By Stephanie Jacob
High-speed rail links are in vogue but at RM40 billion, they come with a steep price tag. Before Malaysia commits to building such a link to Singapore, the government should show beyond doubt that such a link is indeed the best way to spend such a vast amount of money.
In the grand scheme of things related to the proposed high-speed rail (HSR) link from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore, it is fairly early days. Much is still being discussed between the two governments and all that has been decided are the locations for the terminuses.
But even the very limited details throw out immediate red flags which are worth highlighting, especially since these questions have been asked but remain unanswered.
Large transportation projects very often struggle to pay their own way for a variety of reasons, so any decision to spend RM40 billion (at the very least) should be dissected in detail to ensure that it will truly be sustainable in the future, whether this means generating sufficient revenue to sustain itself or bringing enough economic multipliers to make up the cost it will take to build, run, and maintain such a project.
When the project was first announced, the government said the feasibility studies, both economic and environmental, were being conducted and promised that they would be released for public consultation once they were completed.
Two years later, there are still no studies made available to the public. Have these studies not been completed or have they simply not been released to the public?
If it is the case of the first question, then based on what research were decisions for the terminuses and locations taken? What was the rationale for deciding that the terminus in KL would be located at 1Malaysia Development Bhd’s Bandar Malaysia location?
One would assume, or at least hope, some sort of feasibility studies were done to determine that Bandar Malaysia and the other six locations are the most suitable areas to run the HSR link through.
Which brings us to the second question – why have the studies not been released to the public for consultation and debate? RM40 billion is not small change and embarking on such a project should be done with the public’s buy-in.
HSR’s biggest selling points are its speed and the economic development that it can potentially bring to not just KL and Singapore, but to all the other six stations along its alignment.
It will theoretically be faster than travelling by air, conventional rail, and road travel. But the idea that you will be able to zip down to Singapore or vice versa in 90 minutes is actually misleading. That time frame is only the amount of time which will actually be spent on the train. It does not account for a passenger’s travel time to the train station, as well as immigration and departure processes at both ends.
The Land Public Transport Authority (Spad) estimates that the entire HSR journey will take two-and-a-half hours in total, which is about two hours less than taking a flight.
But it is worth asking where the time savings are coming from.
In Spad’s rather curious estimation, 90 minutes are allocated for actual travel time on both a high-speed train and a plane. The flight time between the two cities is actually about 45 minutes, but Spad doubles that to account for taxiing time, which seems excessive.
But that aside, the time saved between the two modes actually comes in areas outside actual travel time. For instance, Spad estimates it would take 45 minutes to get from the KL city centre to KLIA or klia2 airport, while it would take just 15 minutes to get from KL to the HSR terminus.
Then at the airport or terminus, Spad estimates you would need to spend 60 minutes or 15 minutes, respectively, to clear the immigration and departure process. This is where there is a stark difference between the two modes and it is unclear why the process is so much quicker for HSR. Most likely it would because the two countries agree to streamline its processes to allow passengers to clear immigration all at once at the departure terminus.
But do we truly need to build a RM40 billion link to deal with this time difference? Surely there are other cheaper solutions. The most obvious would be to streamline and improve the immigration processes at the KLIA and klia2 to quicken things up – perhaps to running the same immigration process as HSR would use.
Of course, the counter argument will be that it would be hard to practice different immigration and departure processes at international airports which have numerous routes and airlines.
The answer might be to use one of the smaller, less busy airports. The government could consider a shift of KL-Singapore flights out of the airports in Sepang to another airport.
After all, if the idea is for KL and Singapore to take advantage of each other’s growth then it should not matter what type of transportation mode is being used so long as it is fast, safe, and convenient, right?
There is already decent road connectivity from the KL city centre to Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport in Subang.
Connectivity can be further improved by extending the Light Rail Transit 3 (LRT3) line which is already scheduled to run close to the airport with a stop in Lembah Subang, which is roughly 5km from the airport. Extending the line will cost significantly less than building a HSR link, given that the entire LRT3 line is estimated to cost RM9 billion.
One terminal at the airport could be used specifically for flights to Singapore, allowing the immigration and departure processes to be improved and quickened. And later if we want to take mutual economic advantage of any of our other neighbours’ growth, say KL-Bangkok or KL-Ho Chi Minh City, the terminal could be used for that as well.
HSR is also popular due to the belief that it will open up and bring development to the cities along its alignment. In this case, those cities will likely be Seremban, Putrajaya, Ayer Keroh, Muar, Batu Pahat, and Nusajaya.
Studies do suggest that cities with a HSR connection tend to see benefits. Nonetheless, many other studies have also found that such links often disproportionately benefit the bigger cities along the route.
That would mean KL gaining at the expense of smaller cities along the line. Worse still it suggests that Singapore could very well benefit more from this link than Malaysia does. If this is true, surely there are limits to being neighbourly.
That HSR will come with some benefits is undeniable. But how much and to whom are also important questions. Is such a link worth its price tag in Malaysia’s context or are there cheaper and less flashy way to accrue the same economic benefits?
The government’s emphasis on improving rail is good. But it is worth remembering that there are other options which can be undertaken in Malaysia itself which would improve connectivity and allow for economic development. For example, the East Coast railway is in much need of repair and improvement. There have been suggestions to put in double-tracking, but the project has never actually got off the ground.
It might well cost the same or more than HSR, but it will bring much-needed development to the neglected half of Peninsula Malaysia and improve connectivity with the West Coast. Building such a link would provide a boost to construction, property, tourism, and various other businesses. It will also bring development to areas which are sorely in need of it and there will be a marked improvement in travel time.
So even before even one track of the HSR link is laid, the government must prove that this is the absolutely best way to spend RM40 billion.
GRRRRR!!!
Yesterday: Making KTM’s RM36 billion double-tracking project work
You must be logged in to post a comment.