Penang Transport Master Plan PTMP · 2016. 7. 22. · PTMP’smotto: ‘Moving People, Not Cars’...
Transcript of Penang Transport Master Plan PTMP · 2016. 7. 22. · PTMP’smotto: ‘Moving People, Not Cars’...
-
1
Penang Transport Master Plan
PTMP
Addressing NGO Penang Forum
– Alternative TMP Website & Online Petition
22nd July 2016
-
2
What is a Transport Master Plan?
-
3
IDEA1 CONCEPTUAL STUDY2FEASIBILITY
STUDY3PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
DESIGN4 TMP5
Steps In Developing A Transport Master Plan
WHAT HALCROW HAS DONE:
WHAT SRS CONSORTIUM HAS DONE:
WHAT PENANG FORUM HAS DONE:
IDEA1
IDEA1 CONCEPTUAL STUDY2
• No economic and constructability evaluation.
• No transport and feasibility study.
• Aspirational and not practical – no funding model.
• No economic and constructability evaluation.
• Serves as guideline for possible implementation.
-
4
Why NOT Tram?
-
5
TRAM
Is this PRACTICAL and REALISTIC?
BRT
Removing road space for Tram and BRT.
Penang Forum’s Talk
-
6
Current Scenario: Penang’s Congested Roads
Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah
Jalan Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu (LCE)
Can at-grade Tram
be built WITHOUT
causing traffic
havoc?
-
7
• To achieve State Government’s objective – 40% public transport mode share:
Proposed system needs to cater for HIGH CAPACITY (HIGHER SPEED)transit, hence the need for a DEDICATED CORRIDOR. Transit line should NOT mix with existing traffic.
Penang Island’s Roads Wide Enough?
• New transit lines need to be PARACHUTED ON THE ROAD SPACE TO MINIMISE LAND ACQUISITION AND SOCIAL IMPACT
-
8
Are Penang Roads Spacious Enough For Trams?
Casablanca Tram, Morocco
Tianjin Tram, China
Shenyang Tram, China
Kaohsiung Tram, Taiwan
-
9
Can Penang Afford To Close Roads?
• If the State Government were to maintain the number of traffic lanes:
State needs to ACQUIRE LAND AND BUILDINGS Cause MASSIVE PUBLIC OUTCRY
• WHY NOT TRAMS? In Penang’s case, in order to build trams: State needs to SACRIFICE TRAFFIC LANES for a dedicated corridor
(at least 2 TRAFFIC LANES) Cause severe TRAFFIC HAVOC to already congested road system
-
10
Can FIZ/ Business Areas Cope With Road Closures?
• Long period of disruption to local communities – during construction:
ROAD CLOSURES (> 2 years) to allow for utilities relocations Extend construction 6 TO 8 YEARS
Tram works roadworks at Princes Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
-
11
Access Will Be Severely Hampered
-
12
Utilities relocated under Road Lane
for future maintenance/replacement Utilities under Tram Lane to be relocated
3.35m
Tram Lane 1Lane 13.5m 3.35m
Tram Lane 2
6.7m TRAM LANES
2.5m
Walkway
2.2m
Excavation
Trams Cannot Be Built Without Utilities Relocation
• Underground utilities relocation is required BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.• NO OPPORTUNITY for future utility maintenance under tramway after it
is completed.• Digging underneath tramway for utilities repair will DISRUPT TRAM
SERVICE and CAUSE CONGESTION on roads.
-
13
Street Level Transit System Is Not Cheaper
• Construction of street level transit system on existing road network will ALWAYS CAUSE BUDGET OVERRUN!
• EXAMPLE: SYDNEY CBD AND SOUTH EAST 12km LRV project (street level), reported a budget overrun of AUD$600mil to AUD$2.2bil @ AUD$183mil/km
• EXAMPLE: EDINBURGH TRAM 14km (street level), registered a 3-year delay and budget overrun of £401milto MORE THAN 2X ORIGINAL COST at £776mil @ £55mil/ km Include loan interest, total cost
exceed £1bil
“City residents endured six years of disruption as
roads have been closed for construction – including a
10-month closure of Princes Street – while
businesses have complained of lost trade.”
-
14
Edinburgh Tram: Cost-Overrun & Contractual Disputes
• Original plan to build 18.5km tram from Edinburgh Airport to Newhaven – only 14km completed to-date from airport to York Place (FUNDING CRISIS).
• Main Issues: Contractual disputes (tramway construction), major delays and cost increase.
• Court Case (Arbitration) in 2009: – Legal proceedings initiated by Transport Initiative Edinburgh (TIE –project manager) against BSC Consortium (contractor) due to CLAIM DISPUTES (all works stopped).
• Heavy Criticisms:1. Local Businesses – Income losses from prolonged road
closures.2. Cycling Groups – Safety concerns & accidents (injured
cyclists, tyre stuck in tram tracks).3. Local Residents – Safety concerns & outright protests
(overhead electric cables above residential buildings).
Scottish Gov. raised
statutory inquiry on 7
Nov 2014 to scrutinise
the delivery of the
project – cost overrun &
delays.
Another £144.7 million
extension to Newhaven
(4.5km) – approved by
Edinburgh Council on 19
Nov 2015, as originally
intended for Line 1.
-
15
Severe Inconveniences: Local Businesses & Residents
Road closure between Haymarket and
Shandwick Place from Mac. 2012 to
Oct. 2013 led to major complaints from
businesses and residents
– TOTAL CLOSURE 19 MONTHS.
-
16
Tram & LRT Systems - Use LRV As Rolling Stock
LRV TRAM LRT
Rolling stock/
vehicle for a rail
system.
LRV running on street.
• Sharing road space with
cars (low capacity) – HIGH
OPERATIONS RISK
• Dedicated road lane (high
capacity) – CLOSURE OF
VEHICLE LANES
LRV running on elevated structure.
• Dedicated corridor (high
capacity) – NO RISK & NO
LANE CLOSURE
LRT SYSTEM = LRV (RUNNING ON ELEVATED STRUCTURE)
-
17
Cost Escalation? - Apple vs Orange
• PTMP as it stands today is DIFFERENT from that in the RFP submission – Apple vs Orange comparison.
• ADDITIONAL TMP COMPONENTS WERE ADDED subsequently, after discussions & workshops with State agencies & stakeholders, prior to State EXCO endorsement.
• PHASE 1 of PTMP by SRS Consortium involves BAYAN LEPAS LRT, PIL 1 and RECLAMATION OF ISLANDS A & B.
• The actual cost of PTMP Phase 1 will only be known AFTER COMPLETION OF TENDER AWARD.
-
18
LRT For Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor.
-
19
Why LRT For Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor?
• LRT system is required because:
The corridor requires ELEVATED system. Forms high-capacity MAIN N-S BACKBONE connecting Komtar direct to
the airport – cater for high ridership. Links MUST-GO POINTS – primary industrial, commercial & residential
hubs. It will CONNECT TO SEBERANG PERAI in future. Can be served by SYSTEMATIC FEEDER BUS NETWORK within 3km
radius to ferry commuters to and from stations (last mile).
• Railway scheme alignment currently reviewed by SPAD is the MOST OPTIMUM ALIGNMENT – CENTRALLY LOCATED WITHIN CORRIDOR CATCHMENT with minimum land acquisition and social impact (common sense).
• Prior to submission, WORKSHOPS/ ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS WITH STATE AGENCIES AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS WERE HELD.
-
20
Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor: Constraints
• Based on study, OVER 91% OF TOTAL BAYAN LEPAS LRT ALIGNMENT HAS TO BE ELEVATED (19km out of 21km). Why?
• To AVOID:
Traffic conflicts
Congestion
Lane closures
ELEVATED RAIL TRANSIT = LRT
Only after the LRT is
completed – with a
‘safety net’ in public
transport, the State
Gov. may look into
reducing traffic lanes for
dedicated pedestrian
walkways, bicycle and
bus lanes.
-
21
Alignment Selection
MATRIX OF FACTORS for optimum alignment
selection carried out by professional Malaysian
engineering consultants
-
22
TRAFFIC CONFLICTS @ IJM DEVELOPMENT
BEFORE AFTER
TR
AM
TR
AM
SIGNALISED
T-JUNCTION
ACCESS FOR IJM
DEVELOPMENT
ACCESS FOR IJM
DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE IJM DEVELOPMENTe-GATE
LEBUHRAYA TUN DR LIM CHONG EU
INCOMING TRAFFIC
OUTGOING TRAFFIC
2-WAY TRAM
-
23
TRAFFIC CONFLICTS & LANE CLOSURE @ SPICE
SPICE
PERSIARAN MAHSURI
JALAN MAHSURI
BEFORE AFTER
TR
AM
TR
AM
TR
AM
ST
OP
OUTGOING TRAFFIC
TURNING TRAFFIC
2-WAY TRAM
2 LANES CLOSED
-
24
RENESASBOSCH
2 lanes service road with
Side Parking
11.1 m
One Lane Service Road
with Side Parking
7.1 m
FenceFenceFenceFence
Traffic lane
11.3 m
Traffic lane
10.9 m
Divider
2.6 mDivider
6.4 mDivider
2.4 m
ALONG FIZ STRETCH = 2KM
Side
Parking
Side
Parking
FenceFence
RENESASBOSCH
Side
Parking
2 lanes service road with
Side Parking
11.1 m
Tram Stop
3.0 m
Tram Lane
3.65 m
Tram Lane
3.65 m
Separator
0.6m
Separator
0.6m
Traffic lane
7.6 mTraffic lane
7.6 m
5.7 m 1.5 m
Walkway
3.0 m
Space
for
Link Bridge
5.0 m
One Lane
Service Road
Fence
Pedestrian Link Bridge
Reduction of traffic lanes -
dual three to dual two lanes
FIZ SOUTH
STATION
Side Parking
Removed
Note: No drop-
off / lay-by areas
Komtar-Penang Airport Corridor - TRAMS
Lane Closure & Parking Removal
FIZ SOUTH STATION
Lane reduction
Side parking removed
Example Scenario:
-
25
BURMAH ROAD - EXISTING
2-storey shopChinese Temple
3 lanes carriageway (11m)
Car Park
3 TRTAFFIC LANES
-
26
BURMAH ROAD – WITH MONORAIL
Monorail
2-storey shopChinese Temple
2 lanes carriageway
Car Park
1 lane reduction
for monorail piers
-
27
BURMAH ROAD – WITH TRAM
Tram
2-storey shopChinese Temple
1 lane carriageway
Car Park
2 lanes reduction
for Tram way
-
28
Penang Needs Strategic Bypass Highway.
-
29
• Eg. Full electronic tolling – took >25 years to implement in Klang Valley.
Highways Still Needed - PIL 1 Economically Viable
Lesson from Singapore – After achieving
60% public transport mode share, the
island republic still continues to build new
highways.
As of 2014, there were 163 km of
expressways in Singapore, and its road
network is still expanding.
• 40% public transport mode shift CANNOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT – NEEDS TO BE ENCOURAGED PROGRESSIVELY.
PTMP’s motto: ‘Moving People, Not Cars’ – applicable to State’s 40% public transport mode share target by the year 2030.
HIGHWAYS STILL NEEDED to cater for the 60% PRIVATE VEHICLES.
-
30
CURRENT (Without PIL 1)
LCE now heavily congested
FUTURE (With PIL 1)
Alternative to LCE for traffic relief
STATE
TMP(PHASE 1)
PIL 1 – Crucial To Relieve Traffic
Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu (LCE) Expressway is the ONLYnorth-south highway on Penang Island – with no alternative.
With the Pan Island Link 1 (PIL 1) Highway, vehicles may BYPASS LCE and travel DIRECTLY from Airport/ 2nd Bridge to Komtar/ Gurney Drive.
-
31
Other Halcrow Recommendations.
-
32
What Happened to Halcrow’s TMP Recommendations?
• Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) report by Halcrow (Short term –up to 2030) was adopted as Penang State Government’s official document on 25 March 2013.
• Based on the Halcrow's recommendations, State Government had come out with several project as per the study, which included: 3 MAJOR HIGHWAYS & UNDERSEA TUNNEL constructed by Zenith-
BUCG BICYCLE MASTER PLAN progressively done by MBPP PENANG ACCESSIBILITY ACTION GROUP (PAAG) to look into the
accessibility improvement plan
• The RFP called by the Penang State Gov. requested for a PDP MODEL TO IMPLEMENT THE PENANG TMP, INCLUDING A FUNDING MODEL.
• It also allowed proponents to propose an ALTERNATIVE TMP.
• All the short-term, long-term including cost effective measures recommended by Halcrow were carried out by State Gov. in a holistic way.
-
33
Role of PDP.
-
34
What is a PDP?
• A Project Delivery Partner (PDP) works as the State’s partner to develop,
design, procure and manage the work package contractors (WPCs) to
deliver the TMP components.
• PDP agreement is NOT a construction contract. The PDP does not
carry out any construction directly, but manages the construction works
carried out by the WPCs.
• Infrastructure type/ transit system selection is decided by Asset Owner –
situation does NOT arise for PDP to inflate project cost for higher fee.
• The PDP has the ability to “step-in” to rescue the project in the event of
non-performing WPCs – due to its own skill and experience as a
contractor.
SRS CONSORTIUM ≠ CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPER
SRS CONSORTIUM = PROJECT DELIVERY PARTNER
-
35
Benefits of PDP Model
• The PDP ensures the successful delivery of all of the project components within
time and budget, in accordance with the design and specifications approved by
the State Gov. SINGLE POINT ACCOUNTABILITY
• Key benefits:
– PDP assumes all design, construction & integration risks of the project
– PDP fees will be reduced if project outcomes is not met (Pain-Gain System)
– PDP is responsible in obtaining the necessary licenses & approvals
• The PDP ensures the implementation from ‘top to toe’ of the entire delivery
process, including:
– Feasibility & EIA studies
– Regulatory Approvals (DEIA, SPAD & NPPC approvals)
– Design development, engineering design & specifications for construction
– Land acquisition
– Construction procurement by tender
– Construction approvals (EMP, utilities relocations and traffic diversions etc.)
– Managing and coordinating the construction including supervision
– Interface management between contractors (minimise potential for claims & cost overruns)
– Managing the testing & commissioning process
-
36
Global Best Practices – PDP Used For Complex Projects36
Project(duration)
Client
PDP
PDP’s role &
relation-
ship with
GoM
Source
Value (USD bil)
New Doha International
Airport (NDIA), (2003 – 2011)
Qatar Civil Aviation Authority &
NDIA Steering Committee
Overseas Bechtel International
• NDIA Project Profile
15
• Overseas Bechtel International
(OBI) provides engineering,
project management, &
construction management
services
• The project was sub-divided
into 60 Construction Packages
Korea High Speed Rail(1991 - 2002)
Korea High Speed Rail
Construction Authority (KHRC)
Bechtel
• Bechtel provided project
management services, working
with KHRC as part of an
Integrated Project
Management Organization
(IPMO) that guides project
design & construction
• Work includes design
management, railway
operations, quality control,
safety, and cost & schedule
management.
• Helped the team evaluate
railway technologies & applied
its global knowledge of
procurement cycles & contract
management.
• KHSR project profile
• Bechtel briefs – April 2001
16
London Olympics 2012(2006 – 2012)
Olympic Delivery Authority
(ODA)
CLM Consortium
(CHRM Hill, Laing O’Rourke & Mace)
• CLM ‘s media briefing note
10
• CLM as Delivery Partner –
supports ODA in managing the
cost & delivery of the
construction programme
• Contracts will be let by the
ODA, which will also retain
ownership of approval
processes & financial syst.
• CLM delivers parcels of ODA’s
work; pre-approving all tasks
and the resources allocated
for that task prior to the work
starting
• Profit earned if CLM hits KPI
set by ODA
Crossrail Project, London(2009-2017)
Crossrail Ltd(subsidiary of TfL)
Bechtel
• TfL Board Delegation paper
• www.bechtel.com
12
• Bechtel as Project Delivery
Partner (PDP), manages the
safe delivery of the central
tunnel section to time, cost
and quality.
• The central tunnel section is
to be designed and
constructed through a number
of contracts
• The PDP is responsible for the
procurement and management
of contracts & for managing all
the consequent interfaces,
reporting to the Crossrail Ltd.
Implementation Director and
his team
-
37
PTMP FUNDING MODEL
-
38
Penang South Reclamation
• Reclaimed land and PTMP components BELONG SOLELY TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
• Proceeds from SALE OF RECLAIMED LAND VIA PUBLIC AUCTION by the State Government will be used to fund PTMP components.
• Implementation of each PTMP component (whether rail or road) depends on:• ECONOMIC VIABILITY • FUND AVAILABILITY
• Each PTMP component will be tendered out via OPEN TENDER.
PTMP developed in phases
-
39
BAYAN LEPAS LRT
FUNDING CAPEX OPEX
Reclamation -
Fare Revenue -
Non-Fare Revenue
(TOD)-
LRT Sustainable Model
Examples of Public-Private Partnership
Model: Bangkok (Thailand) and Singapore
NOTE:
1. Build-Operate-Transfer
(BOT) Model for Ampang/
Kelana Jaya LRT and KL
Monorail are NOT
SUITABLE – revenue has
to support Capex & Opex.
2. Initial projected ridership &
revenue had to be HIGH to
be financially ‘feasible’ –
resulting in shortfall.
-
40
PENANG SOUTH RECLAMATION – Funding Model
1. A catalyst for ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION that is MOST CRUCIAL to take
Penang to the next level.
2. Resolves land and transport issues in ONE MOVE to further enhance Penang’s
liveability.
3. It is the key to UNLOCKING THE FUTURE that will benefit Penang’s future
generations.
4. THE ONLY KEY THAT IS REALISTICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE STATE.
Penang’s Future
-
41
A New Chapter For Penang
New reclaimed land from PSR is Penang’s answer for:
GREENER environment
SUSTAINABLE & COMPETITIVE ECONOMY
Shortage of SKILLED LABOUR
Housing AFFORDABILITY
BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE for all Penangites
Future TRAM LINE
Transformative Development
-
42
THANK YOU