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

[Stephen Plowden]

As an alternative to "old mobility" thinking, how about this from 
Changing Directions, the report of the (British) Independent Commission 
on Transport published in 1974.

11.6 In particular, a clear understanding is needed of the concept of 
mobility. The real goal is not ease of movement, but access to people 
and facilities. Movement is desirable only to the extent that access 
requires it. People will seek,of course, to improve their power of 
access within the situation in which they find themselves. In present 
conditions they evidently choose to acquire and use more and more 
transport . This fact, sometimes presented as proof of "society's 
choice", is people's response to the options offered them. They do not 
control the options; nor can they, as individuals, affect the collective 
impact of their individual choices. The Commission cannot accept the 
thesis that the sum of people's individual choices necessarily equals 
what they really want.

eric.britton wrote:

> 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
>
>>
>
>
>
> The New Mobility Agenda: A factory for ideas
> Permanently on line at http://NewMobility.org
> To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Free group video/voice-conferencing - http://newmobilitypartners.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> New mobility 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=New+mobility&w1=New+mobility&w2=Ideas&c=2&s=29&.sig=GUyYpOBJRHzQP1ne2QIIKg> 
> 	Ideas 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ideas&w1=New+mobility&w2=Ideas&c=2&s=29&.sig=_kXXczzUOnjWXnPnsqt9BA> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>