Final draft - summary reader response (LTA Impact Study) (Revised 4-Dec-2020)

 

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 could 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 feel that direct alignment would be the better option in terms of the welfare of commuters and residents.

One reason why direct alignment would be better is commuters would spend less time travelling on the Cross Island line due to the shorter route taken. According to Toh (2018), the direct alignment option would constitute a 4km route, whereas the skirting option would constitute a 9km route in terms of the route’s distance from Bright Hill station to the next station across the reserves. The difference of 5km in the route distance results in 6 minutes of travelling time. For commuters who would travel to and from their destination daily across the central catchment nature reserves, the direct alignment option also 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.

Another reason why direct alignment would be better is commuters would spend lesser on transport fares. The current transport fare structure dictates that the fares are distanced based, so a shorter route would contribute to cost savings for commuters. 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. 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. The skirting alignment would cause environmental issues such as poor air quality, obstructed views, and groundborne vibration for the residents. Cheng (2019) mentioned that the majority of the seven residents interviewed opposed constructing a worksite in the vicinity of their homes. In the same article, Cheng (2019) also 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.  Downey and Willigen (2005) 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 and Willigen (2005) also 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, although both the direct and skirting alignment are feasible, LTA should choose the direct alignment over the skirting alignment because it brings about several benefits such as the decreases of the travelling time and costs for commuters and taxpayers, and it also eliminates unnecessary distress and disquietude to the residents living around the worksite.

 

References

Cheng, K. (2019, September 3). 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

Menon, M. (2019, December 4). 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

Toh, T. W. (2019, September 3). 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

(Revised 4-Dec-2020)