LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
RECONSIDER CONSTRUCTION OF PIL1 HIGHWAY
The Penang State Government should
consider all points of view before being defensive over the proposed Pan-Island
Link 1 (PIL1) highway plans. Before the 14th General Elections,
Pakatan Harapan had promised to review mega projects and re-evaluate the
necessity, economic feasibility and benefits of highway and infrastructure
projects. Concerned citizens have now highlighted the risks of increased air,
water and soil pollution and increased traffic from the proposed PIL1 highway
plans. To dismiss their concerns would be to dismiss the concepts of
transparency, democracy and public participation that the Pakatan Harapan
government claims to be committed to.
Whether or not PIL1 will result in the
decrease of property values or cut through Penang’s Youth Park is secondary to
the undeniable fact that PIL1, and indeed, any highway construction project,
will result in poorer water and air quality for residents, and possibly more
dry spells due to reduced watershed areas, and more wildlife roadkills due to
greater fragmentation of areas able to support animal and bird populations.
The construction process itself will
result in an increase in air and water pollution, waste generated and traffic
congestion due to construction vehicles and traffic diversions. Road and
highway projects do not benefit the lower-income and marginalized groups who
cannot afford to own vehicles and use highways, and yet these are the groups most
likely to be adversely affected by heavier traffic, noise pollution and poorer
air quality.
The argument that highways are necessary
for the alleviation of traffic congestion is fallacious, and anyone involved in
public planning and transport policies can attest to the fact that the
construction of more roads and highways will only lead to the well-known and
long-established effect known as “induced traffic”.
Whenever a new road is built, more
traffic will divert onto it, as more motorists would make the decision to make
trips they would otherwise not make, and travel longer distances because of the
presence of a new road. Commuters who would otherwise plan their trips and
manage their time in order to carpool or take public transport would be
persuaded to drive instead, as the existence of a new highway would persuade
them that it would be more comfortable, convenient and time-saving to drive. Instead
of planning their routes to avoid peak hour traffic, motorists would opt to
drive on highways in the belief that it could accommodate more traffic and
shorten their routes.
The solutions to the problem of traffic
congestion are to make better use of the state’s existing road and transport
systems, improve public transport, reduce incentives for private vehicle usage,
and improve road safety for public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians.
Penang and indeed most of Peninsular Malaysia has the infrastructure for an
efficient public transport system, but unfortunately not the political will or
societal commitment to make public transport systems reliable, punctual,
convenient, affordable and safe. Improving road safety and the public transport
system will use less public funds, benefit a greater strata of society, have a
lower environmental and carbon footprint and take less time to implement than
constructing more highways and roads.
Just as adding new roads and highways
would not reduce traffic congestion, removing existing roads will not
exacerbate the problem either. When Paris downsized and reduced roadways, motorists
simply readjusted to the new system and up to 20% of commuters switched to
public transport. When San Francisco removed the Central Freeway in 1989,
motorists eased into using a smaller boulevard without difficulty. When Seoul
shut down a highway and replaced it with a river, parkland and smaller roads, traffic
situations did not change but air quality and city living conditions improved. The
Penang State Government is not required to make a decision as radical as
closing down existing roads. It would, however, be courageous and responsible
for it to review and reconsider the necessity of PIL1.
WONG EE LYNN
COORDINATOR,
GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP,
MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY
No comments:
Post a Comment