THE ANNOUNCEMENT  that the decision to build the second crossing in 2003 was final, not surprisingly, stirred up a second round of criticism.

The bridge is based on the Tokyo Bay Bridge design, which is not unexpected because the financier is the Japanese government
. 
Among the critics of the "2nd link" is Professor Zubir Din, director of the Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies. He has called for a study of the impact the proposed RM2.3 billion bridge will have on the environment. The director points out that the water in the straits moves like a pendulum with low flushing. He fears that with more blockage the flushing rate could be reduced, resulting in more pollution. Problems of sedimentation and erosion would have to be examined

Penang Port SB says it is dangerous to build close to the port. The proposal will stunt its growth. With plans to dig the north channel to accommodate bigger vessels there is a fear that ships dropping anchor could damage the proposed tunnel, which is part of the bridge.  Penang Port suggests a location South.

Malaysian Nature Society calls for an in-depth EIA study. MNS says that the Penang Bridge has provision for expansion; and the ferry service too could be upgraded.

The justification for the Third Link is that the Penang Bridge is already "bursting at the seams." Aliran says that the Bridge is congested simply because many cars prefer to avoid the long wait - sometimes up to an hour during peak times - for ferries. Even the cost of the Third Link - RM2.3 billion - appears understated. The Penang Bridge cost RM850 million in 1985. Aliran did not think that, 20 years later, the Third Link - a 2.2 km tunnel complete with a 'titanic'-like ship as a tourist landmark, a viewing gallery and convention centres on the two man-made islands - would cost only RM2.3 billion by the time it was completed. 

Aliran argues that at a time of recession, the government should spend the money on expanding the ferry service (including building new ferry terminals at other locations), improving public transport, building a light rail transit and expanding the Penang Bridge. The ferry service can be expanded using a fraction of the RM2.3 billion and will immediately relieve congestion on the Penang Bridge. Aliran prefers a train service that would link the island and the mainland. 

Aliran also says that the North Beach (Gurney Drive) sea front will be endangered and its charm lost. It fears that traffic will spill into the inner city and choke the roads.  Not only will pollution spoil Penang but, more seriously, it will damage our chances of a world heritage listing.

Not so, says the chief minister. A longer coastal promenade will emerge.

The MP for Bukit Mertajam Chong Eng is unconvinced.  She claims that the actual reasons behind the need to construct the proposed RM2.3 billion link are political and not based on public needs. 

The MP reminds that the link was originally supposed to have been planned to ease traffic flow into the island, but the latest proposal was for it to connect  southern Penang to Batu Kawan. 

The reason given was that it would help develope the areas. Chong Eng asks: What is the real purpose now? 

“Politics more than actual needs (of the people) are the reasons for the proposed link,” she claims, adding the new location would help ‘certain politicians gain more votes in the next elections’. 

We are glad to learn that the Ministry is seriously considering changing the plans in view of the concerns raised. A "high powered meeting" considers that a new bridge from Batu Maung is a possibility. But was this hullabaloo necessary? As we have emphasized before, all public projects should be open to public scrutiny and open sessions held for public cross-examination of the experts. But this has not happened. Astonishingly, even the state government had no say in this Penang matter. #