[sustran] Re: urban rail and transport problems in KL

Eric Bruun ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu
Fri Sep 24 01:35:32 JST 1999



I have a few comments below.  Eric Bruun

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, SUSTRAN Resource Centre wrote:

> Dear sustran-discussers,
> A response to my earlier piece on urban rail and transport problems in KL
> (from the new Malaysian Transport list). I am pushed for time to respond
> right now. Any takers?
> Paul
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> From: "Kathy & Eng Hwa" <katnlim at pd.jaring.my>
> To: <malaysia-transport at egroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:59:54 +0800
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
> Subject: [malaysia-transport] Re: urban rail and transport problems in KL
> 
> Dear Malaysia Transport discussion list members
>   
> Although many, if not most, of the transport professionals are in favour of
> promoting Public Transport (PT) and rail systems to combat the
> ever-increasing onslaught of private vehicles, there is another school of
> thought (as featured in the latest issue of World Highways) that says ....
> " well, cater the need for private transport by building more roads.. it is
> a classic economic case of supply and demand...".
>   
> The sad thing is that in most countries, eg Europe, the public transport
> systems have always been cross-subsidised and are not able to "stand alone"
> as a business venture. Even so, if I am not mistaken, the European
> experience is that PT is fighting a losing battle as ridership for rail and
> PT decline.
>   
  This is an exaggeration. The largest losses were in intercity rail as
more people used their cars for such trips. But even there, high-speed
rail has stopped the decline in the areas it is available. The situation
for urban passenger transport is not so bleak. Eastern Europe has had
problems as public services got slashed, but many cities in Western
Europe have actually had increases in mode split for transit, bicycling,
and walking over the last decade. It really depends upon local and
national policies, there is not universal ridership loss. I suggest
a search on Prof. John Pucher's articles. He talks a lot about the 
importance of policy.

Deregulation does not work. It has been a disaster for the UK.
London area did not deregulate and it did not suffer the ridership
losses the rest of the UK did. A planned network with integrated fares
works much better. But the trick is to get innovative and responsive
planning without having to resort to total deregulation, which throws out
much of the good in order to get rid of the bad (unresponsive public
monopolies).


> So, for it to be succesful in Malaysia and elsewhere for that matter, I
> believe there is also a need for a comprehensive (and brave ?) financial
> and funding framework that has to be set up to ensure a sustainable balance
> between private and public transport mode, since ultimately it boils down
> to "who to pay for what ??". Perhaps a need for government intervention and
> not leave to the free market ?
>   
> Any comments ,  views , especially the pro-Keynesian advocates ??


>   
> Regards, Lim Eng Hwa
> 
> 
> ... my original message snipped ... 
> 



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list