假NGO又故意阻止建LRT了，快来合力支持建LRT的声明

丁小蟹

vongolia 发表于 28-6-2018 11:27 AM
都是经过很多shopping mall 倒是真的。

你覺得在GURNEY會建LRT站嗎？

阿福928

与其建一个不懂会不会减少交通阻塞的东西。。倒不如把现成的改好。。

pulauturtle

阿福928 发表于 28-6-2018 12:06 PM
与其建一个不懂会不会减少交通阻塞的东西。。倒不如把现成的改好。。

这就是penang forum说的。可是怎么做呢？它们根本说不出解决方案，可能你可以帮它们。

以我经验，LRT肯定能让塔客避开堵车经验，而让你能够预算出发+抵达的时间。

这是非常重要的。至少还能减少车子用量，减少污染，堵塞。规划得好可以解决交通问题

pulauturtle

丁小蟹 发表于 28-6-2018 10:55 AM
你肯定五年內可以建好嗎？

檳城的地超級貴，大部分又是私人的地段，要徵用也要打官司呵呵呵。。。

看看整個日落洞地區就好，最少有10棟的新公寓建好了，日落洞路還只是一條而已。。。呵呵呵

比較實際的是 ...

现在不建，以后更贵。

建不到，等下penang forum/其它NGO又怪政府。。。

pulauturtle

来，大家合力签名支持州政府，同时反对Penang Forum劫用槟城人的名誉来达到本身的恶意图：

https://www.change.org/p/council ... island-link-highway

pulauturtle

槟城论坛骗大众的把戏又被拆穿了：

Further clarification on the Penang Transport Master Plan
Joshua Woo
26 Jun 2018, 7:23 pm (Updated 26 Jun 2018, 7:29 pm)

A A
LETTER | The Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) has received renewed attention. The Penang Forum has called upon the Council of Eminent Persons to review the PTMP.

It is therefore proper for a daily road-user in Penang like myself to voice my view so that it can also be taken into consideration by the council. I have previously written about this. I am now elaborating more in view of the responses received thus far.

The PTMP has its root in the state government’s 2009 initiative to establish the Penang Transport Council, which included 10 NGOs as members. This led to the commissioning of a transport master plan report prepared by an international team comprising of Malaysia’s AJC Planning, UK’s Halcrow and Singapore’s Cruise Centre.

Editor's Pick

Najib: Jho Low told me he was acting on Mid East royal member's behalf
With the report as a guide, the state government had called for a “Request for Proposal” (RFP) open tender from August until December 2014 with the purpose to appoint a Project Delivery Partner (PDP). The open tender was further extended to February 2015.

The appointed PDP will manage the implementation of the PTMP projects together with the state government – which means, both the PDP and state government will conduct open tenders for all contractors and manage them to ensure timely delivery of the projects and they are within budget.

Also, the RFP allowed bidders to propose alternative plans. With that, a total of 55 local and foreign companies expressed interest, with six different proposals submitted.

The proposals were evaluated by the globally reputable audit and advisory firm KPMG, with head office in the Netherlands. After a thorough review of all the alternatives, the state government based on KPMG’s evaluation appointed SRS Consortium in August 2015 as PDP to implement the PTMP.

A further review was carried out with workshops and lab sessions attended by state and federal agencies and authorities. Changes were added to the PDP proposal then and formed the present PTMP. But wait, the review did not stop there. The Penang state government had subsequently engaged Universiti Sains Malaysia to look into the PTMP.

In addition to all the reviews, the state government has conducted more than 30 official engagement sessions and seminars within a span of two years to collect feedback and comments from the public and various stakeholders in Penang. This was way before any approval was granted for the proposal. The state earnestly carried out the engagements openly, without being legally required to do so.

To summarise, the present PTMP was decided after alternatives were considered and international studies, professional reviews, and public engagements were conducted.

It is either a joke or malicious to accuse the state government of being ‘closed-minded’ with regards to the PTMP. The state government’s handling of the PTMP so far has been open, transparent, and international.

An expert review is an expert review, regardless whether it pleases Penang Forum or not. It seems that the NGO only acknowledges views pleasing to them as “expert” and credible. Views that are alternate to theirs are dismissed. This is ironic as Penang Forum alleges the state government of not being open to alternatives.

Penang Forum’s so-called alternative proposal has no financing plan and thus is not feasible, to begin with. Nonetheless, the NGO still persistently asks the government to spend according to their demand, such as conducting further reviews by international experts, without providing any funding strategy on how this will be financed. How is this sustainable? Perhaps, Penang Forum needs to review their own proposal?

Many critiques levelled at PTMP’s construction of new roads assume the dichotomy between private car ownership and public transportation. It is heavily assumed that more roads mean more usage of private cars and lesser reliance on public transport. This assumption was popular up until recently with the arrival of disruptive technologies, collaborative consumption, and sharing economy.

Take, for example, ride-hailing services such as Grab that turn private cars into a contributor to public mobility running on roads. The present era can hardly characterise roads solely for the use of private cars (or specifically, for private consumption). New technology and business model have changed that. Not to mention other upcoming technologies that might reduce mobility or bring collaborative consumption to the next level.

PTMP’s multi-modal approach that provides new strategic bypasses, as well as other modes of public transport, is preparing Penang for the future.

To use the working assumption from the pre-Grab era with its false dichotomy to critique PTMP as a questionable plan is rather primitive. Only such backward comparison would see the supply of lengthier highways per capita as a negative.

The PTMP has received much feedback. Some are genuine, some misleading. For example of the latter, there are critics who claim neutrality and scholarly but mislead the public with “quantitative evidence”.

Case in point, the use of Hong Kong's density of 17,000 per square km to show that the estimated density of PTMP’s reclaimed islands is 27 percent higher. Hong Kong has three main regions, but why choose the hilly Hong Kong island and not the flat land Kowloon to compare with the three reclaimed islands in the south of Penang Island that are also flat land? Isn’t comparing flat-land with flat-land more relevant and scholarly sound?

The population of Kowloon region is 2.2 million, with a land area of 46.93 sq km. This means the density of Kowloon is 47,759 persons per sq km, which is 121 percent higher than the reclaimed islands. In fact, in specific parts of Kowloon such as Kwun Tong, the density can reach in excess of 57,000 persons per sq km. This is based on the Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong, 2016.


But no, critics preferred to use Hong Kong island’s density instead of Kowloon’s even though the latter is geographically more relevant (similar) to compare with the reclaimed islands.

This is not a case of an expert offering alternative views but actual misrepresentation of data to sway public opinion. Why such manipulation? The reason can only be one - to deceive the public so that people will reject PTMP.

Surprisingly, there are NGOs and individuals claiming neutrality that would use and/or endorse such manipulation of “quantitative evidence” to ill-inform the public. In this instance, claiming to be a neutral scholar and deceiving the public can go hand-in-hand.

pulauturtle

请签petition以阻止PENANG FORUM的恶行：

https://www.change.org/p/council ... island-link-highway

Bashmetviola

看来铁齿的槟城人还是很多.....改善巴士就够
唉永远的甘榜思维，我有时想回去都懒惰

pulauturtle

Bashmetviola 发表于 5-7-2018 01:38 AM
看来铁齿的槟城人还是很多.....改善巴士就够
唉永远的甘榜思维，我有时想回去都懒惰

铁齿的是你，你评什么说巴士就够了？

巴士能像LRT那么准时吗？

顺便告诉你，槟城论坛就是只会说，却无法证明自己的说法是对的

Bashmetviola

pulauturtle 发表于 5-7-2018 03:07 PM
铁齿的是你，你评什么说巴士就够了？

巴士能像LRT那么准时吗？

顺便告诉你，槟城论坛就是只会说，却无法证明自己的说法是对的

你他妈我就是说改善巴士就够，是槟城里的铁齿甘榜人的脑袋

Bashmetviola

Lrt其实未必是舒缓交通，而且是刺激周边地区经济。要用某些槟城在地人能懂的话来说，就是一开始交通顺畅了，就会吸引人口，后来像首都这样路也挤，lrt也挤，钱就挤出来了

阿福928

pulauturtle 发表于 28-6-2018 01:01 PM
这就是penang forum说的。可是怎么做呢？它们根本说不出解决方案，可能你可以帮它们。

以我经验，LRT肯定能让塔客避开堵车经验，而让你能够预算出发+抵达的时间。

这是非常重要的。至少还能减少车子用量，减 ...

解决方案：把巴士服务搞好， 比如规划巴士专属道路以确保巴士不会迟到LRT可以让乘客躲开堵车，但它也是增加堵车的工具之一。。加上槟城的土地有限，现在已经堵车了。。加上LRT工程，槟城可以不用住了。。

加上，你说LRT可以减少堵塞，吉隆玻已经有了几条路线的LRT，MRT，KTM了。。还是塞啦

pulauturtle

Bashmetviola 发表于 5-7-2018 04:34 PM
你他妈我就是说改善巴士就够，是槟城里的铁齿甘榜人的脑袋

改善归改善，LRT还是照样需要的

pulauturtle

Bashmetviola 发表于 5-7-2018 04:38 PM
Lrt其实未必是舒缓交通，而且是刺激周边地区经济。要用某些槟城在地人能懂的话来说，就是一开始交通顺畅了，就会吸引人口，后来像首都这样路也挤，lrt也挤，钱就挤出来了

可以舒缓，更重要可以提供另个管道避开交通拥挤

如果规划的很成功，甚至可以解决部分交通问题

pulauturtle

阿福928 发表于 5-7-2018 05:20 PM
解决方案：把巴士服务搞好， 比如规划巴士专属道路以确保巴士不会迟到LRT可以让乘客躲开堵车，但它也是增加堵车的工具之一。。加上槟城的土地有限，现在已经堵车了。。加上LRT工程，槟城可以不用住了。。

加上 ...

你只会比吉隆坡，新加坡很成功却不说。

对了，你的神Penang Forum以前还说全部用和汽车公用道路的Tram，它们到今天还不会解释清楚如何不造成交通阻塞来建造tram. 呵呵

pulauturtle

https://www.change.org/p/council ... island-link-highway

签名支持LRT,不要被虚假+有政治意图的Penang Forum随意代表我们！

Bashmetviola

阿福928 发表于 5-7-2018 05:20 PM
解决方案：把巴士服务搞好， 比如规划巴士专属道路以确保巴士不会迟到LRT可以让乘客躲开堵车，但它也是增加堵车的工具之一。。加上槟城的土地有限，现在已经堵车了。。加上LRT工程，槟城可以不用住了。。

加上 ...

巴士专属车道？槟城先有真正安全的人行道和单车道再说吧~KL 是全部在尖峰时段都饱和了，槟城只要有lrt，而且现在的驾驶人士都去挤爆它的话，马路上立刻空出至少一半。当槟城能像KL 一样把马路和公交都挤爆的话，难道不是经济上升的象征？

pulauturtle

Bashmetviola 发表于 5-7-2018 11:55 PM
巴士专属车道？槟城先有真正安全的人行道和单车道再说吧~KL 是全部在尖峰时段都饱和了，槟城只要有lrt，而且现在的驾驶人士都去挤爆它的话，马路上立刻空出至少一半。当槟城能像KL 一样把马路和公交都挤爆的话，难 ...

他没想到巴士专道要用到地，不是更堵车吗？呵呵

阿福928

pulauturtle 发表于 5-7-2018 06:48 PM
你只会比吉隆坡，新加坡很成功却不说。

对了，你的神Penang Forum以前还说全部用和汽车公用道路的Tram，它们到今天还不会解释清楚如何不造成交通阻塞来建造tram. 呵呵

为什么新加坡的地铁可以成功？是因为汽车进城是要收费！！让人认为在新加坡乘坐地铁会省钱。。
如果新加坡像马来西亚一样汽车没有收费，你认为有人会乘搭地铁吗？

为什么我比吉隆玻，因为这是马来西亚！
我的神penang forum？？ 我没什么户口在penang forum。。
我是以我的观点正对你的课题来回复！没有什么假NGO。

自以为是的楼主，如果你认为你是对的，不会接受其他人的回复。。请关上这个主题

pulauturtle

阿福928 发表于 10-7-2018 09:57 AM
为什么新加坡的地铁可以成功？是因为汽车进城是要收费！！让人认为在新加坡乘坐地铁会省钱。。
如果新加坡像马来西亚一样汽车没有收费，你认为有人会乘搭地铁吗？

为什么我比吉隆玻，因为这是马来西亚！
我的 ...

你才是自以为是。即使在吉隆坡没新加坡那么成功，但是，也是对当地人带来方便，便捷，还有省钱的。

我在KL就用了LRT 7-8年的时间，如果没有LRT,我天天都要耗神在车龙中，除了浪费车油+一个月的停车费（很贵的），浪费精神驾车都很不舒服。
幸亏有了LRT,很多人都方便多了。

还有，难道你头脑那么简单，不能同时减少车辆进入城和建LRT一起进行吗？

你以为你幻想不让车子进入，在那带的人如何工作起居？走路进城吗？

有时penang forum这班人就是没有专业背景，就是为了反对而反对，根本没想到如何足见解决及实行一个计划。

再告诉你，你的神Penang Forum, 最早的时候还是要整个槟城用tram的，在路上占单独两条路（根本没脑，自己凭空幻想以为这样最美，根本不是以实际用途方面思考的）

过后还说tram很便宜，结果后来它们自己所谓的“专家”也承认不便宜，因为几个天真的Penang Forum人员根本就是故意误导大众，没把土地收购，地底线路迁移等费用及工程考虑在内，更糟糕的是，它们根本没有考虑过在施工时期占领道路的毁灭性情景。。。太多太多幼稚及不实际加上它们不负责任的欺骗大众的作为