerns:
• Asks for avenues to consult if they face
problems during construction.
Suggestions:
• Request for feeder buses to the station
• Build the SSP Line station at this side of the
current LRT station at Sg Besi instead of
facing Sg Besi town.
• Build a Park & Ride facility at the station.
Kuchai Lama
Business Community (ref: PD3)
Social Issue:
• Would oppose any acquisition of their
properties
Traffic Concerns:
• Worried that the site of the proposed station
does not have a proper access to the station
at Taman Naga Emas.
• There is a need for a Park & Ride facility
near the site of proposed station.
Issue1.0/April 2015
Comments
The location here is very close to the existing
Sg Besi LRT station. Many walk to this station
towards their daily destinations. DBKL is
currently building an elevated pedestrian
walkway to connect the PPR to the station.
Passing LRT trains are noisy, rattling over the
tracks and when they draw near stations, their
wheels screech a lot. For them they would like
to have measures in place to reduce the noise.
According to some whose block is near to the
LRT station, the trains screech when they draw
near it. Of late, this noise has become louder
and intolerable. These participants are sharing
real-life exposure with the LRT and believe the
same experience would happen with the SSP
Line.
Participants suggest that the SSP Line
alignment should cross the BESRAYA to the
opposite side of the Sg Besi LRT station in
order to capture the large population there. We
find that this suggestion may have merit and
should be considered in the design review. A
Park and Ride facility could be built in and
around the land owned by the Ministry of Health
Comments
The stakeholders fear their villages would be
negatively impacted by separation and
acquisition. The initial target group was to be
not more than 20 participants from community
leaders but it was expanded to include a large
crowd, including local politicians, who
purportedly represent the people’s interest in
this area. The feedback was anger directed at
any development project for fear it would create
more problems here, e.g. traffic congestion,
parking problems and too much crowding from
E-96
overpopulation.
Other Concerns:
• The participants are currently opposing a
DBKL’s initiative to build a high-rise, lowcost residential development near the site of
the proposed station.
Suggestions:
• Need a new access road from the highway to
the proposed construction site of SSP Line
• Have a Park & Ride facility
• Need feeder buses to the surrounding area
• Request for further consultation with more
details
Pekan Sg Besi
• Worry of possible flooding during
construction due to poor site management.
Social Issue:
• Majority do not want any acquisition.
Traffic Concerns:
• Serious existing parking problems at Pekan
Sg Besi.
• Worried about further congestions during
construction of SSP Line
• Their pasar malam may be affected.
Other Concerns:
• Divided on whether the alignment should be
elevated or goes underground. Some
oppose underground citing Smart Tunnel as
often getting flooded (sic). Those supporting
cited it would be good for Pekan Sg Besi as
it would not require acquisition or affect their
businesses.
Suggestions:
• Build underground rail until Pekan Sg Besi
• Provide a Park & Ride facility at the station
• Build the SSP Line station at the other side
Issue1.0/April 2015
The key thing that they want to know is whether
their properties would be acquired. Should this
happen, they would object vehemently.
Although they were informed of a proposed
station in the industrial area, participants were
more interested in the proposed station at
Taman Naga Emas.
There is a strong possibility that industrial units
could be impacted by acquisition. The
participants’ claim that their roads are very
narrow to support heavy construction vehicles
during construction appears to be valid based
on site visit. Access into the proposed Taman
Naga Emas could pose a problem and
participants want more information on how it
could be resolved.
Comments
The business community here fears that the
proposed SSP Line would cause them to lose
their business. They also say that the township
will be upgraded by DBKL quite soon and they
request that MRT Corp talks to DBKL about this
so that the SSP Line can be integrated into
whatever DBKL plans to do for Pekan Sg. Besi.
For this small town, traffic is a major problem.
Parking is problematic because the roads are
narrow. The mosque and the night market in the
town centre also add to the congestion when
they are open for prayers and business. There
is a need to address this problem. The SSP
Line and its proposed station could aggravate
the situation if it is not studied properly.
The proposed plan indicates the alignment
would affect the police barracks as well as the
stretch of food stalls opposite the current LRT
station. There is a vacant plot of land that
belongs to the Ministry of Health. An
abandoned clinic is located there. This, together
with the hawker stalls that abut the main road
could be used to accommodate park and ride
facilities for the SSP Line. The hawkers do not
have to be displaced permanently. They could
be relocated temporarily and then, brought back
E-97
•
of the current LRT station at Sg Besi instead
of facing Sg Besi town.
Build a pedestrian bridge to connect them to
the station.
to trade in a new park and ride complex. This
needs a careful study and discussions with the
local authorities would be useful.
An alternative is to move the alignment away
from this side of road and Pekan Sg Besi to the
opposite side of the LRT station where PPR
Raya Permai is located. There are some
buildings here including an orphanage. The
number of affected premises is a handful and
manageable. The advantage is it would serve
directly both the communities at Pekan Sg Besi
as well as those across at PPR Raya Permai
and Pangsapuri Permai residents, and reduce
the acquisition and relocation of commercial
activities
Pekan Sg Besi – Balai Polis Sg Besi
Institution (ref: CI11)
• Noise and vibration would affect the
operations of the police station (learning
from existing LRT Sg Besi with noise level
increasing over time due to lack of
maintenance).
• Worry about flash floods during construction.
Social Issue:
• Acquisition of police barracks would disrupt
their operations of the police station.
• The officers will be displaced to find
accommodation elsewhere.
Traffic Concerns:
• Parking for staff and the public will be
affected.
• Pekan Sg Besi is facing acute parking
problems.
• Acquisition of barracks would worsen
parking woes at Pekan Sg Besi.
Other Concerns:
• DBKL has plans to redevelop the town.
Suggestions:
• Consider acquiring land that belongs to the
Health Department and the site of hawker
stalls for the station or a Park & Facility.
• Provide a Park & Ride facility at the station
• Consider moving the SSP Line station at the
Issue1.0/April 2015
Comments
The alignment is seen to affect five blocks of
police barracks. Apart from losing
accommodation for its personnel, the police
station would also lose its car parks for the
occupants. This could pose a problem for the
staff as they would have to find alternative
accommodation elsewhere and drive to work,
using the car park at the station. This is not
possible as the station car parks are intended
for official use and for the public on police
business. Part of the police modus operandi is
to have their personnel stay close to be
effective in their duties. Acquiring their police
barracks would have serious repercussions on
their operations.
The police also inform that the nearby LRT and
station are causing noise and vibrations in their
barracks. They fear SSP Line would add to this
environmental problem.
The police propose to use the vacant plot of
land owned by the Ministry of Health and the
stalls adjoining it to develop a Park & Ride
facility for the proposed SSP Line station. This
could help to alleviate the parking problem in
the town. They suggest shifting the alignment
across to the opposite side of the LRT station.
Doing all this may avoid acquiring their barracks
and resultant relocation of their personnel.
However, they believe this matter should be
taken up at a higher level. If and when
E-98
•
•
•
other side of the current LRT station at Sg
Besi instead of facing Sg Besi town.
Communicate with IPK (Logistics) if
acquisition of barracks sets in.
Rebuild barracks
Find means to reduce noise and vibration
levels.
Serdang Raya
• Noise during operations.
Social Issue:
• Alignment would affect most businesses
along the alignment here.
• Difficult to re-establish the business
elsewhere, long start-up period and rebuild
clientele.
• Could be paying high rental at the new site.
• Elevated structure blocks their
advertisements.
Traffic Concerns:
• Jalan Serdang Raya – Jalan Utama is badly
congested during peak hours.
• SSP Line would add further to the
congestions. This will affect their
businesses.
Other Concerns:
• Need to ensure the premises are not
acquired. SSP Line can anticipate serious
objections.
Suggestion:
• Realign it to populated area or along KTMBBESRAYA to South City Plaza before
crossing over to Sri Kembangan.
Issue1.0/April 2015
acquisition takes place, they suggest a
redevelopment that includes residential units for
the police. This could take the shape of a highrise building.
Comments
The participants are commercial operators who
have leased land from landowners (see CI09).
They have invested on their buildings. One
participant had indicated that their investment
runs to more than 1 RM million. They have a
vested interest to know more and to understand
what could happen to them. The landowners
have requested that their tenants be excluded
from the discussion but many opted to stay and
listen to the briefing.
The general feedback from them is the lack of
information over the maps shown. They also
object to the possibility of acquisition of the land
where they are on. They point out that it has
been difficult for them to find the right location to
operate their business and this is an area which
they have settled down. The thought of
relocation is not acceptable. Their business
would be disrupted; they would lose their
livelihood. For them, building up their business
takes time and relocating is not easy. It takes a
long gestation period to get their business
running. If they move, they would have to find
alternative place with reasonable rental and it is
not easy now to find this in Kuala Lumpur or its
outskirts. Even in Kajang, rental rates have
gone up.
There are suggestions to review the alignment
to avoid acquisition. They have suggested
moving the alignment on the road reserves of
the Kuala Lumpur – Seremban Highway.
Another alternative is to move this part of the
alignment along BESRAYA from Pekan Sg to
South City Plaza before turning into Sri
Kembangan. This adjustment would also serve
The Mines with its future development of 24,000
houses. The latter could be a better alternative
and may avoid displacing these commercial
operators.
E-99
This group of stakeholders are unhappy over
the SSP Line coming to their area. However,
they have been open and are prepared to listen
provided they have access to more information
on the proposed SSP Line.
Serdang Raya
• Noise pollution during construction and
operations of SSP Line, affecting those living
in high rise apartments.
• Worry about vibration and its effects it may
cause on the former mining land.
• In any case, river should not be used for
SSP Line – they will protest strongly.
Social Issues:
• No houses to be acquired nor should it come
too close to any of the houses.
• Fear of damages to their buildings from SSP
Line. The concern is more about long-terms
effects of SSP Line on their properties (e.g.
cracks).
Traffic Concerns:
• Traffic congestions have become more
serious. SSP Line may worsen further during
construction.
Other Concerns:
• The proposed alignment is bad for
businesses.
Suggestions:
• Establish an effective monitoring system to
monitor SSP Line during construction and at
operations.
• Build alignment on the median of Jalan
Serdang Raya – Jalan Utama, or along
BESRAYA reserves to South City Plaza
before turning into Sri Kembangan. The
latter is their first preference.
Serdang Raya
Corporate (ref: CI 09)
Social Issue:
• Acquisition will affect many business
operators to whom they have leased out
Issue1.0/April 2015
Comments
The residential community is supportive of the
idea of SSP Line coming to their place.
However, their issue concerns the access to the
MRT from their residential areas, especially
those from SR1 to SR9. Here the roads are
narrow with cars parked along them. They want
feeder buses to serve them but their narrow
roads could pose a challenge to the normal
feeder bus services and slow them down. They
request vans as an alternative to such buses.
Common concerns of residents are noise and
vibration from the SSP Line. This would need
some attention.
The participants are also concerned that the
SSP Line could affect the business community
along Jalan Serdang Raya – Jalan Utama and
make a suggestion to realign this segment of
the SSP Line across BESRAYA. Their
suggestion synchronises with that of the
business community and strengthens the
proposal to have the SSP Line moving along
BESRAYA to South City Plaza and from there
to Seri Kembangan, This may be a better
alternative and should be considered, subject to
technical and other relevant factors. It would
help to diffuse the problem over acquisition. On
another suggested alternative to use the
reserve along Sg Kuyoh, the residents object to
this suggestion).
Comments
The corporate entity is the landowner of the
commercial lots along Jalan Serdang Raya –
Jalan Utama. They are not objecting directly to
E-100
•
their land to.
Safety during construction.
Suggestion:
• They are open for full or partial acquisition of
their land for SSP Line.
ZONE 8: SERI KEMBANGAN/SERDANG
ZONE 9: CYBERJAYA AND PUTRAJAYA
SERI KEMBANGAN - PUTRAJAYA
Residential Community (ref: PD2, FGD9 and
FGD10)
• Vibrations and cracks-concerns over are
raised. Participants want to know what
recourse is available if this happens and
whether there are compensations.
• Noise is raised but it is not too much of a
concern
• Flash floods, especially in some areas at
Seri Kembangan North, e.g. in front the
Police Station and BOMBA. Seri
Kembangan South (Aeon Jaya Jusco
junction, Taman Equine) is prone to flash
floods.
• Land subsidence-some areas in Taman
Dato’ Demang face land subsidence and
siltation could get worse during SSP Line
construction.
Social Issues:
•
Land acquisition - a generic concern. The
question raised by the community is whether
their homes would be affected.
• Safety issue is from Seri Kembangan North
participants who are sensitised by recent
incidents on construction sites of LRT2 and
SBK Line
Traffic Issues:
• At Seri Kembangan North, traffic congestion
is aggravated by the presence of the Chinese
primary school (SRJK (C) Serdang Baru (2)).
• Congestion on Jalan Raya Satu in Seri
Kembangan is a daily affair. It is
compounded by container trucks from nearby
industrial area. Residents do not want added
congestion from SSP Line.
• Residents from Seri Kembangan South also
face traffic congestion, especially in the area
Issue1.0/April 2015
land acquisition. They believe this can be
worked out with the Project Proponent.
However, they are concerned over the impacts
on their tenants and their livelihoods.
Comments
The overall feedback is positive, with the
residential groups in these areas
acknowledging the importance of having a good
public transport system such as the SSP Line in
their neighbourhoods.
Fears over vibrations, especially cracks in
premises are perceived by them as a major
worry, especially during construction. This
problem apparently overrides any complaints on
noise from those who believe they are very
close to the proposed alignment.
Their concerns over flash floods are believed to
occur during heavy rains and should be looked
into during construction.
Fears over land acquisition are raised because
of the psychological, social and economic
consequences but aside from suggesting that
some segments where acquisition is serious be
reviewed, it would be difficult to resolve these at
the EIA stage where the focus is more on an
MRT corridor.
It is acknowledged that their concerns over
traffic congestion could arise during the MRT
construction and traffic management plan would
be placed to address these fears. The present
traffic conditions in some parts along the
ongoing SBK Line construction do experience
traffic congestion at certain peak times.
E-101
around the proposed station in Equine Park.
• The residents are concerned about the
proposed MRT station at Putrajaya Sentral.
They are worried over potential building-up of
traffic that would affect the existing Park &
Ride facility and interference with the
services of Putrajaya Hospital and the Fire
Brigade.
• They are also concerned that there is no
provisional link from SSP Line to the internal
proposed monorail within Putrajaya city
centre.
• All groups want effective feeder bus services
to support SSP Line
Other Concerns
• The suggestion from the Seri Kembangan
South residents is to move the proposed
Station at Equine Park southwards because
of parking problems at Aeon Jaya Jusco.
• An alternative suggestion is to combine this
station at Equine Park with the one at Putra
Permai and locate it at the Selangor
Wholesale Market.
Suggestion:
The residential community would like to view
more detailed plans of the SSP Line alignment,
especially to resolve fears over land acquisition.
Institutional and Business Community
(ref: CI 5, 6, 7, and 8)
• Noise and Vibrations - This is indicated by
Farm in the City and the restaurant operator
in Seri Kembangan North and South.
Social Issues:
• Safety - this is raised by the small group of
commercial operators in Seri Kembangan.
Traffic Concerns
• Traffic congestion raised by Selangor
Wholesale Market and the Farm in the City
largely because of their business activities
involve heavy vehicular traffic
Comments
The response from the business community is
very positive. Both Putrajaya Holdings and
Cyberview Sdn Bhd find the proposed SSP Line
to be beneficial to their townships. This positive
view is shared by those in Seri Kembangan
North and South which are located far from the
main road where the alignment is. However,
noise and vibrations could affect the fire brigade
station and the police stations.
Safety issue raised should be manageable
given MRT Corp experiences with SBK Line.
Traffic concerns could also be managed by
traffic management plan.
On discussions with the commercial and
institutional stakeholders on alignment and
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-102
stations, there is a need for further discussions
between them and the Project Proponent once
the project moves ahead into design stage.
** All groups requested for more engagement sessions/ dialogues.
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-103
Issue1.0/April 2015
E-104
Appendix E1
Questionnaire
PROPOSED MRT LINE 2 FROM SUNGAI BULOH TO SERDANG AND PUTRAJAYA
This perception questionnaire is to obtain feedback from the community living within the 400m corridor from the
proposed MRT Line 2 from Sungai Buloh to Serdang and Putrajaya. (Enumerator: Please ensure a Show Card on the
proposed alignment is available for viewing)
Questionnaire No:
Respondent Type:
Survey Area Code:
R
C
I
O
Radius
Section 1: General Information
Q1
1
Name: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2
Address:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………Postcode: ………………………………………
3
Telephone (House): ………………………………………….
3a. Telephone (Office): ……………………………….
4
H/P: ……………………………………………………….
5
Premise type: ………………………………………………………………
6
Tenure of Premise:
1
Owner-occupied
3
Provided by Employer
2
Tenant
4
Others (Please specify):
………………………………………….
7
Length of Stay/Operations of business here:
years
Section 2: Perception of Present Neighbourhood
Q2
Indicate your level of
satisfaction of your
neighbourhood
Level of Satisfaction
Very
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
dissatisfied
1
Overall neighbourhood
5
4
3
2
1
2
Strategic location
5
4
3
2
1
3
Convenient access to
public transportation
5
4
3
2
1
4
Easy access to major roads
5
4
3
2
1
1
2014 (Nov17)
Level of Satisfaction
Very
Very
satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
dissatisfied
5
Safety and security
5
4
3
2
1
6
Cleanliness of
neighbourhood
Community cohesiveness
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
7
Q3
Satisfied
Do you encounter environmental issues in your neighbourhood? If you do, are they acceptable? (Answer all)
Level of Acceptance
Very
Any Issue?
Acceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
1
Noise
Yes
No
3
2
1
2
Air and dust
Yes
No
3
2
1
3
Traffic congestion
Yes
No
3
2
1
4
Haphazard parking
Yes
No
3
2
1
5
Dirt and rubbish
Yes
No
3
2
1
6
Flash floods
Yes
No
3
2
1
7
Loss of privacy (strangers
loitering)
Yes
No
3
2
1
8
Others (Please specify)
…………………………………………..
Yes
No
3
2
1
Section 3: Mode of Transport and Travel Time
Q4
What is your usual mode of transportation and average time to reach your frequently visited destination
from your premise?
Transport
Mode
1
Work place
2
Children’s schools,
Kindergartens & nurseries
3
Shopping, food & entertainment
4
5-15
Travel Time in Minutes (Please tick √)
16-30
31-45
45-60
60-90
>90
……………………………………………..
Code for transport mode: (1) Car (2) Motorcycle (3) Bus (4) Taxi (5) KTMB (6) LRT (7) Provided transport (8) Walk (9) Monorail
2
2014 (Nov17)
Q5
How frequent do you use the following public transport? (Multiple answers)
If you do use, how frequent is your use?
Are you
satisfied
with the
service?
Yes
No
Please tick if
you use (√)
Daily
1-2 times
a week
1-2 times
a month
Sometimes
1
Bus
1
2
2
Taxi
1
2
3
KTMB
1
2
4
LRT
1
2
5
Monorail
1
2
Section 4: Awareness of the Proposed MRT Line 2 from Sungai Buloh to Serdang and Putrajaya.
Q6
Q7
Over the past six (6) months, have you:
Yes
No
1
Read or heard about the MRT in the mainstream media such as newspapers,
television or radio?
1
2
2
Visited any website to read about the MRT?
1
2
3
Visited any public exhibition /display on MRT?
1
2
1
2
Before today, have your heard of the proposed MRT Line 2?
If NO, please answer Q8.
Q8
If YES, please go to Q9.
If you have NOT heard of MRT Line 2, what would you like to know?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Q9
If you have heard about the proposed MRT Line 2, how much do you know about it?
1
A great deal
4
Not much
2
A fair amount
5
Not at all
3
A little
3
2014 (Nov17)
Q10
What are the best ways to reach out to you on the proposed MRT Line 2? (Multiple answers)
1
MRT Info Centre
2
MRT Corp Website
3
4
Mobile Info Trucks
5
Mainstream media (Please specify …………………………………….)
6
Social media (Please specify ……………………………………………..)
7
8
Mail drops
9
10
Residents’ Associations
11
12
13
SMS
14
Email
15
Hotline
16
1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section 5: Perceptions on the Proposed MRT Line 2 (Please use Show Card on the alignment)
Q11
The proposed MRT Line 2 will link Sungai Buloh through Kuala Lumpur to Serdang and Putrajaya.
Level of Support
Strongly
Support
Would you support this proposed
MRT Line 2?
5
Do not
Strongly do
Support
Neutral
Support
not support
4
3
2
1
4
2014 (Nov17)
Q12
Personally, do you think you or your family would be affected by this proposed MRT Line 2?
1
2
Yes
No
3
Maybe
If YES/MAYBE, in what way do you think you or your family could be impacted upon?
Q13
1.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
In your opinion, what are the most important BENEFITS of having the proposed MRT Line 2?
Please RANK the following, giving 1 to the most important and 10 to the least important?
Rank
Q14
1
2
Saves travel time
3
4
5
6
Reduces expenses on vehicle repayment and maintenance
7
8
Helps the lower income people to be more mobile
9
Creates more business opportunities
10
Enhances the market value of properties within the vicinity of stations
You may have CONCERNS over the proposed MRT Line 2 during CONSTRUCTION.
Please indicate how important these concerns are to you and your family (Answer all).
CONCERNS DURING
CONSTRUCTION
Level of Importance
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not
important
Very
unimportant
1
Noise
5
4
3
2
1
2
Vibrations and cracks
5
4
3
2
1
3
5
4
3
2
1
4
Traffic congestion
5
4
3
2
1
5
Safety and security
5
4
3
2
1
5
2014 (Nov17)
CONCERNS DURING
CONSTRUCTION
Q15
Level of Importance
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not
important
Very
unimportant
6
Loss of aesthetics
5
4
3
2
1
7
Parking problems
5
4
3
2
1
8
Loss of privacy
5
4
3
2
1
9
Acquisition of properties
and relocation issues
5
4
3
2
1
10
Damage to properties
5
4
3
2
1
11
5
4
3
2
1
12
5
4
3
2
1
13
Close proximity to worksites
5
4
3
2
1
14
Flash floods
5
4
3
2
1
15
5
4
3
2
1
You may have CONCERNS over the proposed MRT Line 2 during OPERATIONS.
Please indicate how important these concerns are to you and your family (Answer all).
CONCERNS DURING OPERATIONS
Level of Importance
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not
important
Very
unimportant
1
Noise
5
4
3
2
1
2
Vibrations and cracks
5
4
3
2
1
3
5
4
3
2
1
4
Traffic congestion
5
4
3
2
1
5
Safety and security
5
4
3
2
1
6
Loss of aesthetics
5
4
3
2
1
7
Parking problems
5
4
3
2
1
8
Loss of privacy
5
4
3
2
1
9
5
4
3
2
1
6
2014 (Nov17)
CONCERNS DURING OPERATIONS
Level of Importance
Very
important
Q16
Important
Neutral
Not
important
Very
unimportant
10
Loss of property values due to
close proximity to MRT line
5
4
3
2
1
11
Inadequate parking at stations
5
4
3
2
1
12
Inadequate or poor feeder
bus services
5
4
3
2
1
Please tell us any additional concerns you have which are not listed above.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Q17
Q18
a.
Can you suggest 3 Mitigating Measures to address your concerns?
DURING CONSTRUCTION
DURING OPERATIONS
1
……………………………………………………………………………..
1
………………………………………………………………….
2
………………………………………………………………………………
2
…………………………………………………………………..
3
……………………………………………………………………………….
3
…………………………………………………………………….
Please indicate your LEVEL of ACCEPTANCE if the alignment and its related structures or stations are close
to your premise.
Proximity of alignment and its related structures to your premise?
Level of Acceptance
Highly
acceptable
b.
Totally
Acceptable
Neutral
Unacceptable
unacceptable
1.
Within 10m
5
4
3
2
1
2.
11 – 50m
5
4
3
2
1
3.
51 – 100m
5
4
3
2
2
4.
> 100m
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
Proximity of MRT station to your premise
1. Within 10m
2.
11 – 50m
5
4
3
2
1
3.
51 – 100m
5
4
3
2
1
4.
> 100m
5
4
3
2
1
7
2014 (Nov17)
Q19
Indicate with a tick (√) your level of agreement with the following statements.
Level of Agreement
Strongly
Agree
Q20
Strongly
Disagree
1
I don’t mind acquisition of my land or
property if compensation is good.
5
4
3
2
1
2
I don’t mind if the alignment comes
close to my premise provided the
mitigating measures are effective.
5
4
3
2
1
3
I don’t mind if the station is close to
my premise.
5
4
3
2
1
4
I think the noise, dust and
vibrations from MRT are tolerable.
5
4
3
2
1
5
I don’t mind if the alignment passes
below my premise provided safety
measures are in place.
5
4
3
2
1
6
I think the dust and air pollution is
minimal.
5
4
3
2
1
7
I think park and ride facilities do not
have to be provided at all stations.
5
4
3
2
1
8
I think traffic congestion will be reduced
after the MRT is operational.
5
4
3
2
1
9
I think the security risk in my
neighbourhood from MRT is minimal.
5
4
3
2
1
How effective are the following mitigating measures during and after construction?
Level of Effectiveness
Effective
Not Effective
Don’t know
1
Public engagement
3
2
1
2
Noise preventive measures
3
2
1
3
Preventive measures on vibrations and cracks
3
2
1
4
Construction barriers/hoardings
3
2
1
5
Traffic management plan
3
2
1
6
3
2
1
8
2014 (Nov17)
Level of Effectiveness
Effective
Q21
Not Effective
Don’t know
7
3
2
1
8
3
2
1
9
Compensation for property acquired
3
2
1
10
Relocation
3
2
1
11
Physical barriers to protect privacy
3
2
1
12
Feeder bus service to and from station
3
2
1
Please explain why you think some of the mitigating measures are not effective.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Q22
Would you like to suggest additional mitigating measures?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Section 6: Respondent’s Profile
Q23
a
Gender:
1
Male
2
Female
b
Age:
1
30 years and below
4
51 – 60 years
2
31 – 40 years
5
61 – 70 years
3
41 - 50 years
6
> 70 years
1
Malay
3
Indian
2
Chinese
4
Others: ……………………
c
Ethnicity: Citizens:
d
Non-Malaysians:
e
Your employment status:
Please specify:
……………………………………………………………..
1
Employee (Public sector)
5
Retirees
2
Employee (Private sector)
6
Housewife
3
Self-Employed (Own business)
7
Student
4
Not working but looking for job
9
2014 (Nov17)
f
Q24
Your highest educational attainment:
1
No formal education
3
Completed secondary school
2
Completed primary school only
4
Certificate/Diploma/degree
g
Number of persons in household:
h
Number of workers in premise (for commercial and industrial only):
i
Estimated monthly household income:
5
Postgraduate
Qualifications
1
Below RM 1500
5
RM 5,001 – RM 7,000
2
RM 1,501 – RM 2,000
6
RM 7,001 – RM10,000
3
RM 2,001 – RM 3,000
7
RM 10,001 – RM15,000
4
RM 3,001 – RM 5,000
8
> RM 15,000
If commercial or industrial activity, please indicate your type of business or product manufactured.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Q25
Please indicate your business normal operating hours:
1.
1
2
3
Weekdays: …………………………………………
Code for Q25
24 hour
8 am – 5 pm
9 am – 5 pm
4
5
6
2.
Weekends: ………………………………………………………
10 am – 10 pm
11 am – midnight
11 am – past midnight
7
8
7 am – 1 pm
Others (indicate)
……………………………………..
Thank you for you kind cooperation
________________________________________________________________________________________
Section for Interviewer Only
Interview’s Name: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NRIC: ……………………………………………………………………………..
Attempts made to interview:
1
2
Final interview:
Date: ………………………………
Mobile:
………………………………………..
3
Time: …………………………………….
10
2014 (Nov17)
Appendix E2
Case Interviews, Focus Group Discussions and
Public Dialogue Findings
Projek Mass Rapid Transit Laluan 2 : Sg. Buloh – Serdang – Putrajaya
APPENDIX E2 : CASE INTERVIEWS, FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND
PUBLIC DIALOGUE FINDINGS
Case Interview 01
Target Group: Hospital Kuala Lumpur (Development and PrivatisationUnit)
Venue: Level 3, Development and Privatisation Unit Meeting Room, HKL.
st
Date: Monday, 1 December 2014
Time: 2.30pm – 4.00pm
HKL Participants:
1. Mr. Mohd Rozaimi bin Zainuddin, Senior Assistant Director, HKL
2. Ms. Nurerlina MdYusof, Civil Engineer, HKL
3. Mr. Aqib bin Aziz, Electrical Engineer, HKL
4. Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim Yahya, Technical Manager, FEMS Radicare.
1. Brief background of Institution
The hospital has 3000 beds, and almost 10,000 employees. There are about 17,000
vehicles that enter the hospital compound in a day. There are upgrading and
redevelopment of buildings and facilities on an annual basis.
2. Support for SSP Line
HKL supports the proposed SSP Line, recognizing the benefit to its staff and general
public who use the hospital facilities. The proposed stations are acceptable.
3. Environmental Concerns
a. Noise and vibrations
As proposed alignment is underground at 30-40m, noise and vibration are not a serious
concern. However, some concerns are raised such as:
 Fear of disruptions to existing utilities due to underground tunneling. In addition, the
Hospital fears there are utility piping underground at locations they do not know.
This can be mitigated through the provision of utility maps, especially the sharing of
maps between the Project Proponent and the Hospital. The utility maps with HKL
are likely to be outdated.
 Fear of vibrations as hospital buildings are generally old and may not withstand
much vibration. Vibrations can trip electrical supplies and this would result in major
consequences for the hospital. In addition, almost all buildings are structurally
interconnected. Any damage to one building will affect another.
b. Social Issues (acquisition, relocation, aesthetics, loss of privacy, safety and
security)
The station at Istana Budaya is acceptable but could be too far from the hospital.
Linkages to the hospital are critical and must be worked out between the Project
Proponent and the hospital during detailed design to improve linkages to the hospital.
Such linkages must also consider security and safety to the hospital, especially for its
warded patients and staff.
E2-1
c.
Traffic congestion
No problems envisaged. There is likely to be more benefits when the SSP Line is
completed. Currently, the hospital has parking woes despite building more parking
facilities. There are designated staff and public car parking areas in the compound of
HKL, and a new multi-storey car parking facilities is nearing completion.
4. Other Concerns
Other concerns identified include:


Fear of flooding during construction
Fear of settlement of buildings as the construction is underground and subsistence
may occur. MRT Corp is to look at the zone of influence and inform hospital during
implementation.
Another interview was carried out on December 16 with the Director of HKL at her request
as she was not able to attend the first session. This session was carried out in two parts i.e.
a briefing of the DEIA process to the Director including the show of the proposed alignment
and the proposed station across HKL at Istana Budaya. The second session involved a
more detailed briefing on the planned layout of the station and the possible interfacing with
HKL. The feedback on the SSP Line from the Director is very supportive, opening up a
channel for further working discussions at the next stage of development.
E2-2
Case Interview 02
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: KompleksKraftangan, JalanConlay
:Meeting Room, KompleksKraftangan
:4 December 2014
:9.30 am – 11.00 am
Participants
1. Hjh Zuraida binti Mokhtar, Deputy Director General (Operations), Kraftangan Malaysia
2. En. Hamdan, Senior Engineer, Kraftangan Malaysia
3. En. Shaari, Assistant Director, Kraftangan Malaysia
4. En. Mohd Azaharibin Tahir, Assistant Engineer, Kraftangan Malaysia
__________________________________________________________________
1. Background
The complex employs about 250 employees. It has plans to develop vacant sites within the
compound for craft industries. The land belongs to different owners but this is being
negotiated with the Federal Government. The main events of the complex take place in
February to April and June during which it faces serious problems with car parking facilities.
The compound is not fenced. Tourists and visitors use private car, taxi or hop-on-hop-off
bus to arrive at this complex. This quiet area is also where Istana Terengganu and Istana
Kelantan are located.
2. Positive Impacts
It is good to have the MRT station nearby. There will be more people coming to the
Complex which is visited by both domestic and foreign tourists. The SSP Line will
encourage more people to visit the complex.
3. Negative impacts
Most of the fears are during the construction period. These include:
1) Noise. This will not only affect visitors but also residents living in condominiums next
door.
2) Heritage. The area has a number of establishments that may have heritage value and
may need special attention.
3) Sink holes. The type of soil may be a concern.
4) Dust.
5) The SSP Line may affect their development plans in RMK 11.
6) Their car park will be fully occupied (insufficient) as the MRT users will park their
vehicles in the car park for a long time.
7) As the complex is not fenced, the proposed SSP Line may invite people to loiter within
the complex.
8) Traffic jams will become worse as the roads may become narrower.
4. Other Matters
Hjh Zuraida will brief her Director General on this matter and will revert.
E2-3
E2-4
Case Interview 03
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Perbadanan Pembangunan Kampong Bharu
: Meeting Room Level 1
: 4 December 2014
: 11.45 am – 1.00 pm
Participants:
1. Hj. Naharudin bin Abdullah, CEO, Perbadanan Pembangunan Kampong Bharu
2. En. Zamri Saharin, Planner, Perbadanan Pembangunan Kampong Bharu
3. Ir. Mohd Shaifuddin, Engineer, Perbadanan Pembangunan Kampong Bharu
__________________________________________________________________
1. Background
The area covers 301 acres of land space spanning 1355 lots of land owned by about
5,700 owners. It has about 18,000 residents. Kampong Bharu encumbers seven smaller
villages within. The area attracts political interest due to its heritage value. There is
already a Kampong Bharu Development Masterplan which was duly approved by the
political masters, DBKL and SPAD. The proposed location under SSP Line has limited
benefit to the residents of Kampong Bharu.
2. Positive Impacts
1) KVMRT is a must and required for the future of Kampong Bharu and Kuala Lumpur
2) SSP Line will provide a high impact to Kampong Bharu.
3. Negative Impacts
1) The main concern is about the location of the MRT Station. The CEO queries on the
rationale for the alignment and the location of station to serve Kampong Bharu. The
proposed site is way-off and is not consistent with the Kampong Bharu Master Plan.
2) Issue about land ownership arises because in Kampong Bharu, there is no land
owned by the government. Thus, engagement with residents is highly needed.
3) Concerns with heritage and other development in the surrounding area has not so
far brought any positive impact to Kampong Bharu.
4) The village is situated on limestone and has cavities.
5) Alignment. To check and redesign alignment and station consistent with the
Masterplan so as to benefit the residents here.
4. Mitigating Measures

Redesign alignment and station to Jalan Raja Abdullah.
5. Other matters
Hj Naharuddin expects that the project proponent will come back to Perbadanan to
discuss further with the readjusted alignment.
E2-5
E2-6
Case Interview 04
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Istana Budaya
: Level 3, Bangunan Pentadbiran, Istana Budaya.
: Monday, 8 December 2014
: 3.00pm-4.00pm
Participants:
1. Dato‟ Mohamed Juhari Shaarani, Director
2. Puteri Shahda Azza bt Megat Burhanuddin, Principal Public Relations Officer
3. Shafee Che Embi, Assistant Director (Marketing).
Istana Budaya (IB) is one of the complexes together with Balai Seni Lukis, National Library
and Wisma Sejarah that form “Rangkaian Budaya” located along Jalan Tun Razak. IB is
claimed to be among the top 10 cultural complexes in the world. IB employs about 400
employees and about half of them use their cars to come to work. Annually, over 200,000
participants take part in events at IB. In addition, about 500 persons visit the complex daily.
About 1,400 persons attend per show at the complex. The Titiwangsa Lake is another
tourist attraction located quite near IB, adding to the number of visitors to the area.
The Director fully supports the proposed SSP Line as will provide tremendous opportunities
to promote “Rangkaian Budaya”. The proposed station at Istana Budaya is acceptable.
a. Environmental concerns
Istana Budaya is located on soft ground due to water seepage from nearby Titiwangsa
Lake. This was realized when the complex was built about 10 years ago. The
proponents of SSP Line should take note of this issue to avoid unnecessary delays
during the construction later.
b. Social Issues (acquisition, relocation, aesthetics, loss of privacy, safety and security)
None
c.
Traffic congestion
There is already traffic congestion along Jalan Tun Razak during peak hours. This may
escalate during construction but may help reduce traffic volume once SSP Line is in
operation.
4. Other Concerns
The IB complex has seven storeys below the ground level. The underground works for SSP
Line may need to consider this element to avoid undue problems to the complex. The
Director suggests that the proposed SSP Line is built in stages and he hopes to see the
infrastructure in operation soonest.
E2-7
E2-8
Case Interview 05
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Perbadanan Putrajaya
: Bilik Rundingan 2, Level 8, Block D, Perbadanan Putrajaya
th
: 15 December 2014
: 2.30 pm-3.30 pm.
Participants:
1. Mr Sim Ee Chai – Assistant Director, City Planning Department
2. Mohd Zamri Daud –Environmental Control Officer
Perbadanan Putrajaya/Putrajaya Corporation (PPJ) was established under the Perbadanan
Putrajaya 1995 (Act 536) for the purpose of managing and administering the Federal
Territory of Putrajaya. Perbadanan Putrajaya is also entrusted with the functions of a local
authority and local planning authority by various orders and notifications, namely:
 Federal Territory of Putrajaya (Modification of Local Government Act 1976) Order
2002
 Federal Territory of Putrajaya (Modification of Street, Drainage and Building Act
1974) Order 2002
 Federal Territory of Putrajaya (Modification of Town and Country Planning Act
1976) Order 2010
Perbadanan Putrajaya fully supports the project. Provision for park and ride in Putrajaya
Sentral is ample. There are now 1500 bays with provision to build another 1500 bays.
3.
Environmental Concerns
None
a. Social Issues (acquisition, relocation, aesthetics, loss of privacy, safety and
security)
None
b. Traffic congestion
No traffic congestion.
4. Other Concerns
The only matter raised is technical, i.e. how the SSP Line would enter into Putrajaya Sentral
and how soon its detailed design would be ready in order for the local authority, i.e.
Perbadanan Putrajaya, to assist where possible.
Some of the queries raised are:
1. Will MRT share the ERL line (KLIA Transit) or does it have its own alignment? The
map shown to them during the briefing is unclear on this i.e. they are interested to
know how the SSP Line alignment will connect at Putrajaya Sentral.
2. Would MRT enter via the provisional tunnel already provided in Putrajaya Sentral
for an LRT?
E2-9
3.
Would MRT alignment enters Putrajaya from the north of Putrajaya Sentral where
there is a large piece of private land. Plans are being drawn to develop this land. If
there is an intent by MRT Corp to cross this land before entering Putrajaya Sentral;
the planning authority would need to ensure that provision is made in the layout
plan for this; otherwise if development plans are approved without this provision, it
would make it difficult for SSP Line to proceed without land acquisition.
4. Would MRT liaise with High Speed Rail (HSR) in working out the details on when
and how both rail lines would enter Putrajaya Sentral. At present, HSR is at an
advanced stage of planning and they are ready to freeze the corridor for the HSR to
link to Putrajaya Sentral. If this occurs, can it affect SSP Line‟s corridor?
5. At present people drive to Putrajaya. Government staff drive to Putrajaya. Putrajaya
has a strong tourism base -on an average more than 100 tourism buses enters
Putrajaya especially at the Dataran. Would MRT consider extending into the
existing underground tunnel (provided for a LRT) right under the spine of the city
where the Boulevard is. This would help to move passengers traffic from the
proposed HSR into Putrajaya city centre. It would help also Perbadanan Putrajaya
to expedite its aim to have a ratio of 70:30 in favour of public transport.
Perbadanan Putrajaya‟s key interest is to know how the SSP Line would link at Putrajaya
Sentral, the provision of feeder bus, how it would integrate with HSR, would it require land
acquisition, would it enter into its city centre via the existing tunnel and what kind of
technical support can the local authority provide to facilitate implementation. They are open
to more discussions with the MRT design team at a later stage.
E2-10
Case Interview 06
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Cyberview Sdn Bhd
: Cyberview, Jln Usahawan 2,Cyberjaya
th
: 18 December 2014
: 9.50am-10.40 am.
Participants:
1. Encik Ahmad Faizul Ramli, Head – Architectural & Planning (Project Management
Division)
Cyberview Sdn Bhd was mandated by the government to spearhead the development of
Cyberjaya. Cyberview was only active with full team on-board in 2006. Their role was
confined to selling of land, constructing buildings for targeted market and identified endusers, build supporting amenities and undertake rehabilitation and maintenance work in
Cyberjaya.
In 2008, Cyberview launched the SME Development Initiative in support of the
government‟s effort to spur the development of local IT industry. Cyberview‟s SME
Technopreneur Centre currently houses more than 200 IT companies. Cyberview Sdn Bhd
is planning to develop Cyberjaya City Centreat Persiaran Apec.
Cyberview fully supports the project.
En Faisal from Cyberview Sdn Berhad is aware of the project and has been in
communications with MRT Corp to discuss the location of the station proposed in Persiaran
Apec, opposite Limkokwing University. He is pleased that the alignment is entering
Cyberjaya. He asked when the project is expected to commence and when told 2016, is
happy that it would be soon. He is glad that his proposal to have the station at Cyber City
Centre has been agreed to. However, he proposes that this station be named Cyberjaya
City Centre Station. He also proposes that the station near Sky Park be named Cyberjaya
North. Cyberview Sdn Bhd would like to see a TOD development taking place around the
proposed station once it is confirmed it will be at its Cyberjaya City centre.
He further added that in developing the city centre, they have added a link to Putrajaya
Sentral as well so this proposed alignment matches his expectations. According to him, the
proposed SSP Line line coming into Cyberjaya and also into Putrajaya Sentral where the
High Speed Rail is also coming is a boost for both cities and will serve as an added growth
catalyst. The planning of Cyberjaya City Centre has always emphasised the importance and
need for a public transport.
None
security)
None
E2-11
4. Other Concerns
A reservation is the presence of Syabas pipelines on the proposed site which requires
further investigation.
E2-12
Case Interview 07
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Putrajaya Holdings
: Bilik Mesyuarat Tingkat 12, Menara PJH
th
: 19 December 2014
: 10.00 am-11.00 am.
Participants:
1. Puan Shujana Shuib – Head of Planning
2. Encik Hazwan – Head of Engineering
3. Encik Mohd Fairose – Senior Sales Supervisor
4. Cik Rozita Shamsuddin – Administrative Support
5. Puan Susilawati Ramli – Senior Executive
6. Cik Nor Fazliyana – Legal Executive
7. Cik Wan Nur Amalina – Legal Executive
1. Brief background
Putrajaya Holdings or PJH is the Master Developer of Putrajaya, and is given the task of
translating the vision of Putrajaya into a reality. Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd was given
the responsibility of designing and developing the comprehensive, highly strategic 20year Putrajaya Masterplan. Putrajaya Holdings‟ shareholders are Petroliam Nasional
Berhad (PETRONAS), the national petroleum company; Khazanah Nasional Berhad
(Khazanah), the investment arm of the Government of Malaysia; and Kumpulan Wang
Amanah Negara (KWAN). However, the ownership structure has since changed and as
at May 3, 2007, PETRONAS via KLCC (Holdings) Sdn Bhd is the majority shareholders
with 64.41%, while CIMB Group Nominees (Tempatan) Sdn Bhd (for and on behalf of
KWAN) has 20% stake and Khazanah has a 15.59%.
Today, with more than 20 signature development projects in Putrajaya comprising office
buildings, commercial hubs and residential, PJH will work alongside renowned names in
the construction industry in developing Putrajaya. PJH has around 200 staff members.
PJH fully supports the project as they are waiting for it to be implemented and realized.
Good connectivity from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya is vital for Putrajaya to achieve its
vision.
None
security)
None
Although there are no concerns on traffic congestion, there are other areas that are
linked to traffic and movements of people such as:
E2-13


Park and Ride
At the moment parking spaces are inadequate at Putrajaya Sentral and
additional parking must be made available to cater for the coming SSP Line and
HSR (It is understood from Perbadanan Putrajaya that at present 1500 bays are
available at Putrajaya Sentral and another 1,500 car parking bays can be
added).
Provision of Interlinkages into Putrajaya City Centre
PJH would like to request that MRT Corp considers extending the present MRT
alignment into the existing underground tunnel (provision for a LRT) right under
the spine of the city where the Boulevard is. This would help to move traffic
expected from HSR into the city.
4. Others

PJH prefers the earlier alignment from the feasibility study which proposed a
station to be built at Putrajaya Eastand passing through Precinct 14 (i.e. at the
boundary of Bangi and Putrajaya). In an earlier discussion, it was understood
that PJH was consulted and shown the alignment which they found acceptable.
Putrajaya Holdings is surprised to find that the present alignment will pass
through Cyberjaya on its way to Putrajaya Sentral.
E2-14
Case Interview 08
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Industry and Commercials in Seri Kembangan area
: Dewan Persatuan Penduduk PKNS, 7/1, Seri Kembangan.
th
: 30 December 2014
: 5.30pm-6.30pm.
Participants:
1. Encik Mazlan bin Sahran – Pasar Borong, Selangor
2. Puan Nurazfaliza bt Abdul Rashid – Restoran Anjung
3. Mr Jack Tan – Farm in the City
1. Background
Seri Kembangan was established as the Serdang New Village in 1952 when the British
moved Malaysian Chinese villagers living around Sungai Besi to a centralised location due
to the Communist threat during the Malayan Emergency following the Briggs Plan. In its
early days, the village had 50 houses and all were built from scratch because the British
only provided empty plots of land. The area was close to rubber estates and the jungle
posed dangers of a different kind. Most of the 15,000 inhabitants earned meagre incomes
as mining workers and rubber tappers.
At one point, the Seri Kembangan New Village was known for cottage industries like shoemaking but this has been overtaken by more profitable ventures. More developments took
place after year 2000 and other prominent developments includes AEON Equine Park,
McDonald's, Pasar Borong Selangor (wholesale market), Pappa Rich Kopitiam, Station 1
cafe, Boston Concept Restaurant, House of Healin Equine, Maybank, Giant Hypermarket
and other businesses transformed this area into a business hub.
The Seri Kembangan FGD for commercial could not proceed as planned as there were only
3 participants. A few participants sent sms to say they could not make it despite earlier
confirmation a day earlier that they would. A few had to stay back at work to attend to last
minute matters. The intent had been to call commercial operators from Seri Kembangan
town centre right up to Taman Putra Permai. The FGD had to be converted into an interview
as it did not have sufficient quorum. Two present were from Taman Equine area -wholesale
and an 'urban' farm (plus zoo) and a restaurant operator in Seri Kembangan.
The group fully supports the project.
a. Noise and Vibration
The representative from the “Farm in the City” is concerned with the noise and
vibration during the construction period. The urban farm is sensitive to noise
because it houses animals. However, its location is not close to the alignment and
this was explained to him. According to the current map at hand, his farm appears
not to be impacted. The representative from the restaurant is concerned over noise,
dust and traffic congestion during the construction period of the project.
E2-15
As the main road is heavily congested, she may lose her clients during the long
construction period, and once affected, she is unsure whether business can
recover.
b. Social Issues
The recent work site accidents appear to have spooked them about safety matters.
Their concerns are during construction. Question of acquisition is raised but as it is
not clear from the map shown that they would be directly impacted, it was not seen
as an issue.
c.
Traffic Congestion

Representative from Pasar Borong believes that the alignment could be near to
them. They have had land subsistence during their development. There is fear
whether during construction, this could happen again. He ask that the Project
Proponent take note of this and inform them accordingly should this be an issue.
Traffic congestion is raised as a possible issue because the wholesale market
operates 24 hours, and peak hour is from 4am to noon.
Representative from the „Farm in the City‟ believe that the farm is more likely to
encounter traffic congestion because as a tourist attraction, it has over 500+ visitors
a day and during peak season, the number could go up to 1000 a day or more.
Similarly, Pasar Borong voices some concern as its customers average about 3000
a day and on weekends, it goes up to 5,000 a day.

E2-16
E2-17
Case Interview 09
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Gapurna
: Level 16, Menara Amfirst Tower 2, Jalan SS7/15, Kelana Jaya.
: Thursday, 5 April 2015
: 10.00 am – 11.30 am
Gapurna Participants:
1. En. Jasmi Darlis, Senior Quantity Surveyor
2. Pn. Haiza Idrus, Property Executive.
The interview session was held at the request of Gapurna being the landowner of the
stretch between Jalan Serdang Raya and Jalan Utama at Serdang Raya. This session was
organized as they learnt that their tenants have enquired from them about the status of the
land leased by Gapurna to them.
1. Brief background
Both Gapurna and their sister company Sagu Prestasi own the stretch of land next to
North South Expressway between Petron fuel refilling station at Jalan Serdang Raya up
to the junction at Jalan Utama. Gapurna has leased its land to 8 tenants while Sagu
Prestasi did so to 6 tenants. Some of these leases have just been renewed recently,
each for a three year period. It was indicated that some operators had their businesses
located very close to the residential areas and the local authority concerned has moved
them to this current location. This includes the used car dealers.
The representatives are not opposed to the proposed SSP Line, as they see it as a
public project, thus they accept it openly. The alignment and location of stations do not
matter to them as they are landlords, and they will be pleased if the whole bulk of their
land can be acquired completely. However, they will bring the proposal to their
management in due time for their attention.
None.
security)
They are hopeful that their land will not be acquired to protect the interest of the tenants.
Their concerns are centred on the livelihood of the tenants as they may lose their
business if the land is acquired. They are also worried if certain units are taken for the
viaducts, then it may only affect some businesses but safety could be an emerging
issue. However, due to Right of Way (ROW), it was indicated that it is likely some land
parcels will be acquired for safety reasons. Gapurna fear that they may lose steady
monthly revenue from rental if parts of the land are taken affecting some of the tenants.
c.
Traffic congestion
None.
E2-18
4. Other Concerns
They are unhappy that a focus group discussion has been earmarked for commercial
operators in Serdang Jaya where some of their tenants were invited. The invitation for
the FGD had been an open invitation to business operators in the area to attend and
participate in the stakeholders‟ engagement. The landowners requested their tenants be
excluded from the invitation. They would inform their tenants accordingly. However, the
DEIA team informed that the stakeholders‟ engagement is an open invitation for the
business and residential communities within the impact zone of the SSP alignment. The
team would not stop any interested parties who wish to attend if they want to. At best,
the DEIA team could inform the participants who are tenants of Gapurna and its sister
company that their landlord would undertake to continue to liaise with the Project
Proponent and inform them and they may be excused from participation. It would leave
it to the free will of the people should they wish to participate in the engagement
sessions.
5. Suggestions
Their suggestions are:


Complete acquisition of their land,
Acquisition of certain parts of the land.
E2-19
Case Interview 10
Target Group
Venue
Date
: Residential and Commercial Units at Taman Salak Selatan Baru
: Jalan 34, 35, 38 at Taman Salak Selatan Baru
: 7 March 2015
Participants:
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Name
Eng Teck Kian
Yan Mun Wei
Wong Yew Fook
Tham Kong Fah
M. Kannan
Y.C.Ng
Ng BengHooi
CheahYeongNen
Paul Raj
Chin Pak Khoon
Shankar Thangayah
Ng Sook Mei
NurulLaili
Thangaraj
K.
Arumugathevar
Address
Teck Kian Glass, 867 Jalan 35
DePro Auto SdnBhd, 862 Jalan 35
Lin Glass Sdn Bhd., 849 Jalan 35
Solid Steel Metal SdnBhd, 861 Jalan 35
Sivagame Metal SdnBhd, Jalan 36B
Y.C.Auto Service, 848 Jalan 35
Chin Fatt Trading Co., 852 Jalan 35
Crystal Advertising & Trading, 957B Jalan 38
TelfastSdnBhd, 895 Jalan 35
Chin Pak KhoonSdnBhd, 900 Jalan 35
(Resident), 896 Jalan 35
(Resident), 901A, Jalan 35
(Resident), 901B Jalan 35
(Resident), 896A Jalan 35
15.
16.
17.
KaruppiahVisvanathan
Chong Sai Meng
Chia Lee Ying
This part of Kg Baru Salak South is believed to be affected by the proposed SSP alignment
which will draw very close to it. A focus group discussion for Salak South community was
th
held on 25 February 2015. It was noted that the residents/operators from this area did not
nd
participate in the engagement. A site visit was carried out to study further the area on 2
March and to identify possible persons to engage. From the site visit, it was decided that to
carry out case interviews of the residents and business operators here. The interview
method is aimed to cover as many of them as possible armed with the show card. As it was
not easy to bring all of them together, the interviews were conducted individually. The
findings of the face-to-face discussions are summarized below.
1. Brief background
The community at Taman Salak Selatan Baru is formerly a part of Kg Salak Selatan
until they were separated and isolated from the rest of the village by many years ago
when the Kuala Lumpur-Seremban Highway was constructed. Later, the construction of
BESRAYA further enforces their isolation. According to a participant in the interview,
quite a number of the original occupants of this area had since moved away, buying
properties in nearby Kuchai Lama. They did not sell out their premises but sublet them
to others.
The target group for the interview comprises residents and business operators whose
units are located along Jalan 34, Jalan 35, and Jalan 38. Their premises are believed to
E2-20
be affected by the proposed SSP Line alignment. It is noted that the road conditions are
extremely poor, made worse by the prevalence of trucks moving in and out of the area.
Most of the area is not maintained, and in many parts, rubbish was left unattended.
Out of the 25 units located in this area, 8were found to be abandoned, unoccupied or
being used for storage. The abandoned units are in dilapidated conditions, with missing
windows and doors.
The remaining 17 units (as listed above) are occupied by residents or commercial
operators. In terms of the occupancy status, 41 percent are owner occupied and the
remaining 59 percent tenant-occupied. The occupancy period ranges from a low of 2
years to a high of 70 years, with the mode and the mean being 10 years and 23 years,
respectively. The business establishments here employ a total of 121 persons (an
average of 12 persons per establishment) while the residential units have 39 persons in
7 units (an average of 6 persons per household).
Only 29 percent of the participants interviewed are aware of the proposed SSP Line. All
participants, except three, object to the proposed alignment coming to their area.
However, the 3 participants who did not object, give their approval subject to certain
conditions such as (i) the alignment goes underground; (ii) their businesses are not
affected by any acquisition or relocation; and (iii) they are compensated attractively.
SSP Line may increase dust and noise during construction and operations.
security)
The participants give various reasons for their objections to the alignment being
close to them. The reasons include: (i) they have stayed here far too long and it is
difficult to find an alternative location at the same rental value; (ii) they are too old to
move to another location; (iii) the area already serves them with basic needs such
as school, market, town and most importantly to them it also serves as a source of
their employment; (iv) it may affect their business by losing loyal customers; and (v)
possible loss of employment opportunities if they are relocated elsewhere.
c.
Traffic congestion
They are already facing traffic congestion in their area, especially after the
condominiums were built opposite Jalan 34. Furthermore, the participants opine that
parking problems are serious in the area and likely SSP Line is likely to aggravate it.
4. Other Concerns
All the participants unanimously oppose any acquisition or relocation of their units. They
are, however, divided on whether it is alright for them for the MRT alignment or the
station to be located close to them. They are also divided over the potential impacts of
noise, vibration, and dust to their units, i.e. some find such impacts acceptable and
some do not.
Their suggestions:
 Move the alignment away from their area
 Go underground
E2-21
E2-22
E2-23
Case Interview 11
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Pekan Sg Besi Police Station (Institutional)
:Meeting Room, Sg Besi Police Station, Jalan Suasa 3, Pekan Sg Besi
: 9 March 2015
:10.30 am – 12.10 pm
Participants:
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Name
ASP Muhamad Suhaimi Ibrahim
ASP Sin Yin Long
SM Mohd Noor
Sjn Jasmei Din
Kpl Fazril b. Mohamed
Kpl Azuan b. Abu Talib
L/Kpl Marshitahayate Ramli
Kpl Azlina Hussin
Sjn Mohd Khair
Address
Ketua Bahagian Keselamatan A, IPD Cheras
OCS, Sg Besi Police Station
T/KPB Sg Besi (P)
SB, IPD Cheras
SB, IPD Cheras
SB, IPD Cheras
Balai Polis Sg Besi
Tugas Am, Sg Besi
Sjn Aktiviti (P) Sg Besi
1. Brief background
The police station is likely to be affected by the proposed alignment, especially its five
blocks of barracks used to house its personnel. The blocks offer 40 apartment units and
house about 160 occupants. It was stressed that the barracks are important to the
police personnel in carrying out their duties at the station. Moving them away could
adversely affect their operations.
The officers support the proposed MRT in general and that it would be good for Sg Besi.
However, they do not want it to affect adversely the people here.
The officers are concerned over noise and vibration during construction and
operations of the proposed project, especially based on their experience with the
Ampang Line LRT and station located just adjacent to their police station. They
state that after the LRT has been in operations for a while, it becomes noise with the
noise level increasing over the years. They believe maintenance could be poor.
They fear the SSP Line would pose a similar problem for them in the future if it is to
be built near to them. They point out that noise and vibration do affect the
operations of their police station.
security)
Acquiring the barracks will disrupt the homes of the personnel housed there. They
would have to find alternative accommodation elsewhere and would need to travel
to work. All these could affect the police station‟s operations and its efficiency level.
E2-24
They are also worried of flash floods during construction after hearing of
experiences elsewhere where blocked drainages during the construction phase
have resulted in flooding when never before, has this happen.
c.
Traffic congestion
Their main concern is parking facility for their staff as well as for those visiting the
station. The town is facing severe parking problems. The mosque is also affected by
shortage of parking spaces. Acquisition of the barracks will make parking woes
worse as it will also remove parking facilities there for their personnel. The
participants request that the police are consulted on the management plan for the
MRT, especially if it is going into their area. As it is, they find that the parking
facilities currently available at the existing LRT station here are insufficient to meet
the needs of users.
4. Other Concerns
The participants indicate that DBKL has plans to redevelop the township of Pekan Sg
Besi. They think the proposed SSP Line should refer to such plans.
5. Suggestions
Their suggestions:
 Consider moving the alignment across the other side of the existing LRT station
where it could serve more effectively those at PPR Raya Permai and Pangsa
Permai.
 Ensure a large Park & Ride facility is provided.
 Communicate with the Police Contingent Headquarters (IPK) on logistic matters
should there be acquisition of their barracks.
 Consider redeveloping their barracks as part of the MRT development. The police
can consider redevelopment of their barracks into a high-rise structure to
accommodate more personnel.
 Take actions to reduce noise and vibration levels especially after the MRT is
operating for a long while.
 Take the land from the Health Department‟s land where an abandoned clinic is
presently located as well as the hawker stalls along the main road to build a new
Park & Ride facility here.
E2-25
Focus Group Discussion 01
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Damansara Damai (Commercial Group)
:LH6, Kolej Perkembangan Awal Kanak-kanak
Ground Floor, Podium Block, Season Square,
1 Jalan PJU10/3C, Damansara Damai.
th
: 7 December 2014
:8.30pm-9.30pm
Participants:
1
Zulkifli Ismail
2
Mohd Shahri bin Shamsuddin
3
Mohd Nazri Osman
4
Rusu Abd Azid
5
Hasrin Misran
6
Noorman Affendi
7
A.S. Clement
H2 Gold Resources, F-2-50B Jalan PJU 10/10F
Excellent Tyres & Services
F-2-50B Jalan PJU 10/10F
Restaurant owner, 50 Jalan PJU 10/10D
Advertising, Damansara Damai
MK Land, Damansara Damai
General Manager, Kolej Perkembangan Awal
Kanak-Kanak
1. Brief Background
Participants are mostly commercial operators in Damansara Damai. They are tenants; not
owners of the premises where they operate from. According to them, most operators here
do not own their buildings. The area has about 80% to 90% operational commercial
activities; boosted by the presence of ECONSAVE, a supermarket, and by the private
college, Kolej Perkembangan Awal Kanak.
The group acknowledged that there will be benefits from the SSP Line and having a station
at Damansara Damai would be good for their businesses. On the downside, they are not
owners of their premises so the gains are limited to business growth. More likely, the
owners would benefit from higher asset appreciation and they would raise their rentals.
Already, rentals are high, for example, a ground floor unit currently used for a restaurant
fetches RM5000 a month in rental. Many expect operational costs to rise when the MRT is
up and operational. The risk is that these increases may not be in tandem; higher rental
versus expanded business due to MRT.
They identify two other groups who would gain, i.e. the residents and the students,
especially those from Kolej Perkembangan Awal Kanak-Kanak. With SSP Line, they would
find it so much easier to travel to various destinations all over the Klang Valley. Kolej
Perkembangan Awal Kanak-Kanak is unsure of benefits.
Although they think benefits to business could rise, they are not confident for reasons such
as:
a. Environmental Issues
 Subsidence near project site. The site for the station is near the river. The area
has suffered a major water disruption because the water pipes subsided from
E2-26

seepage of river water. Attention must be given to this aspect during planning
and design.
Construction would cause rise in dust and noise levels in the area.
b. Social Issues
 Security problems could occur
c.
Traffic congestion
 Damansara Damai is only accessible through the single road (Jalan PJU10/1)
that is used to enter and exit the area. Businessmen depend on this road for
delivery of goods. There could be further congestions during construction. More
people would come to here to access the MRT station. Jalan PJU10/1 cannot
take the additional traffic unless action is taken to improve road access despite
the proposed SSP Line. To illustrate, participants informed that the main
exit/entry is congested as early as 6am.
 Parking will be an issue during and after construction as there are insufficient
car parks here. Users of MRT would drive here to park.
d. Other Concerns

Costs could rise (rental value, parking charges)
4. Suggested Mitigating Measure
To consider building an additional exit/entry point for Damansara Damai before the
construction phase as the place cannot take additional traffic congestion arising during the
construction phase.
E2-27
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Kepong Metro Prima (Commercial Group)
:Meeting Room, Persatuan Penjaja & Peniaga Kecil Kepong, 73-3A-1,
Jalan Metro Perdana Barat 1, Taman Usahawan Kepong, Kepong.
th
:13 December 2014 (Saturday)
: 11.00am – 1.00pm
Participants:
No.
1.
Name
Yee Poh Ping
Position
Chairman
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Lai Nyik Meng
Chan Sai Kow
Tan Cheng Yong
Angie Lim
Wong Yoon Fatt
Wilson
Eric Chin
Foo Suan Chan
Jimmy Chan
Coli So
Chai Fong Sang
Ng Su Ing
Ahmad Suki
Hok Tiet Kien Beng
Rama Krishnan
Ng Yow Lam
Lim Hong Chuan
Lee Wai Seng
Low Pooi Meng
Ong Yeong
Pu Zit Thing
Wong Pek Mei
Roo Ban Uai
Chairman
Secretary
Photographer
Organisation
Kepong Community Service
Centre
Kepong Entrepreneur Park
Kepong Entrepreneur Park
Yanda Enterprises
Yanda Enterprises
Wing Seong Fatt Center
Emopac
One Blueprint
Food Court
Pusat Penjaja Jinjang
PDRM
Tokong Jinjang
KJ
Sin Chew Daily
Sin Chew Daily
Sin Chew Daily
China Press
Oriental
Nanyang
The Star
Oriental
1. Background
The group discussion was organised through the cooperation of the Kepong Community
Service Centre. The group comprises the Head of the Service Centre, the Chairman of
the Kepong Hawker Association and Operator of the Jinjang Hawker Centre.
People here have been looking forward to a good public transportation system. The
group welcomes the proposal of having the SSP Line in Kepong, acknowledging that
public transport here is bad. An example is the Rapid KL bus service in Kepong which
they find provides poor service. The SSP Line would benefit the Kepong community.
E2-28
The general perception is the environmental issues are not very serious but there
are exceptions as follows:
 Noise
SSP Line alignment and the proposed station should not go near to homes because
of the noise. The frequency of trains would definitely affect noise levels in the area
and homes nearby. The thrust put forward is to put into place a plan to take
mitigating measures on noises emanating from the proposed train and stations.
security)
1) Acquisition and Relocation
The people have concerns over acquisition and relocation. They ask that the
following should be avoided or kept to minimum:
 Acquisition of commercial properties/hawkers centres
 Acquisition of car parks in the commercial area
 Acquisition and relocation of temple, to be completely avoided.
 Acquisition of homes/relocation
2) Hawkers‟ Centre
Hawkers at the centre have been operating for many years. The land that they
occupy now is said to belong to DBKL. They are licensed by DBKL and they have
no security of tenure. There are about 20 operators here, with 100 dependents.
They do not want to be relocated. Shifting them could mean the livelihood of these
people would be severely affected. However, if relocation is necessary, they hope
that they would be duly notified, and compensated.
3) Aesthetics
On the visual effect, the feedback is the concrete columns supporting the
guideways do not look good. More efforts should be made to landscape the areas
below SSP Line tracks and the columns are painted accordingly to blend with the
environment.
More importantly, there is a fear that the columns coming close to people‟s
properties could be so close such that they would infringe onto people‟s privacy.
The comment put forward is “no one wants to see concrete columns in front of
them.”On this, they want more action taken to address this negative visual effect.
c.
Traffic congestion
1) Car Parking
The main worry for the commercial traders is parking. Their argument is if there is a
station to be proposed here, the Project Proponent must ensure there are adequate
parking facilities. They points out that there should be additional car parking
facilities here at Metro Prima; otherwise, MRT customers would use the available
car parks here as their car parks and this would have a negative impact on their
E2-29
business. It is explained that the commercial traders here rely heavily on the
availability of car parks in order to sustain their customer base.
Inadequate provision of car parks also means more people would park haphazardly
within nearby residential areas. They proposed that the area below the SSP Line
tracks be used as for car parking.
Furthermore, the Kepong Community Service Centre proposes adding more car
park bays in the area without comprising the own existing car parks. See drawing
attached.
2) Traffic congestion during Construction
They perceive traffic congestion during construction will be bad because Jalan
Kepong is already congested. As there are schools here, the traffic is bad during
peak morning hours and after schools. During construction, the SSP Line would
worsen the situation. They expect the Project Proponent to take measures to
minimise traffic congestions.
3) Feeder bus services
A feeder bus service is needed to support the proposed SSP Line in Kepong. In its
absence, people would still drive to the station and this makes it difficult to manage
car parking in the area.
d. Others
 To take opportunity to create more car parks in Kepong in addition to DBKL‟s
paid parking so that MRT users would not encroach on existing car parks in the
commercial area. Areas identified appear to be road reserves in front of AEON
Big and shop houses fronting Kepong Metro Prima.
 More shady trees to be replanted after completion of the project.
 MRTC to consult them once details are in final stages.
4. Suggested Mitigating Measures
(1) Reduce impact on business operators and hawker centres.
(2) Install the right noise barriers and the choice of it should not affect aesthetics in the
commercial areas.
(3) Ensure provision of more parking spaces.
(4) Have a proper traffic management plan especially during construction.
(5) Provide feeder buses to surrounding areas.
E2-30
Mr Yee, Head of the Kepong Community Service Centre explained his suggestion the hatched areas are his suggestion for additional car parks to be created to
support the MRT station in Kepong-Metro Prima area. The suggested areas are
supposedly road reserves.
E2-31
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Kg Batu Delima (Residential Group)
: Dewan Orang ramai Kampung Batu Delima
: Sunday, 14 December 2014
: 9.30am-11.30am
NO.
NAME
POSITION
ORGANISATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Bahrum Mohd Som
Mohd Rodzi Tasudin
Sharifah Mahani
Rapeah Mohamed
Arbain Kassim
Mohd Saiful Bahri
Chairman
Deputy Chairman
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
JKKK. Kg Delima
JKKK. Kg Delima
JKKK. Kg Delima
JKKK. Kg Delima
JKKK. Kg Delima
JKKK. Kg Delima
1
Brief background
1.
Kg Batu Delima has about 150 houses with a population of about 400 persons.
Established in the 1930s from a wooden traditional village, it has now modernized
over time to what it is now. The place is currently safe for the population and there
is a rehabilitation centre named Darul Saadah. Apart from that, the village also has
a number of workshops and petty traders earning a living. The village is situated
next to a lake that serves as a retention pond. They claimed that their place is the
only heritage village left. The participants also highlighted that there was a village at
the other side of the same lake which has now been taken over for a high rise
residential development. There is an ongoing protest by the villagers against the
construction of a road next to the Dewan Orangramai Kg Batu Delima to connect
the residential development to the main road (Jalan Kepong Lama) traversing the
village.
2.
Support for SSP Line
The participants support the overall SSP Line project subject to a revision to the
proposed alignment. They request that the station be built closer to the TNB
building and the alignment should either be (i) adjusted to the banks of the lake, or
(ii) across the lake so that the village and the villagers‟ homes are not affected and
land acquisition would be avoided completely.
3.
a.
Environmental issues
The participants who spoke on behalf of the village are concerned with the increase
in the noise and dust levels expected during the construction phase.
b.
Social Issues
They are concerned with safety and security of the villagers who are old and weak
to defend themselves. They mentioned they do not want their land and homes be
acquired.
E2-32
B
c.
Traffic Congestion
Currently, Jalan Kepong Lama already suffers traffic congestion during peak hours
as it is used as a shortcut to Taman Wahyu. Jalan Kepong Lama is a one-lane road
that cannot serve heavy traffic and houses are close to the road. During the
construction phase, SSP Line may worsen this scenario, if the traffic is diverted
there. Further increase in traffic volume will affect safety of villagers and cause
damage to the road serving the village.
d.
Other Concerns
The participants are concerned with the size of the station to be built and are
worried that it will overshadow the size of the village. They wish that the proposed
station be moved closer to nearby Jinjang area to serve the population there as Kg
Batu Delima is already accessible by KTMB Komuter line.
The villagers hope that the village is conserved as a traditional village. Having a
station close to this village will change the lifestyle of the people in the village. They
will object strongly if the current alignment is retained. The participants expect a
meeting with the Project Proponent to discuss the alignment further.
4.
Suggested Mitigating Measures
(1) Use JPS land reserve and TNB pylon reserve for the alignment to the back of
TM building near Taman Wahyu to avoid any disruption to this village and
acquisition at Taman Wahyu.
(2) Move the proposed station closer to the population at Jinjang Selatan
Tambahan.
E2-33

Kg Batu Delima
Legend:  - proposed new location of station, closer to TNB building. Red line–
participants‟ proposal to go close along the lake; green line – participants‟ proposal
to align along existing TNB transmission line/reserve.
E2-34
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: PPR Pekan Batu (Residential Group)
: Meeting Room, PPR Pekan Batu
: Monday, 15 December 2014
: 9.00pm -11.00 pm
NO.
NAME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Mohamed Razian Adam
K. Jayakumaran
Ishamudin Abdullah
Panwi Abdullah
P. Govindaraji
E. Ramakrishnan
Norfaizah Hashim
Noraini Mahmud
Ihsan Muslim
Zainab Hj Said
Aisyah Munirah
Roselila Idrus
Tg. AzamiyahTg. Mukhtar
Khamshabt A. Samah
M. Khairul Azri
M. J. Ganesan
G. Selvarajoo
M. Poopalasingam
1.
POSITION
ORGANISATION
Chairman
Dep. Chairman
Secretary
Treasurer
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Women‟s Bureau
Chief, Women‟s Bureau
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Resident
Civil servant
RT Comm. Member
Comm. Member
Comm. Member
PPR Pekan Batu
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
JPAM Sentul
Taman Rainbow
Taman Bamboo
Taman Bamboo
Brief background
The session which was organized under the assistance of the Chairman of PPR
Pekan Batu, was also extended to Taman Rainbow and Taman Bamboo. PPR
Pekan Batu has about 3000 occupants. PPR Pekan Batu also houses Jabatan
Pertahanan Awam Malaysia (JAPM), with one member attended the discussion
today. There are poor families living in here that would benefit from the proposed
rail transport.
2.
SSP Line would bring additional benefit to the residents of PPR Pekan Batu as it
would another public transportation to complement KTM Komuter. They appreciate
SSP Line coming close to their area. PPR Pekan Batu participants find the
proposed SSP Line a good idea as it would benefit the younger generation but they
hope for a fair price tariff that is suitable for their poor residents. The JPAM member
believes that SSP Line will reduce the traffic congestions here once it goes into
operation.
The participant from Taman Rainbow was skeptical that SSP Line will bring any
benefit to his area. He cited congestion and noise as issues the people staying
nearby will encounter.
E2-35
A participant pointed out it is likely they would be affected indirectly; they could not
see any direct impacts on them.
3.
a.
Environmental issues
The participants highlighted environmental issues such as increase in noise and
dust levels during construction and operational phases of the SSP Line.
b.
Social Issues
Participants from Taman Rainbow and Taman Bamboo expressed their worry that
residents will be affected by any acquisition for the SSP Line. However, they want
the SSP Line to serve Jalan Ipoh residents more as there is no major public
transportation system in the area. They think some affected people may accept
acquisition; some may not and this will vary accordingly.
Participants are also concerned with safety and security of residents especially in
the construction phase due to their awareness of recent incidents at construction
sites
c.
Traffic Congestion
PPR is located in a congested area and the SSP Line may add to the congestion
during construction. Traffic congestions to be avoided.
4. Other Concerns
The participants are concerned whether there will be seamless connection between
SSP Line and other public transportation systems, especially with KTMB Komuter
line near their residences. Based on the map shown, they find the proposed station
is not fully integrated with the other rail line. They want facilities such as lifts and
escalators, dedicated coaches for women, and surau. They want fare to be
reasonable as people are mostly from the low-income group. Feeder buses are
required to serve residents from areas around to the SSP Line station.
For representatives from Taman Rainbow and Taman Bamboo, the question of land
acquisition is a matter of concern. They want to have access to more detailed maps
showing the SSP Line route. To this end, the participants expect to have an
additional meeting with the Project Proponent where they could discuss further the
alignment and its impact on them.
(1) Have an effective traffic management system during construction as the area
has roads that are narrow and congested.
(2) Ensure safety of residents is attended to during construction.
E2-36
E2-37
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Sri Damansara(Commercial Group)
: Sri Damansara Club
: Wednesday, 17 December 2014
: 2.00 – 3.30 pm
Participants:
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Name
RosemalizaRuslan
Sahrunnizam bin Yassin
MohdZaideeZainudin
Rafaddin bin Ijai
Deen bin Ali
Not LokmanHj. Tajiman
KowThiem Choy
Tan Kwok Fong
Dato‟ Wan Abd. Fatah
DatinMaznahYahya
KowKeng Long
Position
HR Manager
Chargeman
Executive
Insurance Advisor
Building Manager
Chargeman
Manager
Manager
Director, Dealer
Manager
Manager
Organization
FMM
FMM
Proton
Proton
L&G
L&G
Sri Martek Furniture
BHP
Salutary Fortune
AlafSinaran Enterprises
Econic Marketing
1. Brief background
While many more were invited to the session, only those listed above attended this session.
In close proximity to the proposed SSP Line alignment are several businesses in Sri
Damansara including Proton, FMM, and BHP petrol station. These are also located near
housing areas.
Generally, almost half of the participants gave a conditional support on the proposed SSP
Line. However, this show of support is on a condition that they or their businesses would not
be adversely affected through acquisition and relocation.
FMM„s agrees with the proposed SSP Line as it will improve the visibility of their company
from afar. Currently, there are trees blocking the view of their building. FMM believes that
with this SSP Line, it will enable them to replace their private vehicles and use the SSP Line
to travel to Putrajaya which they often do.
a. Environmental issues
The businessmen anticipate increase in noise during construction and operations of SSP
Line. FMM is concerned over noise during construction and even after construction.
b. Social Issues (acquisition, relocation, aesthetics, loss of privacy, safety and security)
Based on the map presented to them, participants claim Station 2 is too close to the
buildings nearby, which is likely to affect the aesthetics and some operators may lose their
business. L & G participants are concerned that the foundation of AIA and SD Hotel
buildings may be affected by the construction works on SSP Line.
E2-38
The dealer for BHP petrol station registered his strong objection should the proposed SSP
Line results in the acquisition of the petrol station where he operates. He points out that if
any compensation is to be given, it would go to the owner of the property, i.e. the company
or individual who owns the affected land. In his case, as a dealer he has no rights over the
property and will lose his livelihood and business should this happen. This concern is
echoed among many of those present, especially when they are tenants and not property
owners. They show concern and are worried that if land acquisition occurs, they, as tenants,
have to leave without any compensation and despite the terms of their tenancies.
FMM states clearly that it would object should their building be acquired. They also
conveyed their concerns with safety issues during construction. They hope there will be no
mishaps especially during the construction of SSP Line. Participants from Proton feel they
may lose their jobs if their premise is acquired and given their age, they may not be
successful to find another job.
Representatives from EON noted the proximity of a proposed station to their showroom
along MRR2 but were unable to comment much as this matter is usually handled at
headquarters. They, however, indicated that any acquisition could definitely disrupt their
business and may lead to relocation or loss of employment.
The recommendation from the group is to realign the route. The proposal is for SSP Line to
use the government road reserve on the other side of Jalan Kuala Selangor to avoid it from
affecting businesses such as the petrol stations (e.g. BHP).
c. Traffic congestion
FMM is worried that entrance to their building may be blocked by traffic during the
construction of SSP Line as the road, Persiaran Dagangan, where they are at and where
they think the SSP Line will traverse is too narrow to accommodate the SSP Line.
4. Other Concerns
Participants also request for feeder buses to serve the residential, business and industrial
areas. Some participants enquired about details of compensation if their properties are
acquired for the project, while others request for more detailed plans and clarifications on
the Railway Scheme.FMM hopes that there will be more parking facilities to cater for the
need of their clients
(1) Possibly use noise barriers
(2) Try to realign across the other side of Jalan Kuala Selangor on government reserve
land opposite AIA building.
E2-39
E2-40
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
Participants:
: Taman Jinjang Baru (Residential Group)
: Dewan Persatuan Penduduk Taman Jinjang Baru
: Wednesday, 17 December 2014
: 8.00 –9.30 pm
NO.
NAME
POSITION
1.
Lee Kim Meng
Secretary
2.
Low Seng Hui
Secretary
3.
Yee Tiam King
Chairman
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Yaw Than Seong
Tan Teong Chai
Wong WaiKhiong
Wong Kat Chin
Lee Yee Kim
YiopChii Lin
Shim Chuan Loy
Chong See Fun
Yiop Chee Ho
Kuan Ah Wah
Choo Yin Fatt
Wong Chik Heng
Treasurer
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
ORGANISATION
Residential Association, PPR Taman Jinjang
Baru
Residential Association, Middle Cost Housing,
Taman Jinjang Baru
Resident Association, Sri Jinjang High Cost
Housing
Country 1Malaysia
PPR Taman Jinjang Baru
Middle Cost Housing Taman Jinjang Baru
Middle Cost Housing, Taman Jinjang Baru
Middle Cost Housing, Taman Jinjang Baru
1. Brief background
Taman Jinjang Baru consists of a mix of low, middle and high cost housing. The
participants claim that Jinjang is the largest Chinese new village in Malaysia. Recently,
the number of Sabahans who live in Jinjang has increased rapidly. The residents
informed the share of the non-Chinese in Jinjang has increased to 40% from a previous
low of 10%.
The residents at Jinjang Baru support the proposed SSP Line project. They contend
that SSP Line should commence soonest to reduce traffic congestion in the area.
However, the location of the station needs to be moved further away towards the DBKL
towed vehicle site, and before the food court (see marks A or B in photo below).
According to them, this shift will be good for the proposed SSP Line as it would then be
able to serve residents from Jinjang North. In addition, there is land available at the
newly proposed site which can accommodate easily the proposed Park and Ride
facilities.
The residents anticipate noise pollution during and after the construction of SSP Line.
E2-41
security)
Residents want to know whether there is any land acquisition, especially the acquisition
of residential properties here. They are looking for assurance that it would not happen in
their area.
c. Traffic congestion
The residents are concerned with the possibility of immense traffic congestions during
the construction of SSP Line. This is because they believe that Jalan Kepong is too
narrow and daily traffic is too heavy.
They are also concerned that should the proposed station be maintained at its present
site, people will park their vehicles in their residential areas and aggravate parking
problems here. The SSP Line will worsen the situation because users of SSP Line will
park anywhere at and around the residential areas and this will not be tolerated by the
residents.
4. Other Concerns
The residents request feeder buses to the residential areas and Park and Ride facility is
a must near the station. They expect many from the surrounding residential areas will
use SSP Line, and to accommodate them, there should be large numbers of parking
bays at the proposed Park and Ride facility.
(3) Move location of proposed station to DBKL land near the food court (Location A or
B, in diagram below).
E2-42
A
B
E2-43
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Ampang Park – KLCC East Stations (Commercial Group)
: Junior Ballroom, Intercontinental Hotel, Kuala Lumpur
: Thursday, 18December 2014
: 3.00 –4.30 pm
NO.
NAME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Zaidi Abu Samah
David Hong
Annie Low
Susan Ng
Lee Nyet Jam
Kuek Meng Huat
Raja Noni Adila
Lee Ah Gom
Jacquelyn Tay
Kum Yut Kwong
Lee Chee Meng
Nics Ooi
Shirley Hoo
POSITION
ORGANISATION
Finance Manager
Property Manager
Manager
Admin Executive
Finance Manager
Property Manager
Building Manager
Resident Manager
Resident Manager
Chairman
JMC
Asst Chief Engineer
Director of Marketing & Mass
Communication
CBRE
KJS
Ampang Park Mgmt
Ampang Park Mgmt
Ampang Park Mgmt
RBMC
Oval Kl (East)
Troika
Dua Residency
Corinthian
Oval
Hotel Intercontinental
Hotel Intercontinental
Participants:
1.
Brief background
The discussion comprises of mainly two groups, being business people around Ampang
Park Complex, and the other from Kudalari area. Both groups merged combined into one as
only a few participants agreed to attend the session.
Participants state that the place is very peaceful with the exception of traffic problems. The
area accommodates expatriates under the MM2H programme. Ampang Park and KLCC
East Station area has a sizeable number of commercial establishments, including shopping
complexes, hotels, and office buildings. In addition, there are also residential units and
condominiums. The LRT Kelana Jaya Line serves the area with a station located between
Ampang Park Mall and Intercontinental Hotel.
2.
Overall, the participants support SSP Line and are looking forward to more details from
MRT Corp.
a.
Environmental Issues
Their concerns include noise and vibrations, safety, and risks of cracks appearing on their
buildings during construction as well as possibilities of flooding, as the area is flood prone.
They are worried if sinkholes occur given the soil conditions here.
b.
None
Social Issues
E2-44
c.
Traffic Congestion
The traffic around both stations is heavy especially during peak hours. The worry is that
people will park their vehicles haphazardly along the road during construction of SSP Line
given steep parking rates here. On the positive side, participants state that the proposed
SSP Line will help resolve current traffic issuesin their area after SSP Line goes into
operation.
d.
Other Concerns
 Will there be acquisition near Ampang Park for the new station for SSP Line? Multiple
owners own the complex.
 There is a need to ensure that there is seamless connection underground especially
between SSP Line station at Ampang Park and the existing LRT Kelana Jaya Line.
 They also request that there is common ticketing system for both SSP Line and LRT
Kelana Jaya Line so that they can switch trains without the need to buy multiple tickets.
 Another suggestion is to examine the possibilities whether SSP Line line can share the
same station at Ampang Park with Kelana can also be the same station for SSP Line at
Ampang Park.
 Whether the current underground car parking facility at KLCC can accommodate users
of SSP Line.
 Make available plans for future expansion plans to avoid acquisition of private
properties and displacement of residents and businesses.
The participants request for further engagement with MRT Corpto learn more details under
the Railway Scheme.
4.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Have a seamless movement of passenger traffic from SSP Line to LRT
Kelana Jaya Line.
Study water flow patterns during heavy downpours in the area.
Need a proper traffic management during the construction phase.
E2-45
E2-46
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Jinjang Station(Commercial Group)
: Meeting Room, Selangor Omnibus Office Building.
: Friday, 19December 2014
: 3.00 –4.30 pm
Participants:
NO.
NAME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Andy Lew
Tan Choo Hoe
Chu Che Chong
Chai Chee Weng
Faizol bin Shafie
Shafie bin Zain
Chong Wei Lee
Chong Sheau Jing
Jacob Then San Pow
Chan Ching How
Ho Pooi Fong
Steven Wong
(anonymous)
1.
POSITION
Director
Manager
Director
Director
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Sales Manager
Director
Manager
Manager
Director
ORGANISATION
Selangor Omnibus Co.
Taipei TCM Medical S/B
Mahajaya TCM Center
SFFS Shell
SFFS Shell
Hotel Kepong
Hotel Kepong
Tomorrow Furniture
CCH
CCH
Li Meng Furniture
Brief Background
The proposed location of Station 7 is surrounded by large numbers of commercial
and industrial establishments. Most industrial establishments here are said to
employ foreign workers who reside within or nearby locations, and they may not be
using SSP Line as they may prefer to use buses which is likely to be cheaper. The
main road (Jalan Kepong) is highly congested a peak hours. Commercial
establishments here occupy private land. Quite close by is Jinjang Utara, which is
claimed as the largest Chinese new village in Malaysia.
The meeting was held at Selangor Omnibus Co. which has 90 buses plying
between Kepong and Kuala Selangor and Rawang, with about 200 employees. The
bus company has been in operation here since its establishment in 1937.
Kepong is already served by KTMB, and other bus transportation companies such
as Metrobus, Wawasan Sutera and RapidKL, in addition to Selangor Omnibus.
2.
The participants support the proposed SSP Line as long as it does not require
acquisition of their premises, or affect their businesses.
3.
Environmental Concern
a.
Environmental Issues
Kepong Hotel is concerned with vibrations especially during the construction phase
and the noise from the SSP Line line during operation. They say noise of moving
E2-47
rail cars may affect their business due its close proximity to the line. Their
customers may not return to the hotel if it is noisy.
b.
Social Issues
The stakeholders are concerned with the size of area that will be cordoned off
during the construction period and this may affect their businesses. They want the
SSP Line to give attention to serving the Rakyat and not causing undue difficulties
to them by obstructing traffic, acquisition and displacing residents and businesses.
They are also concerned with the Park and Ride facility proposed at the area, which
they feel will be located very close to the proposed station. They are of the opinion
that the site is quite dense with business activities and there is no need for a Park
and Ride facilities here, as it will certainly lead to acquisition of land and existing
properties. Furthermore, they are convinced that compensation mechanisms will not
satisfy them based on the experiences they have learnt from MRT1.
Omnibus is said to be operating in a strategic place. Moving their business require a
larger acre of land to support the requirement of their business especially parking
bays for their buses, maintenance, and fuel supplies. Any compensation to the
company may not be sufficient for them to purchase another area. Others are
unsure where to move their business even if they are compensated.
The Shell fuel station does not agree if his premise is acquired for any reason. The
bus company agrees to move only if the compensation plan is attractive.
c.
Traffic Congestion
Currently, Jalan Kepong is already congested. The traffic flow may be disrupted
during the construction phase. The proposed Park and Ride facility will add up to
this issue thus they oppose the park and ride facility in the area.
d.
Other Concerns
Hotel Kepong is concerned that the SSP Line line will block the view of their hotel.
A few participants were upset over the possibility of acquisition of their premises by
SSP Line. They point out that the information given are unclear and lack details and
there is a deliberate attempt to withhold information during the engagement.
There was a unanimous agreement by all to a proposal by the Chairman of the bus
company to shift the location of the proposed station a little further to somewhere
near the DBKL site for towed vehicles or Fadason/Public Bank. The proposed site
they say would be more strategic to serve Jinjang Utara and Jinjang Selatan
Tambahan while Station 8 will serve Jinjang Selatan and Taman Wahyu.
Participants suggested that some land may be acquired temporarily at the site of
Station 7 during the construction process and reinstated to the owner after the
construction is completed.
Feeder bus services to housing estates in the area are required.
The participants expect the project proponents to brief them further with more
information.
4.
(1) Move the proposed Station 8 onto the DBKL land mentioned above (see map
below).
(2) Have a good traffic management plan during the construction phase.
(3) Provide feeder bus services.
E2-48
Selango
r
Omnibu
s
Li Meng
Furnitur
e
DBKL Towed Cars
Depot
E2-49
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Residents of Seri Kembangan (South)
: Bilik Mesyuarat, Dewan Dr.George Lim,
Jalan Putra Permai 2, Seri Kembangan
th
: 20 December 2014
: 10.30 am-12.30 am.
Participants:
1. Encik Khalid Abd Jalil, Ahli Persatuan Penduduk, Taman Penggiran Putra
2. Encik Bani Hasnan Hj Basir, AJK, Persatuan Penduduk, Taman Penggiran Putra
3. Raymond Chua – Ahli, Sierra
4. Tie Sing Chie, AJK, Taman Equine.
5. Yeap Teck Chong, AJK, Taman Equine
6. Faizal Shaiyuddin, AJK, Taman Dato‟ Demang
7. Ahmad Sofian Ali, AJK, Taman Dato‟Demang.
8. Onn Mohd Yusoff, AJK, Sierra
9. Amat Ramsa Yaman, Pengerusi, Taman Pinggiran Putera.
1. Brief background
The valley once surrounded by greenery, is now completely hemmed in by buildings. Taman
Equine, Taman Putra Permai, Taman Lestari, Taman Pinggiran Putra and Pusat Bandar
Putra Permai are among the residential enclaves closest to the landfill. More developments
took place in between 2000–2008 and other prominent developments includes AEON
Equine Park, McDonald's, Pasar Borong Selangor (wholesale market), Pappa Rich
Kopitiam, Station 1 cafe, Boston Concept Restaurant, House of Healin Equine, Maybank,
Giant Hypermarket and other businesses transformed this area into a business hub.
Another Taman that is Taman Dato Demang is also located nearby numerous amenities
namely Bazaar Rakyat PKPS, Pasar Borong Selangor, Alice Smith School, Jusco Equine
Park, Giant, Taman Dato‟ Demang also has easy accessibility via roads and highways
namely Jalan Putra Permai, Persiaran Lestari Perdana, Jalan Equine, Persiaran Equine
Perdana, ELITE Highway, South Klang Valley Expressway (SKVE), Damansara – Puchong
Highway (LDP) and Maju Expressway (MEX)
The participants at this FGD fully support the project.
a. Noise and Vibration
Need noise barriers to overcome noise during construction especially to the
residents of Taman Dato‟ Demang. Taman Dato‟ Demang is within 20 metres
behind Station 35 (Equine Park).
security)
E2-50






c.
The new mode of transport will attract more foreign workers. Security should be
enforced as the nearest police station is in Serdang.
Safety of buildings must be taken into account especially during construction.
Some of the areas are prone to flash floods e.g. area around Aeon Jaya Jusco
junction so cautionary measures have to be taken during construction to avoid
this.
Some areas in Taman Dato‟ Demang are facing subsidence and siltation
problems; they could get worse during construction.
Provision for information dissemination system (in the station and also in the
train) for the handicapped of all categories such as the blind, deaf etc. to be
considered.
More lifts and accelerators are needed at stations. At present in most LRT the
lifts are very small.
Traffic congestion
 At present, the suggested station especially station 35 is experiencing heavy
traffic flows and this will get worse during the construction period.
 Propose that every station should have adequate parking bays and fly
over/bridge for pedestrian and it must also be user-friendly for the handicapped.
 Provision for Drop-off/pick up area in every station is desired.
 Propose to adapt the modern parking systems as in other countries like Japan
and Australia
4. Other Concerns
a. Alignment
 The proposed Station S35(Equine Park) should be moved away from current
proposed position; either north or south because at present Aeon Jaya Jusco is
experiencing parking problem and traffic flows are already bad and they congest
this area. The fear is this situation will worsen, especially during the MRT
construction. The Residents of Taman Dato‟ Demang and Taman Equine feel that
Station 35 should be moved further south (see Diagram 1).
 Alternatively, Station S35 (Equine Park)should be combined with Station 36 into
ONLY one station, that is, at Pasar Borong. (refer Diagram 1and photos)
 Station at Taman Putra Permai is close toO2 city(facing „Atmosphere‟ and
„Garden Explore‟).The expected completion date for O2 city is in 2015. O2 City is
built with sustainability in mind, plenty of greenery and an emphasis on recycling
initiatives. “Green” features include a recycling centre within the confines of the
neighbourhood, with direct access to organic decomposers. Therefore, they
propose a station that is slightly away that is near Pasar Borong Selangor rather
than near O2 City.
 Suggest that the station near Limkokwing University is redundant and propose the
station to be moved further and closer to Cyber Jaya City Centre.
5. Other Matters
 Propose future management facilities in the station (shops etc.), should be allotted
to locals, i.e. locals to be given priority
 Propose to consider a double-decker coach.
E2-51
Diagram 1
O2 City
Station 35
TmnDatoDemang
Proposed New
Station by
Residents @
PasarBorong
Selangor
Station 36
Giant Seri
Kembangan
E2-52
The proposed station 35
Taman Dato‟ Demang
Photo taken on 24/12/14 – early morning
PasarBorong
Selangor
Empty land near
PasarBorong Selangor
E2-53
E2-54
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Residents of Putrajaya
: Club House, Tasik Putrajaya
th
: 21 December 2014
: 10.30 am-12.30 am.
Participants:
1. Datuk Hj Paiman – P16
2. Azhan Yusof - P8 (Kementerian Kebajikan Masyarakat)
3. Safian Md Salleh – P9
4. Hamdan Bahari - P7 (Maritim)
5. Hj Salleh bin Othman –P18
6. Saripah Samsuri – P8
7. Rahmah bt Ibrahim – P9
8. Hjh Puziah Saad –P8 –Jabatan Peguam Negara
9. Raja Muhamad Hilmi Raja Sulaiman –P8
10. Zaiton bt Ibrahim –P9 (wakil komuniti)
11. Afendi bin Ismail – P7 (Jabatan Imigration Malaysia)
12. Hj. Roslan bin Abu Hanif –P8 (Komuniti Chairman)
13. Mohd Noh Aripin – P8
14. Zarina Ismail –P8 (PNB/Ahli Komuniti).
1. Brief Background
th
Putrajaya was established on the 19 October, 1995 and made Federal Territory on the 1
of February 2001. Putrajaya was administered by Perbadanan Putrajaya.
st
Planned as a garden and intelligent city, 38% of the area is reserved for green spaces. A
network of open spaces and wide boulevards were incorporated to the plan. Construction
began in August 1995.In 2002,a rail link called KLIA Transit was opened, linking Putrajaya
to both Kuala Lumpur and KL International Airport in Sepang. However, construction of the
Putrajaya Monorail which was intended to be the city's metro system was suspended due to
costs. One of the monorail suspension bridges in Putrajaya remains unused. In 2010, the
population of Putrajaya was estimated to be over 67,964 which comprised mainly
government servants.
The participants at this FGD fully support the good project.
b. Social Issues
None.
d. Traffic congestion
None
E2-55
4. Other Concerns





The community felt that the proposed SSP Line alignment does not solve
commuting issue and congestion in Putrajaya. Most are looking forward to having a
link from the SSP Line to a proposed monorail in Putrajaya that passes all
Precincts, government offices and shopping complexes. For them, it is the most
feasible solution to traffic congestion in Putrajaya that is caused largely by civil
servants and tourists and others coming in on a daily basis.
Many civil servants move a lot daily in carrying out their duties, travelling between
KL and Putrajaya so an MRT link is good but insufficient to make them turn to using
it even in their daily travels to office, back to the Precincts and to KL. They do not
use buses despite the provision of present bus system, saying that the present bus
services are not meeting their needs. They prefer a rail link.
The current park and ride bays in Putrajaya Sentral are already filled to the brim by
outsiders coming into Putrajaya to use the KLIA transit. They do not support having
a Park and Ride here again. It would bring in more outsiders and aggravate traffic
congestion further in Putrajaya, especially during peak hours.
The residents want a monorail or any rail link from SSP Line to the city centre, i.e. at
Boulevard. They believe that without this link, the SSP Line does not serve its
purpose in moving people into Putrajaya. They reiterate the presence of the tunnel
provided for such a link and could not understand why such integrations are not
thought through during the MRT initial design, especially when the monorail had
been promised even as early as in 2003.
In summary, the points raised are:
1. Support for the SSP Line and that it would be good for the public
2. Worried about traffic congestion that SSP Line would bring especially if there is a
Park and Ride there. Present Park and Ride facility is too congested. Outsiders
drive here to make use of the KLIA Transit. More will drive here to use the SSP Line
when it is completed. There could never be enough parking for residents and civil
servants especially as their trips to towns do not usually start early in the morning if
this situation is not reviewed. They need to go to KL on errands –either personal or
jobs and if the Park and Ride are filled early in the morning by commuters, there will
be no space left for residents and civil servants. This will worsen when the SSP Line
is completed.
3. The link to a proposed monorail or tram line within Putrajaya is essential to make
the SSP Line works well and serve Putrajaya more effectively. Without it, there is no
assurance that the people here would use the SSP Line. The monorail or tram or
any internal rail link will complement SSP Line as more tourists, workers and
residents could make full use of the facility. Putrajaya is now emerging as a centre
for international tourist events and these are held on an annual basis. There are
now too many tourists converging into Putrajaya and this adds to traffic congestion.
4. Feeder bus services are necessary. The present one does not seem very effective
nor is it tuned to the needs of the people here. Also, people here like to have access
from their homes (like in Singapore) and the present bus services do not seem to do
this.
5. The many international events in Putrajaya are pulling in the crowd but if they can
only access up to Putrajaya Sentral and not beyond, it does not serve its purpose.
E2-56
E2-57
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Business Operators, Jalan Ipoh (Commercial Group)
: Level 6, Dewan Mutiara, Mutiara Complex, Jalan Ipoh
: Tuesday, 23 December 2014
: 10.00 –11.30 am
Participants:
N
NAME
O
Ong Boon Huat
1
Choy
2
POSITION
ADDRESS
Manager
South Auto
Manager
JMB Mutiara
3
Leslie Choong
Manager
N.E.S Oil Seal
4
Colin Low
Manager
Pets Haven
4
Cheok Seng Suan
Manager
Spare Parts Ship
5
Ng Wan Kei
Staff
Oon Brothers
6
Beh In Gig
Customer service
Oon Brothers
7
Lai Kok Fai
Manager
Bomin Auto
8
Muhamad Hairul
Maintenance staff
WismaKah Motor
Building cum
maintenance manager
Staff
WismaKah Motor
10
Thirunyanamurugan a/l
Jayaraman
Guan Ching Kong
11
Ng Hong Yuen
Sales
Sykt Ban Hing Leong
9
1.
Karya Kin SdnBhd
Brief Background
The participants are glad that they have been consulted on this project. The meeting is to
discuss on the proposed plan with business operators around Mutiara Complex. Participants
who attended are owners or employees of workshop, car dealership, auto spare parts and
accessories, and complex management. According to them, they are operating on private
land. There are also schools nearby the complex (SMK Perempuan Jalan Ipoh and Lai
Chee Chinese School). These schools have an enrolment of about 10,000 persons at a
time.
2.
Support for MRT 2
The participants appreciate the SSP Line coming into Kepong area but they prefer a
realignment to the river reserve (Sg Batu) behind the Mutiara Complex as the original
alignment passes through a narrow and congested road. They are hopeful that covered
pedestrian walkways are built to connect passengers to business units at the main road.
They do not want any acquisition of business units. The participant from Sykt Ban Hing
Leong of Batu Cantonment area suggests that the alignment be directed to the army camp
and from there to connect to Jalan Ipoh through a pedestrian lane, or that the proposed
station be shifted to Petronas petrol station.
3.
a.
Environmental Issue
E2-58
They fear of vibration and cracks during construction and after construction
of the SSP Line. Another concern is increase in the level of dusts during
construction.
b.
Social Issues
Guided by the experiences they learn from MRT1, they stress on the need
to enforce safety aspects by contractors under SSP Line. They do not want
any untoward incidents around their area.
c.
Traffic Congestion
The participants are concerned with the construction phase of the proposed
alignment as it will reduce the traffic to a snarl especially at peak hours in
the construction phase. This will be aggravated by the proposed station in
front of the Mutiara Complex and that there are schools nearby. They fear
customers will refrain from coming to the congested area and this will affect
their businesses.
d.
Other Concerns
Participants say some may object to acquisition of their business premises
while others say the concrete columns and guide ways may obstruct the
views on their premises and signage.
The participants want to be enlightened on the procedure for compensation
for losses in their businesses especially during the construction period. As
there are schools nearby, the security of school-going children is
paramount.
4.
(1)
Realign the route to Sg Batu river reserve.
(2)
Ensure safety of school children.
(3)
Require an effective traffic management plan.
E2-59
E2-60
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Kg Malaysia Raya (R)
:Dewan Rukun Tetangga Salak Selatan
: 25 February 2015
: 9.30p.m. – 10.30 pm
No
1
2
Name
Zubedah
Teoh Sak Kheng
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mohd Fakri
Khairul Salleh Bin Hasan
Zahari Hamid
Kardin Baggu Khain
Sanusi Hj Dahlan
Nor Fizah Motaffz
Fazil B Noor Mohamad
Jmrinag Mohd Daud
Mohd Ms Daud
Basarudin MohdTapi
Saiful Azman
Nordin
Position
RA Kg Malaysia Raya
Ketua, Tmn Sri Petaling Zone C
(Castlefield)
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Secretary, Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Kg Malaysia Raya
Brief background of Residential Area
The majority of the residents at Kg Malaysia Raya are Malays. They were invited due to
close proximity of units at Jalan Pauh Kijang to the proposed alignment. Like the business
and residential communities at Taman Salak Selatan and Taman Naga Emas, they claim to
have been ignored when development took place at their area, including Terminal Bas
Selatan (TBS) which they feel is affecting them daily in terms of noise of announcements,
honks and passing by buses. The participants brought their ill-effects from such projects
before to the discussion, and this could explain their responses below.
The participants at this FGD generally do not support SSP Line. They state that SSP Line
will affect the aesthetics of their village.
The participants are wary of the noise from the TBS. They are also unhappy with noise from
buses honking and announcements at TBS. They fear SSP Line would also bring similar
negative impact onto Kg Malaysia Raya although the alignment is a little away from Jalan
Pauh Kijang. They are also worried about SUKE coming to their area.
They have witnessed cars plunging from overhead lanes at BESRAYA and this they quote
could happen at SSP Line too. They thus fear for their safety. The residents are disturbed
by the noise levels omitted by the bus‟ brakes, and the noisy announcements from the
Terminal Bas Selatan.
E2-61
Social Issues (acquisition, relocation, aesthetics, loss of privacy, safety and security)
They do not want the alignment to pass anywhere close to the village. They claim that the
village used to be conducive and attractive until physical development took place around the
village. Some promises made before from the developers were also not fulfilled.
Traffic congestion
They do not want any feeder bus entering into their village as their narrow road could not
cope additional traffic. Such buses may cause congestions. They are already facing delays
in accessing main roads, including BESRAYA which is congested at peak hours. The
attendees state that traffic congestion starts as early as 6 am, clogging up traffic in their
village
Other Concerns
They want to be consulted again with more details in the next round. They ask as to why
there is a need to connect this area with a MRT system when it is already served by a LRT
from Chan Sow Lin to Bandar Tasik Selatan and Sg Besi. They see the alignment serving
Salak Selatan to Sg Besi as redundant and a waste of public funds.
E2-62
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Fraser Business Park and Chan Sow Lin (Commercial)
:Room 1, One Stop Hotel & Residence, Fraser Business Park.
: 26 February 2015
:3.30pm-5.00 pm
Participants:
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Name
Loy Yit Ngor
Low Yoke Guan
How Sue Yee
Chong Yeong Wen
Joe Randhawa
Chong Chee Hoong
7
8
9
10
11
12
Yue Khin Meng
Senny Hou
M. Shahrul Azrun
Mazlun Mikhat
Goh Chee Song
SJ Mannan
Organization
WTF Auto Service
WTF Auto Service
Allied Pharmacy
Allied Pharmacy
Gala Track Sdn Bhd
Sing Huat Premium
SdnBhd
Sum Hing Engineering
JS xxxxx
Tan Chong Express
Tan Chong Express
Car Max Auto Garage
Car Max Auto Garage
Position
Director
Admin Assistant
Pharmacist
Pharmacist
Director
Manager
Director
Consultant
Sales Assistant
Sales Assistant
Director
Employee
Brief background of Commercial Area
Fraser Business Park is a commercial area which includes various business activities and
offices. HELP College of Arts and Technology is also located nearby. Chan Sow Lin area
comprises both commercial and industrial areas on Jalan 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The participants at this area support the proposed SSP Line project.
The participants anticipate vibration and dust during and after the construction of SSP Line.
As Chan Sow Lin is an automotive centre for car sales and service of various brands,
customers would be unhappy of dust lining their serviced cars. As the area is served by
SMART tunnel, they are also worried about flooding as a mud-flood once affected the area.
Furthermore, Chan Sow Lin area is an ex-mining land. The soil here is soft, and
construction has to take this into account. The business owner‟ here also express their
concern over adverse environmental effects that could arise from MRT construction and
want to know how MRT Corp would deal with such problems should they arise.
The participants explain that are so many „cavities‟ found during the construction of SMART
tunnel. Some express concern over land acquisition especially if they think there would
need a need for ventilation shaft. Some areas at grade may have to be acquired.
E2-63
Traffic congestion
The participants said that Chan Sow Lin is a busy road. They raise concerns over possible
aggravation of traffic congestion, especially during SSP Line construction. Many want to
know whether there would be widening of existing roads to cope with congestion during the
construction. They suggest a proper traffic impact assessment to be undertaken at Chan
Sow Lin to reduce grievances of businesses and residents in the area during construction.
Their concern about traffic congestion is caused by their fear that traffic congestion would
affect negatively on their business, especially as many are automotive service centres. They
state that detailed planning is necessary to allow Chan Sow Lin meet the increase in the
pedestrian traffic at the stations once the MRT 2 is operational.
Other Concerns
Other concerns pertain to disruption to utilities that are underground. They worry over this
and request for communication channels to be in place to enable the public to report and
lodge complaints during construction. They also enquire on how compensation could be
given should construction cause damages to their premises or their operations. Many are
looking to have more details on the alignment.
Suggestions
(1) They suggest that the alignment for SSP Line goes deeper below the SMART tunnel.
(2) They suggest a road should be built to link them to BESRAYA as a traffic dispersal
measure.
E2-64
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: PPR Raya Permai and Pangsapuri Permai
:Dewan Persatuan PPR Raya Permai
: 5 March 2015
: 9.30pm – 11pm
Participants:
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Name
Mohd Hassan
Zain Mahmun
Azman Ahmad
Siti Hajar bt Mat Zain
Firdaus Rashid b Abdul
Rashid
Rozita bt Ramly
Mohammad Nasir
Ahmad Fuad Busu
Sanqiah Sani
Sitikhadijah Ishak
Siti Hamidah Md Fashir
SuriadiMohone
13
14
15
16
Hasnan Mohd Noor
Ismail Othman
SulmiDollah
Zahimah Mohd Zahid
17
Zarina Abdul Rahim
18
Amir Aziz
Organization
Head, PPR ommittee
Unreadable
Resident
Resident
AJK
Position
Leader
Leader
PP Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
AJK
AJK
AJK
AJK
Resident
AJK
JMB Pengerusi
Pangsapuri Permai
AJK Permai
AJK
AJK
JMB Pangsapuri
Permai
JMB Pangsapuri
Permai
PPR Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
PPR Raya Permai
Pangsapuri Permai
Pangsapuri Permai
Pansapuri Permai
Pangsapuri Permai
AJK
AJK Pangsapuri
Permai
AJK PPR Raya
Permai
Brief background of Residential Area
PPR Raya Permai and Pangsapuri Permai have 1264 and 1380 units of apartments,
respectively, with residents totaling 15,000. These houses are located near the Sungai Besi
Interchange and IWK Sewage Treatment Plant. Sg Besi LRT station is also near PPR Raya
Permai and most of the residents walk to the LRT station. The LRT passes close to Block B
of PPR Raya Permai. Population here comprise of Malays (50%), Chinese (25%) and
Indians (25%).
The residents at PPR Raya Permai and Pangsapuri Permai support the proposed SSP Line
as it will bring benefits to them as well as the future generation.
E2-65
The residents anticipate that there will be a noise pollution during and after the construction
of SSP Line. They want the MRT Corp to take precautionary measures to prevent the
problem from the beginning itself. They cite noise pollution even after construction of SSP
Line learning from LRT line which is noisy and vibrates the apartments when it passes by.
They also worry that SSP Line will cause flooding which will then affect traffic movement.
They warned that the area was once an ex-mining land.
None
Traffic congestion
The participants raise their concerns with regard to parking woes in their residential area
and introduction of SSP Line may worsen the situation if a Park & Ride facility is not
provided at the station. They expect more severe traffic congestions during the construction
of SSP Line if the developers do not give due attention to traffic management. The residents
enquired avenues for them to channel their problems if they experience traffic congestion in
the future.
Other Concerns
The residents request for feeder buses and parking facilities (Park &Ride). In addition, they
would wait for more details on the alignment. They request to have a cordial relationship
with MRTC so that any untoward issues/problems can be avoided wisely and promptly. The
participants also suggest that the proposed station be built on this side of the existing LRT
station.
E2-66
Public Dialogue 1
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Sri Damansara Residential Community
: Sri Damansara Club
th
: Thursday 11 December 2014
: 11.00 am – 12.30 pm
Participants:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Lee Kim Seong, Jonathan, BSDRA President
Chai Hong You, Chairman
Fareeza Abdul Rahman
Abdul NashirSaib
SiewWooi On
Savithiriy a/p Jeganathan
Yip WaiMeng
Lim Hui Chin
Meiyanathan a/l Mariappan
Wong Chee Hong
IzwanItam
Loh Folk Sun
ChakMunWai
Chek Kun Sing
Abdul Razak Idris
Yap SweeSiong
Siew Yen Len
Asmar Hassan
Gun Liew Kwan
Len SiewPhong
Tan GuatWah
Tan Guat Bee
Lai Yoon Loy
Chia KiukHiang
SaudahYunos
Ms Ong
Chiam Yow Hong
Aw JitBeng, Thomas
Chong Chee Meng
Chia Siew Hsia
Lau Chit Mooi
Ng Kim Ming
Chai Yu Fook
Mah Chun Wai
Chai Min Choong
1 Jalan SD4/5
41 SD2/1C, JalanDagang
SD4/4 JalanJati
SD4/4 JalanJati
SD2/12
9, SD4/2
SD2/1B
SD2/2E
SD2/1C
SD2/1E
5, SD4/6
44 Jalan SD2/2G
46 Jalan SD2/2E
25 Jalan SD4/4
33 Jalan SD2/2G
30 Jalan SD2/2G
SD4/2
Jalan SD2/2G
44 SD 2/1C
43 SD 2/1D
43 SD 2/1D
1 SD 4/1
1 SD 4/1
1 SD 4/2
45 SD 2/1E
43 SD 2/1E
31 SD 4/4
44 SD 2/1D
44 SD 2/2G
42 SD 2/1G
42 SD 2/1G
78 SD 4/4
5 SD 1/3
13 SD 2/2A
E2-67
Feedback:
1. Support for MRT2
Two residential groups from the housing area turned up for the discussion. One group
was from SD 1 to 4; the other from the remaining part of Sri Damansara. The affected
group is from SD 4.
In general, the community is not against having the MRT, acknowledging there are
benefits from the public transport. However, they would not give their full support
because the alignment is likely to affect some homes in their area. The unaffected
group expressed empathy with those that could be adversely affected by the alignment.
The groups stated clearly that they would support the MRT only if the alignment is
readjusted to the main road, away from the residential areas. Otherwise, they would
object and protest.
Some indicated that they have seen bore holes being done in their housing area and
suspected these were related to soil tests. These have caused them to worry thinking
that the MRT2 alignment has been finalised.
Key concerns stem from the possibility of the alignment entering into their
residential area:
 For those not affected by acquisition, the remaining houses would be close to
the alignment and would suffer from noise, air pollution, vibrations, crime,
potential safety issues, and traffic congestion during construction.
 Post construction, they still fear noise, vibrations, crime and traffic congestion.
 During construction, the worries are over (1) air pollution, (2) traffic congestion,
(3) noise, (4) vibrations, and (5) safety
 Possibility of land subsidence.
They request for a risk assessment be done during the construction in their area.
security)
Displacement and acquisition of houses became a strong contentious point during
the entire dialogue session. The residents could not accept that the alignment would
enter into their housing area and that houses may be acquired.
They argued for:
 Realignment of the MRT2 onto the main road.
 Move the alignment onto the commercial activities fronting the main Jalan Kuala
Selangor which they claimed are illegals, pointing out that these should be the
target and not freehold, residential homes like theirs.
 Building underground if there are difficulties in building overhead.
 Relocating the utilities rather than take people‟s homes.
 Using the railway line to Kepong Sentral as an alternative corridor on the
assumption that the corridor is wide enough to share.
E2-68

Pointing that such construction uses taxpayers‟ monies so cost should not be a
major factor of consideration that overrides the lives and homes of people.
The undertone from the groups is anger that the design of the alignment fails to
acknowledge that there are people staying in the affected houses; many of whom
are old, retired and any displacement and acquisition would cause upheaval to their
lives. There is sadness and anger, directed at what they claimed is the callous way
in which the MRT2 alignment is done along this part of the route.
Other social concerns, although not necessarily areas of main contention are (1)
likely presence of too many foreign workers; (2) increase in crime due to presence
of foreign workers and opportunists; (3) safety especially for those who believe that
their homes would be near to the alignment (some perceive that after the acquisition
of the end lots, the adjoining lots could be exposed to the MRT 2 alignment); (4)
loss of privacy due to such proximity.
c.
Traffic congestion
Traffic issues are perceived to occur during construction and post construction.
During construction, traffic congestion occurs along their main road as access
becomes difficult. Lives are disrupted from any traffic diversions and congestion.
Post construction issues are related to people using their residential areas as car
parks. They would be exposed to unnecessary traffic, making their homes unsafe.
The general fear is being „besieged‟ by outsiders who enter their housing area to
access the MRT.
3. Others
In view of possible acquisition, residents are worried over the time line. They seek
information on:
1. When they would be notified about the final alignment.
2. Whether their suggestions to readjust the alignment would be acceptable.
3. Whether there are further opportunities for them to continue to voice their
concerns over the acquisition.
The Resident Association also showed a map of the area prepared by the
developer then,
Land & General (L&G), showing the approved layout and
provisions for community facilities and amenities, i.e. telecoms, fire brigade and
police stations. The map also shows a provision of an LRT line along the reserve of
the main road. The Association states that it would also strongly object if the parcel
of land earmarked for the Police Station is taken for the proposed MRT station as
the RA has been working for years towards building a full-fledged police station in
Sri Damansara to protect and safeguard the community. The area needs urgently
the service of the last two agencies mentioned.
The participants expect MRTC to brief them in detail when the alignment is in its
final stage of planning and design for further feedback during which they invite more
residents to attend.
E2-69
4. Written Responses - Sticky Notes (stated as it is)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Rakyat didahulukan, pencapaian diutamakan.
Please align line along MRR2 (Toyota Road).
Not going into our housing road. By aligning the line into our housing road, you
are causing untold misery to the resident. (Thomas: 0193028378)
Don‟t affect our house.
1. Explain noise & vibration
2. Impact to human health issue
3. MRT take response to …
4. Foundation impact to nearby house vibration issue
We refuse (Fareeza Abd Raheem)
- Pencemaran udara & bunyi
- Risk semasa pembinaan & selepas pembinaan
- Tempat tinggal kami akan sesat kerana orang akan park di tepi rumah kami
- vibration affect rumah kami
- health vibration
- Vibration
- Noise
- Traffic & Parking
- Crime rate
Safety
- Pillar Collapse
- Buglary / Snatch thief
- MRR2 pillar – has cracked before
- safety issue to road user & residence. For such mega project
Please don‟t disturb us
Please realign the line using main road
Use other way
Build it far away lah
MRT shouldn‟t build too close to houses
We don‟t want MRT close to our place
Don‟t want it at our house
Masalah-Masalah Dihadapi
1) Pencemaran Bunyi - semasa pembinaan dan selepas
2) Impact of vibration - sekitar rumah atau perumahan dimana kelonggaran
tanah
3) Pencemaran udara - semasa pembinaan
4) Gangguan panorama - halangan udara atau pengudaraan/ angin
5) Traffic congestion - tiada pantauan semasa pembinaan
6) social impact - gangguan bekalan air, elektrik kerana semasa pembinaan
kontraktor melanggar atau rosakkan
7) masalah sosial - kecurian atau pecah masuk rumah oleh pekerja asing
8) Safety issue - semasa pembinaan di mana “Method of Statement” atau
“Risk assessment, hazard perlu diadakan (Cth: Berlaku kemalangan di
Subang Jaya, Bangsar dan sebagainya)
9) Harga rumah akan jatuh - Nilai rumah akan jatuh
10) Need buffer zone
E2-70
E2-71
Public Dialogue 2
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Residents of Seri Kembangan (S)
: DewanPersatuanPenduduk PKNS, 7/1, Seri Kembangan.
th
: 30 December 2014
: 8.45pm-10.45pm.
Participants:
1. Mr Lee Tak San – Taman Bukit Serdang
2. Mr Chang ToongWoh - Taman Bukit Serdang
3. Mr Wong Lee Fatt – Taman Serdang Raya
4. EncikSyaifulHazreen bin Hasan Nadin – Taman Universiti Indah
5. Encik Abdul Kadirbin Selamat –Taman Serdang Jaya
6. HjShamsuddin bin Ahmad Nordin – Taman Muhibbah
7. EncikShuib bin Ismail – Taman Bukit Serdang
8. Encik Ahmad Hamdan b. Din – Seri Kembangan (PKNS)
9. EncikAbd Rahman Bachik – Timb.Pengerusi KRT, Kembangsari 2B.
10. Mr A. Sivalingam – Taman Universiti Indah.
11. Mr. Kang Yoke Luen–Seri Kembangan, PKNS.
12. EncikNajilanChePha – BOMBA
13. EncikNasharudin - BOMBA
14. EncikKhairulAzri – BOMBA
15. PuanLatifah Salim – BOMBA
16. PuanSuhanaMohd Noor – Taman Universiti Indah
17. EncikDzulkifli – Taman Serdang Jaya.
18. EncikMahmuri – Seri Kembangan (PKNS)
19. Encik Abdul Halim – Taman Universiti Indah
20. Encik Rashid Hassan – Taman Universiti Indah
21. EncikSubramaniam - Taman Muhibbah
22. Puan Noor Zalizabt Zainal Abidin – Pembantu Ahli MajlisZon 20, MPSJ
23. EncikMohdRoslibin Abdul Majid – AJK PersatuanPenduduk, Pangsapuri, PKNS.
24. EncikMohdHalizan Yusuf – AJK PersatuanPendudukPangsapuri, PKNS.
25. Encik Abu Talib – Secretary RA, Pangsapuri PKNS.
26. EncikMohdAdhah Mohamad – Pangsapuri PKNS.
27. Encik Latif bin Rosdi – Pangsapuri PKNS
28. EncikMohdFazli bin Mohd – Pangsapuri PKNS.
29. Encik Johari bin Lelor- Pangsapuri PKNS
30. EncikFauzan bin Yaakob – Pangsapuri PKNS
1. Background
The FGD was targeted at a smaller group of residents in Taman Bukit Serdang, Sri
Kembangan, Taman Serdang Jaya, Taman Universiti Indah, Pangsapuri PKNS, Bomba
staff quarters and Taman Muhibbah. Early discussions on holding the FGD were initiated
with heads of relevant residents‟ association in the area. The venue was recommended by
the community leaders as an appropriate place for the discussion on the proposed MRT2.
However, due to the time and venue, the FGD attracted much more participants than
anticipated. Around 30 persons attended. They included mostly males but there were
female participants (10%) who came to listen and know more. This has a positive social
implication for this community-based FGD itself because often, female participation at such
functions is limited or negligible.
E2-72
The large crowd at the FGD has turned the planned discussion more into a public dialogue.
Underpinning this active participation in the FGD is the strong interest shown by the
residents in the proposed MRT2. They note their appreciation of this opportunity provided to
them to voice their views. Whilst they appeared ready for the briefing on MRT2, their only
focus and interest was on the ALIGNMENT. Their main areas of concern are (1) Proximity
to their homes (2) Acquisition of their properties.
When informed that the proposed alignment is mostly on road median, the general feedback
was relief that properties would not affected. This is because of concerns that this Seri
Kembangan, Bukit Serdang and Taman Universiti segment of the MRT2 alignment could
mean acquisition of residential properties. They appeared not to be concerned that this may
not occur at the proposed stations.
2. Support for MRT2


The overwhelming response from the community at the FGD/forum is positive as
they fully support the project. Whilst they support and favour the MRT2 in principle,
they have made some comments and suggestions which they hope could be taken
into consideration in improving the design and planning of MRT2.
Someone wants to know why the route did not factor in Hospital Serdang-according
to him if GHKL is in, why not Hospital Serdang as many of those around there
patron this hospital.
(a) Noise and Vibration
Noise and vibrations is their next concern. Their key concern appears to be the impact
of vibrations and fear of cracks in their homes. They want to know what actions are
being taken when this happens and whether they can seek compensation. Noise is
raised but not too much a concern among them.
(b) Social Issues



Safety of the construction is raised because of the incident in Subang. They
hope measures are in place to prevent such occurrences. Safety of the
community must be given priority especially during the construction.
Some of the areas are prone to flash floods e.g. in front the police station and
BOMBA so cautionary measures/mitigation steps have to be taken during the
construction period.
One complains that construction works would dirty the place; usually no one
cleans up and leaves debris all over the place. Therefore, this should be taken
into consideration by the project contractor.
(c) Traffic Congestion
 Traffic congestion as we are made to understand is bad in Seri Kembangan. It
is always bad and with the Chinese primary school nearby plus the Sri Serdang
school and religious school, the main road is always congested for the most
part of the day especially during school term notwithstanding the nearby
industrial area. During construction, this will worsen and they don't want to bear
with this.
E2-73

Traffic problems during construction are a main concern. The main roads Jalan
Raya 1, Jalan 7/4, Jalan Raya 4 etc.face heavy traffic in the morning and
evening. There is a concern that construction could aggravate the situation.
4. Other Concerns


A proposal is to share the ERL line and avoid troubling them. They have too many
such developments since (highways/expressways), they do not want all these
troubling them.
Once public display is ready to be viewed, the community proposes that they should
be kept informed on that and invitations extended to them to attend more briefings.
E2-74
Public Dialogue 3
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Kuchai Lama (Commercial)
: Dewan RukunTetangga Salak Selatan
: 25 February 2015
: 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm
Participants:
No
1
2
Organization
Syarikat FotoLitho
Syarikat FotoLitho
Position
Owner
Owner
Address
AS 46, Jln Hang Tuah 3
3
Name
Ong Chin Wah
Lai Asang W Boon
Sang
Ong Ah Cheong
RA Tmn Naga Emas
DewanTmnSalak Selatan
4
Azman
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dato Seri Lee Wan
Beng
Chong Chen Lee
KanSweerHoon
R.Sathasivam
G.P.Sivam
HarJoon Hong
KeongKam Seng
Koo Lim Cheong
TengKokWai
Khan Yong
Chan Goo Beng
Lee Chee Loong
Tay Bee Loo
James
Wong Sai Kuan
Liow Chee Keong
YeapSiewMoi
R.SelvaKumaran
Yong Lee Kok
Cheng Kow
Bannie Chin
SgBesiBarangbaranglusuh
SgBesi Reality
Assistant
Secretary
General
Manager
Director
26
27
28
Fatty Mok
S.Season
Kelvin Lee
29
See Kim Piow
Fatty Mok
Market
Restoren New Han
Shine
RT Salak Selatan
30
31
32
33
John Lee
Hew FoongFatt
Liew Lei Yee
Albert Leong
The Leafz
Kedai
SieowMoi Ent
Ezy Die Cut
Chong Chen Lee S/B
RA Salak Selatan
RA Salak Selatan
RA Salak Selatan
BS Anges Enterprise
Yin Fatt
Percetakan Keel
Pan Ocean
Owner Building
Owner Building
Comet Image S/B
Comet Image S/B
AMLSAP Enterprise
WSK furniture
Percetakan Oscar
SiowMoi Ent
SiewMoi
JKKK Salak South
JKKK Salak South
JKKK Salak South
Director
Penduduk
Ahli
Pengerusi
Employee
Boss
Wakil Boss
Wakil Boss
Owner
Owner
Director
Employee
Director
Director
Marketing
Boss
Marketing
Chairman
Setiausaha
TimbalanPe
ngerusi
Owner
Owner
Director
NaibPenger
usi
Penduduk
Boss
Designer
Boss
Lot 2618, Batu 5164,
JlnSgBesi
Lot 2618, Batu 5164,
JlnSgBesi
K 29, Jalan 2.
125. 2A, TmnSalak Selatan
6, JlnCahaya.
25, Jln Hang Tuah 3
AS 21, JLn Hang Tuah 3
AS 44A, Jln Hang Tuah 3
AS 44A, Jln Hang Tuah 3
AS 22A
Lot 25 SgBesi
No 37, Jln Hang Tuah 3
Salak South Garden
Salak South Garden
Salak South Garden
AS 33, JlnGempita 3
17-1, The Leafz
As 50, Jln Hang Tuah 3
E2-75
34
35
36
Koh Chin Kek
William Tang
Ling Kon King
37
38
39
40
41
42
Yeo Kim Siang
Teh Sim Fong
Kan Yew Fei
Liong Ah Lik
Lee Chok Lim
Steven Heng
Percetakan SHF
RT taman Naga Emas
PersatuanKebajikan
Orang Ramai South
Garden
Fu Chang Enterpirse
Owner
Owner
Owner
Miatnam Org.
The Leafz
Boss
Penduduk
-
A 34, Jln Hang Tuah 3
42, Jln 1/140
-
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Penduduk
AS 42A
AS 42A
AS 48
N5. Jln Hang Tuah 1
AS 35, Hang Tuah 3
13-3, The Leafz
1. Brief background of Commercial Area
The participants comprise owners of the businesses located at Kuchai Lama. Among
the types of businesses in the area are restaurants, printing, textiles, steels, and so on.
There are also some businesses located near the Muslim cemetery and Chinese
temple.
Some participants are members of associations and groups who have protested against
some developments, especially highways and of late a low-cost 512 unit high-rise
apartment, in their area. They feel they have been sidelined and cheated in many ways
as well as not being consulted in past projects. Thus, they came to this session with the
same feeling to go against any development in their area. This explains the tone and
their behavior during this engagement with them. Among the participants, it was
observed that there are various factions among them with varying interests.
In addition, a number of the participants expressed their unhappiness over the fact that
they were given short notice to attend the discussions as well as the session is being
held on an auspicious day of the 15-day Chinese New Year Celebrations. In view of
this, some participants were observed to leave earlier while others continue the
discussion.
2. Support for MRT2
The majority of the participants are dissatisfied that the information provided to them are
vague. They find the information presented in the engagement, especially the map, as
insufficient for them to provide any meaningful feedback. The alignment is indicated on
a corridor that is too wide. They want to know more details about the alignment as they
are afraid that their businesses could be affected or be acquired. They suggest that
detailed maps be presented to them to enable to provide better feedback. The
participants support the proposed MRT2 as long as the implementation of the project is
done properly. One of the main reasons for their support of the MRT is they badly need
public transportation in their area
None.
E2-76
security)
The majority of the participants raised their concerns over the possibility of their
businesses being affected by acquisition. They assert clearly that they do not want
their premises acquired. However, they are worried that the station indicated at
Taman Naga Emas has no access for residents and outsiders to use.
c.
Traffic congestion
The participants believe it is quite impossible to construct the MRT2 station at the
proposed station as most of the service roads near the proposed station are too
narrow. Parking problems may worsen when the proposed housing high-rise
residential project is built near the proposed station (the participants are against the
housing development). They want a Park & Ride facility next to the station.
4. Other Concerns
The participants also request for feeder buses and parking facilities (Park & Ride).
E2-77
Public Dialogue 4
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Kg Baru Salak Selatan, and Taman Naga Emas (R)
: Dewan Rukun Tetangga Salak Selatan
: 25 February 2015
: 8.15 pm-9.30pm
Participants:
Bil
1
2
Nama
KhooSueeHoon
R. Sathasivam
Organization
RukunTetangga
RA Salak Selatan
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Leong Peng Seng
Choong Kun Hong
Tan Lay Yiat
Wong Yie Yee
G.P Sivam
CS Yap
SL Yap
SN Chow
Loh Ah Foong
Lam Kok On
Pan EngGi
Yong Mei Yen
Chong Kim Loy
Bruce Ong
Wong Chin Wah
Liew Chee Kiong
Lee Yoke Lan
Wong Kai Ping
Mary Ting
Yik Cho Fatt
Goh Chow Meng
Choy YiuOon
Aiw Chee Kiong
Fong Yue Seng
Chan Ah Chee
Lee Siao Chin
Lee Yoke Keen
Justhyn Yap
Poon TyeHean
Lee Kim Hiua
RA Naga Emas
RA Naga Emas
Chairman, RT Salak Selatan
Secretary, RA Salak Selatan
Chairman, RA Salak Selatan
RA Taman Naga Emas
RA Taman Naga Emas
RA Taman Naga Emas
RA Taman Naga Emas
RA Taman Naga Emas
RA Taman Naga Emas
RA Taman Naga Emas
RA Taman Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
TmnSalak Selatan
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
Tmn Naga Emas
TmnSalak Selatan
Address
K29, JlnCahaya, TmnSalak Selatan
125-2A,
JlnCahaya
2,
TmnSalak
Selatan
32, JlnMentari 1, Tmn Naga Emas
No 3, Jln 4/140, Tmn Naga Emas
12A, Jln Perkasa 1, Sungai Besi
16, Jln Perkasa 1. Sungai Besi
6, JlnCahaya 2, Salak Selatan
47, Jln 2/140, Tmn Naga Emas
4, JlnMentari 2,Tmn Naga Emas
51, Jln 2/140
33, Jln 4/140
8, Jln 4/140
36, Jln 3/140
4, Jln 4/140
5, Jln 4/140
6, Jln 4/140
K31, JalanCahaya 2
Jln 5/140, Tmn Naga Emas
Jln 2/140, Tmn Naga Emas
E5, JlnGempita 3, Tmn Naga Emas
B2, JlnGempita 3
E2-78
1. Brief background of Residential Area
The majority of the residents at both Taman Salak Selatan and Taman Naga Emas are
Chinese. There are about 4500 houses here. Many of the residents are said to be using
LRT or bus to work.
2.
Support for MRT2
The participants from Taman Salak Selatan and Taman Naga Emas support MRT2 as it
would bring benefits to them.
d.
Environmental concerns
The participants anticipate that there will be noise pollution during the implementation of
MRT2. They are worried that the train‟s brakes would disturb their neighborhood.
e.
Social Issues (acquisition, relocation, aesthetics, loss of privacy, safety and
security)
They do not want any acquisition of their houses.
f.
Traffic congestion
The residents raised their concerns with regard to the possibility of traffic congestion during
the construction of MRT2. They claim the proposed site for the station at Taman Naga
Emas may cause some problems to the residents as many may park their vehicles at the
neighborhood to use the train. In addition, they would object if the 18-feet service roads at
their housing estate are used by MRT2 as the roads are very narrow and unsafe to use by
heavy machineries. They don‟t want heavy vehicles used for the construction to use their
internal roads. Some participants are adamant that JalanSinar must not be used as an
access road.
The participants insist that a Park & Ride facility is provided next to the site of the station to
meet the demand of users, but warn that the Park & Ride facility should not be accessed
from Taman Naga Emas. They suggest that a new access road is built from Kuala Lumpur –
Seremban Expressway (see map enclosed).
4.
Other Concerns
The participants are concerned that DBKL is planning a JV development of a high-rise
residential development near the site of the proposed station. The development will increase
the parking woes at the area.
They want to be consulted again with more details at the next stage of engagement under
the Railway Scheme.
E2-79
E2-80
Blue circle – proposed station
Yellow circle – suggested location of P & R
Red line – suggested access road from highway.
E2-81
Public Dialogue 5
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: PPR Laksamana (Residential)
: Bilik Mesyuarat Persatuan Penduduk PPR Laksamana
: 26 February 2015
: 9.30 pm -11.00 pm
Participants:
No
Name
Organization
Position
Address
1
A 6-10
AJK
A 6-8
3
Jaredah Ibrahim
AJK
11-14 Blok C
4
NorainiBtUrif
AJK
D-8-1
5
Rozita Arshad
Juruaudit
C-5-10
6
Dzulkifli Bin Yaseh
AJK
B-0-5
7
Raudah Idris
8
Noriah Mat
9
Kudari Othman
10
Jamaliah Musa
11
CheRohani Abdullah
12
Ismail Bin Kassim
13
Muslim Bin Ismail
14
Chik Tahir
15
Na‟manA.MoAris
16
SawiahBtJalil
17
TajulAriffinMohd Tahir
18
Mohammad Bin Johari
19
HjhZamrud Abu Ched
20
HjMohd Anwar
21
MohdRosleyNazir
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Bendahari
2
HalimantunSaadiahBinti
Wokiah
Palmin B. Rekol
B-1-16
B-1-13
Setiausaha
B-02-01
Penduduk
C-13-11
Penduduk
A-2-8
Penduduk
A-1-3
Pengerusi
A-4-11
Pengerusi (Surau)
D-8-9
Penduduk
A-1-13
Penduduk
A-1-13
Penduduk
D-3-11
Penduduk
D-2-8
Penduduk
D-8-6
KetuaUmnoCawa
nganJlnKenanga
Penduduk
D-1-1
D-1-2
E2-82
22
23
24
MohdShairibAriffin
AzizahBorhan
MohdJaudhari
25
26
Hj Zainal
AbidinAbdWahab
Halim Zakaria
27
Omar Ali
28
Ahmad Wahab
Laksamana
PP SS3B
PP SS3B
PP SS3B
V.C
Setiausaha
Penduduk
PP SS3B
Pengerusi
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
PPR
Laksamana
Penduduk
64-02-05 Sri Sabah
64-02-06 Sri Sabah
64-17-03 Seri
Sabah
70-01-10 PA Seri
Sabah
A-5-17
Penduduk
A-1-6
Penduduk
A-8-8
PPR Laksamana consists of 740 units of low-cost housing spread over 4 blocks at Jalan
Peel. Block D is located at Jalan Keledek just opposite Block A across Jalan Peel. The
housing estate faces a number of schools, namely SMK Convent Jalan Peel, SK
Convent Jalan Peel, and SK Pendidikan Khas Jalan Peel and others including Cheras
Recreation Center, Aeon Big Jalan Peel while Cochrane MRT 1 station is under
construction close by.
2. Support for MRT2
The residents at PPR Sri Laksamana support the proposed MRT2 as they believe it
would bring benefits especially for the future generation here and others around Kuala
Lumpur.
The residents anticipate that there would be noise pollution during the construction
of MRT2. The residents have already experienced noise pollution since MRT1
commenced its construction. Rock blastings till late night and dust pollution at the
site have residents all riled up. The participants quote that more residents have
fallen ill after MRT1 commenced their construction works. Despite having briefed
before the project, the residents are disturbed by the construction works there.
Hence, they do not want this problem to recurunder MRT2.
security)
The residents are worried about the potential dust pollution during the construction
of MRT2 as it would affect the health of the residents. Besides that, the residents
predict that there will be vibration from construction works of MRT2 starts and this
will affect the schools and a mosque nearby. Some buildings already have cracks.
The residents worry that their houses will be affected as there has been land
subsidence during construction of MRT1.They also worry that the project will cause
E2-83
flash floods at Jalan Peel and this would stifle traffic flows and affect children going
to schools here.
c.
Traffic congestion
The residents are concerned with the possibility of traffic congestions during the
construction of MRT2. They are hopeful that traffic would not be diverted to Jalan
Peel during the construction phase as this would cause hardship to all residents and
occupants along Jalan Peel. They expect that roads will be maintained at all times.
They hope that traffic studies are conducted to ensure minimal disruption to the
lifestyle of the people here.
4. Other Concerns
The participants suggest that the project proponent invites more stakeholders in the
next round of public engagement here during which they expect detailed information
concerning the impact of MRT2 to their area. They expect residents here would benefit
from MRT2 especially by offering employment. They want project contractors monitored
on their responsibility to the communities nearby.
.
E2-84
Public Dialogue 6
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Commercial at Jalan Suasa, Jln Suasa 1&3.
: Dewan Merdeka, Jalan Suasa 3, Sungai Besi
: 6 March 2015
: 4pm – 6pm
Participants:
No
1
Name
Lim Lea Kuan
2
Lim Lea Kuan
3
Chua Boon Kiat
4
RosnaniDollah
5
6
BB JalanSuasa 3
7
8
Salim bin Salikin
Tati
Widayatibt.Keesmiyanto
Loh Yoon Fook
Lee Swee Sang
9
RosshamIshak
Acham Motor
Pengurus
10
11
RosshahIshak
Kamaruddin b Cikmood
Aca Car Wash
SeleraKampung
Boss
Owner
12
13
BehMengWah
Chen CheowKhiew
Boss
Boss
14
15
Azmi b Mohd Noor
KadirMohideen bin
Omarkhan
Tan Chor Pin
Gulab Bibi
NorbanilawateyJusoh
Khong Pak Ho
CheRohaniChe Mat
HakimahbtDeraman
Natasha Alia Sahazali
RosminibtMohama
Hj. MdJahaber
Wan Mustaffa Wan
Hasan
MohdIkhsan b Saharipin
Abd Rashid Baharuddin
Abdullah b Idris
LiewMooi Tan
Muhamad Ejaz
MuhdIzak b Umar Baki
Max Photo Studio
KedaiUbat Sam Foo
Thong
KedaiJahit
KedaiRuncitKadeer
No.16 JalanSuasa
No.5 JalanPasar
Sungai Besi
No.32
JalanPejabatPos
Sungai Besi
No.32 JalanSuasa
(JalanDekatStesen
LRT)
JalanSuasa 1
8 JalanSuasa 3
Boss
Boss
No.19 JalanSuasa 3
No.18 JalanSuasa 3
SweeHuat JK
KedaiMakJah
HentianTomyam
RumahKedai
Restoran Tom Yam
Setor
KedaiRuncit
Minie Corner
KedaiMakanRahmat
Gerai Burger
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
14 JalanSuasa
No.7 JalanSuasa 1
2 JalanSuasa
3, Jalan_Suasa 3
DepanStesen LRT
No.9 JalanSuasa
DepanStesen LRT
DepanStesen LRT
JalanPejabatPos
DepanStesen LRT
Ensau Corner
Dewan Merdeka
Car Wash
Siew Ling Saloon
Car Wash
KBI Car Wash
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
P.738 JalanSuasa 2
SgBesiPekan
SgBesiPekan
1 JalanSuasa 3
TepiDewan UMNO
JalanSuasa 3
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Organization
Pasar Raya
Kawanku
Pasar Raya
Kawanku
Pasar Raya
Kawanku
Selera 2 Dalam 1
Position
Manager
Address
No.15 JalanSuasa 4
Manager
No.16 JalanSuasa 3
Employee
No.15 JalanSuasa 4
Shop
Owner
Owner
Owner
No.33 JalanSuasa 2
Mata Public Optics
Koon Kee S/B
No.02 JalanSuasa
BB JalanSuasa 3
E2-85
Brief background of Commercial Area
Pekan Sg Besi is a small town that is busy with commercial units along its main roads.
Jalan Suasa is a commercial area located near the LRT Sungai Besi Station. According
to the participants, DBKL has intentions to upgrade the whole township into a
“bumihijau”.
2.
Support for MRT2
The majority of the participants support the MRT2 project.
The participants are divided as to whether the alignment should be built elevated or
underground. Those who do not want it underground cite Smart Tunnel as an
example which often gets flooded, despite being informed that it is one of the
functions of the Smart Tunnel. They do not want the same problem to occur in their
township. Others suggest for the alignment to go underground as a better choice
like in Singapore and Japan where road traffic is not affected.
They also warn that Pekan Sg Besi sits on an ex-mining land and there could be
issues over soil erosion and sink holes during construction.
security)
The majority of them do not want any acquisition of their building/businesses.
c.
Traffic congestion
The participants state that Pekan Sg Besi is known for its traffic congestions and
parking problems for so long. The people are very concerned over traffic congestion
during the construction phase of the project. They advise that there is a Pasar
Malam here every Wednesday and Saturday and such activity could aggravate
traffic problem during construction.
4.
Other Concerns
The participants request for the MRT2 line to be built underground from TUDM to
Pekan Sungai Besi and an underground Park & Ride facility is to be provided near the
proposed station as the town is badly congested. In addition, they also suggest that the
alignment be adjusted to move across the existing LRT station so that it will not affect
the businesses in the town. According to them, this would serve PPR Raya Permai and
Pangsapuri Permai residents. For them, this would be the best solution as their
businesses would not be affected at all and acquisition is limited and restricted (refer to
maps). They suggest a pedestrian bridge to connect them to the station across
BESRAYA.
One participant is afraid of land acquisition and wrote a lengthy letter of protest.
E2-86
Suggestion to Adjust MRT2 Alignment
E2-87
Suggestion on Adjustment to Proposed SgBesi station
Amber line – Proposed MRT2 alignment.
Redline – suggested adjustment to alignment
Yellow circle – suggested location of station
E2-88
Public Dialogue 7
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Commercial establishments along JalanUtama, Serdang Raya.
st
: 1 Floor, Restaurant Mat AyamKampung, Serdang Raya.
: 6 March 2015
: 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm
Participants:
No
1
Name
Chin Ning Nam
Organization
PTM Communications
Position
Manager
2
Ng Kiat Ho
CTN Auto S/B
Owner
3
4
5
6
Kwan Yeow Ci
Chong Yik Kin
Tan Kek Leong
Foo Ying Kee
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
7
8
Hor Chi Chiam
Chock Taikin
CTK Auto S/B
TCT Automotive (S/B)
HGC Auto BNT
Soon Seng Motor
Trading
Hor Motor
OK Design
9
10
11
Vision Home Expo
MC Duty
Soon YB
Building owner
Owner
Owner
12
13
14
15
Fung Gid
Wong Min Choon
Wong Yuen
Kwong
Lim Kian Hin
SitiAidahMaylin
M A Ahad
Tang Kong Wai
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Lot 2B
Lot 28
Lot 28
Lot 64547
16
Fong Chin Wong
LH Car Enterprise
C&R Furnishing
C&R Furnishing
Wai Aero Sales
Sdn.Bhd
Livin Motor
Director
17
Geoy Hock Seng
Win Auto
Representative
18
19
Wong VoonYzh
Wan Nabil Azzuan
Megah Jaya Auto
Ahli Majlis MPSJ
Director
PA Ahli Majlis
20
22
23
Ang Kang Wah
ZurailaAbd Jalal
Vision Home
Furniture
Forest Wood
Furniture
Radiant Auto
AJC Sdn. Bhd
Wakil Director
21
Md. Monad
Hassain
M.Rahman
Lot 36255
JalanUtama
Lot 36255
JalanUtama
Lot 3 JalanUtama
BalaiMasyarakat
Taman Muhibbah
Unit 20, Vision Home
Expo
Expo
Lot 19, JalanUtama
Presint 15, Putrajaya
24
25
ShuhaimiYusop
Yon Moe
AJC Sdn. Bhd
RichyanMornting
Owner
Owner
Manager
Owner
Assistant
Manager
Manager
Manager
Address
Lot K87.B7 13
JalanCherasKajang
Lot 36255
JalanSerdang
Lot 1 Plot B
Lot 48D JalanUtama
Lot 2 JalanUtama
Lot. 36253A
JalanSerdang Raya
Lot 3 JalanUtama
26,27 VISION Home
Depot
Lot 9 Jalan SS8/1
Lot 64550
Presint 15, Putrajaya
Expo
E2-89
26
27
Wah
Tan Ong Kong
New Century
City Pets Vet
Supervisor
Manager
28
Ramy
Mat AyamKampung
Manager
29
Liew Yann Pin
City Food Court
Manager
Unit 16,17,18
C1-00-27 Jalan
SR1/9
Unit 22, Mat
AyamKampung
Lot G.G4450
5. Brief background of Commercial Area
A number of the participants were hostile at the session as they fear any adverse
impact on their businesses. A few of them express their dissatisfaction that there were
no details on the map at this stage on the proposed alignment which makes them
question the purpose in engagement. On that note, many want to wait until the Railway
scheme where they could see details of the alignment being displayed. The question of
viewing detailed map has been raised in many of the stakeholders‟ engagements.
There are several businesses along the Jalan Utama, which include furniture shops,
about 30 lots of used cars shops, restaurants, hardware shops and a food court. The
majority of them are tenants. The pieces of land they occupy between Jalan Utama and
Kuala Lumpur–Seremban Highway are owned by Gapurna Sdn Bhd and Sagu Prestasi
Sdn Bhd. The participants were informed by their landowners to refrain from attending
the discussion as the landowners would discuss with this matter directly with the Project
Proponent and with them. At the start of the engagement, these participants were
informed of their landlord‟s request and were given the choice to stay or to leave the
meeting. Many opt to remain to learn more.
6. Support for MRT2
Generally, the participants at this area support the proposed MRT2 project provided
their businesses are not acquired.
d. Environmental Issues
The participants are worried over noise from MRT2 during its operations, especially
when the train is moving around curves.
e. Social Issues (acquisition, relocation, aesthetics, loss of privacy, safety and
security)
It is believed that the proposed alignment would affect most of the businesses that
are located along Jalan Utama. Many are not happy to know this. Their reason is
the nature of their business which they find difficulty in securing appropriate
locations to operate. This is supposedly ideal for them and at the right cost. If they
are to move further away into Kajang, the cost of rental in Kajang has risen
tremendously. If they are forced to relocate, many would have to shut down if they
cannot find appropriate location to relocate. They would encounter difficult to obtain
licences from local authority. They would lose their existing customers. Once
E2-90
disrupted, they believe it would be difficult to recover their business. Another issue
is even if they are not relocated, the thought of the alignment being built near to
them and the possibility of the viaducts being in front of their premises scare them.
Not only would these block their advertisements but they could affect their fengshui,
making it bad for business. The general feedback just because of the MRT2, they
would have to close their business, lose their livelihood and jobs of their workers
affected. Such possibility is not acceptable to them.
f.
Traffic congestion
The participants raised their concerns with regards to the potential traffic
congestions during the construction of MRT2. They say that the existing Jalan
Serdang Raya – Jalan Utama is already congested during peak hours and the
construction activities by MRT2 will likely worsen traffic conditions further.
8. Other Concerns
The participants reiterate the need to ensure their premises are spared from
acquisition by MRT2. Some suggest moving the alignment elsewhere especially to
areas where there is a high concentration of residents and not to affect adversely
the business community. The participants propose three alternative options to the
alignment in their area as follows:
(i)
Move it along Sg Kuyoh river reserve;
(ii)
Use the reserve along the Kuala Lumpur – Seremban Highway adjacent to
their business premises;
Build along the KTMB line and BESRAYA to meet with South City Plaza across BESRAYA
(see map below).
E2-91
E2-92
Public Dialogue 8
Target Group
Venue
Date
Time
: Serdang Raya Residential Community (R)
st
: 1 Floor, Restaurant Mat AyamKampung, Serdang Raya.
: 6 March 2015
: 8.45 pm – 10.45 pm
Participants:
No
1
2
Name
Ong Kian Ming
Ong See Keow
3
4
5
6
AnpalaganVayapun
ThelahaMunusamy
Sunda a/p Murugesu
Baharuddin
7
Mohd Isa Ainain
8
9
10
Kiew Su Lin
Woon Yen Foong
Chin Yiew Thai
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Elias Jafary
Chong Wai Fong
Zanariahbt Abdul Hamid
Zakaria b Said
Noreidin b Hamad
Singam
Visa
Abu Zarin b Omar
LiewWohHin
Subrial a/l Munusamy
Baharun b Utar
Senol b Keling
Syed Yahya
24
25
26
27
Wan Ahmad Failan b Wan
Mohamed
Wan Kwee Loy
Jarah b Majid
Azmi b Mohamed
28
29
30
31
32
Nk Mustafa Mat Ika
Kong YauKiong
MdNooh b Keling
Abdul RazakKanip
MohdZaminb Mat Yudin
Organization
Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
(Assistant)
Resident
Resident
Resident
Treasurer, JMB Serdang
Raya
Committee Member, JMB
Serdang
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Chairman, JMB Serdang
Raya
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident & Committee
Member
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Address
Putra Indah
No.9 Jalan SR1/1
No.15 Jalan SR1/1
No.17 Jalan SR1/1
No.19 Jalan SR1/1
9-3F, Jalan SR2/1 Serdang Raya
No.2-1F Jalan SR2/1
No.1582, Seri Kembangan
No.58 Jalan 2/1 Serdang Jaya
No.24 Jalan SR1/1 Taman Serdang
Raya
No.21 Jalan SR1/1
No.23 Jalan SR1/1
B3-3 Block B, Jalan SR1/1
B3-1 Block B, Jalan SR1/1
1-8 Tingkat 1 Block B, Jalan SR1/1
No.22 Jalan SR1/2
No.22 Jalan SR1/2
BG-3 Block B Jalan SR1/1
AG-04 Block A Jalan SR1/1
No.11 Jalan SR1/1
BG2 Jalan SR1/1
B2-07 Block B
13-1F Jalan SR2/1
Block B-B4-84
No.9 Seri Kembangan
B-2-8, Jalan SR1/1
No B-3-4 Jalan SR1/1
B2-8, Jalan SR1/1
A 3-5 Jalan SR1/1
1157, Jalan 18/47
Block B4-6 Jalan SR1/1
Bo B1-7, Block B Jalan SR1/1
E2-93
33
34
35
36
Attaw b Kasim
Kwan Peng Khoon
Tea Chin Seng
Azizi b Idris
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
37
38
39
40
Wong Koon Meng
Lee Fook Meng
Lew GeokChing
Woon Yan Ching
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
B1-5 Block B
5. Jalan SR1/1
16. Jalan SR5/6
B2-4. Tingkat 21 Block B Jalan
SR1/1
3, Jalan 2/3 Kota Perdana
A 1-2 Jalan SR1/1
AG5 Jalan SR1/1
35, Jalan BS 3/1 Seri Kembangan
Participants here came mostly housing areas along Jalan Utama – Jalan Serdang Raya
and those staying across the other side of Sg Kuyoh. Taman Serdang Rayaat Jalan
Utama consists of terraced and flats housing. There are also shops located parallel to
the houses. Jalan Utama separates the housing estate and the commercial area where
the alignment is planned to traverse at. The Member of Parliament of the area YB Ong
Kian Meng and his assistant Ong See Keow were present as they are residents here.
Some commercial operators who have missed the earlier session in the afternoon also
attended this engagement.
10. Support for MRT2
The residents at Serdang Raya support the proposed MRT2 project as they said that
the project would be beneficial to them. They said that this project is good because it
will improve the public transportation and the value of houses here would also rise.
The residents anticipate there would be noise pollution during and after the
construction of MRT2. The proposed elevated alignment would create noise
especially for residents of high rise flats. In addition, they worryover vibration
especially as they find that their area is on a former mining land which is soft.
Construction here could cause vibrations and thus, affect the buildings/houses.
Additionally, the residents take an opposing stand that they do not want the MRT to
use SgKuyoh, fearing that this would affect adversely the river flow. They want to
preserve the river for the future generations.
security)
They do not want any of their houses acquired unless there is fair compensation.
They ask about distance to existing buildings and want to know how close it would
be. According to them, if it is 6m, they point out this is completely unacceptable as it
would be too close to the homes. They acknowledge that price of houses will rise if
MRT2 is built here.
E2-94
c.
Traffic congestion
The residents raise their concerns over possible traffic congestion during the
construction of MRT2. They said that roads at Sri Kembangan are already
congested and they do not want this project to worsen the situation. They said that
previously, it took only about 5 minutes to go out from their houses. But now, it
takes about 30 minutes and it causes unnecessary waste of energy, money and
time.
As a suggestion, they request the MRTC consider using feeder vans (not feeder
buses) to service the MRT when it is completed. They say such vans maybe better
than buses as they are smaller and can move easily within the housing area to
serve them, especially in SR 1 and SR9 where the roads are narrow.
12. Other Concerns
The residents want the MRTC to establish a monitoring system during and after the
implementation of MRT2 to address any problems caused by the project. Residents fear
damages to their buildings resulting from the construction of MRT2. They are worried
more on the long term consequences of the MRT2 during operations rather adverse
impacts during construction.
They suggest that the proposed location of stations 26 and 27 be subject to further
study in order to best serve the people. They also request the MRTC to carry out Traffic
Impact Assessments at the stations.
13. Suggestions
Some suggestions on alternative route in their area were sought. Some representatives
from the business community believe that the present proposed alignment would cause
acquisition and affects their businesses. They suggest (1) to go along Sag Kuyoh; (2)
use Jalan Utama itself as the base of the alignment, and (3) to move the alignment
along BESRAYA and to South City Plaza and the Mines (see map below).
Participants were asked to express their preference through a show of hand. Most of
them chose the proposal to realign the MRT2 along Besraya and across it to the east. If
this is the case, it may cater to the development at the Mines where some 24,000
houses are being planned, and also Serdang Perdana. The participants rejected the
proposal to use the reserves along Sg. Kuyoh.
E2-95
Suggestion to shift the alignment away from Serdang Raya:
E2-96
E2-97
E2-98

Appendices

Transcription

Similar documents

jawatan kosong tnt v4 copy

Laporan EIA

- Archnet

sales gallery location map

Prayer Points - Malaysian Care

SK One E-BrochureV2_13

jmb mc amansiara - Taman Amansiara

taman belia antarabangsa

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PUTRAJAYA PLANNING