[sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation

[eric.britton]

Hmm. Very interesting. But behind all this is a fundamental strategic issue
which we have yet to face and resolve.  

 

Have you not noticed? One of the main hallmarks of "alternative transport
thinking and policy" (that's most of us here by the way) is that it is well
intentioned, often quite wise, but invariably somehow perceived as ad hoc,
personal, and well  "out of the mainstream". 

 

What's the answer to this?

 

Well I think that at the end of the day it is really rather simple. But it
is also eminently strategic. And that is to redefine what is in fact the
mainstream of transport policy and practice. Let's not make this too
abstract. Some specifics please.

 

Today we have one thing called "sustainable transportation". It's a pretty
good current of thinking, policy and practice, but it is still not that well
understood. And in part to break this stasis, we are trying to provide an
"open public and authoritative definition" of it - that reflects the
consensus of the leading edge of the s/t community. You can see the first
steps of this process in the Wikipedia (can you think of a better place to
start? If so let us know), at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation.  Now the fact is
that this definition is still very much in process and I have a considerable
amount of input to factor into the entry, and I hope that my other work (you
know the stuff that pays the rent and the kids' tuition bills) will let up a
bit and allow me to get back to this within the week. But don't let that
slow you down if you have additional ideas, criticism, etc. for me. 

 

And then as opposed to that we are trying to push a positive concept which
really could do the job and in fact refine the leading edge of
transportation policy and practice, which we are calling the New Mobility
Agenda and for which we are seeing the definition in process at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mobility_Agenda.  And there too you are
invited to pitch and help us all move to something that is more
authoritative and able to stand on its own legs as a real alternative to
'old mobility" thinking.

 

Unless we get together to take the high ground and in the process to
redefine the rules and benchmarks, then it is more marginalization, and more
awful projects and policies. (And by the way if anyone thinks it's rude to
say harsh things about monorails, well then please put me down as very very
rude.)

 

Eric Britton

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
On Behalf Of Su-Lin Chee
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:39 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail &
isolation

 

Karl and everyone else,

 

I guess Mr. Barter's comments put a pretty conclusive point to most of 

these discussions. Indeed, a mix of modes according to specific 

conditions sounds wise. Apparently, the powers-that-be are next 

considering building another LRT line through the Western Damansara-

North PJ section of greater KL. For me, anything that is affordable 

and doesn't take twice the time of driving a car is good -- be it BRT, 

bus or rail. 

 

Just yesterday, commuters including myself waited for nearly two hours 

for a feeder bus from the Bangsar LRT station, because one of the two 

buses had broken down. Perhaps the other had as well, to warrant such 

a wait. Why is the bus system in such an, as you say, "antiquated, 

neglected and generally decrepit" condition? 

 

Part of the blame must be put on what I feel is the attitude of routes 

being simple entrepreneurship exercises where buses "fish" for 

passengers. Because of this, you get different operators employing 

most of their resources on cannibalizing each other on established 

money making routes. Of course, this attitude also sits well with bus 

operations being handled by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship 

Development rather than the Ministry of Transport. 

 

So yes, taking political factors into consideration, getting overall 

guidance and regulation done by a pertinent transportation agency 

rather than the CVLB is a great starting point. And apparently, the 

bill establishing it has already been gazetted in Parliament. So I 

hope all of you will watch that space!

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
On Behalf Of Karl Fjellstrom
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:25 AM
To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail &
isolation

 

Su-Lin Che

 

I agree with you that the way the big decisions are made is the main problem

rather than any particular mode as such. I'm not saying that BRT would have

been better in Kuala Lumpur, or even that BRT is needed in KL. I don't know

enough about demand and road and traffic conditions there, though I'm sure

that you or others who are familiar with the city (Paul Barter?) have some

suggestions. 

 

Yes, it is very difficult now in KL to take away road space from cars, but

maybe Seoul provides a relevant example. Seoul has a much more extensive

metro network, but found that traffic conditions were still deteriorating,

car reliance increasing, etc. So they built and are building a network of

medium capacity (ie. one lane) bus lanes combined with other bus system

improvements which has had impressive results. It integrates very well with

the metro, as in Hong Kong. In Seoul's case a visionary mayor deserves much

of the credit, maybe a similar figure is needed in KL?

 

I've always found it striking in KL that such a modern and advanced city can

have such an antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit bus system. Maybe

a first step in KL and other cities in Malaysia is to take bus sector

regulation out of the hands of the CVLB and give it to the cities?

 

Karl

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org

[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf

Of Su-Lin Chee

Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:22 AM

To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport

Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail &

isolation

 

Mr Fjellstrom,

Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! 

Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main 

facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first 

place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the 

political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather 

than "mode problems" as Jain Alok has said.  

 

For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi-

govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital 

constraints of the government, one would think that if the government 

were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just 

steer the whole thing right from the beginning?

 

One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from 

lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated 

planning. 

 

I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much 

cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers 

where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about 

giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough 

to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and 

would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions 

than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far 

away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. 

 

So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than 

existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg 

emissions & cleanliness).

 

 

> Dear Su-Lin Che,

> 

> Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you 

say the

> monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the 

competition...

> 

> PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts 

of more

> than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the 

contractors,

> designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company 

they set

> up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, 

so they

> didn't lose much when it folded. 

> 

> STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was 

better,

> with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of 

operation,

> and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance

> completing the takeover in September 2002.

> 

> Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of 

these

> systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the 

beginning that

> they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an

> incentive to maximize passengers.

> 

> As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a 

harsh

> description and you surely know much better than me about the 

system. But

> considering that:

> - it was 8 years under construction

> - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and

> - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected

> passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier,

> it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to 

mention

> that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the 

main

> transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention.

> 

> The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean 

anything,

> this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during 

the peak)

> and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website

> (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that 

even under

> the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity 

of only

> 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction.

> 

> Karl Fjellstrom

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org

> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org] 

On Behalf

> Of Su-Lin Chee

> Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM

> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org

> Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL 

monorail &

> isolation

> 

> As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation 

information 

> system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts:

> 

> 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree 

> wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor-

> people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to 

> KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic 

> issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and 

status 

> symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling 

around 

> with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention 

the 

> word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle 

> class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to 

do??

> 

> 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit 

> systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe 

> even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived 

> relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some 

> of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is 

how 

> the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. 

> 

> 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers 

to 

> plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating 

city. 

> On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings 

> of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction.

> 

> Best wishes,

> 

> Su-Lin Chee

> 

> project manager

> klang valley public transportation information system

> vector designs

> www.vectordesigns.org

> 54a jalan kemuja

> bangsar utama

> 59000 kuala lumpur

> tel/fax +603.22826363

> mobile +6016.2183363

> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060210/6ae1738e/attachment-0001.html