1/3/2011 10-steps to improve public transport …

Penang Watch

Home

10-steps to improve public transport for the whole Malaysia

RE: We must take the right steps to improve public transportation

With the recent decrease in the fuel subsidy, many people have complained that they would be w illing to use public transportation if it were
improved. They are calling loudly and clearly to the government to improve public transportation. I support these calls to improve public
transportation. I support the idea that we must look at other places and see what they have done to improve their public transport system.

However, it must be clearly understood that there is a right way and a wrong way to improve public transportation in Malaysia. So I would like to
present my suggestions, in what I believe to be the correct order of importance.

1) A Parliamentary Committee for Public Transportation must be created to oversee public transportation in Malaysia.

The existing Cabinet Committee does not have the confidence of the people of Malaysia (or, I imagine, Parliament itself). The presence of a
Parliamentary Committee w ill improve confidence in public transportation. Planning and decision making w ill be improved through open planning and
discussion. The Committee w ill help the MPs and the public to understand the proposals from the bus operators and the government, so the best
plans are made.

2) A single National Authority for Public Transporation to create national standards, while Local and Regional Public Transportation Authorities will
plan and implement strategies on the local level.

Public transport planning is invariably a local and/or regional service. It would not be possible for the proposed Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Aw am
Negara (SPAN) to plan and oversee public transportation properly. Thus, each economic region of the country should have its own Local or Regional
Public Transport Authority to ow n the bus routes and transport corridors and plan the future of public transportation.

3) Regulated Competition would be enhanced under the system provided.

The Public Transport Authority would own the buses and provide capital funding, while the operators would be required to compete for routes. This
combination of regulation and competition would improve service levels and provide better, customer-focused services. Operators that could not
meet the expectations of the Local Authority or the passengers would lose the routes to their competitors.

4) Proper funding for maintenance and expansion.

Since it started operating in 1995, the KTM Komuter service has been horribly neglected. The fleet size has decreased by 50% while passenger
demand has actually tripled. Poor planning and oversight has left KTMB unprepared for the expanded passenger demands. An open Parliamentary
Committee would be able to review the plans of the operators and proposals and make the necessary investments to improve public transportation.

5) Only a few operators, please

Competition is hurting public transportation in Malaysia. The only w ay that we can see real improvements is to reduce competition within the
industry and focus on consolidation. The largest bus company, Konsortium Transnasional Berhad, is a good example of this consolidation. It offers
express and intercity and urban bus services through its different branches and brands. Konsortium Bas Ekspres on the other hand, shows you
what happens when there is consolidation w ithout proper regulation. Konsortium Bas Ekspres has become notorious for bus crashes, underpaid
and reckless drivers, and poor maintenance.

The government should encourage existing operators to form properly regulated conglomerates like KTB. Under the proposed system of regulated
competition, the Local Authority can even (with proper justification) invite foreign transport companies like First and Veolia and ComfortDelGro to
compete for bus routes tendered in their areas.

6) Proper information

Malaysians are, ironically, being restricted by companies that are supposed to provide them mobility. Bus operators and even government operators
like RapidKL, KL Monorail, and KTMB are doing everything in their power to keep passengers using their services-even at the expense of passenger
convenience. Bus operators only provide basic route information and only on the bus itself. RapidKL has discouraged the sale of integrated public
transport maps like BastrenKL at LRT stations and bus hubs. In addition, for RapidKL to provide route information at a bus stop or give updates on
the radio, they are forced to pay advertising rates.

With little or no comprehensive information available to public transport users, their ability to use the services and maximize their ringgit is severly
limited. When the local Public Transport Authorities are created they should be expected to provide information through signs on bus stops, the
internet, new s-spots on broadcasting and narrowcasting, free paper guides, downloadable route maps, and sms services. This will help information
reach the customers.

7) More buses and train carriages

Most people would think that this should be further up in the list but I disagree. We cannot build public transportation without realistic demands

www.penangwatch.net/node/2570 1/3
1/3/2011 10-steps to improve public transport …
and proper data. Without these vital pieces of information, our planning is reduced to "If we build it, they will come". There are enough buses in
the Klang Valley (shared among the major and minor bus operators) to meet all of the needs to the DBKL. These buses need to be better organized
so they do not only focus on the profitable routes and do not spend most of their time waiting for passengers.

Only a local public transport authority which owns the routes and controls the buses would be able to implement a successful system. If we rely on
the operators themselves to organize and improve services, nothing will happen.

8) Build better public transport from the bottom up

Bus lanes are not a popular solution among drivers. But we have to realize that bus lanes and bus rapid transit system are a solution that will work
for the Klang Valley and throughout Malaysia. Rather than spending all our funds in the Klang Valley alone, we should be thinking about improving
public transportation throughout the country.

To give you an understanding of this, consider the 120km of rail lines proposed in the KLCity2020 Draft Plan. Most of these lines will cost RM200-300
million per km. It will cost a total of RM 40 billion to build all of these lines, but the capacity will be the same as the existing KL Monorail and Kelana
Jaya LRT. How ever, if the 120km of lines were built as a mix of Bus Rapid Transit and Rapid Tram lines, they could be built for RM40-75 million per km
or approximately 7-10 billion, which w ould spare another RM30 billion for the rest of the country!

9) A complete mass-transit network

Mass-transit networks are vital for urban and suburban areas. Each economic region of Malaysia should have a complete public transport netw ork
and the backbone of this netw ork comes from rail services. Instead of focusing on building "more lines" and "more extensions" the goal should be
completing the netw ork as quickly and effectively as possible. Once effective, rapid networks are in place, we can plan and upgrade capacity on the
various lines.

One day we will need more LRT and KTM Komuter in the Klang Valley, Rapid Trams in Georgetown, and Johor, and KTM Komuter Udara, Selatan and
Timur, and high speed rail networks in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak. But until then, w e have to focus on building realistic demand
for public transportation services.

10) Affordable and reasonable fares

I disagree with any proposal that says that bus fares and public transport fares must be subsidized. Most people w ould assume that the "lower-
income group" comprise the majority of public transport users, and therefore subsidies w ould be necessary. However, this only perpetuates the
image that public transport is for the low er-income group and the poor.

The fact is that low fares have brought us into this situation of low-quality service. Effectively, we get what we pay for. So if we wish to see public
transportation improve, we will have to invest more money into our services and that includes higher fares.

At the same time, higher fares do not have to be a burden. Under the system of regulated competition, the local authority w ould be able to run the
fare system and they would be the best choice to implement the subsidy for operators. The local authority can also provide support to the needy in
the form of free bus passes or discounted bus passes. They can also encourage fare-saving promotions, fare discounts for using Touch N Go, and
even income tax credits for those who purchase monthly and w eekly passes.

This is the time when we may see real improvements to public transportation. Unfortunately, is quite easy to fall under the spell of the
"megaproject" and dream the "LRT dream" and lose sight of the fact that public transport planning has to be realistic. I fear that the government
and MPs, if they do not prepare themselves, will not be able to resist the temptation to support the megaprojects and dream the dreams.

But if we take the right steps to improve public transportation, our lives will change for the better. We w ill have greater freedom to spend our
money on ourselves and our families and our own interests, rather than paying outrageous petrol prices and tolls and spending our life stuck in
traffic jams. We will have better quality of life and more time to enjoy our lives.

Sincerely

Moaz Yusuf Ahmad

transportkini@gmail.com

Login or register to post comments Transport

Comments

Competition is a tricky 10 June 2008 - 3:01pm — saengch

Competition is a tricky issue in public transport. We can't make transport companies perfectly competitive, because there are loss-making routes
(and loss-making time slots) w e ask them to take on. Yet without competition, w e will soon settle into wasteful, inefficient, expensive public
transport (or the mirror-image of expensive service: low quality and low safety)

The solution is to create indirect competition by performance benchmark. Wherever there is meaningful transport demand, create 2-3 indirect
competitors, in close proximity, with small overlap only in their network. For example, perhaps in Penang an island-side bus co and a mainland-side
bus cos. They both report to the same authority, and are obliged by contract to publicly report a list of operating indicators (eg, fuel use per bus, per
km, repair, manpower, etc, per peak hour route, etc). This is how the Hong Kong side and Kowloon-side buses work. If there is great variation in
performance, the regulator can query and force the bad one to improve, or lose the concession, or lose some sort of bonus.

They should be regulated by a contract that allows only a utility-like investment return, say 10% on all capital (equity+debt), or 15% on equity

www.penangwatch.net/node/2570 2/3
1/3/2011 10-steps to improve public transport …
capital. As long as their performance remain satisfactory, w hen compared to 3-5 benchmarks, they can raise their fare to ensure this kind of return.
If they perform more efficiently than the benchmark, they can be allowed a bonus return of say 1% extra.

What w ill happen with this kind of regulation incentives is that:

1. Bus company will have great incentive to increase capacity, buses, routes, coverage, because the more they invest, given the 10% fixed RATE, the
more ABSOLUTE return they are allow ed, provided the performance do not fall below benchmark (which will stop them from making unlimited
investment). This is why HK Electric provides so much electric capacity to HK Island that HK is in perpetual Christmas mood.

2. Bus company will have an objective reference to improve performance. Public opinion can be behind the government for changing concessionaire.

3. Bus companies will find it easy to raise money from banks, funds, financial groups to expand and upgrade,

4. Bus companies will have incentive to upkeep buses for efficiency (invest in replacement parts, and count a % of that toward your return),

5. Cronies who cannot run buses efficiently will have no incentive to be the majority shareholders.

-----

Another problem the author above has overlooked is the the political root of our transport regulation nighmare:

There is a MCA's trade-off with UMNO. It goes something like this:

I MCA take the neutered Ministry of Transport, you UMNO take all the de factor pow er to regulate transport, and issue licenses to your NEP-cronies,
and fake-entrepreneurs.

Malaysia can probably close down the Ministry of Transport tomorrow , and it will not make our transport system any worse for the next 10 year.

Login or register to post comments

www.penangwatch.net/node/2570 3/3