Bantahan Jajaran

Lebuhraya Damansara-
Shah Alam (DASH)
Sesi Maklumbalas Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Siasatan Tempatan dan
Pendengaran Draf RTPJ 2 (Pengubahan 1) – 27 July 2015
 In Brief
 In 2014, over 1000 objections from residents of Petaling Jaya (Damansara
Perdana, Mutiara Damansara, Sunway Damansara and Kota Damansara) for
amendments to include DASH in RTPJ2.

 Reports to justify DASH ie. the approved EIA and TIA reports were flawed
and unprofessionally done (eg. Non-existent areas were used, erroneous
information, incomplete, insufficient data)

 EIA (approved in 2012) was extended until 2016 after expiry – which is
against procedures if one is to assess that existing environment has
undergone significant changes

 TIA (approved in March 2013) would have expired in March 2015. Any
amendment to TIA has not been made public for feedback and scrutiny.

 Insertion of DASH into RTPJ 2 means Selangor Govt & MBPJ are using
outdated and flawed reports to justify this RM4.18 billion highway project
 No Strategic Environment
Assessment (SEA)
 DASH should be subjected to Strategic Environment
Assessment (SEA) according to the Garis Panduan
Perancangan Projek (from EPU)
 EIA and TIA are both studies commissioned and
paid for by the project proponent – not independent
 SEA would address the drawbacks of the EIA by
assessing more alternatives and mitigation
measures – which a RM4.18 billion project should
consider
 Statutory Plans
 Latest ‘EIA Procedure and Requirements in Malaysia’ explicitly
mentions that proposed projects must not contradict any policies,
development plans of the Government of Malaysia PRIOR to the EIA
study ie. DASH EIA should have considered the National Physical
Plan, State Structure Plan and the RTPJ2 is not contradicted.

 NONE of these plans (gazetted in 2005, 2007 and 2011) had DASH
in it. These statutory plans were not amended BEFORE DASH was
approved by the Fed Govt in December 2014.

 The approval is a mockery of the consultation process with the public

for RTPJ 2 and Selangor Structure Plan 2035

 The fact that the DASH EIA refers to the RTPJ 2 as the Rancangan
Tempatan Petaling Jaya 2020 is evident how flawed the EIA is and
no proper homework and vetting of the documents were done
 EIA and TIA Flaws
 No sufficient data to justify number of users for the proposed highway, nor how would the
construction and operational phase of the highway affect local traffic of existing roads in
the area

 Traffic numbers at intersections does not justify nor denote the actual traffic or vehicles
travelling to various destinations along the route

 Traffic impact from local residential and commercial buildings in the area have not been
considered

 DASH TIA shows a shift of 50,000 vehicles from existing roads to the proposed highway
but no data to support the assumption

 Failure to take into consideration development with planning approval but not yet
implemented – Empire City Damansara

 Failure to survey pedestrian flow at critical locations in Damansara Perdana.

 Failure to identify committed transportation projects eg. MRT

EIA & TIA Flaws

 Conflicting analysis. Option 1, 4

and 6 runs through similar routes
but yields a different social
impact? Similar routes, different
outcomes.

 Despite TIA and EIA stating that

Option 6 is the most preferred
route, reasons to justify the
conclusion is too generic it
applies to other options as well –
proving that the analysis is flawed
and conducted on the whim of the
project proponent rather than on
solid facts and procedures
EIA Flaws – Copy & Paste?
Option 5 Option 6

EIA extract – copy and paste job between Option 5 (the previous
alignment choice) and Option 6
(ref: pg 2-18, 2-21)
• The EIA itself states that a survey needs to be taken from respondents
within 40 metres of the proposed DASH route….yet Section 3 has
been selective…where is Damansara Perdana?
• Is 45 respondents in Section 3 of DASH sufficient? Is 165
respondents of the total alignment sufficient?
Feedback section shows that 60% of the respondents had no knowledge
of the highway, meaning any perception from the respondents on how
the highway would impact them would be inaccurate.
 AD8 refers to Damansara Perdana at Jalan
PJU8/1 – 69.99 particulate matter within a 24
hour period in existing traffic conditions (note: in
2012, now would be worse)

Air Quality Analysis

• DASH EIA simply states that the air quality impact is acceptable. The
analysis was done over a 24 hour period. Yet, the EIA guidelines shows that
the study should be conducted over a 3 month period.
 Excerpt from DASH EIA pg. 4-
150

Health Risks

With a mere 165 respondents

and only 45 respondents from
the highly populated Section
3 (Damansara Segment) –
how can the analysis properly
account for people with heart,
problems, asthma, lung
problems amongst others?
 Inconsistency – earlier stated
existing environment for analysis
is 40 m from alignment

Ritze Perdana 2, Perdana Emerald, Neo

Damansara, Empire Residences, Commercial
low-rise shops, Christian Life Gospel Center
(Church) NOT identified.
If 40m, Perdana Exclusive, Perdana View,
Armanee Terrace should be included
We live here!

Does it make sense for a 6 lane highway to

come through this sole, narrow, access
road for this densely populated township?
Thank you