North v South: a tale of two ECRL alignments

 

For the sake of clarity, let me define the current debate on the alignment of the ECRL: the choice is between a northern route or via a southern route.

The northern alignment refers to a line from Mentakab station to Bentong town, from where a massive tunnel is proposed through Janda Baik to Gombak before it goes westward to Serendah and then to Port Klang (North Port).

The southern alignment refers to the line from Mentakab station to Kuala Kelawang passing through Lenggeng in Negeri Sembilan, with less tunnelling involved.

On paper, this new ECRL line would join the current KTMB lines at Nilai after which two spur lines are proposed. The first one is to Putrajaya and the second to Banting and then to Port Klang (West Port) where it terminates.

When Pakatan Harapan took over in May 2018, the ECRL project alignment was changed from the northern alignment to the southern alignment, by which the overall cost was brought down from about RM60 billion to about RM40 billion.

It was thought then, that the country could benefit from a saving of about RM20 billion, an amount that could be channelled to other sectors on government expenditure budget, such as education or health services.

But the transport ministry now seems to think differently.

The northern alignment is now being reconsidered by the minister in charge.

The alignment had been mooted by the previous transport minister, also from MCA, who used to be the MP for Bentong but he lost his seat at GE14.

For political considerations, MCA feels that they could retake this Bentong seat from the opposition if ECRL goes through this sleepy hollow. Thus, the main reason for reverting back to the northern alignment.

Think beyond saving two parliamentary seats

The transport ministry as a federal ministry should think beyond politics. There is no advantage in pursuing the northern alignment just because two parliamentary seats are at stake.

(Gombak is held by Azmin Ali, who might face the danger of being voted out, according to some political analysts).

Between Bentong and Gombak, the nature of the terrain is very hilly. This is part of the Main Range, the peninsula’s backbone. The high construction cost is due to the long tunnel required to be built under this main range.

Besides that, the alignment between Gombak and Serendah and then down to Port Klang, would pass through a large tract of fully developed areas, especially the suburbs of KL and northern Klang Valley like Selayang, Sungai Buloh and Shah Alam.

These are expensive residential and commercial areas to acquire for railway access and tracks. The overall land acquisition costs are estimated to be much higher when compared to land acquisition for the southern alignment.

Operationally, it would not provide opportunities for private sector companies to participate in the proposed rail system where private rail sidings would not be possible along any urban corridors, as land cost would be too prohibitive.

Perhaps, considerations should also be given to the status of a locality in terms of strategic connectivity.

Gombak is not the capital of the country but Putrajaya is. Shouldn’t the preference be given to the country’s capital to be strategically connected to the three east coast states?

KLIA 1 & 2, located in the south, are also in need of a larger catchment area for its passengers and cargo base. ECRL could be designed to play this rail-air connectivity role in a more effective way for both passengers and freight. But this strategy could only be realised, if ECRL is aligned through the south.

Room to grow in the south

Furthermore, if the government is thinking of using ECRL to spur new economic growth, then the southern alignment via southwest Pahang, Negeri Sembilan and southern Selangor would present a better opportunity to open up new vast areas of land for economic and industrial growth.

The land acquisition cost of turning them into industrial parks or new commercial centres would be much lower as they are mainly agricultural land.

Private sector companies would also be able to participate by building inland ports anywhere feasible along this alignment. As they can have private rail sidings for a variety of cargo, this option will directly encourage private sector investment.

Freight for long haul, like manufactured goods, palm oil, cement, concrete products and other bulk building materials such as aggregates and steel products are more cost-effective when they are carried by rail rather than by road.

If the government is seriously considering building a third port at Port Klang, the location of which has been identified at Carey Island, then the southern alignment would be most logical. It will fit in very well, strategically, for the future economic growth of the Klang Valley western region.

RM40 billion railway bill too big to foot

A third port strategy has been on the transport agenda for sometime. And yet, conflicting decisions are being made.

The port would also require large tracts of land to be turned into industrial parks for future factories to be located. This is easily available within the southern corridors of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan.

Currently, there are also a lot more manufacturing capabilities in the south of the Klang Valley as compared to the north. This will provide the needed cargo (and passenger) base and volume growth needed by a new ECRL line to grow its business.

At this time of economic uncertainty, a RM40 billion railway bill is already simply too big for the government to foot.

Why make it more expensive by deciding on a northern alignment? The additional sum (RM20 billion) could be channelled to other critical sectors like health, the economy and education.

But certainly not to prop up two parliamentary seats for political expediency, when the government is seriously fighting the Covid-19 pandemic and needs all the extra cash. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.