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

SUSTRAN Resource Centre sustran at po.jaring.my
Mon Sep 27 20:56:05 JST 1999


[Lim EH's response on Malaysia-Transport list.   Paul.]

From: "Kathy & Eng Hwa" <katnlim at pd.jaring.my>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:00:35 +0800
Subject: [msia-trans] Re:[sustran] urban rail and transport problems in KL

In view of the 2 responses from Eric Bruun and Alan Howe, I am obliged to 
add a few points to my earlier email, as stated below.

Regards,

Lim Eng Hwa

-----Original Message-----
[another response on sustran-dsicuss to Eng Hwa's questions. Paul.]

From: alanhowes at usaksa.com (Alan P Howes)
To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:35:32 -0400 (EDT), Eric Bruun
<ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, SUSTRAN Resource Centre wrote:
>
>> From: "Kathy & Eng Hwa" <katnlim at pd.jaring.my>

>> 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.

Eric Brunn>  This is an exaggeration. =

Alan Howes>  I agree with you there.

Lim Eng Hwa replies : Could anyone substantiate otherwise, ie PT  and 
rail in Europe are doing fine? Any examples of a succesful privatised 
PT venture?
I quote from an address by Mr Wim Westerhuis, Director General of
IRF Geneva Program Centre during a conference in Finland, June 1999 
that says..
" Road development in Europe has outpaced the other modes. Private 
individuals decided that they preferred to go by car and bought one. 
Companies opted for road transport because goods could be transported 
to their precise destination and .. 

Railways are running well below capacity". He added "European govt taxed
 the road users at fuel costs 3 to 4 times higher than in US
 hoping to cut demand for road transport .... =

A recent BBC report on the privatised rail system
 in UK carried the title - Trains unreliable, late and getting worse"
That is why I suggest a need for a comprehensive  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 
downto "who to pay for what ??". Perhaps a need for government 
intervention and not leave to the free market 

>
>Eric Bruun wrote : Deregulation does not work. It has been a disaster for =
the UK.
>Alan Howes wrote : Dereg failed to provide a PT system which would tempt p=
eople out of their
>cars, and the absence of effective anti-trust legislation in the UK
>resulted in abuse of monopoly power by a few large bus groups.

Lim Eng Hwa replies : There are plans mooted for a Klang Valley 
transport authority that would in principle oversees the whole 
transport planning business for KL and its surrounding area.. 
When that will happen is another question and how effective it 
can be is an even bigger question ??

>Alan Howes wrote: Which brings me back to my usual hobby-horse,
>Curitiba (Brazil)....I would have thought the Curitiba model might
be of interest in KL.

Lim Eng Hwa replies : Would appreciate if anyone suggest where to find
detailed info on the Curitiba model ? Especially when it is without 
subsidy !!

>>Lim wrote: Any comments ,  views , especially the pro-Keynesian advocates=
 ??
>Alan Howes wrote: I used to work in Milton Keynes - will that do?

Lim EH adds: I would not know if that will do :) :) but I do know 
in Milton Keynes, the council has succesfully implemented a system 
of "Redway" - I believe it is a system of pedestrian/cycling routes, 
right Alan ??  Could be useful to see how they do it,
vis a vis the Penang Study !!!
----------------------------------------------------------------=



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list