Factors In Considering Underground Alignments for Cross Island MRT Line

Mdm Speaker, the Cross Island Line (CRL) will be an important part of our future mass rapid transit (MRT) network. It will link east to west, from Changi to Jurong, covering more than 50 kilometres with about 30 stations. The exact alignment is being studied. Our preliminary estimate is that commuters from residential areas like Loyang, Pasir Ris, Hougang, Ang Mo Kio, Sin Ming, Bukit Timah, Clementi and West Coast will make at least 600,000 trips on the CRL every day. This will place the CRL higher, in terms of capacity and usage, compared, for example, to the North East Line (NEL). The CRL will also significantly enhance our network resilience as commuters will have many more routing options with the CRL connecting to other lines.

What this means is that nearly half of the 30-plus new stations will be interchange stations and that means that every other station will be an exchange station where commuters can switch to another line. This will significantly enhance the resilience of our network.

Specific to the question raised by the Member, the Government is studying two possible alignments for CRL in the vicinity of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). Both options are underground, and construction of the tunnels for this stretch of CRL will be carried out using bored tunnelling, instead of the cut-and-cover approach. Cut-and-cover means you cut through like a huge bulldozer and chop down whatever is in between, then you build the tunnel and you cover it up. With bored tunnelling, you avoid all the trauma and damages above the tunnel.

For the four-kilometre direct alignment option, two kilometres will be deep below CCNR. How deep is deep? About 40 metres – or 12 storeys – below ground level. More importantly, at that level, this is what geologists call the hard bedrock level. In our case, this is the Bukit Timah granite. At this level, there are no vegetation, no trees, no animals. Under this option, there will not be any construction of infrastructure at surface level within the CCNR.

The skirting alignment option, on the other hand, is about nine kilometres long. Because it is nine kilometres long, it will require longer tunnels. Therefore, it will require ventilation shafts and facilities on the surface; whereas in the earlier option, because it is short enough, you do not have to build all those quite ugly exhaust ducts which you see at some of our road junctions.

This option could incur around $2 billion – $2,000 million – more in expenditure and could result in land acquisitions. The Member suggested that the skirting alignment could potentially serve more residents. However, the catchment there is already served by the Circle Line and the upcoming Thomson-East Coast Line.

The CRL is a massive project and the Government will decide on its entire alignment only after making a total assessment, including financial viability, technical feasibility and other relevant considerations. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is only one of the many studies which we need to undertake to help us determine the best alignment for the stretch of the CRL in the vicinity of the CCNR. Later, my colleague in the Ministry of National Development (MND) will provide some details on the EIA and also describe how the Government agencies are working closely with the nature groups on the EIA. It has been a very productive collaboration, although much remains to be done.

As the alignments can have a different impact on the environment, commuters, taxpayers, businesses and home owners, the Government has a responsibility to study both options thoroughly. Besides the EIA, there are upcoming technical site investigation works which will allow us to determine the soil profile and condition. This will feed into the Engineering Feasibility study. Only after all these environmental and technical studies on both possible alignments have been completed and taking into account the potential impact on the nature reserve, the travelling distance and time for commuters, the cost to taxpayers and the potential acquisition of homes and businesses, will we be able to make an informed decision on the project and its exact alignment. There will be many more public consultations so that we can adequately factor in all views. All these studies and consultations may take two more years to complete.

Meanwhile, the EIA Phase 1 report is available online.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. One, could the Minister clarify what is the total cost for the construction of the CRL and what percentage increase that is of the total construction cost if we use the skirting alignment?

Second, if we do use the skirting alignment, could the Minister clarify exactly which buildings or which houses may need to be acquired?

Madam, a short answer to both questions is, I do not know yet. As I have said, this is a massive project and ,usually, it would take easily four to five years for all the important studies to be made. In fact, although the EIA is published now, this is a product of two years of discussions and consultations. In this particular instance, it is because of the interests of nature groups and the sensitivity of the possible impact of any work of this part of the CRL on the nature reserve that the issue now surfaces.

For the next leg of the studies, if we are allowed to proceed with the site investigation, we will be doing much more public consultations and that will allow us, the Land Transport Authority (LTA), to firm up on many of the answers to many of the questions that have yet to be answered, such as, who are affected, how much will it cost and so on. We have some idea because this is not the first time we are building an MRT line. We can have some idea about how much the cost will be, but one can never be sure because what happens underground is invisible; we do not know. And soil conditions, even though we are a tiny little red dot, the geology of east and west, north and south, can be very different. That is why it is so important to do a thorough site investigation.

The bottom line is this. What we are seeking is permission, in this case, from MND, to allow us to proceed with the site investigation for which there is a necessity to do this EIA. The EIA, after two years of study, is now published online. By the gazette requirements, Singaporeans, interest groups, stakeholders, are invited to give their comments. I am quite sure MND will take all those views into consideration and decide whether they would allow the site investigation to proceed. And if they do, we can then enter into Phase 2 of the EIA, which will study what are the tunnelling methods, what will be the impact of those construction works and the subsequent running of the train on the nature reserve and, more importantly, whether there are suitable mitigation measures.

Sorry for the long reply, but there are many questions which remain unanswered. What I urge of Singaporeans is this: keep an open mind. Go with the facts, keep an open mind and look for the evidence.

Madam, over the weekend, I took my granddaughter, three years old, to watch Disney's latest movie "Zootopia", the utopia for the animal kingdom where all animal species, even though they are former predators or preys, can live in harmony, peacefully with one another. It was a good movie because it was not just for the kids; it carries important values and some political messages. It tells the story of a little female bunny whose ambition is to bring about justice and change the world, and she wants to be a police officer. The police world at that time, was largely monopolised by larger animal species and all males. But she was determined to be a police officer. So, she had to fight stereotyping, sexism, racism, bias and prejudice. In the end, she succeeded through wit and effort, and demonstrated what she can achieve.

Likewise, for the EIA, let us keep an open mind. I have read some of the very toxic comments on the EIA. They were made even before the EIA was published. I think there is an English word for that and, that is, bias, prejudice.

I thank the Minister. I just want to find out if maintenance cost will also be considered, besides the capital cost in the study.

Yes, indeed. As I have said, this four- to-  five- year study is a total impact study. The EIA is just an environmental impact study on a short stretch of a line, but our job is to do a total impact study: the impact on the environment, the impact on taxpayers, the impact on the commuters. I should not be biased. I should not be prejudiced. So, I am not opting for one or the other yet. I am keeping a completely open mind. But there have been comments about the second option that, of course, clearly, anybody reading the map would know that it will take a longer route, takes a longer time. And to the commuters, it means extra time. The media have been guessing the figures; they say "an extra four minutes".

I asked LTA, "Is their estimation correct?" And they did a calculation. They said, "No, not quite." The extra time taken to cross the reserve if it takes a longer route is six minutes. Some people commented, "Well, that is just a few minutes." I am not so sure we can brush aside the extra six minutes just like that because, in the mindset of the MRT commuters, an extra half a minute is already terrible. We know it! When the train has a disruption, causing an extra one minute of delay, commuters can, within that one minute, send off, maybe, 100 tweets to flame LTA or SMRT. So, an extra one minute is a lot of time, let alone six minutes! That is why, in the rail industry, they define disruption as anything that causes delay of more than five minutes; and six is more than five.