MAY 19 — The Malaysian Government has established an objective of improving public transport in urban areas around the country as a core to stimulate economic growth and relieve traffic congestion. In order to achieve the stated objectives, the government has allocated funds worth up to RM180 billion to be invested in new public transportation systems.
For example, this commitment can be reflected on the approval of large scale public transportation projects such as the MRT Line 2, LRT 3, HSR (High Speed Rail) KL-Singapore and BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) on the Federal Highway. The shift in focus from building more roads and highways back to improving public transport will no doubt be welcome to the urban population.
However, despite these colossal public transportation investments, have we gone far enough to ensure public transport usage in Kuala Lumpur is a feasible alternative option to car use? I believe that there are several elements that can be addressed to further improve the attractiveness and effectiveness of the Greater Kuala Lumpur Public Transport Master Plan.
Before examining the situation of Kuala Lumpur, it is first important to understand the evolution of car use in a general context from developed countries around the world. Based on research conducted by the Centre of Transport Studies at University College London (UCL), the "Urban Transport Policy Development Cycle" clearly shows 3 distinct stages on the evolution of car use based on historical trends from Western European Cities.
Firstly, "Stage 1 (Vehicle Focus)" is the rapid growth in car ownership post World War 2, where there is a strong pressure to build new roads in cities to accommodate car use without limits. As the negative consequences of car use such as traffic congestion, pollution and accidents become apparent, city planners began restraining road traffic, while the focus switched back to improving public transport. This paradigm shift into "Stage 2 (Personal Movement Focus)" aims to accommodate the needs of travellers by moving people instead of vehicles.
Despite the peaking of car use and gradual shift towards public transport in Western European Cities at Stage 2, there are still several problems that have to be tackled. For instance, poor street environments, unhealthy cities, as well as the lack of accessibility to public transport stations mean that modal alternatives do not meet the travel needs of people. As a result of that, a third paradigm shift into "Stage 3 (Liveability and Quality of Life Focus)" was observed.
In stage 3, the main emphasis switched again from mobility to accessibility, where car use and ownership finally start to decline. Some roads in the city centre are pedestrianised to encourage more street activities, as well as the provision of more efficient and sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling, rails and buses. At the same time, intrusive transport infrastructure such as elevated motorways are either demolished or placed underground to improve the attractiveness and liveability of an area.
At this point of time, Kuala Lumpur still stands at Stage 1 in the Urban Transport Policy Development Cycle described above, trying to make the leap into Stage 2 and beyond. Regardless, Kuala Lumpur has the golden opportunity to avoid the potential problems faced by Western European Cities by making full use of the critical lessons learnt in the Urban Transport Policy Development Cycle.
Looking at the Greater Kuala Lumpur Public Transport Master Plan, some of the proposed LRT stations will be built on elevated sections beside busy motorways. Although the station designs look futuristic while also allowing additional room for potential future line interchanges and expansions, station accessibility in terms of walk access is not properly taken into account.
This inconvenience of walking into and out of stations will be a crucial factor that will potentially discourage urban dwellers from switching to public transport. No matter how well the station is designed, as well as the efficiency and reliability of the public transport, travellers will still be motivated to use cars if it is not convenient for them to access the stations.
One solution to tackle this potential problem is to build more underground tunnels for rail-based public transport while approaching an urban or suburban area. By doing so, it enables railway stations to be channelled directly into dense urban areas instead of retrofitting new systems beside highways. For example, the rationale for the world’s first deep level underground railway line in London (Central Line in the year 1900) was to provide convenience transport into the very heart of Central London while keeping disruptions to a minimum during construction.
Conversely, it is true that having more underground tunnels will not be feasible as opposed to elevated railways due to the significantly higher construction costs required. Looking at London as an example, the Jubilee Line Extension (deep-level underground) costs as much as £218 million (RM1.6 billion) per kilometre while the Docklands Light Railway (surface rail) costs only £43 million per kilometre to construct.
Nevertheless, this financial barrier can potentially be resolved by using a different set of economic appraisal and evaluations for transport projects. One option for the Malaysian Government is to consider evaluating transport proposals based on the highest value for money criteria (highest Benefit Cost Ratio) instead of choosing the cheapest option such as elevated railways (cost-minimisation).
Although deep-level tunnelling methods will be more expensive to build, transport benefits included in the economic appraisal, such as the potential increase in station walk accessibility and catchment area will justify the higher construction costs relative to elevated railways beside highways.
In addition, an additional objective or Key Performance Indicator (KPI) taking into account station accessibility can also be created to cover all legs of a trip, such as an overall door-to-door journey time, instead of station-to-station that does not include walking time. For example, Transport for London (TfL) adopts a KPI which sets to ensure all areas in Central London is accessible to a London Underground station within a five-minute walk.
A successful public transportation system requires a holistic assessment that truly brings convenience and meet the needs of travellers. While it certainly will not be easy to retrofit existing systems and road networks which were initially not designed for public transport, extra dimensions and factors such as walkability, station accessibility and pedestrian street environments must not be neglected.
By including station accessibility as a critical element for future public transportation design, the target of hitting a 40 per cent public transport modal share by 2030 envisioned by SPAD (Land Public Transport Commission) will be achieved more easily. The expansion of the LRT network and additional stations is no doubt a good start, but the inclusion of station accessibility will make the Greater Kuala Lumpur Public Transport Master Plan even more effective and impactful.
*Roger Teohis a postgraduate student studying for an MSc in Transport Engineering at Imperial College London & University College London.
**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the view of Malay Mail Online.
