How do we justify demolishing someone’s home so that a highway can be built? In the process of building new roads, normal routes taken by school buses or school children will be cut off. People may need to make a longer trip to reach home.
The justification lies in the Utilitarian concept articulated by thinkers of long ago. It means that “an action is justified if it results in the greatest amount of benefit or reduction of pain”. In Hollywood terms, ‘the good of the many, outweighs the good of the one’. (“Star Trek”).
So if a highway needs to be expanded to 3 lanes, some houses must be demolished. The highway gives benefit to 3000 vehicles at peak hour, serving a population of maybe a million people, for the next 20 years. It is a good thing for many people for many years.
But it is bad for say 11 houses. In return, the people in houses demolished must be compensated. The Land Acquisition Act makes it mandatory that the land owner must allow his house to be acquired, but he has the right to ask for the right amount of compensation in Court. In Malaysia, compensation is based on market rates after road improvements, ie future value of land as determined in Court. In Singapore compensation is based on historical land values, or any value set by PAP government.
So, in balancing the two, the action is justified as the majority benefits, and the minority suffers but is compensated to reduce the pain.
In some cases, the land may not be acquired but access may be hindered. The Law says affected land owners must have the right of access. So an alternative access must be provided.
In other cases, the road safety of the land owner is now comprised as the access becomes dangerous. In that case the road safety must be improved by providing an alternative access or mitigating measures.
It is however not right to forego the road upgrading project just because the minority’s rights are compromised. Ie, we should not allow the good of the few to overrule the good of the many.
In another angle, it is also not right to expect the minority to accept a lower standard of road safety; ie, it doesn’t mean that the minority should live with dangerous traffic conditions.
Sometimes the minority will need to make a longer route as some turning movements have to be now disallowed. This gives rise to numerous complains but is routinely carried out in the name of progress. In Penang the justification we used was that it is more economical for the car to travel further as compared to being delayed in a traffic light waiting to turn right.
Political issues also come into play. Is it right for 5 cars illegally parked to pick up their children from school while 2000 cars wait in the resulting traffic jam? Of course not. How about stall holders selling fruits on one lane and customers occupying another lane so that the rest of the vehicles are reduced to a crawl? The politicians must gather enough leadership and courage to move these problem makers out in an orderly manner.
Case No 1 – Kuala Krai to Kota Baru
In this project, a new 4 lane road was proposed to upgrade a kampong road. On a particular stretch, the road passes 60 houses 4 schools, mosques. As the houses were sparse, most houses were intact. But the road is now wider, nearer to the houses and carry more and faster traffic. Direct accesses into the highway will be fatally dangerous for the bicycle, motorcycles and pedestrians. One mitigation would be to build service roads to stop direct access into the highway. But by doing that, the houses will now have to be demolished! So the service road will have no one to serve!
Eventually we decided to move the whole highway to an alternative new route parallel to the old road, but traversing through orchards and agricultural land. That alternative gave the most benefit and the least pain, to all concerned. The advantage we had was that the alternative route was available.
It was the Engineer’s job to recognise the issues, seek out the alternatives and sell the idea.
Case No 2 – Jalan Kelang Lama/ Old Klang Road (OKR)
OKR was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes plus 2 auxillary lanes. It was necessary as the old market gave rise to many illegal parking, stopping and picking up activities. Having lived in that area, my family and I suffered from the constant traffic jams along the area.
Chinese village areas are very politically sensitive. We waited in anticipation to see the reaction of the locals to the acquisition of the frontage of the shops, stalls, parking etc.
When the works progressed in 2003, acquisition done was at very high rates. Land owners were paid millions! After half of their land was acquired, some land owners used the money to pull down the wooden buildings to build double storey modern shops. Other owners asked why we didn’t acquire their land. In hindsight, the project team could have acquired more land and built a better road!
Summary
To conclude, some initial pain will be suffered in the process of road development. The majority always rules, but the minority also needs due consideration. The engineer must balance the two sides, drawing from past experiences of other engineers. The objective is to provide the best AVAILABLE alternative that gives the most benefit to society, given the constraints of space, time, budget.
