Jittery over development next door

By Danny Ooi, GEORGE TOWN

MORE than 150 residents of Pintasan Kenari in Sungai Ara here are having sleepless nights over an ongoing housing project in their backyard.

They claimed that the project, which commenced earth works in May this year, did not provide sufficient safety measures, thus compromising residents' safety.

Retiree Ooi Lian See, 60, said the residents strongly urge the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) to enforce all safety guidelines for the project.

She said the high retaining wall, standing at 10 metres, created fear and anxiety among the residents.

"All this is causing us sleepless nights and giving us stress.

"We fear the wall will collapse on us," she said when met at the site here yesterday.

Also present to hear the residents out was Sungai Pinang assemblyman Koid Teng Guan.

Ooi claimed that the distance between the retaining wall and the back wall of the affected houses was only about 1.8 metres.

"The wall should have been built at least 10 metres away. At least if it collapses, there will be a safety buffer," she added.

Ooi also said the current sewerage system was insufficient to accommodate the increase in population brought about by development in the area.

"It has been a nightmare for us as the sewerage pipes overflow several times a year, discharging sludge and faeces and posing a health hazard to us," she added.

Fellow resident Ooi Kean Leng, 51, a carpenter, shares Ooi's sentiment.

Kean Leng claimed the new development project had caused cracks on the walls and floor of his house, beams to be separated from walls, and muddy water to flow into his house and damage his furniture. It also left stains on his wall and floor tiles.

"We also have to bear with the noise and air pollution because the construction work is carried out seven days a week," he added.

On Wednesday, the residents handed in their complaint letters to MPPP president Patahiyah Ismail, with a copy sent to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and state Local Government and Traffic Control Committee chairman Chow Kon Yeow.

The residents urged the authorities to issue a stop-work order until all issues have been resolved.

A meeting has been scheduled between MPPP and the developer soon to address the issues faced by the residents.


(Source: http://www.nst.com.my/streets/northern/jittery-over-development-next-door-1.25798, dd 31-December, 2011.)

Traffic congestion seems to be the bane of PJ residents

By VALLEY VIEW
By TAN KARR WEI | Dec 30, 2011

THE Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) introduced many initiatives throughout 2011 like the Low Carbon Green Rebate Assessment Scheme in an effort to make Petaling Jaya a green and liveable city.

The scheme provides a rebate of up to RM500 on annual assessment for residents who incorporate energy-efficient or environmentally-friendly methods in their homes or lifestyle and the council also announced a three-month free parking incentive for those who purchase hybrid cars from dealers in Petaling Jaya.

While the efforts towards a greener city are lauded, the fact remains that pressing issues like traffic congestion and over-development have not been fully addressed yet.

The Damasara Puchong Highway (LDP) was completed in 1998 to provide a smooth traffic flow from Petaling Jaya to Puchong and it was actually a pleasure to drive on the highway during the initial stages, taking only about 15 minutes to get from Bandar Utama to Bandar Sunway.

Banking on the efficiency of the highway, developers started building on either sides of it, promoting “easy access to the LDP” as a selling point and within a few years, high-rise condominiums mushroomed along the route and the LDP has now become synonymous with long crawls during peak hours.

While highway users lament endlessly about their long commute, let us not forget about the Petaling Jaya residents — some of them pioneers in this satellite town — who have problems just trying to get out of their housing area.

Residents along crucial stretches like Taman Mayang and Kelana Jaya sometimes take more than ten minutes just to make a U-turn back to their homes.

The recent highlight of the traffic congestion faced by Kelana Jaya’s SS6 residents is an example of the failure of MBPJ’s town planning department to properly address the infrastructure needs of the community before approving projects.

Not that the Petaling Jaya traffic situation is anything new — during public objection hearings over the past years, residents from Bandar Sri Damansara, all the way to PJ Old Town, have been screaming for the council to wake up and notice the traffic jams before approving development projects, but to no avail.

The 17 short-, medium-, and long-term solutions proposed based on a 2009 traffic study to ease congestion in Petaling Jaya have yet to be completed yet buildings continue to go up before roads are even built.

We did see the iconic (and problematic) Rothmans Roundabout at the junction of Jalan Harapan and Jalan Universiti upgraded to a signalised junction this year, alleviating the choking of traffic during peak hours.

However, the upgrade can hardly qualify as a long-term solution as several development projects are still going on in the Section 14 area like Jaya33 and the former Jaya Supermarket while the Section 13 industrial area has been earmarked for redevelopment into commercial lots.

With property prices in the city soaring, Petaling Jaya has become a gold mine for developers and every square inch of the city is being eyed for development.

Two years ago, the Football Association of Selangor (FAS) field in Kelana Jaya made way for development and residents are again left fuming this year when they found out that the neighbouring PKNS sports complex would also be making way for a mixed development project while talk is rife that the 133.5ha Kelab Golf Negara Subang (KGNS) could be taken over for development.

Even before the construction of the MRT has started, many parties have been optimistically forecasting that the public transportation would help ease the traffic woes in Petaling Jaya.

Residents staying around the proposed MRT stations voiced their concerns about worsening congestions and potential parking problems caused by commuters who park their cars in residential areas to hop on the train.

At the rate that multi-storey buildings are approved and open spaces are making way for development around Petaling Jaya and its surrounding areas like Taman Tun Dr Ismail and Puchong, it remains to be seen how much public transportation, upgrading of roads or building of highways could improve the traffic situation and quality of life of Petaling Jaya residents, despite all the greening efforts put forward by the MBPJ.

(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/PropertyScene/17884/0/0.)

Residents win battle and developer withdraws application for project

By AIDA AHMAD

THE area surrounding the Phileo Damansara Business Centre is chock-a-block with traffic come 6pm on most weekdays.

For those who work in Phileo 1 and 2 (which is along Jalan 16/11), they have to patiently inch their way through the horrendous traffic coming from all directions in the vicinity, namely Jalan Damansara, Jalan Dato’ Abu Bakar and the Sprint Highway.

They cannot bear to think how another development project, if built within this area, will affect the traffic.

Residents staying in Jalan 16/9, behind Phileo Damansara will also have to use the same roads and experience the same painful traffic jam.

No one really paid attention to the empty plot of land, which had been unoccupied for years, situated next to Phileo Damansara 2 and 200m from Eastin Hotel.

For Roy Tan, one of the residents in Jalan 16/9, the fateful Sunday morning came a few months ago when he first noticed an “official looking” envelope sitting on his dining table.

“It was a letter from Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) on the proposed development for the land behind my house, identified as Lot 904 in Jalan 16/11. Imagine this, four towers exceeding 22 floors with one exceeding 30 floors being built literally right behind your house. Words fail to express my deep sense of foreboding,” he said.

Tan was notified by one of his neighbours about a 16/9 residents meeting over the development.

“A good number of residents attended that meeting, a testimony to living in good old neighbourhoods where that communal feeling still exists. A number of them shared the same trepidation. One of the residents, who has been living here for over 30 years shared how previous development on this same plot had been stopped, not once but twice.”

The residents immediately formed a committee to obtain financing from the neighbourhood to hire a lawyer and take firm action to ensure the interest of the community would be represented.

Countless meetings with fellow neighbours were held.

They were generous in their donations and their time to ensure they could go in with guns blazing.

“With the help of local councillor K.W. Mak and appointed lawyers, the legal committee went through all the development legal requirements as well as the project scope and prepared a document in the literal defence of their homes,” added Tan.

“It was also gratifying to see representatives from other Section 16 resident committees present during the objection hearing on Nov 11.”

The said development comprises 23-storey and 24-storey office blocks, a 22-storey serviced apartments, a 32-storey Soho block, a block of commercial lots as well as six floors of basement parking and four floors of above-ground parking.

“Among the objections were about erroneous land title particulars, layout plan not in accordance with Section 21B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA) as well as violation of various guidelines,” said the lawyer representing the residents, L.S. Leonard.

“The details of plot ratio, percentage of landscape, allocation of open spaces and width of inner roads were wrong and unreliable as the report and the layout plan assumed that the development site was 2ha but in fact it was 1.9ha. What was even more alarming was that the geotechnical report did not adequately provide measures for the stabilisation of neighbouring lots,” added Leonard.

As perseverance would have it, all’s well that ends well.

About a week after the objection hearing, the developer had withdrawn the application for the development of the land.

On Dec 6, the law firm received a fax from MBPJ, attached with a cover letter from the developer’s planner, stating that the company had decided to withdraw the planning permission for the said development.

“From its inception to a lengthy proceeding, it has been an enlightening education in urban development and planning for us residents. The Section 16/9 community is today a more educated one on the nuances of development and the legal rights of residents. With the MRT slated for development nearby and an empty plot of land, developers will be eyeing this pot of gold,” said Tan.

For now, the people who work in Phileo Damansara and the residents, can breathe easy — until another developer comes to claim their share of the pie.

(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/PropertyScene/17885/0/0, dd 30-December, 2011.)

16-hour rain causes heavy damage in Serian-Sri Aman route

By LEONARD PHANG

KUCHING: Sixteen hours of heavy rain caused the road near Kampung Semukoi Km77 Jalan Serian/Sri Aman to collapse, forcing motorists to detour and increase travel time by more than half an hour.

The Sarawak Economic Develop­ment Corporation (SEDC) is working on building a diversion at the affected area.

“We could do a faster job but we need the relevant authorities to help us cut off the water pipeline at the roadside before we can complete the diversion,” an SEDC spokesman said.

An engineer at the scene said a large quantity of water had accumulated under the road, causing the collapse at about 6pm on Wednesday.

There were four vehicles on the road at the time.

Grippin Lumpok, 45, an excavator operator, was at home in Kampung Semukoi when he heard the tyres of some of the vehicles exploding.

“They sounded like bombs. I was shocked when I saw the condition of the road.

“The people in the four vehicles were lucky.”

It was understood that the police received a distress call around 7.30pm and sent their men to redirect traffic to the Slabi-Mentung-Krait feeder road, away from the collapsed stretch.

Speaking to reporters at Wisma Bapa Malaysia here yesterday, Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Alfred Jabu Numpang advised motorists using Jalan Serian-Sri Aman against ferrying heavy loads.

He said they should drive carefully through the narrower Slabi-Mentung-Krait feeder road.

He added that they were working to repair the collapsed road quickly.

(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/PropertyNews/17898/0/0, dd 30-December, 2011.)

Penang govt and council taken to task over project delay

GEORGE TOWN: The state government and the Penang Municipal Council have been taken to task for the delay in completing upgrading work at the Cecil Street market.

Pengkalan Kota Barisan Nasional coordinator Loke Poh Chye said the council’s RM1mil project was supposed to have been completed in April.

He questioned the delay as the project had gone through three different contractors since work started in September last year.

“Why was the contractor changed three times? Is it because they were unable to complete the job?” asked Loke.

He said since the project was delayed for almost eight months, the contractor responsible for the project should be fined at least RM40,000 based on council regulations stipulating a fine of RM200 for each day of the delay.

Loke said the council should collect the fine and distribute it to the market traders who were affected by the delay.

“The money can be used for roof extensions as well as repairing some of the damaged flooring,” he told reporters at the market recently.

He said the delay had also caused inconvenience to the devotees of a nearby temple.

Loke urged the state government to speed up the project.

Meanwhile, Cecil Street Market Traders Association chairman Ling Siew Keng hoped that the project would be completed soon as Chinese New Year was around the corner.

He claimed that when the matter was referred to Pengkalan Kota assemblyman Lau Keng Ee, the latter said he had not seen the structural plans for the project.

The upgrading work involves improving ventilation and ensuring a cleaner and more comfortable environment.

(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/TheStarOnlineHighlightBox/17838/0/0, dd 28-December, 2011.)

Never-ending cycle

By FAZLEENA AZIZ

IT HAS been an eventful 12 months in the Klang Valley. Today StarMetro starts its Yearender series, recapping 2011 and highlighting the significant events and moments. We kick off with the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.

Often the construction or upgrading of roads always falls short of it intended purpose as in the case Jalan Genting Klang.

According to traffic consultant Goh Bok Yen, 65,000 to 75,000 vehicles used the road daily. It serves the eastern corridor connecting motorists to the Middle Ring Road 2.

About RM80mil had been spent upgrading the four-kilometre stretch. Work began in 2008 to widen the road, including the building of drains and pedestrian walkway.

However, with rapid development that included high-rise apartments, hospital and shopping malls, the upgrading failed to meet its purpose.

Indiscriminate parking, buses and taxis hogging the road as well as an increase in population has made the road as congested as before the upgrade.

Even the design of the road is flawed, A similar scenario can been seen at Old Klang Road.

Upgrading of the 5.4km stretch started in 2002 costing the Federal Government RM359mil.

It, too. has seen rapid development and the road is now unable to cope with the increase in the number of vehicles.

At the latest development in Old Klang Road, Scott Garden, motorists park along the already congested road due to lack of parking bays.

However, with every development Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) assures the public there are enough parking space and the traffic impact assessment is carried out accordingly.

On an average a Malaysian household has three cars because many cannot rely on public transport.

The only foreseeable solution would be the MY Rapid Transit (MRT) but even that is plagued by issues such as land acquisition and protests in several housing estates.

Work has begun on the Sungai Buloh-Kajang project, covering 51km route with 31 stations.

The road-widening projects are often done not only to ease the congestion but also to cater to development, including the MRT stations.

Perhaps the Government can look into imposing rules like in Singapore, where it is harder for people to own a car. If it makes more sense and cheaper for people to drive, then the MRT will not be a success.

As a result, the Government would probably be building more and more roads to ease the congestion.

However, only time will tell if the the road projects will benefit motorists in the Klang Valley.


(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/PropertyScene/17795/0/0, dd Dec 27, 2011.)

Watery issue for City Hall to resolve

KUALA LUMPUR suffered its worst flooding when an afternoon downpour on Dec 13 left hundreds of people stuck in a bumper-to-bumper traffic in Jalan Tun Razak, Jalan Semarak, and Kampung Baru.

The situation has left many people wondering, After millions spent on flood-mitigation projects, should this have happened?

Naturally it prompted calls for the Government to allocate immediate funds to upgrade Sg Bunus — the source of the flood havoc.

And it is was no surprise to hear of an RM85mil allocation for flood-mitigation work, including RM20mil for the Federal Territory Drainage and Irrigation Department, to divert water from Sg Bunus to Lake Titiwangsa.

After more than half a century now, it seems every administration has come up with some plan or another to alleviate floods in the Kuala Lumpur yet the problem still persists.

When the city experienced its severe floods in 2007, it propelled the opening of the RM1.9bil Storm Water Management and Road Tunnel project (SMART) months ahead of schedule.

Before that, the federal capital experienced massive floods twice in 2001 and once in June 2003. It was then that our city fathers realised that the rivers flowing through the city were no longer able to cope the rising volume of water and the massive development did not permit for river improvement work because of space constraint.

A SMART spokesman had said that had it not been for the SMART Tunnel the city would have experienced much worse flooding recently.

Flood mitigation projects undertaken by the government, City Hall and the Federal Territory Drainage and Irrigation Department had been implemented over the past 10 years.

In fact in 2007 alone seven projects were carried out in various flood-prone areas in the city.

Some of these “long-term” measures include, building retention ponds, upgrading drains and diverting water from one river to another.

While these projects have to some extent mitigated the flooding, nothing has ever been able to solve the problem.

So will announcing a fresh tender for another flood-mitigation project to divert the flow from Sungai Bunus to Sungai Gombak through Taman Tasik Titiwangsa the solution?

Maybe it could be as KL mayor Tan Sri Ahmad Fuad Ismail said there would always be floods if the rainfall was very heavy.

So perhaps KL residents can do their part by mitigating the situation by not choking the drains and rivers with garbage.

It was reported that since last week’s floods, DBKL and DID have been working hard to clear the debris from the drains and rivers.

It is everyone’s responsibility to take care of the city and people must change this “tidak apa” attitude if Kuala Lumpur is ever to develop as a world-class city.

(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/PropertyScene/17807/0/0, dd Dec 27, 2011.)

The Pudu Jail transformation

THE decision to transform the Pudu Jail site into a prominent landmark in Kuala Lumpur has set tongues wagging among industry observers and experts within the local property scene.

The project, better known as the Bukit Bintang City Centre (BBCC), was initially set to be an integrated mixed development but is now slated to become a vibrant transport hub. Regardless of what it will become, the question at the end of the day remains the same do we really need it?

It should be noted that BBCC, should it be turned into a commercial centre, will have to compete with not just existing, thriving developments in the vicinity such as Berjaya Times Square, but also potential projects in the near future in and around the Kuala Lumpur Golden Triangle area.

It also has to cope with mammoth projects a little outside the city centre such as the KL Metropolis by Naza TTDI Sdn Bhd that will add millions of square feet of office, retail and residential space. In addition, there is competition from the ongoing KL Sentral project and the recent launch of the KL International Financial District.

Other projects in the pipeline include Menara 3 Petronas, Menara Binjai, Menara Worldwide and Permodalan Nasional Bhd's proposed 100-storey Menara Warisan Merdeka.

Commercial value

“With many developments coming up, this project (BBCC) will face some competition,” says Elvin Fernandez, managing director of property consultancy firm Khong & Jaafar Sdn Bhd.

He however adds that BBCC is strategically located and has the potential to be successful.

“It will take a lot of good planning and execution. Astute management plays a big part. Lots of research and correct decisions from day one this is the stuff of success. But it cannot be underestimated what needs to be done.”

Elvin does not think that BBCC will “steal the crowd” from the Berjaya Times Square area.

“I doubt it will steal the crowd from there. In fact, I think it will enhance Berjaya Times Square. If a project is well placed and you add more space, it makes things better.”

Elvin notes the Government's need to make Kuala Lumpur a liveable city which is one of the twelve Key Economic Areas (NKEA) identified under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).

“The ETP and emphasis on making KL a liveable city is a property-dependent policy. You need to look at all projects and not just one in isolation. Sufficient demand must be created to receive the supply.”

Depending on how the development is planned, CB Richard Ellis Malaysia managing director Allan Soo reckons that new supply of space at BBCC could be either a boon or a bane.

“The question is what kind of commercial space will be offered. Take the 100-storey (Menara Warisan Merdaka) building as an example. On one hand, having a 100-storey tower nearby justifies having more commercial space.

“However, there is also a possibility that the tower could take up all of the demand (for commercial space) and vacuum clean the market! So the success rate is 50-50.”

The development of the former Pudu Prison was first unveiled by Second Finance Minister Datuk Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah in May last year. Back then, the plan was to redevelop the land into a mixed development project that would comprise a 33-storey office tower, shopping complex, 43-storey hotel and 44-storey serviced apartment.

UDA Holdings Bhd is the project's master developer. The company was recently issued a directive by its shareholder, the Finance Ministry, to divide the 20-acre land into three plots to maximise the value of the land.

Two plots will given to bumiputra investors to develop, while UDA will develop the one parcel.

Transport hub

Earlier this month, UDA chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed said the company's transport consultant had indicated that the site was instead suitable to be redeveloped into a transportation hub and so a big bus terminal is expected to be constructed on the site.

He says the transportation hub will be able to accommodate 200,000 to 300,000 commuters daily and complement the monorail and light rail transit facilities already at the Pudu Jail site.

Nur Jazlan says the transport hub will also help to ease vehicle congestion around Kuala Lumpur's golden triangle area, adding that the terminal will complement the my rapid transit (MRT) and ease commuter travel into the city centre in the future.

VPC Alliance (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd director James Wong points out that there are already a number of transport hubs in Kuala Lumpur.

“We already have KL Sentral and the Pudu Raya bus terminal. You may have to close one if you want to build another.”

One industry observer who requests anonymity says it will not be viable to set up a transportation hub in Pudu.

“Just look at the bus terminal there. It's always congested and the traffic jams in the area are crazy!”

Soo believes that the area can be made into a transportation hub if it is planned properly.

“With the current infrastructure, the current bus terminal is always congested. If we can take it out of that fringe and offer taxi as well as MRT services, it could work.”

Former prison site

Whatever is to become of BBCC, one will eventually have to address the elephant in the room. For over 100 years, the site housed some of the country's most notorious criminals and served as an execution ground for convicts a fact that might not sit well with potential investors and residents, especially the superstitious types.

“If BBCC is to house retail and office space, it might not be a problem,” says Wong.

“However, if the land is redeveloped to comprise residential property, it may affect demand.”

Elvin reckons the “stigma” associated with Pudu Jail will not be a big deal.

“To me, it's not an issue, although to some people, it might be. Ultimately, it's all about perception.”

Soo says it all depends on how BBCC is marketed.

“As long as your rebrand it properly, people will not be reminded of the former prison. Besides, people tend to forget after a while, especially with the newer generation coming into the market.”

Soo also says the project can be marketed to foreign investors and buyers, who are less likely to be concerned with the site's history.

(source: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/12/24/business/10140534&sec=business, dd Saturday December 24, 2011.)

Contractor fails to relocate fire hydrants after broadening road

By ELWEEN LOKE

Do not be surprised if you see a fire hydrant in the middle of the road in Kampar.

As bizarre as it sounds, these yellow hydrants are actually sticking out of nowhere, much to the annoyance of road users.

The latest of such cases has “sprouted” in Kampung Baru New Wah Loong following a road expansion exercise.

Several villagers told MetroPerak that the contractor had merely left the 0.2m-tall hydrant at its original spot after broadening Jalan 10 over a month ago.

“It is dangerous especially at night. Road users may not be able to see the hydrant and avoid it in time.

“Motorcyclists are in more danger as they could be flung from their machines should an accident take place but thankfully, no such incident has taken place,” said one villager who wanted to remain anonymous.

Kampar Fire and Rescue Department chief Zainuddin Mat Daud said it was nothing new in Kampar.

“It has happened several times before as irresponsible building or road contractors deem it as too much trouble to redo the piping when shifting a hydrant,” he said.

Despite attempts to get away with their shoddy work, hydrants situated in the middle of roads are too glaring a mistake for anyone not to notice.

“People are bound to complain to the department and the recent case in Kg Baru New Wah Loong is no different.

“We have already taken action against the contractor and ordered them to rectify the problem,” said Zainuddin.

He explained that a contractor must submit a copy of their building plans to the department prior to carrying out any development works should a hydrant be located in the area.

This, he said, was to determine if the hydrant needed to be relocated.

“Under Section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1988, it is an offence to create obstacles or hinder us from performing our fire-fighting duties.

(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/PropertyScene/17733/0/0. Accessed 22-December, 2011.)

Comment: Each time when there is a non-compliance to local by-laws, the authorities just seem to be helpless in bring the culprits to justice. Wonder why?

Acquisition of land to benefit private developer is puzzling

Dec 21, 2011

Your report yesterday titled “Choked at tunnel exit” confirms the many worries of residents of Kelana Jaya and many others who use the Damansara Puchong Highway (LDP).

Once again, it reflects the lack of foresight on the part of the authorities when approving commercial projects which invariably lead to problems like traffic congestion and reduced access for residents who were there first.

And the saddest part of it all is that when it comes to the surrounding infrastructure like roads and drainage facilities, it is all the ratepayers of Petaling Jaya who have to bear the burden.

I can understand why the residents feel that the land owned by EPF has to be acquired so that road-widening can be carried out.

But as an EPF contributor who also happens to live in Kelana Jaya, I must also ask on what grounds should the land be acquired.

If the need is for a public hospital or a fire station, I would certainly agree. And there are provisions in the law to allow for such acquisitions in the public interest.

Instead, this is to assist a private developer, which will reap all the benefits of the commercial activity carried out, that is in no way paying back for the improved public works that have to be carried out.

I do not know what plans the EPF has for its land, but if it is to build a satellite office so that it is more convenient for us to do our EPF transactions, then it is certainly a worthwhile project since the benefits are of public interest.

To simply allow the land to be acquired for road-widening purposes may not be a wise decision.

I hope the authorities will bear this in mind and not come up with a solution in haste that they will regret later.



CONCERNED RESIDENT

Kelana Jaya

(Source:http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/TheStarOnlineHighlightBox/17702/0/0. Date accessed: 21-December, 2011.)

Kuala Lumpur’s SMART Tunnel not looking so smart anymore

THE SMART Tunnel is the pride and joy of the authorities who have always touted it as the ultimate solution to the flood problems in Kuala Lumpur. When the project was rushed to be opened in January 2007, we were all told that the floods that hit the city a few months earlier would be the last as the tunnel was the longest and biggest storm drain project in South-East Asia.

True enough, for several years our capital city seemed to have been spared from any deluge despite some heavy downpour. Motorists were irritated when the tunnel had to be closed to accommodate the draining of rainwater to the retention ponds but, generally, city folk were impressed with the workings of the RM1.9bil Storm Water Management and Road Tunnel project - until last Tuesday.

That was the day Jalan Tun Razak, Jalan Semarak and Kampung Baru were flooded just like how it was in 2006, when the worst flood ever hit the city centre. It was as if we were like Bangkok a few weeks ago. What happened to the SMART Tunnel?

A spokesman for SMART had said that had it not been for the SMART Tunnel, KL would have experienced much worse flooding last week.

It also seems that the river that burst its bank was Sungai Bunus. It flows though the Kampung Baru-Jalan Tun Razak-Jalan Semarak area and this waterway was not covered under the SMART Tunnel scope.

So, there is now a need to come up with a flood mitigation project to resolve this “new problem”.

At Monday's Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) budget meeting, KL Mayor Tan Sri Ahmad Fuad Ismail announced an allocation of RM85mil for flood mitigation works, including RM20mil for the Federal Territory Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) to divert water from Sg Bunus to Lake Titiwangsa. This, he said, was to help mitigate the recent flooding along Jalan Tun Razak.

Why was this not thought of earlier when billions were being spent on the SMART Tunnel and the other flood mitigation projects implemented over the years? Why is it after a few hours of downpour in 2011 that Sg Bunus has suddenly become a problem?

In fact in 2007 seven projects costing millions were carried out in various flood hot spots in the city.

Some of these “long-term” measures include building floodwater retention ponds, upgrading drainage and diverting water from one river to another. All of these projects were completed and yes, many of them are effective.

Sg Bunus seems like a new problem, one caused by rapid unplanned development.

There have been new projects built along and even over Sg Bunus. Could it be that these developments are the cause of the floods? Instead of just spending millions of ringgit only on flood mitigation projects, the authorities should also carry out studies of how rivers or even storm drains in Kuala Lumpur are impacted by nearby development.

(Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/12/21/nation/10137347&sec=nation, dated: Wednesday December 21, 2011.)

Of projects and politics

Has Malaysia lost the battle to become a developed nation?

Media Statement (2) by Lim Kit Siang in Penang on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009:

Collapse of roof of RM300 million Gong Badak Stadium within a year of completion – latest warning that far from realizing Vision 2020 and becoming a developed nation, Malaysia risks entering the cycle of being a failed state

The collapse of the roof of the RM300 million 50,000-capacity Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium in Gong Badak within a year of completion provoked disbelief, shock and outrage with a whole spectrum of unflattering comments and reactions.

One reaction is that the shocking collapse of the RM300 million stadium within a year of completion is a disaster waiting to happen. An engineer, A. Mohamed who often jogged in the area, has told the media that he had noticed that the space frame which held the roof was getting bent out of shape but his efforts to warn government agencies and the media of the stadium defects were ignored.

Another is that the collapse is the inevitable consequence of a system which gives premium to “know who” than “know how”, the curse of Umno cronyism hiding under the guise of New Economic Policy. Will the Umno cronies responsible for the infamous collapse of the RM300 million stadium roof within a year of completion be exposed and fully penalized?

I was told this morning that the collapse of the Gong Badak Stadium symbolizes the collapse of the “1Malaysia” slogan of Datuk Seri Najib Razak marking his second month as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Another opined that it marked the fulfillment of the most famous Malaysian political prophecy, RAHMAN, with Najib as the last Umno Prime Minister.

From the larger national marcro perspective, the collapse of the roof of the RM300 million stadium within a year of its completion is the latest warning of the serious and quite terminal breakdown of standards and benchmarks of excellence with the consequence that far from realizing Vision 2020 and becoming a developed nation, Malaysia risks entering the cycle of being a failed state.

There is no shortage of such shocking examples in recent months, viz:

The collapse of the five-storey portion of the Jaya supermarket in Petaling Jaya during demolition work, killing seven, when in developed countries the implosion of skyscrapers without mishap has become a routine.

The Universiti Sains Malaysia Apex University fiasco where 4,574 university students suffered emotional havoc when they were told that they had been mistakenly informed that they had been successful in their applications for admission;

Universal broadband complaints, such as the complaint in Penang since last evening of sheer inability to access Internet even when trebly insured, having Streamyx, Maxis 3G and Celcom 3G.

Ah Longs having parallel system of underground IGP, CPOs, OCPDs and prisons, with endemic crime and police inability to ensure that Malaysians, tourists and investors are safe in the streets, public places and the privacy of their homes.

The list can go on. As if these signs are not bad enough, Kuala Lumpur has been named No. 4 as the riskiest locations in the world for outsourcing by the “Black Book of Outsourcing”. in a survey of 50 international locations. Singapore tops the list of the world’s safest location in the world for outsourcing.

On “Personal Crime Rate & Police-to-citizen ratio”, Kuala Lumpur is ranked the fourth worst of 50 locations while Singapore is ranked the top best!

Cabinet and Parliament must focus on the issue whether Malaysia has lost the battle to become a developed nation and has entered the cycle to become a failed state under Najib as Prime Minister.

*Lim Kit Siang, DAP Parliamentary leader & MP for Ipoh Timor


(Source: http://dapmalaysia.org/english/2009/jun09/lks/lks5219.htm, accessed: 15-December, 2011)

All-round flaws caused stadium roof collapse

By R.S.N. MURALI | Mar 11, 2010　(Source:http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/PropertyNews/2946/0/0，　accessed: 15-December, 2011.)

Comment: Well, it's been more than a year since then. Can anyone enlighten me of the latest status of this project?

KUALA TERENGGANU: Serious engineering flaws, shoddy workmanship, inferior materials and lack of expertise in the key project management team were found to be the main contributing factors behind the roof collapse at Stadium Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin in Gong Badak.

Several other crucial factors were also underlined in a detailed 60-page confidential report finalised by an investigation committee that was tasked by the Public Works Department to determine the cause of the roof collapse at the RM292mil stadium on June 2 last year.

The committee completed its task in December and the document was declassified by the Terengganu government during the state exco meeting yesterday.

Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Said expressed shock that the project management team did not have the necessary skills and competence to manage a project of such magnitude and complexity.

“From the report, we realised that the project manager and his team were not properly selected to reflect the competency required in completing the project, concluding that the main contractor, a local construction firm, was fully responsible for the incident,” he said.

Ahmad said the committee also determined that the main cause of the collapse was, among others, the faulty design with failure to take into account the support condition of the roof structure.

He said the management team failed to conduct a design analysis, considering that the complex architectural shape and large spans made the structure very sensitive to any movement in the supporting structures.

Ahmad added that other factors contributing to the collapse were the undesirable manner in which the structure was erected and that no checks were done during the erection process.

He said the committee also recommended the appointment of a new team of consultants based on a quality-based selection system and accredited independent check engineers. Also, repair works should be undertaken by a specialist contractor.

He also said that the state government had sent a letter to the main contractor to bear all the costs for the reconstruction as the incident occurred less than a year after the handover and the stadium was still under warranty.

Massive traffic jam after Sg Bunus overflows and floods Jln Tun Razak

By REGINA LEE

(Source:http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/12/13/nation/20111213191257&sec=nation)

KUALA LUMPUR: Heavy rain caused Sg Bunus to overflow and thigh-high floodwaters cut off traffic along Jalan Tun Razak in front of the national library causing massive traffic jams during peak hours.

According to SMART Tunnel tweet update the tunnel was closed to traffic to drain floodwaters at 4.38pm and was reopened at 6.30pm.

Meanwhile, Bernama reported that over 30 children were stranded at a kindergarten in nearby Jalan Semarak near TM Training Centre due to the floods.

Kuala Lumpur fire and rescue spokesman said two boats had been deployed to take the children out of the premises.

"We are in the process of taking them out to safe places," he told Bernama when contacted.

S. Korean developer to keep 'Twin Towers' design

Copyright AFP, 2011 | Dec 12, 2011

(Source: http://www.starproperty.my/PropertyScene/TheStarOnlineHighlightBox/17456/0/0 dated Dec 12, 2011.)

A South Korean developer said Monday it would not alter the design of a twin-tower project despite complaints in the United States that it mimics the explosions at New York's World Trade Center in 2001.

The towers, one with 54 floors and the other with 60, are designed by Dutch architects MVRDV and will be built at the entrance to Seoul's redeveloped Yongsan business district by 2016.

The towers will be connected midway up by a cloud-shaped bridging section that will house amenities including sky lounges, a swimming pool and restaurants.

But families of victims of the 9/11 attacks see a marked resemblance between the project known as The Cloud and the clouds of debris that billowed from the World Trade Center after hijacked airliners ploughed into the towers.

"Allegations that it (the design) was inspired by the 9/11 attacks are groundless," said White Paik, spokesman for the Yongsan Development Corp."There will be no revision or change in our project," he told AFP, adding that construction would begin in January 2013 as scheduled.

MVRDV said it "regrets deeply" any painful connotations."It was not our intention to create an image resembling the attacks nor did we see the resemblance during the design process," it said in a statement on its website.

"We sincerely apologise to anyone whose feelings we have hurt," it added.

Jim Riches, a retired New York deputy fire chief whose son was killed on 9/11, said he did not believe the architects."It looks just like the towers imploding," the New York Daily News quoted him as saying.

"I think they're trying to sensationalise it. It's a cheap way to get publicity."

AirAsia calls for truce in dispute with MAHB over KLIA2

SEPANG: Tan Sri Tony Fernandes is ready to move on following the bitter feud he and his company, AirAsia Bhd, had with Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) over the high cost of building a bigger KLIA2.

“Enough has been said and we just wanted to make it affordable. I have invited Tan Sri Bashir Ahmad to our 10th year anniversary this Thursday and maybe we can find a win-win solution,'' Fernandes told StarBiz yesterday.

This came two hours after the AirAsia press conference where 10 of its executives demanded for a service level agreement (SLA) from MAHB before the carrier moved to KLIA2 in April 2013.

As at press time, it could not be ascertained if Bashir will accept the invite from Fernandes since it has been a bitter spat between the two. However, a day earlier, MAHB did offer an olive branch when it posted an announcement on its website, saying that “it has always been MAHB's view that in dealing with our partners, issues raised by either party are best resolved through proper consultation.

“We wish to continue working closely with all our partners to address any issues that may arise and will do so through a proper working forum as we believe this is the best and most objective way to do so. MAHB believes that any disagreements in public are neither good for the image nor in the best interest of the country.''

Ironically, when the AirAsia press conference was going on, Fernandes tweeted to say that one of the letters posted on MAHB website was fake, but quickly changed it to say that what he meant was the argument was “fake'', not the letter.

Earlier at the press conference, AirAsia chief operating officer Bo Lingam said: “We need an SLA to know what our cost is going to be.'' His main concern was that the high cost of KLIA2 could potentially result in AirAsia having to pay high rentals, surcharges and extra bills.

“We also want MAHB to state in black and white the current airport charges so that it will not be raised once we move to the new airport,” Bo said.

In response to the SLA, MAHB said in a statement issued yesterday evening that “we have indicated our willingness to have an SLA and are awaiting AirAsia's proposal on the SLA for further study and consideration. We would also like to reiterate that the airport charges, both current and future, are regulated by the Government and the mechanisms for future increases have been clearly defined in our Operating Agreement with the Government.''

MAHB now has a Conditions of Use (CoU) agreement with its airline partners as well as the ground handlers at KL International Airport. The CoU provides guidance on the use of airport facilities, particularly with regard to the safe and secure use of the airport, as well as a schedule of applicable airport charges, and that was very much in line with the common industry practice.

AirAsia executives also hoped that MAHB will build a taxiway that they have been asking for from Runway 3 to Runway 2. That is despite getting a place for an office tower, a hotel (Tune Hotel) and a car park. They also said that having a “chilling facility'' located at KLIA2 would help them store food before it was loaded onto aircraft.

AirAsia executives said the current site was not the perfect location for KLIA2, and that they believed this had led the cost of building KLIA2 to balloon to between RM3.6bil and RM3.9bil. They also wanted a joint committee set up for better coordination between the two parties.

To this, MAHB said: “The present site for KLIA2 was selected based on the National Airport Master Plan after a detailed and comprehensive study involving all our stakeholders including Transport Ministry, Department of Civil Aviation, Finance Ministry, Home Affairs Ministry and all airlines including AirAsia.''

MAHB added that the weekly meetings held with AirAsia and other stakeholders served as a platform for all views and requirements to be discussed and addressed, and thus far 47 had been held.

“Most of AirAsia's requests have been complied with. Only issues which have financial implications are referred to the board. We will continue to engage AirAsia during the weekly meetings,'' it said.

(Source: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/12/7/business/10047401&sec=business dd Wednesday December 7, 2011.)

Of airport taxes and cost overrun

By B.K. SIDHU Saturday December 3, 2011
bksidhu@thestar.com.my

THE one unanswered question in the ongoing spat between AirAsia and Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) is why.

Why are they fighting now over a planned increase in passenger service charges (PSC) in the form of airport taxes when the hike was made public months ago?

Late this week AirAsia went viral in its campaign against the increase in airport taxes.

It took out advertisements in newspapers, went online, twitted about the issue; in short kicked up a fuss over the planned move that would see international passengers pay RM65 from Dec 1 instead of RM51 previously and RM31 instead of RM21 for passengers departing from the low cost carrier terminal.

While AirAsia's boss Tan Sri Tony Fernandes has raised a commotion over the issue in the interest of the passengers, he stopped his tirade after twitting his reasons for doing so. He said the airport taxes were raised when facilities at LCCT (Low Cost Carrier Terminal) remains poor, the new KLIA2 will cost nearly double its original RM2bil price tag and its opening is delayed to April 2013 from August 2011 and that the airport taxes to destinations such as Kuching and Langkawi is half the fare the airline charges.

“These are the reasons we are upset. Everyone wants to fly. We need efficiency. I end this and hope Malaysians are enlightened,” he twitted.

Could it be that AirAsia wants a percentage share of the PSC since it has brought the passengers into the LCCT as it claims in its “no airport tax raise” campaign that it does not benefit from the PSC? Fernandes did not comment on that possibility.

As it is, airlines are incentivised for the traffic they draw into airports.

There is an incentive programme where airlines are paid for the increase in passenger numbers besides the free landing for three years for new flights.

Whatever the reason may be, it is a question that begs an answer.

In an interview with StarBizWeek yesterday, AirAsia chairman Datuk Aziz Bakar says: “What we are asking is - to enable us to keep our fares low and encourage more visitors to come here - we just want a kopitiam' terminal not a Shangri-La' terminal.”

The fight over the PSC charges certainly overshadows the furore he had over the huge cost of building KLIA2.

On Tuesday, MAHB called the media to tell their side of the story over allegations of cost overrun for the KLIA2, and to build what can be considered a luxury low-cost terminal.

It also revealed the cost of building KLIA2 would be in the range of RM3.6bil and RM3.9bil from RM2bil previously and its rationale for that was that it was building an airport which is 71% bigger than its original size.

The question many are asking is why is there a need to have such as large airport that can cater to 45 million passengers. Is there going to be so much traffic to warrant such as huge, expensive low cost terminal?

MAHB's rationale seems to be that the main customer, AirAsia, is growing rapidly and it is building capacity now for the future. Whether that it a viable move is unclear as it is bringing its future capital expenditure of about RM700mil forward.

Notwithstanding the fact that there may be other airlines that may also want to fly in and out of KLIA2 and that would see traffic rise beyond the forecast 30 million passenger AirAsia is looking at.

It then makes sense to have an airport that will have a very large capacity.

In its notes to journalist to justify its extra spending on KLIA2, MAHB stated that there would be “continued growth in low cost travel - 30 million passengers by 2017.”

Aziz did say that “our projections is that we can reach 30 million even in 2015 and based on our track record we have delivered what we projected.”

So to avoid an expansion just three years after KLIA2 is built, MAHB are putting in more capacity upfront in view of the robust growth its main client is expecting.

Source: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/12/3/business/10024770, accessed: Tuesday 6-December, 2011.

New twist to AirAsia-MAHB feud over KLIA2

PETALING JAYA: The spat between airport operator Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) and low-cost carrier AirAsia Bhd has reached a stage where both parties were showing documents to prove their case over the controversial upgrade of the low-cost air terminal KLIA2.

AirAsia issued a press statement to refute claims made by MAHB that it had asked for a bigger airport and said it should not be blamed for the cost of constructing KLIA2 which had nearly doubled from RM2bil to RM3.9bil.

The low-cost carrier said that its chairman Datuk Abdul Aziz Bakar had in November 2009, via a letter, warned MAHB that the current site of KLIA2 was unsuitable and would cause construction cost to soar.

“The site will definitely be more expensive than the planned budget of RM2bil. AirAsia had also estimated for MAHB that the construction cost would increase to between RM3.6bil and RM3.9bil,” it said in a statement yesterday as it wanted to clarify some of the claims made by the airport operator.

AirAsia is also calling for a press conference today on the issue.

Last Tuesday, MAHB announced it was building a bigger airport to cater for the bullish passenger growth projections made by its biggest client, AirAsia.

As a result, the cost of KLIA2 hasgone up and passenger capacity rose to 45 million from 30 million.

The completion deadline was also delayed by six months to April 2013 because AirAsia wanted a fully-automated baggage handling system (BHS) and the request for it was only made in June.

AirAsia boss Tan Sri Tony Fernandes had rubbished MAHB's justifications for doubling the cost of KLIA2.

AirAsia had also posted a letter from AirAsia X chairman to MAHB saying that it didn't know that KLIA2 was planned for 45 million passengers and it was only informed of the 30 million figure.

“This figure has never been officially changed by AirAsia or MAHB since Aug 9, 2011,” the low-cost carrier claimed.

The rebuttal by AirAsia came a day after MAHB posted documents on its website entitled “Why KLIA2 has to be bigger” last Friday that showed AirAsia's passenger growth estimates and that the airline expected to carry 30 million passengers by 2015/16. Hence, the justification by MAHB to build a bigger airport to cater for that growth was crucial.

In a counter claim to AirAsia's statement, MAHB said last night that “47 meetings had been held between MAHB and AirAsia since April 2010 until now to discuss and address all of AirAsia's requirements.

“A workshop with all stakeholders including AirAsia was also held in September 2009 where the Needs Statement for KLIA2 was formulated.”

The request for a fully-automated baggage system made by AirAsia in June would push the completion date forward by six months.

AirAsia has denied that it had asked for a fully-automated baggage handling system (BHS).

It cited a letter from AirAsia X chairman to MAHB dated Aug 18 that stated: “AirAsia re-confirmed our request for a semi-automated BHS instead of a fully-automated BHS. “MAHB has unilaterally decided on a fully automated BHS to accommodate 45 million to 60 million passengers which was again, not agreed by AirAsia.”

To counter that, MAHB posted Fernandes' letter dated June 16 on its website which stated: “our (AirAsia) official response to MAHB is that AirAsia prefers that the BHS system be developed as shown in BSC option 3: dual tilt tray sorter with full connectivity (in short it is a fully-automated BHS).”

The letter added that “because it would be very difficult to implement an expansion to the BHS system within less than five years after opening, this capacity must be in place under phase one system at the onset of completion of the LCCT2 (KLIA2).”

The letter from Fernandes to MAHB cited a meeting held between AirAsia, MAHB and the Transport Ministry whereby the carrier had to decide on the BHS.

The letter also acknowledged a possible delay to the opening of KLIA2 because of the BHS.

On the issue of aerobridges, AirAsia said it did not want them and was told that there would only be ramps installed at KLIA2. However. MAHB decided on Tuesday to install aerobridges “after being pressured by the travelling public to install aerobridges at the new airport.”

On the 4km runway, AirAsia argued that its request for a 3km runway had been according to its original requirement to MAHB, in order to cater for AirAsia X's wide-body Airbus A330.

AirAsia claimed that it was by chance that it discovered the runway was shorter and asked MAHB to rectify the situation.

“As such, this should not be considered as an additional request or requirement from AirAsia as the original plans have always been to cater for a 3km runway. Therefore, no additional cost should have been incurred,” AirAsia said.

MAHB had maintained that it was AirAsia that wanted a 4km runway.

Source: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2470014735451325379 dd Tuesday December 6, 2011.

MAHB: AirAsia asked for bigger KLIA2

PETALING JAYA: Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) has fought back to say that it was building a bigger KLIA2 upon the request of its biggest customer, AirAsia.

It broke its silence after being criticised by AirAsia boss Tan Sri Tony Fernandes for building KLIA2 to cater to 45 million passengers, thus inflating the cost to RM4bil.

On its website, MAHB posted a document titled Why KLIA2 has to be bigger? which showed that AirAsia had estimated that passenger traffic at the new terminal would hit 28.7 million by 2015, 45.3 million by 2020 and 60.3 million by 2025.

The figures were more aggressive than MAHB's own projections for the same period, according to a graph included on the website.

MAHB said the new airport would cost between RM3.6bil and RM3.9bil and that AirAsia had asked for a fully automated baggage handling system from a semi-automated system, which caused the six-month delay in opening the airport.

KLIA2 will only be ready in April 2013.

AirAsia chairman Datuk Aziz Bakar said yesterday “we had requested MAHB to start thinking of building a bigger KLIA2 and to expand its capacity to cater to 45 million passengers since there has been a series of delays in the completion of the airport. The initial plan was for the airport to handle 30 million passengers and be completed in 2011”.

“(Now) if they do not start preparing for more passengers then we will not have the capacity as we anticipate to achieve 30 million passenger growth by 2015/16,” he said.

On the fully automated baggage system, Aziz said: “We had asked for a semi-automated system but MAHB decided on a fully automated system and we agreed to it.”

The controversy over the bigger airport has also sparked speculation over Tan Sri Bashir Ahmad's future in MAHB.

This led the market to speculate that he was supposed to meet Khazanah Nasional Bhd boss Tan Sri Azman Mokhtar yesterday. It could not be ascertained if the meeting took place.

Khazanah is a major shareholder with 54% stake in MAHB, and when contacted, its spokesman Mohd Asuki Abas said “we do not comment on speculation”.

On Friday, MAHB chairman Tan Sri Dr Aris Othman said Bashir had the full support of the management and board, quashing rumours the latter would be replaced.

Source:http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/12/4/nation/10031602&sec=nation dd Sunday December 4, 2011.