14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Public Policy Colloquium ZIGP 6107

Name : Keng Zi Xiang

Matric. No. : ZGP100011 Lecturer : Dr Dhalia Rosly

Transport Policy Assignment

Part A

List several characteristics of private and public transport, how do they differ and explain their context in urban development and urban policy making.

Transportation is the movement of people and goods from one location to another and hence is a significant component in a country development agenda. Passenger transport is broadly categorized as public and private while the modes of transport typically refer to road, rail, water, air, human-powered (walk, cycle, swim, etc), working animal, cable, pipeline and space. The selection of modes of transport is basically influenced by the spatial characteristics of an area, population density and the socio-economic status. For example, rail based transit, pedestrian pathway, and roads are necessary for an urban area such as Kuala Lumpur but air and water based transport are most suitable for remote rural areas in the inner Sarawak regions; while for typical rural and village areas, road is the common mode of transport. The major elements of transport are infrastructure, vehicle and operation1. Infrastructure refers to any facility that supports the operation of vehicle such as road, terminal, station, port, airport, railway, tunnel, etc.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport (6/3/11)

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Vehicle move on the available transportation network and can be classified as motorized such as car, motorbike, bus, train, airplane or non-motorized like bicycle, animal and human movement.

For passenger transport, public and private transport is an important consideration especially in the urban area which is highly populated and immersed with movement of people for various purposes notably commuting to workplace, business travel, visiting and leisure. The government related policies and urban planning as well as public preference of public or private transport determines the public-private modal split composition in an urban area. A high percentage of private transport in the modal split usually indicates an unsustainable and ineffective transportation system. To strike a balanced and desirable public-private transport modal split, various embedding factors from timely policy decision to accurate time-lag between planning and implementation have to be taken into account. The characteristics of public and private transport and their comparison are presented as the followings.

1.) Characteristic of private transport

Private transport refers to the private ownership of a transportation vehicle which transports an individual or a group of people but not for the public at large. Private transport modes can be road, air, water, human and animal but not rail and cable based. The examples of private transport vehicles are bicycle, motorcycle, lorry, truck, car, private jet and animals such as horse and cow. Private transport can be SOV (Single Occupancy Vehicle) or MOV (Multiple Occupancy Vehicle) but most of the time, SOV is predominant. Private transport is controlled by an individual and hence the movement is not fixed. Motorized vehicles like car and motorcycle are gaining popularity since the 20th century along with the emergence of modernization in many corners of the world.

The advantages of private transport include the extended freedom of movement, the security, society status, higher flexibility, the private space in travelling, zero waiting time and the ability to choose your travel companions. The disadvantages of private transport are traffic congestion which result in further multiple disadvantages (longer waiting time, mental distress,
2

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

fatigue, energy wastage, pollution, economic loss, etc), the need of parking, the need to control vehicle (drive, ride, etc) and the cost of petrol (for motorized vehicle). Motorized private transport is the common transportation method in most developing and developed countries especially countries that produce car such as Malaysia. The increasing of motorized private vehicle users causes the inevitable traffic congestion and consequently results in the propagation of roads and its networks to accommodate the demand. However, the facilitation of roads and the supporting measures such ITS (Intelligent Transport System), parking system, traffic management, etc can hardly solve the congestion problem in most of the cities around the world. In another words, public transportation system is indispensable in urban area with high population.

2.) Characteristics of public transport

Public transport is a shared passenger transportation which is for the use of general public. Public transport modes include rail, road, air, water and cable. The examples of public transport are bus, train, LRT (Light Rail Transit), MRT (Mass Railway Transit), BRT (Bus Railway Transit), airplane, ferry, cable car, tram, etc. Public transport runs on a scheduled timetable and the routes are fixed. A good and effective public transport is well equipped with features such as convenience, safe, comfortable, adequate capacity, high availability/frequency, comprehensive connectivity/interchange, reliable headway and journey time, affordable, accessible (with universal design) and sustainable. Public transport is considered as MOV or HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) with the high passenger capacity.

Some of the obvious advantages of public transport are affordable, safer, less stressful as passengers do not need to drive/ride, no need to find parking, convenient, more environmental friendly, etc; while the apparent disadvantages are lack of private space, lower security level, inflexible, waiting time, etc. However, most of the features of public transport are depended on the planning, management and its level of service. Some of the key words for public transport are seamless, unified, integrated, efficient, user friendly and universal. In most metropolis and cities, mass transit especially the metro system is a pre-requisite.
3

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Recently, transits that are more cost effective, lighter, less energy consumption yet provide comparable service such as BRT and trams are gaining attention especially in the developed countries. Ticketing system is an important component in public transport as an integrated and effective ticketing system contributes in creating a seamless transport. Similarly, the supporting facility to transit such as feeder bus, pedestrian walkway, bicycle, park and ride station play a vital role in determining the seamless factor of public transport. The high connectivity of different transit network, in the other hand, ensures the integrated part of transport. The rest of services such as headway, travel time, facility, safety features, ITS and generally the management factor determine the effectiveness and efficiency of a transit system.

3.) Differences of private and public transport

In general, it is impossible to compare private and public transport in term of its significance as their roles are different in different case, situation, development and may governed by policy and service level. In another words, both private and public transport are required in any area. For instance, an effective and efficient BRT needs private transport modes as the commuters may have to move to the station by walking, cycling, driving a car or riding a motorcycle. It is relatively rare for a bus to cover all the residents houses in an urban area. There are some commuters (captive users) that depend totally on public transport yet they usually have to walk a short distance to the bus stop. Therefore, instead of comparison, to single out the differences of private and public transport is more appropriate. The differences between private and public transport can be categorized as modes, types of vehicle, passenger, cost, infrastructure, route, operation and comfort and safety (Table 1). Some of the transport methods are between the public and private transport and they are known as para-transits. Examples of para-transits are mini buses, taxi (cab), jitney (shared taxi) and dial-a-ride. Jitney is used in Canada and the similar concept but different names are identified at many corners of the world such as Angkot in Indonesia, Tuk Tuk in Thailand, Combi in South Africa, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico, etc; Bush taxi in many West and Central African countries; Shuttle van at New Zealand, DRT (Demand Responsive Transport) in UK, etc.
4

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Table 1: Differences of private and public transport Private transport Public transport

Modes

Road, air, water, human, animal

Road, rail, air, water, cable

Types of vehicle

Car, van, lorry, jet, boat, bicycle, Bus, train, airplane, ferry, MRT, LRT, bull cart, motorcycle, BRT,

Passenger (ridership)

SOV, MOV Motorized vehicle high (fuel)

MOV, HOV Ticket fee lower

Cost

Non-motorized low/free

method

Infrastructure Road, bridge, tunnel, pedestrian Road, rail, cable, station, and pathway Route Not fixed depend on driver Fixed depend on schedule

Operation

Depend on the driver

Under the management of operator

4.) Private and public transport in urban development and policy making

Both private and public transports are the significant consideration for the development of urban area and urban policy making. In the beginning of the urbanization process, public transport can be equally important as private transport as there are many new residents in the city who cant afford a private vehicle. Public transport such as bus, train and tram are popular among the transport users. However, with the economic growth and the city residents income increase, motorized private vehicle owners will increase subsequently. If the country of the city produces its own national private vehicle (car, motorcycle, van, etc), or the price of private
5

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

vehicles is affordable by most citizen; the number of private vehicles on the roads will surge and cause an imbalance private public transport modal split. Besides, the economic growth usually create market demand for private vehicles especially car.

With the growing number of private vehicles, more roads such as expressway, elevated highway, link, interchange, and flyover are introduced to form a comprehensive road network to accommodate the increasing private road users. Subsequently, traffic congestion and the resulting effects will propagate to the entire urban area. At this stage, the local government will rejuvenate the city with public transit such as MRT, LRT, BRT, BET, tram, etc to balance the modal split and hence to reduce the traffic congestion crisis. The government will always find it difficult to reintroduce the public transport to the city as the private transport elements in various contexts are deeply embedded in the existing urban transportation system. For instance, for the case of Kuala Lumpur (KL), a metropolitan and the capital of Malaysia, the private public transport modal split saw an increasing share of private transport until today (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Change of modal split composition in KL: 1980-2009

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% <1980 1985 1990-1997 2009 Public Private

Source: Lecture note (Leap-frog public transport improvement in KL city trough NKRA)

To sustain an effective transportation system planning of an urban area, the spatial and temporal aspects of transport have to be incorporated in the urban planning process. Without these consideration and detailed projection and forecasting, any transport planning may last for a short period of years. Taking an example of KL city, the city sprawled at the point of confluence of Klang River and Gombak River (area around Majlis Jamek) from 1950 to the size of Kuala

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Lumpur City Hall now, which is 5-6 times the original size in 1950s (Figure 2). The city expanded in a radial pattern and there are many satellite townships and surrounded by several municipal/city councils such as Ampang Jaya Municipal Council, Kajang Municipal Council, Selayang Municipal Council, Petaling Jaya City Council, Subang Jaya Municipal Council and Shah Alam City Council (Figure 3). Everyday, million of private vehicles enter KL city during peak hours for working, business purposes and others. This situation causes traffic congestion at various entry points. The existing rail system is not sufficient to accommodate the existing commuters to the point that can reduce the private vehicle to alleviate the traffic problem. In the 1970s, perhaps the traffic congestion could be solved temporarily by adding and extending more roads; however, the city would eventually saturated with roads and private vehicle if public transport system had not been taken place; which was proved as it is happening today. Figure 2: Area under Kuala Lumpur City Hall2

Kuala Lumpur area in the 1960s

http://www.dbkl.gov.my/portalv7/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=101&lang=en

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Figure 3: Satellite townships and municipal councils around KL3

The significant of spatial and temporal aspects in transport planning is testified in the case of KL city. In the early 1970s or 80s, the local government (KL City Hall or DBKL) did not provided a systematic long term structural plan to handle the issue of future forecasted traffic congestion. For example, considerations such as transport infrastructure expansion, planned deconcentration, comprehensive management of land-use, liberalization of land markets are not effectively related with or incorporated into the transport planning and local or state structural plan. In another words, TOD (Transit Oriented Development) concept was not introduced in the urban planning process in the 1970s/80s. If sufficient inter region rails and urban transit systems were established in 1980s to connect the satellite townships, surrounding local councils and Kuala Lumpur CBD (Central Business District), the level of the effects of traffic congestion in 2000s which had caused huge damages in terms of economic and social costs, may be reduced. At the moment, with the Road Oriented Development at Klang Valley, several million of private vehicles are moving around in the region (Figure 4) and cause heavy traffic congestion in many areas. The heavy traffic resulted in the mushrooming of new tolled highway and expressways as well as the conversion of highways to arterial roads. However, the introduction
3

http://klcityplan2020.dbkl.gov.my/eis/?page_id=287

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

of new roads can never solve the traffic problem as the capacity of roads will never sufficient for the number of private vehicles, especially car.

Figure 4: Total vehicles crossing MRR1 & MRR2

Source: Lecture notes

Secondly, there is no national transport policy in Malaysia until today and most of the related policies are developed in an ad-hoc basis. Certain policies promote integrated public transportation system but the introduction of the policies was in the 2000s. For instance, one of the main thrusts of National Urbanization Policy 2006 is Integrated and efficient urban transportation system and one if the goals under the thrust (NUP15) is An integrated, efficient and user-friendly public transportation system shall be developed. The other example is one of the principles of National Physical Plan 2005 is Favour public transport over private vehicle use for inter-urban and intra-city movement and four thrusts related to public transport are outlined under the policy: NPP23: Integrated national transportation network shall be established NPP24: Integrated high-speed rail system shall be established NPP27: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) concept shall be promoted NPP28: Integrated public transportation system shall be established
9

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Lack of systematic temporal consideration and policies coordination is a pertinent issue in urban transport development. Public transportation was once a common city mobility method in the 1960s/70s. However, the introduction of national car namely Proton and Perodua had seen the surge of car users in Malaysia and a National Automotive Policy was introduced in 2006. The contradicting policies of National Automotive Policy and the government intention of promoting public transport is one of the factors that deter the increase in urban public transport ridership. Therefore, complimentary policies are important to enhance the benefits of urban transport, for instance operating policy, transport planning policy and urban planning policy. Operating policy aims to provide integrated ticketing system, route design, interchanges provision, integrated feeder system and other operation related components in public transport. Transport planning policy is important to integrate the transit system into the existing urban projects and regional planning such as local plan. Station locations and car parks are the examples of considerations under this category of policy. Urban planning policy provides the push and pulls factors in public transit such as incentive for TOD, urban re-gentrification project, pedestrian streets, adapting plans to new system by rezoning, etc.

In Malaysia, public transits such as LRT system and KTM (electric train) had taken place at Klang Valley but very often, deemed not seamless, unified and integrated by the public in general. Besides, the static and dynamic capacity is insufficient during peak hour. Until in year 2010, the government had began to take public transport seriously with Improving Public Transportation as one of the six major NKRAs (National Key Result Areas) and introduced SPAD (Land Urban Transport Commission) to coordinate the urban public transport development. The time lag or the temporal dimension aspect in public transport planning had result in escalating cost especially the capex and the difficulty in land acquisition as there is a lack of land reserve for public transport.

Transportation is the fundamental element in the socio-economic development of any region in the country. For instance, Klang River and train station are the major component that stimulated the development of Brickfield as the area that famous for brick production in the early 1900 century. Therefore, transport planning and policies should be integrated with land use planning and the related socio-economic development in that specific area to ensure the healthy
10

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

expansion of transport system as the development goes on. Besides, various ministries have to involve in the planning process of transport system, to facilitate the necessary synergy and flexibility in urban transport system.

Part B

Discuss Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and define its differences from rail-based transit. What are the relevant policy considerations in choosing these as public transportation.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is gaining popularity as an urban mobility system at various cities throughout the world. BRT is highly recognized as a viable public transportation alternative because of its high flexibility and performance, its lower capex (Capital Expenditure) and Opex (Operation Expenditure) compared with other rail based transits system, as well as its ability to be built quickly, incrementally and cost-effectively. BRT also provides sufficient transport capacity to meet demands in many corridors, from normal townships to the largest metropolitan regions. In the United States, the development of BRT projects has been initiated and promoted by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)4. The FTA defines BRT as a rapid mode of transportation that can combine the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses. The more detailed definition of BRT, as developed by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) A-23 project, under the Implementation Guidelines for Bus Rapid Transit is: BRT is a flexible, rubber-tired rapid transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running way, and ITS elements into an integrated system with a strong positive image and

Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2002, ISSN 1077-291X, Center for Urban Transportation Research

11

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

identity. BRT applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings and can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments. In brief, BRT is a permanently integrated system of facilities, services, and amenities that collectively improve the speed, reliability, and identity of bus transit. In many respects, BRT is rubber-tired light rail transit (LRT), but with greater operating flexibility and potentially lower capital and operating costs.

In 2002, at least 17 cities and 40 to 50 communities in the United States were planning to incorporate aspects of BRT into their transportation networks. Many public transport advocates believe BRT system promises to improve travel time, service reliability, adequate capacity, customer affordability and convenience; provides community alternative for door-to-door mobility; and introduce cost-effective, environmentally-friendly technologies. Often compared with LRT (Light Railway Transit), the introduction of BRT systems is usually desired to match the service quality of rail transit while still enjoying the lower cost and flexibility of bus transit. The expression BRT is mainly used in North America. In Europe and Australia, it is often called a busway; while elsewhere, it may be called a quality bus5.

Figure 1: BRT at Curitiba, Brazil

Source: ITDP (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy)

BRT incorporated an integrated system of facilities, services, amenities, operations, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements that are designed to create a viable and
5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

12

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

comprehensive urban public transit. With the features of both rails and bus, BRT is a dual mode vehicle which can be steered as well as guided. Hence, unlike the common rails; BRT vehicles can operate in a wide range of situations by switching modes beyond its rights-of-way (ROW) to mixed traffic, dedicated lanes on surface streets, common busway or even rails. This advantage provides high-quality transit performance over a geographic range and avoid the need to install many stations, construct expensive guide way and reduce the hassles in service interruption. Besides, the risk of accident resulting from BRT is minimal as the transit speeds of BRT systems range from 17 to 30 miles per hour (27 to 48 km/h), which is comparably slow. The differences of BRT and rails based transit are summarized as follow:

Figure 2: Differences of BRT and rails based transit Rails based transit Mode Fixed railway can be tunnel, on ground or elevated Type of vehicle Fleet/rolling stock Articulated bus Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Road on the ground, maybe tunnel

Passenger (capacity)

- High static capacity - High dynamic capacity - HOV

- Lower static capacity - High dynamic capacity especially with short headways - HOV

- Space consuming Station - Limited in number - Many considerations in siting

- Small in size and simple - Less consideration in siting - High number of stations

- High Capex (few hundred Cost (Opex and Capex) million per km for MRT) - Opex or operation and maintenance cost depend on the types of transits (MRT, LRT, trains, etc)

- Lower Capex (10 times lower than MRT) - Opex comparable with LRT

13

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Service reliability (journey time) Frequency of headways Accessibility (convenience)

- Short and accurate journey time - High service reliability High depend on services

Comparable with rail based transit

Comparable with rail based transit and may be higher

- Universal design - Require supporting facility (feeder system)

- Comparable with rail based transit - Higher accessibility to station

Affordability

Affordable by most citizen

Comparable with rail based transit and may be lower

Ticketing and fare collection

- Systematic ticketing system with a smart card that is applicable for most lines and feeder facility

Comparable with rail based transit

Integration (connectivity)

- Usually require effective feeder services and interchanges

- More flexible as the feeder system can be varied from bus, para-transit to bicycle and walking

Flexibility and coverage (route schedule)

- Not as flexible as BRT - Coverage is depended on connectivity

- Flexible with the articulate bus and ability to steer - Higher coverage compared with rail based transit as the ability to enter narrow roads

- Comfort level depend on the Comfort and safety levels of service (LOS) - Risk of commit suicide especially in high speed rail system (e.g. in Japan) ITS application State of the art ITS (Intelligent Transportation System), e.g.: real time information Energy and Depend on the primary energy

- Comfort level depend on the levels of service (LOS) - Level boarding is an extra point for the safety

- Comparable with rail based transit - ITS is one of the most critical component in BRT Energy sources is fuel depend on the

14

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

carbon emission

(electricity) supply (coal, oil, renewable, etc)

fuel such as fossil fuel, biofuel, LBG (liquefied biogas), etc / solar / hydrogen / electricity (depended on source)

System identity and image

- Metro system usually symbolize an advanced metropolitan - The trend had changed to lighter rails transit recently

BRT is gaining momentum as the most respected sustainable public transit recently

Policy considerations in choosing BRT or rails based transit as public transport

The spatial dimension of the application of public transport can be categorized into interregion/cities or intra-city (within an urban area/conurbation). Each category has different objectives. For example, the purpose of inter-region public transit is fundamentally to reduce the travel time by having a high speed rail system with a fixed route and limited stops. As for intracity, the purpose of public transit is predominantly to solve the traffic congestion problem. As the question requires a discussion on the policy consideration of BRT and rails based transit, the category is obviously refers to the intra-city urban public transport.

There are various factors that govern the selection of urban public transit such as bus or railway transit or specifically BRT or MRT/LRT. The prior objective of urban public transit is to reduce the traffic congestion by providing an alternative mode of mobility in urban area. There are several other sub-objectives such as affordable transport for the poor, reduce road accidents, environmental consideration (E.g. carbon emission and air pollutants reduction), balanced integration of urban transport modes and to a further extent, regeneration or gentrification of an area and enhanced city image. Besides, there are other factors such as incentive for economic generation especially in property development, availability of land reserve or ineffective land use management, public demand, social cohesion and others. Five policy considerations in rail based transit and BRT in a city are identified, namely cost effectiveness, population density (capacity), city image, supporting feeder system and public acceptability.

15

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

1.) Cost effectiveness

Cost is the primary consideration in deciding the public transport options especially when the options serve comparable functions and purposes, basically because the operation of public transport system alone cannot support itself. The main sources of public transport revenue especially rails based transit are ticket charges from passengers, advertisement and government subsidies and hence it takes longer time to reach the ROI (Return of Investment). A limited amount of income may come from land development and rental income from stores and vendors, parking fees, and leasing tunnels and rights-of-way. Therefore, public transport usually is provided by one or more private transport operators or known as project delivery partner (PDP) or by a transit authority.

The percentage of revenue from passenger charges over operating costs for public transport is known as the fare-box recovery ratio6 which is usually less than 100%. However, it is not the case for Hong Kong MTR and several metro systems in Japan where Rail + Property approach was introduced, in which MTR in association with local government has become property developers and used profits from new housing, commercial and retail schemes or property taxes to fund part of the public transit construction and operation cost7. However, it doesnt mean the local government handle over the entire development land to the transit agency (i.e. MTR) at no cost as it is required to pay the government the land cost based on a no-rail scenario. In turn, the transit agency expects the government to pay for less than half of metro construction costs. In this way, only 30 per cent of the MTR revenue is from ticket sales while the rest is generated from sale of retail and property space, advertising leasing and others 8. Therefore, it is a win-win situation with transit is able to gain funding by the profit from the land development as added valued besides the ticket fares, etc. While the local government does not need to fully subsidy the public transit, unlike in U.S. and Europe, where government always have to resort to public tax funds to pay the cost of transit project, which is politically difficult and financially troublesome, especially in times of increasing budget deficits.
6 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/12/14/hong-kongs-expanding-metro-a-model-of-developmentfunded-transit/ 8 http://www.mmail.com.my/content/66460-klccstyle-dang-wangi

16

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Therefore, cost-effectiveness analysis has to be carried out from the inception of public transport project to compare the possible options in the beginning until the financing approach adopted when the public transit is decided. In the case of rails based transit such as MRT compared with BRT, the latter is having the edge economically as the cost to construct 1 km of an underground MRT rail could amount to RM1 billion while 1 km of a BRT line would only cost up to RM20 million9. This not taken into account the inflation and hike interest rate, especially of the project period is delayed. Besides, urban infrastructure projects always entail high risk of not meeting preliminary demand and cost estimates, and thus not realizing the projected cost-effectiveness. Therefore, detailed study and analysis of cost-effectiveness, government budget in TOD, the fiscal management and project timing are critical factors in determining the successfulness of a public transit project.

2.) Population density (capacity)

A city population density or number of people per square kilometer is an important factor in considering the options of public transport. Cities with high population density such as Tokyo (5655/km2)10 and Hong Kong (6426/km2)11 usually have a metro system, which can has huge capacity as a public transit. The capacity of a public transit is commonly measured by passengers per hour per direction or PPHPD. MRT is well known to exhibit high capacity with PPHPD ranges from 30,000 to 40,000, while BRT has a lower PPHPD at 20,000 to 30,000.

Taking a case study of the proposed MRT in Klang Valley, Malaysia, the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) consultant of the project revealed that BRT proposals are not a long term solutions which can realistically offer adequate capacity and level of service (LOS) to deliver the expected demand levels and meet the modal shift target of 40:60 (public: private) in year 2020. According to the report, bus solution would require 90-passenger vehicles to run uninterrupted nearly every 10 seconds - to match the MRTs 30,000 PPHPD. Besides, the average speed of the BRT was considerably lower than the MRT, meaning that over longer
9

The Malaysian Insider: Transit says MRT will come up short http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyo_population.htm 11 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2747.htm
10

17

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

corridors, travel time would be significantly longer. BRT buses, with an average passenger load of 90 passengers per car, travelled at a speed between 20 and 30 kilometres per hour (kph) while a four-carriage MRT, with an average passenger load of 250 per car, averaged between 35 and 70kph. Hence, the EIA stated that the BRT, as one of the project options considered as an alternative to the MRT, BRT is appropriate for development of public transport usage in corridors with low public transport share and is only viable to serve as an intermediate mode to facilitate the MRT in Kuala Lumpur12.

However, there are some arguments from the public and NGOs that BRT can provide comparable LOS with its ability and flexibility to maneuver around the city (Figure 3), taking the cases of Curitiba in Brazil and Bogota in Columbia, which shows successful BRT system with 20,000 30,000 PPHPD. Nonetheless, if the population density of these cities (Curitiba 13 4062/km2 and Bogota14 4684.6/km2) is compared with Kuala Lumpur15 (6696/km2), the latter has the level of density as that of Tokyo and Hong Kong. Therefore, forecasting and projection of population density in a city is essential to ensure the sustainability of the public transit chosen. If the population of a city suffers from de-growth phenomena, a BRT can be more feasible in the long run; but for the case of increasing population density, MRT is viable to accommodate the urban public transport demand.

Figure 3: BRT is flexible with high coverage as it can move into narrow street (Frankfurt, Germany)
12 13

The Malaysian Insider: Bus cant replace MRT, say EIA report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba 14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogot%C3%A1 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur

18

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

3.) City image & identity

City image and identity is one of the factors that govern the choice of public transit. The transportation system in an urban area is significant to the image of the development especially with the establishment of roads and rails. In most metropolitans, metro system is more preferred as the high population density and eventually it has become a symbol of metropolitan. In another word, metropolitan with a metro system informally doesnt fulfill the criteria as a metropolitan. For certain cities or townships, aesthetic features especially the natural and cultural heritage are recognized as important components of the town and the local community usually opposes the heavy rail system such as MRT. They would prefer lighter public transport system such as tram and bus. Therefore, the outlook of a city influences the choice of urban transit.

4.) Supporting feeder system

The supporting feeder facility for a public transit system is another critical factor in public transit determination and for locating the stations. As transit stations cannot cover all the area such a way that residents are able to reach the station by walking, feeder system is needed to provide the necessary transports for the area under the allowable vicinity of a transit station. If not, the system will be a failure as the commuters find it difficult to reach the station. Besides, the allocation of sufficient interchanges is important for the convenience. These components are the crucial elements in creating the seamless and integration of a public transport system.

Again, taking the case of the proposed MRT in Klang Valley, certain NGOs and group had launched queries on the inadequate and inefficient feeder system especially bus. There were comments such as EIA consultants had not studied the number of likely commuters who are not within the stations catchment areas that would be streaming into the area to use the MRT, the consultants had failed to detail the capacity of the 13 proposed park-and-ride stations, and the failure to conduct a basic traffic modelling study to estimate the flow of commuters to and from station spots and make a comparison with the present traffic flow16. Another comment on integration: Proposed MRT alignment does not include an interchange with the citys main rail
16

The Malaysian Insider: Group tells DOE to reject MRT key report

19

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

hub despite running alongside it, stops short of the Damansara town centre, and has planned a station located away from the 1Utama mall, bus hub and major car park area17.

Therefore, the authority has to plan and provide adequate feeder facilities and program to enhance the use of these facilities by the public. For instance the provision of pedestrian zones, bus station (Figure 4) and bike lane networks and station (Figure 5) with safety features will improves public space and encourages people to walk or bicycle, and hence increases access for those who have no other mobility options. Sufficient car parks systems such as park and ride and kiss and ride system are important as part of the feeder system. The lack of feeder facility will seriously affect the seamlessness of a public transit system and subsequently affect the ridership. The drop in ridership will consequently result in reduction in the financing of the system.

Figure 4: Bus shelter with automatic doors that align with the bus and allow mass boarding (Curitiba, Brazil)

17

The Malaysian Insider: MRT risks repeating LRT integration screw-ups, say residents

20

14 March 2011

Public Policy Colloquium (ZIGP 6107) Assignment

Figure 5: Bicycle as the feeder facility in Bogota, Brazil

5.) Public acceptability

Public acceptability is a pre-requisite criterion in any project especially which can affect the daily life of the local community. SIA (Social Impact Assessment) is one important tool to analyse and evaluate the public acceptability level to a public transit project as the assessment can provide understanding of the nature and relative vulnerability of the communities that are affected, attitude and perceptions of the affected and the day to day living patterns of the affected. SIA requires substantial public participation and hence able to gauge the public acceptability of a project. SIA is able to avoid the unnecessary undesirable social outcomes such as dissatisfaction, protest, boycott, etc resulting from the ineffective project planning.

21