Merry-go-round across the Penang channel

First they promised to widen the Penang Bridge a few years after it was opened in 1985.

Then in the late 1990s, they talked about building a bridge-tunnel Third Link (the First Link is the ferry system, the Second Link is the existing Penang Bridge), from the north of George Town to the mainland, north of the Butterworth town centre.

But then the route for the proposed Third Link was shifted to the south of Penang Island to Batu Kawan when they found out that the northern route would disrupt shipping.

More recently, there was talk of widening the Penang Bridge again. But wait, the original Penang Bridge plans could not be found. But then someone in Butterworth, who had worked in the construction of the Penang Bridge, said he had some of the plans. Ooops, now what?

Months later, it was back to new southern route for the Third Link again. “KL nod for link”, said The Star with a banner headline on Sept 14. This time the Federal Government had apparently approved the Third Link. This new link, the Deputy Works Minister said, had been identified as one of the projects under the 9th Malaysia Plan, which starts in 2006. Apparently, some 70,000 vehicles use the existing Penang Bridge daily, while its maximum capacity was 100,000 vehicles.

But wait, the Federal Government, in another about-turn, said it had decided to widen the Penang Bridge after all, according to Samy Vellu (The Star, 21 Sept)! (This time no talk of missing Penang Bridge plans thwarting such widening work!)

Apparently, the Third Link, which would cost more than RM2 billion, would be too expensive….

By then, Penang Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon had apparently seen the light and said that the state government was asking the Federal Government for funds to improve its public transport system. Finally! Indeed, what Penang badly needs is a vastly improved public transport system.

Ferry service slashed

In all the recent talk about building a new bridge or widening the existing bridge, The Star has studiously avoided discussing Penang’s famous ferry system. How many people know that the ferry service has been slashed since the 1980s? Why was it slashed? When the Penang Bridge was opened in 1985, about a dozen ferries served passengers and vehicular traffic. It was an excellent service with waiting time a matter of only a few minutes.

Contrast that with the situation now, when only some half a dozen ferries - often fewer – link the island to the mainland. At night, after 9.30 pm, the ferry service is reduced to a skeleton service even though there are long queues of vehicles on the Penang Island side still waiting to cross over to the mainland. After 12.30 am, no more ferries until dawn.

Because of the reduced frequency, many car-owners have just given up on the ferries and turned to the Penang Bridge, further clogging up the Bridge. Why have our newspapers not highlighted the poor ferry service? Is it not politically correct?

Wouldn’t it be far more economical to drastically improve the ferry service as an immediate measure? More ferry terminals could be built in different parts of the island and mainland so that more ferries can transport vehicles to various parts of the island/mainland, thus by-passing and easing the jams on clogged roads on the Island.

If at all a Third Link is necessary, wouldn’t it better to have a public transport link e.g. a rail link from the mainland to the island, which could then be integrated with other modes of public transport on the island and the mainland?

"The state government should takeover the management of both the ferry service and the Penang Bridge," said one inspired ferry-hand, gazing at the long queues at the ferry. "That way they can use the profits from the Penang Bridge to subsidise an improved ferry service as a public service."

Such thinking is beyond our mainstream media and this is where they have failed us. By not exploring and discussing all the options especially state government ownership of the Penang Bridge, an expanded public transport system, a new rail link and an expanded ferry service, they have narrowed the range of options. They are content to confine themselves to the limited options the government has presented to the public.

Perhaps our media are fearful of upsetting the powers-that-be who are known to favour certain options (preferably those with toll!) that may not necessarily be the most cost-effective or sustainable for Penang. Wonder which "lucky" firms get the multi-million ringgit construction contracts in the end. And we wonder if our media will bother to probe further.