LTA Impact Study : Summary & Reader's Response (Revised)
In
the news release, "Feasible for Cross Island MRT Line to run under Central
Catchment or skirt it around", Singapore’s Land Transport Authority (2019)
suggested two routes – direct alignment and skirting – for the future Cross
Island Line. Based on the report by LTA and Environmental Resources Management,
both underground alignments are feasible. However, nature groups mentioned that
the direct alignment route would affect the ecology and
biodiversity at the central catchment nature reserve. But the construction of the skirting route will also cause environmental issues to the residents living in Thomson and near the
construction sites and require high maintenance with an additional cost of $2
billion. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages, but I feel that the direct alignment route is a better option to
implement as it is more efficient in terms of energy consumption, production of
carbon emissions and less chances of train faults.
Firstly, LTA should take into consideration that the energy
consumption of the direct alignment will be significantly lower than the
skirting option. The skirting route takes a longer distance of
5km so the energy consumption will be higher than the direct alignment
route. In the article “Cross Island Line: Govt decides on direct alignment,
running 70m under nature reserve instead of skirting it”, Minister of
Transport, Khaw, states that “In the longer term, it is a more environmentally friendly
option as the direct alignment has a lower energy consumption.” I feel that the
energy consumption can be optimized at its minimum. Also, based on the forecast value, the Cross Island Line will be highly used as this line will cater
to more commuters daily. The Cross Island Line will be the most energy consuming
line in coming future.
Secondly,
carbon emissions will also be reduced into the environment. As the amount of
fuel usage increases, the more carbon emissions will be produced. According to U.S
Department of Energy, the estimated fuel usage for a transit
train is 2 mpg (miles per gallon). By using the fuel calculator by SensorsOne, the fuel consumption
rate will be 0.0000717487365 miles/gallon with the formula FCR = d / V, where
FCR = Fuel Consumption Rate , d = Distance and V = Fuel Value. The higher the
fuel consumption rate is, the more efficient the fuel is. In my own opinion,
the skirting alignment will not be the best option in the long run as it will
travel for a longer distance which means more fuel will be consumed. Thus, more
carbon emissions will be emitted into the environment, affecting the
atmosphere.
Lastly,
with the need to construct the additional 5km tunnel and
civil infrastructures, there will be a higher chance of faults found in the skirting alignments and face increasing engineering
challenges. In an article, Cheng (2019) mentioned that “An international panel
of advisers on tunnelling and underground construction cautioned that the risk
of incidents — tunnelling works could cause damage and cracks to buildings, for
example — is higher for this option than for the first option, because of the
“concentration of facilities including infrastructure and occupied buildings.””.
It implies that the skirting alignment may have a higher chance of facing
damages to infrastructures and incidents as the tunnels will be constructed
under existing buildings. From an engineer's point of view, if there is a
better solution, I do not wish to take on the risks and cause more incidents
during its construction. It may also bring down the reputation of the developer
and engineering team.
In
conclusion, LTA should take into consideration that the direct alignment will
consume less energy and leads to lesser environmental impacts in a long term.
It should ensure that the decision made focuses on and optimises the energy
consumption and efficiency. Also, with the construction of the skirting route, there will be a higher chance of faults and lives will be jeopardised. LTA should be advised to play safe and not take the risks.
References
Alternative Fuels Data Center
(n.d.). U.S Department of Energy
https://afdc.energy.gov/conserve/mass_transit.html
Cheng, K. (2019, September
3) Explainer: How 2 proposed tunnelling routes for Cross Island Line will
affect wildlife, housing areas. Today.
Cross Island Line: Govt
decides on direct alignment, running 70m under nature reserve instead of
skirting it. (2019, December 4). Today. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/cross-island-line-govt-decides-direct-alignment-running-70m-under-nature-reserve-instead
Fuel Consumption Calculator
(n.d.). SensorsOne. https://www.sensorsone.com/distance-and-fuel-to-consumption-rate-calculator/#fuel-economy
Tan, C. (2019, January 28). Cross
Island Line's first phase to be completed by 2029. The Straits Times.
Revised on 5 December
2020
Thanks very much for the revision, Celine. :)
ReplyDelete