7 reasons why LRT plan in Penang beats BRT and ART

Since the Light-Rail Transit (LRT) project in Penang was first unveiled in 2015, a small group of people have objected against it.

Although these objections have been countered on numerous occasions, they continue to be voiced, the latest being Lim Mah Hui’s article  “Proposed LRT in Penang is both too early and too late” 

There are two alternatives suggested to replace the LRT plan. First, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and, second, the Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART). In this article, I want to point out seven reasons why the LRT is better than BRT and ART.

My focus will be on the proposed Bayan Lepas-Komtar LRT alignment and not the comprehensive network covering the whole of Penang.

1. LRT is safer for commuters and road users

By being elevated, without sharing the same road with other vehicles, the LRT has no chance of colliding with other vehicles and road users.

Having to share the road, the BRT and ART have high chances of collision. Even with a dedicated lane, they are still sharing junctions, intersections and pedestrian crossings, where accidents are waiting to happen.

2. LRT is more comfortable for commuters

Anyone who has taken the bus and the LRT will know the different comfort levels for both. The bus is jerky and bumpy, while the LRT is not perfect but it is much more comfortable.

To test this, one can try reading a book in the bus and on the LRT. We can often readily read a book on LRT, but not in a bus. Why? It is because the LRT’s acceleration and braking are much more predictable and manageable compared with the BRT and ART that are more chaotic, as they share the same road space with other road users.

3. LRT provides a smooth journey, unaffected by road accidents

Just yesterday, a lorry landed on its side on Penang Bridge, blocking two lanes of the three-lane road. The congestion was horrendous as vehicles from three lanes squeezed into the remaining lane.

If a BRT or ART meets a similar situation, it will get stuck in the congestion, like other vehicles. It will be worse if an accident blocks the opening of the dedicated lane of the BRT or ART. Their service has to be completely stopped until the obstacle is removed. LRT, with its own elevated track, will face no such problem.

4. LRT does not cause other vehicles to emit more CO2

Giving priority for the right of way for BRT and ART at junctions and intersections will cause other vehicles to spend more time on the road. This will increase their carbon footprint.

LRT does not need the right of way as it moves on an elevated track and therefore does not require vehicles to spend more time on the road. Thus, there is less CO2 production.

5. Increasing LRT passenger capacity does not affect road users

As the LRT moves on elevated tracks, the adding of more carriages to the train to increase its passenger capacity will not disrupt other road users.

Using articulated vehicles to increase passenger capacity for BRT and ART poses a higher risk of accidents with other road users. That is the reason why articulated buses in London (known as the bendy buses) were replaced after they were found to be involved in 75% more accidents than regular buses.

It was estimated that articulated vehicles, comprising only 5% of London’s buses, were involved in 20% of all bus-related deaths.

In other words, LRT is still safe with any increment in passenger capacity, but the same cannot be said for the BRT and ART.

6. LRT’s other benefits for the public

Being big and elevated, the LRT stations are much more conducive as a shelter for pedestrians and cyclists during the rainy season. This is an advantage to the public that cannot be overlooked for a place like Penang with a tropical climate.

LRT stations can be used as emergency shelters too. Countries such as Singapore built their MRT stations as crisis or bomb shelters, equipped with “protective blast doors, decontamination facilities, ventilation system, power and water supply systems, and dry toilet systems”.

It is uncommon to have big stations for BRT and ART that are on the ground as space is limited. The stations have lesser capacity to serve as shelters and have limited public benefit.

7. LRT upholds people’s democratic rights to choose

Finally, the LRT plan provides an alternative mode of transport for people to choose from.

The BRT and ART require the closure of at least one lane for their dedicated use. This will take away road space and worsen congestion, which then makes driving unbearable. BRT and ART would create such stressful conditions that people may abandon their private cars.

LRT does not crowd into the current roads like the BRT and ART. The LRT does not cause congestion stress. The LRT gives people more transport choices, and that is a mark of democracy.

When it comes to improving mobility, a good policy educates, a bad one coerces. It is surprising that those opposing the LRT plan would resort to authoritarianism.

The proponents of BRT and ART may argue that the LRT is more expensive to build and operate. This is still an open question, depending on how much land acquisition is needed and what business model is used.

Nonetheless, what is certain is that the seven reasons above have shown how much better the LRT is compared with the other two modes of transportation. Cost is important but it is not all that matters.

Safety, comfort, a smooth journey, a smaller carbon footprint and the ability to increase capacity are likewise important.

Why would anyone want a cheap transit system that is dangerous, uncomfortable, disruptive and has a bigger carbon footprint?

Give us the LRT please.

Joshua Woo Sze Zeng is an FMT reader.