ST : More gain than pain in N-S Expressway project

27 Jan 2011,
More gain than pain in N-S Expressway project

Some will lose their homes, but benefits outweigh social costs
By Christopher Tan

THE announcement of a new highway is not always met with the kind of enthusiasm other infrastructure projects usually receive, such as an MRT line, a cruise terminal, or even yet another shopping mall.

Property prices near a new expressway project do not appreciate; they almost always depreciate. In the developed world, highways are associated with several negative externalities - noise, congestion, accidents, pollution, and so on.

In the early 1900s, a new road was always good news because it connected rural communities. The opposite is true today. In many big cities, highways have severed communal links instead of forging them. This explains the rise of anti-highway movements in the 1970s and 1980s to halt or divert road projects in America, the land of the automobile.

It is understandable then that Singapore's North-South Expressway (NSE) project is drawing mixed feelings.

Motorists, especially those living in northern towns like Woodlands, Sembawang and Yishun, breathed a collective sigh of relief when the alignment of the first stretch was announced last week. This is because the end of their suffering with the perennially choked Central Expressway is now in sight.

But others living along the path of the $8 billion, 21km NSE may be having a few sleepless nights. Some have had their homes acquired to make way for the new road. Others will endure the approximately seven years of construction. Many will have to live with the increased traffic once it is completed.

This is why cost-benefit analyses for highway projects are never just about the cost of concrete and steel, cost of design, and other engineering considerations.

Social costs and benefits should often be given equal, if not more, weight. Or so literature on public policy tells us.

Such studies, however, are seldom cut-and-dried. How does one measure social costs and benefits in the present, continuous and future tenses? How strong are competing needs for a given budget allocation? And are there engineering limits to what can be done?

So, while it is easy to question why the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has not chosen an all-underground route for the expressway to reduce land acquisitions and future noise, there are drawbacks associated with the subterranean option too.

For starters, an underground road will cost three to four times more than a surface road. It will also cost up to 10 times more to operate and maintain.

The fact that the northern portion of the NSE runs mostly through industrial estates makes it more logical to pick a surface road than an underground one there. It will take the form of an elevated road, or viaduct. This minimises land consumption because a viaduct occupies mainly air space, with its supporting pillars standing on existing road dividers.

Most of the plots of land acquired are along the underground section of the NSE. This is because entrance and exit ramps of underground roads require space. Also, the LTA is using a trench excavation construction (cut and cover) method, which needs more space than the tunnelling method.

There are now tunnel-boring machines wide enough for underground highway construction. But these work best for deeper tunnels. Deeper tunnels require access and exit ramps to run for longer distances to ensure the gradient is not too steep for vehicles. And longer ramps will inevitably eat up more land.

The bottom line here is that a major infrastructure project often entails some property acquisition, especially in a built-up city state. Those affected will understandably feel upset, but it is remarkable that such a massive project is being carried out with minimal acquisition - with the owners of 35 terrace houses having to give up their properties, and others sacrificing part of their land.

As for grumbles about home owners' wasted renovation works, the NSE was in fact first mentioned in the Urban Redevelopment Authority's 2001 Concept Plan. The corridor where it will probably run has been 'safeguarded' or earmarked for possible future development since 2007. Prudent property owners should do a Singapore Land Authority search for a fee, before embarking on a major house renovation.

On its part, perhaps the Government can review current policies regarding compensation to reflect the actual cost incurred by 'losers' in an acquisition process, which goes beyond property values to include less tangible aspects such as inconvenience and cost of relocation.

A change in policy should not, however, open an avenue for profiteering or speculation, but be aimed squarely at recognising what the few have to bear for the good of the many.

Smoother commutes between the northern towns and the rest of Singapore will be one greater good. Proceeds from land sales arising from a huge acquired plot in Marymount that will be redeveloped are another.

Another group of people who will be adversely affected by the NSE are those living and working near its length. Compensating them would be improbable since many others who live and work near roads elsewhere on the island suffer the same fate. The LTA might erect noise barriers where it can to mitigate the situation. Its current practice of relying on planted hedges to reduce noise is not nearly as effective.

So, is the motorist getting a free ride in this social equation? Well, no, he pays relatively high vehicle taxes (which currently include pretty lofty certificate of entitlement premiums), petrol duty, road tax, and so on.

And to ensure that he continues to be aware of the social costs he imposes, he will be made to pay for congestion if and when the need arises.

On this front, electronic road-pricing (ERP) gantries will not be necessary on the NSE. By the time the expressway is completed in 2020, Singapore's satellite-tracked, distance-based ERP system should be up and beeping away.

christan@sph.com.sg