[sustran] rail in solving KL transport problems

[SUSTRAN Resource Centre]

Dear sustran-discussers

Here are some comments that I sent to a local journalist here in Kuala
Lumpur for a piece she is writing on the role of rail systems in solving
the Klang Valley's transport problems. (Klang Valley is the wider
metropolitan area of Kuala Lumpur with about 3.8 million people.)

I thought it might be of interest to the list.

Paul.

-----------------
Dear Manjeet

Here are some comments on how I see the issue of the role of rail in
improving public transport ... with comments in brackets about how this
relates to the Klang Valley. I am sure this is way too much information but
here it is anyway.  I have put this together from other things I have
written for other purposes.  You can pick and choose what you need for this
article.


BACKGROUND ISSUES
Public transport priority and investment is a centre-piece of any
integrated package of policies aiming towards people-centred, equitable and
sustainable transport.

Every city deserves plentiful, affordable public transport. 
[The Klang Valley generally has affordable but not plentiful public
transport.]

Perhaps the most important benefit of good public transport is that it
reduces the need and desire for private vehicle ownership to some extent
and thus can massively reduce the amount of motorised travel.
[In the Klang Valley I suspect that many people who can hardly afford cars
are probably buying them because they feel that they cannot rely on the
inadequate public transport.]

Space efficiency is one primary reason that most public transport modes are
considered to be very "city friendly". Space is a very precious commodity,
especially in inner city areas. It has been said that one single-occupant
car requires 75 times the amount of urban space as a pedestrian, 20 times
that of a cyclist, and 13-40 times that of rail transit per unit of
personal movement achieved (Professor John Whitelegg, 1993).  Buses fall
somewhere between cyclist and rail in terms of space used.  These figures
include the space required for parking.

There are numerous tried and tested methods of improving public transport.
In most cases, the problem is more one of lack of political will,
inadequate institutions and lack of determination than technical barriers. 


PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY  -  BUS PRIORITY
Even in cities with extensive urban rail systems, buses will always be
important and it is vital that they receive priority on the streets to make
them immune to traffic congestion as much as possible. Bus lanes are just
one of a wide range of methods of giving buses priority. Others include:
exemptions from banned turns; bus gates; bus priority streets; and
selective vehicle detection (SVD) at traffic signals (so that buses get a
green more often or even get a special head-start on the other traffic).

In the absence of on-street priority, buses are prone to a VICIOUS CYCLE -
as congestion increases, buses become slower and less attractive and even
more people desert them for cars and motorcycles, thus making the
congestion even worse.
 
With on-street priority, buses can benefit from a VIRTUOUS CYCLE! As
congestion worsens, buses with good priority become MORE attractive and
their share of passenger traffic can rise. 

Speeding up the buses can be equivalent to expanding the bus fleet (at low
cost!). For example, if bus priority can increase the number of round trips
per bus per day from 6 to 7, this it is equivalent of adding 167 new buses
to a fleet of 1000 buses.

[KL's bus lanes are a good start on providing bus priority. Although there
have been some problems with the lanes, the solution is to improve and
fine-tune them not abolish them. It is very encouraging to see that the
DBKL is experimenting with bus priority. The eventual aim is to "fix" as
many as possible of the locations that cause buses significant delay. Bus
companies and road authorities can work closely together to identify the
locations where buses are suffering the worst delays and to find ways to
solve them.]
 

URBAN RAIL

Urban rail systems are not a panacea for solving urban transport problems
as some people think. 

However, in suitable cities, the high profile and popularity of rail
systems can sometimes help to generate the political will to carry on with
the other, less glamorous parts of such a policy package (such as parking
policy, getting the prices right, traffic calming, restraining cars in busy
central areas, etc).

Urban rail systems are well suited to dense urban corridors in relatively
large cities if they are able to afford their high capital costs. Large,
middle-income cities can often justify rail systems on dense corridors,
especially if they are also restraining private vehicle traffic.

[The Klang Valley has about 3.8 million people or so and is considered to
be upper-middle income. It has an urban density similar to many European
and Japanese cities. But it is not doing much to restrain private vehicle
traffic. In fact, the building of a large number of expressways is directly
encouraging private vehicles. This makes it hard for public transport to
compete. 

It has been argued that KL cannot restrain cars until public transport
improves. BUT so long as cars are not restrained, public transport keeps
declining in popularity. It is a chicken and egg problem. Cities that have
successfully tackled this issue have mostly taken a step-by-step approach -
restraining traffic a little and improving public transport a little -
gradually over the years. For example, Singapore actually began to restrain
private cars in 1972 - a long time before they opened their MRT system in
1986. Hong Kong also started restraining private vehicles in the late 1960s
but only began running its mass rapid transit system in 1979. Seoul had
very strict restraint of priavte cars throughout the 1960s and 1970s but
only opened its first urban rail line in 1974.]  


LIGHT RAIL
Various kinds of light rail systems offer an intermediate-cost rail option,
that can be attractive and easily integrated into the urban fabric,
especially if they are placed on the ground within road rights-of-way.
Unfortunately, most Asian examples so far are very expensive elevated
systems. Governments have been very reluctant to take space from traffic to
put the systems on the ground.

[KL's "light rail" systems are not typical light rail - they are much more
expensive than typical light rail and are actually more like "metro"
systems (at the low end of metro capacities).]


INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Integration is a way to dramatically increase the attractiveness of public
transport without expensive investment.

In an integrated public transport system all key elements are
institutionally required to communicate and to coordinate together (even if
they remain under many different authorities).  

Integration involves: 
Fare integration - one type of ticket and/or farecard can be used for all
modes of public transport, ideally with free transfers;

Information integration - the public transport system is marketed as an
integrated package. Information for passengers is easy to find and is
provided by a single body (eg just one telephone hotline, a single map or
information booklet, etc);

Physical integration - good transfer facilities and waiting areas are
provided for all modes and walking distances for transfers are minimised;

Network integration - a comprehensive system of routes and their schedules
are well-planned to provide easy transfers and high frequencies of service
on popular routes. Better to cope with low demand times or routes with
smaller vehicles than with lower frequency of service. 

[Currently the Klang Valley's public transport is very poorly integrated
although I understand that negotiations are underway to improve the level
of integration slightly.]


URBAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Urban Planning can have a dramatic impact on the viability of different
modes of transport. For example Transit Oriented Design (or Transit
Oriented Development - TOD) is a strategy to plan urban areas in ways that
encourage the use of public transport. 

Policies are needed to make sure that employment-intensive or
travel-intensive businesses get located on sites that are easily accessible
by public transport, walking and cycling and not just by private vehicles. 

[In the Klang Valley there are some good examples of big new developments
that are being build at railway or LRT stations. These will help to
encourage access by public transport.  But there are also many more
examples of major office and shopping developments in locations that are
difficult to get to except by car or motorcycle. These encourage car and
motorcycle use and further hurt the viability of public transport. Perhaps,
future master plans could include guidelines to encourage transit-oriented
development.]


PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER

Dr A. Rahman Paul BARTER
Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN)
P.O. Box 11501,  Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia.
TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590
E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
(old address tkpb at barter.pc.my has been cancelled)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/

The SUSTRAN Network promotes and popularises 
people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport 
with a focus on Asia and the Pacific.