Second draft - summary reader response (LTA Impact Study)

In the news release, “Feasible for Cross Island MRT Line to run under Central Catchment or skirt around it: LTA impact study”, Toh (2019) stated that the upcoming “Cross Island MRT line that will run from Tuas to Changi can either run under the Central Catchment Nature Reserve or go around it.” The skirting alignment option is lengthier and more costly, and causes residents several environmental issues, but it would not induce any impact on the nature reserves. The direct alignment option would cause damage and “affect the biodiversity there”. However, it poses a lesser risk of “safety related incidents” and also has a lower construction cost. LTA has examined the possible impact on the “environment and residents” and suggested that both options are potentially feasible and presents inconsequential impacts on the residents. While I agree that both options are feasible, I tend to err on the side of direct alignment. 

Firstly, commuters would spend less time travelling on the Cross Island line due to the shorter route taken. In terms of the route’s distance from Bright Hill station to the next station across the reserves, the direct alignment option would erect a 4km route, whereas the skirting option would erect a 9km route.  The difference of 5km in the route distances results in 6 minutes of travelling time. For commuters who would travel to and from their destination across the central catchment nature reserves, the direct alignment option meant that they would save about 12 minutes per day, which could translate to getting more work done, or having more time with their families. 

Secondly, commuters would spend lesser on transport fares. Based on the article, “Cross Island MRT Line to run under nature reserve: 4 reasons behind the decision” by The Straits Times, Menon(2019) mentioned that the transportation fares could be cheaper by 15% if the direct alignment option was chosen. The shorter route of the direct alignment option meant that the construction, maintenance, and operating costs would be reduced. The current transport fare structure dictates that the fares are distanced based, so a shorter route would contribute to cost savings for commuters. Additionally, in the original article, Toh (2019) stated that “The Government has also said the skirting option could cost an additional $2 billion.” If the direct alignment is chosen, the construction project would also cost taxpayers $2 billion less compared to the skirting alignment option. 

Lastly, residents residing in the Thomson area would not have their livelihoods and homes affected. In the article “Through nature reserve or around? Residents, nature groups stick to guns on Cross Island Line paths”, Cheng (2019) mentioned that majority of the seven residents “interviewed by TODAY on Tuesday” opposed to constructing a worksite in the vicinity of their homes. In the same article, Cheng (2019) mentioned that Member of Parliament Mr Chong implied that the affected residential areas would still be “pretty unsightly and dusty.” Moreover, the worksite would remain for five-and-a-half years. In the journal article “Environmental Stressors: The Mental Health Impacts of Living Near Industrial Activity”,  Downey & Willigen (2005) explained that “We believe that many individuals find residential proximity to industrial activity to be stressful and, therefore, that people who live near industrial activity experience worse mental health than those who do not live near industrial activity.” In the same article, Downey & Willigen (2005) mentioned that living close to industrial activity could increase feelings of powerlessness and heighten feelings of distress. Studies have shown that the presence of construction or industrial activities are linked to degrading psychological health. If the direct alignment option is chosen instead, the issues raised on noise and dust would be eliminated. 

In conclusion, I feel that LTA should choose the direct alignment over the skirting alignment as it decreases the travelling time, lowers the costs for taxpayers and commuters and eliminates unnecessary distress to the residents living around the worksite.

References:

Toh. (2019). Feasible for cross island MRT line to run under central catchment or skirt around it: LTA impact study. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/feasible-for-cross-island-line-to-run-through-central-catchment-or-skirt-around

Cheng. (2019). Explainer: How 2 proposed tunnelling routes for cross island line will affect wildlife, housing areas. TODAYonline. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/explainer-how-2-proposed-tunnelling-routes-cross-island-line-will-affect-wildlife-housing?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_03092019_todayonline

Cheng. (2019). Govt will do ‘whatever it can’ to protect central catchment nature reserve: Lam pin MIN. TODAYonline. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/govt-will-do-whatever-it-can-protect-central-catchment-nature-reserve-lam-pin-min

MENON. (2019). Cross island MRT line to run under nature reserve: 4 reasons behind the decision. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/cross-island-mrt-line-to-run-under-nature-reserve-4-reasons-behind-the-decision

Cheng. (2019). Through nature reserve or around? Residents, nature groups stick to guns on cross island line paths. TODAYonline. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/through-nature-reserve-or-around-residents-nature-groups-stick-guns-cross-island-line?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_03092019_todayonline

Downey, L., & Van Willigen, M. (2005). Environmental stressors: The mental health impacts of living near industrial activity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(3), 2-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650504600306