Comments /Questions to PTMP here!

Malaysian school children girls questionHere’s an easy way to keep track of questions and comments as invited by the organizers of the latest state website in support of the Penang Transport Master Plan, version 7 April 2015 at http://goo.gl/8vchW3.  Once you have posted your question to the state site, you are then invited to add it here as well. You can do this  by clicking the Comments tag just to your left, and then simply pasting a copy of your question and reference number.  Then anyone who wishes to review all these comments or questions has only to click to   http://wp.me/p3GVVk-sr — and off they go.

Have a look at the first posted by way of example. And if that does not work for you, you can always copy it by email to penang@ecoplan.org.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Comments /Questions to PTMP here!

  1. Thirty year extension of SRS PTMP horizon – to 2065 from original 2030:

    Who took the decision to expand the SRS plan horizon to 2065? And why?

    Eric Britton

    Feedback Number :61

    Reply
  2. Thirty year extension of SRS PTMP horizon – to 2065 from original 2030?

    What were the justifications for doubling the plan period over Part 1 of the planning exercise (Halcrow)?

    Eric Britton

    Feedback Number :62

    Reply
  3. Thirty year extension of SRS PTMP horizon – to 2065 from original 2030?

    What additional analysis was carried out — and by whom? — to support this extension? Can we now see (a) a report on the process and (b a section on final conclusions for the PTMP project, and in particular the SRS component.

    Eric Britton

    Feedback Number is : 64.

    Reply
  4. Feedback Number :44
    Name: lim mah hui
    Email: limmahhui@gmail.com
    Contact No : 60124221880

    Feedback: Enquiry
    Message:

    1) Can you please provide more details on each of the transport system proposed (LRT, tram, monorail, BRT) and give comparison as to carrying capacity and cost per km.

    2) The new generation tram system used in Sydney and China has carrying capacity of 14,000 to 20,000 passengers per trip per hour. If the cost of tram is much lower, why are we not using trams all the way

    3) Having LRT, monorail and trams at different grade levels reduces connectivity and convenience especially for the physically handicapped . Imagine going from airport to Tanjong Tokong, one has to get down fr LRT and then walk and catch monorail to T Tokong. This doesnt make sense. better to have one new generation tram system that is at ground level and if necessary elevated or underground at only selected sections

    4) We need detailed financial projections for operation and maintenance of each of the transport system proposed especially the demand and revenue structure based on realistic population projections. What are the projected profit or loss of each of the systems?

    Reply
  5. Feedback numbers and Enquiries (total 20)

    71. Referring to the proposed tram route shown in the Transport Masterplan, will more than one tramcar be able to travel along this route? Or will only one tramcar be able to travel to and fro from the
    proposed Transport Hub at Carnarvon Street to the Transport Depot at Swettenham Pier/Fort Cornwallis? What is the frequency of the tramcar at each stop and terminal?

    72. Referring to the monorail stops at Siaboey/Prangin/Komtar Phase V, why is it necessary to change from one monorail line to another
    (two stops are shown right next to each other)? Would it not be more cost-efficient and offer better connectivity to have one continuous
    Air-Itam Tanjung Tokong line with only one stop instead of two at Siaboey/Prangin/Komtar Phase V?

    73. What will be the impact of elevated monorail and elevated LRT running through the narrow historic streets of George Town
    like Jalan Dato’ Kramat and Jalan Burmah? Can you reaveal the size of pylons, how far they are apart and
    show detailed plans and visualisations against the historic buildings?

    74. Will businesses, residences and property prices be affected for those properties next to the elevated LRT and monorail structures?
    Have the property owners been consulted?

    75. What will be the social-economic, visual, heritage and environmental impacts of the elevated LRT and monorail coming into the historic
    site at Siaboey/Prangin Canal/KOMTAR Phase V at the edge of the George Town World Heritage Site? Can you show detailed plans and visualisations?

    76. Is the promised Siaboey art district/Prangin Park on KOMTAR Phase 5 going to be scrapped for the Prangin transport hub? Has this been announced to the public?

    77. Will the location of the Transport Hub at Siaboey/Prangin/Komtar Phase V doom any future possibility of expanding the World Heritage Site to the south
    to incorporate the Seven Streets precinct, for which conservation area guidelines were drawn in the 1980s?

    78. The press did not report many public concerns when the Transport Masterplan was submitted to SPAD at the end of March. During the LRT Focus group discussion held with NGOs on 18 March 2016, the NGOs had many queries and requested more detailed
    plans of alignments and the Siaboey/Prangin/KOMTAR Phase 5 transport hub. Can you tell us when these queries will be answered and the detailed plans shown?

    79. During the LRT Focus group discussion held with NGOs on 18 March 2016, the NGOs proposed that the transport hub should be shifted to the
    Jelutong landfill site which is currently earmarked for the Skycab Station. Can you draw up a study of comparative advantages/disadvantages
    of having the transport hub at Siaboey/Prangin/Komtar Phase V versus the Jelutong landfill site and invite us to a public briefing on this?

    80. Will there be a series of briefings and consultations on the Penang Transport Masterplan to which the public and press will be invited? Where and when will these be held?

    81. Will the Local Plan be gazetted before the Transport Masterplan is finalised?
    Does the Transport Masterplan comply with the Penang Structure Plan and the Draft Local Plan?

    82. For the sake of transparency and freedome of information can you ensure that all the feedback is visible on the Penang Masterplan website?

    83. For the sake of transparency and freedome of information, can you show a cost breakdown of the different components of the Transport Masterplan on the website?

    84. Will the LRT line, monorail and tram be operated by the government or private operators? What ridership do the LRT and monorails
    need to achieve before the operator(s) can break even? In the meantime will the operator(s) be subsidized?

    85. Have modern trams been considered as an alternative to LRT and monorails? Can you draw up a study to show comparative costs, carrying capacities, connectivity, access, and other advantages and publish this on the website?

    86. Has an integrated system of modern trams been considered instead of having a cocktail of tram, LRT or monorail?
    Can you draw up a study to show comparative costs, carrying capacities, connectivity, access and other advantages and publish this on the website?

    87. Has a predominantly street-level system combined with congestion charge been considered as a more wholistic mobility solution,
    instead of having elevated LRT and monorail systems? Can you draw up a study to show comparative costs, carrying capacities,
    connectivity, access, and other advantages and publish this on the website?

    88. Is the LRT extension to the 3 proposed southern islands costed to the developer or to the public (in terms of opportunity for reclamation rights)? In vew that it will take years for the population on the
    3 proposed islands to build up, is the operator (whether public/private) expected to subsidize the construction and running of the LRT to these islands and will the costs be passed on to the public?

    89. How much did the Penang Transport Plan Study cost and can this be made available without charge to the public in the form of pdf chapters on the website?

    90. Instead of building a tunnel for private cars or additional channel links, would it be possible to expand one of the existing bridges for a modern tramline or dedicated bus lane?
    Can you draw up a study to show comparative costs, carrying capacities, connectivity, access, and other advantages and publish this on the website?

    Reply
    • Thank you Khoo Su Nin. Excellent probing questions. We will all be looking very carefully at the government’s detailed response to each of them.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s