LETTER | A certain group has been lobbying the state government to install the Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) in Penang instead of the planned elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT).

They pitched their proposal to the state government, lauding the ART as an advanced system that "has been proven to solve traffic congestion" even though the system is only being tested on a 3-km route.

The ART does not need track because it has tyres, like a bus. So, basically it is a bus that is designed like a tram. Therefore it shares many of the disadvantages of a bus-based transit system such as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

There are at least three reasons why ART is not suitable for Penang.

Closure of roads: ART needs a dedicated lane to be efficient. In installing ART (say along the proposed LRT route from the airport to Sia Boey), a whole stretch of road needs to be closed.

Traffic congestion is already happening during peak hours with the current roads. It becomes worse if there is a car breaking down or an accident.

Now, imagine one lane of a three-lane road is closed for ART and a car breaks down in the middle lane. That leaves only one lane for cars, motorbikes and lorries during peak hour - the worst nightmare for road users Without the dedicated lane for ART or BRT, there are at least two lanes left for vehicles.

An elevated LRT does not need to close roads and does not disrupt present
traffic.

Delay traffic, increase CO2: Like the BRT, the ART will come across road junctions and traffic lights. By stopping at these spots, ART increases passengers' travelling time.

To reduce the increased travelling time, there is a suggestion to prioritise the ART by installing a traffic light system that allows the ART to move first before other vehicles.

In this way the ART would be less inefficient. However, it also means delaying traffic for cars, motorbikes and lorries.

By having other vehicles spend more time in traffic, it also means more carbon emission. Even though the ART uses electricity, it indirectly makes other vehicles produce more CO2, which defeats the very purpose of the ART's usage of electricity. Therefore, in terms of being a green technology, the ART is self-contradicting.

An elevated LRT does not need to stop at junctions and traffic lights, or cause other vehicles to spend longer time on the road.

What about an elevated ART? If an elevated infrastructure is to be built,
then it might as well use an LRT, which has a centralised coordinated system for optimum efficiency and better passenger comfort.

Track problems: ART does not have the conventional tram rail buried in the road. It uses a sensor system that recognises virtual rail, two white lines painted on the road.

What happens if the sensor system breaks down? The dedicated lane cannot be used and the ART cannot operate.

Doesn't the elevated LRT track break down too? Yes, it does. The difference is that there is still a wide road for commuters to use with other vehicles when the LRT cannot operate. In ART's case, the lane dedicated to ART's sensor system cannot be used when maintenance work is being carried out.

In other words, an LRT track failure at least does not take up road space and leaves it unusable by others.

ART's salesmen may claim that their system has proven to solve traffic
congestion but the deficiencies mentioned above need to be addressed in their sales pitch. Moreover, the ART system does not have much of track record in successful implementation. To employ it is to subject Penangites to being “guinea pigs”.

AnakPinang is a Penang-based civil society group.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.