UPDATED: 4/21/2005 01:50:15 AM – interesting comments from the star’s columnist, vk chin. it’s true… people talk so much about congestion on the bridge… but only on certain period, not all the time! he mentioned traffic snarls only occurs during office hours, weekends, public holidays and surprise, surprise… and when traffic from other states use the bridge to get to the island. see, what i mentioned about traffic from other states contributing to the congestion when we do have a 2nd link.
why? because it is too expensive at RM2.6 billion, so said our works minister, samy velu.
now, isn’t this strange? right in the beginning, it was samy himself who initiated the project, planning to make it a bridge tunnel. yes, it went back as far as 1999 – the first time this idea was mooted. then in sept. last year, he himself announced that the construction of a second bridge was not economically viable. and now finally he said it – what several of us who had been against the project had been saying all along – damn costly lah!
however, it appears that penang’s CM, tan sri dr koh tsu koon is adamant that the 2nd link project is not scrapped. why? according to him, the 2nd link is much needed as traffic on the penang bridge had reached a critical level. yes, he’s pressing hard for the 2nd link project. why then, isn’t he pressing hard for a light monorail transport, so asked malvu?
but why look for something new when the old could be improved? you and i, being the ordinary rakyat that we are, surely knows that we try to improve on the old first so as not to spend/waste money on the new.
penang have the ferry service. improve on it. the existing penang bridge can be widen (as it is done now). the whole transport system can be revamped. to quote from anil netto’s statement in aliran:
the government should focus on implementing an integrated public transport system with more ferries, a comprehensive low-cost bus network (along the lines of that in Curituba in Brazil) including free shuttle buses in the city, a low-stress cycling network, street-level electric trams and light rail trains, and a pedestrian-friendly inner city (the Campbell Street pedestrian mall is a good start). Such an integrated transport network would be more sustainable and environmentally friendly and much less of a financial burden on the public than a bridge-tunnel.
people who jump with joy when hearing the 2nd link is going to be built, but now get mad when learning that it is going to be scraped, they only look at the surface of things, not deeper. “ferry and penang bridge alawys congested one. so frust travelling to and fro. how nice if there is a 2nd link”. so they said… but have they consider, for one thing, if there is a 2nd link, yes, easy for vehicles to leave penang, BUT it is also easy for vehicles to enter penang? this means more congestion on the roads of penang which is already choked with congestion!
well, even my uneducated mother knows how to say “more roads means more cars, more cars means more congestion”. (when we were talking about PORR (penang outer ring road) – now that – the PORR issue – is another long story).
yes, with the additional link, more vehicles will be coming in, and this means more congestion. and don’t forget penang is a popular holiday spot for out-station people.
and btw, why does the govt. label this as the 2nd link? it should be the 3rd link. the 1st link was the ferry service, the 2nd link, the existing penang bridge, thus this should be the 3rd link… unless of course they don’t count the ferry service but count only ‘bridge’.
*sigh* 3rd link. PORR. what’s next? on a little turtle-swimming shaped island?