Political-economic factors risk major cost-overruns and a failure to meet over-sized targets in the MRT rush-job
Based on available and non-available information since the MRT project was put up for public feedback, there have been strong concerns voiced over its viability and the cost and benefits. The public transport advocacy group, TRANSIT has questioned the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) forecast of 40,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) when the proposed 58 train sets to be purchased can only ferry a maximum capacity of 24,000 pphpd.
Concerns raised by residents at various proposed stations such as Taman Tun Dr Ismail and Kajang pointed towards poor design and planning of the stations to cope with managing traffic flow and volume. S. Piarapakaran, president of the Association of Water and Energy Research Malaysia (Awer) found out from the EIA report that traffic studies have yet to be carried out on the respective stations.
Questions are also raised over the poorly integrated stations with other existing public transport networks such the LRTs and bus terminals. I have raised criticisms on the fact that the MRT system is being forged ahead without first reviewing the holistic public transport framework where bus services form the other critical public transport pillar.
Despite the fact that the project is only put up for feedback last month, SPAD, the regulatory body and Syarikat Prasarana Bhd, the project owner have already awarded the project to Gamuda-MMC joint venture as the “project delivery partner” and announced the fact that the tender for the various sub-contract works will commence in April and awarded by June 2011.
All of the above and more, points towards the fact that the RM46 billion MRT rush-job is a runaway train the Government has set in motion with brakes already disabled, regardless of the obstacles in its path.
A study by Bent Flyvbjerg “Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it” published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2009) looked at 258 “mega-infrastructure projects” across 20 countries. He found that rail projects not only suffered from an average of 44.3% cost overrun, actual passenger traffic is 51.4 per cent lower than forecast traffic on average.
In fact, the other statistics found are no less encouraging – 9 out of 10 of suffered from cost overruns; 84 per cent of rail passenger forecasts are wrong by more than ±20 per cent; nine out of 10 rail projects have overestimated traffic.
He concluded that “cost overruns in the order of 50 per cent in real terms are common for major infrastructure, and overruns above 100 per cent are not uncommon. Demand and benefit forecasts that are wrong by 20–70 per cent compared with actual development are common.”
