Dynamic Improvements to Public Transportation in Malaysia

ABF Public Transport Forum October 28-29, 2008

Presentation Structure

 Introductions – who we are  Resolving Public Transport Issues in Malaysia  Regulation has to change  Organization has to change  A New Model for Public Transport  Making it happen  Conclusion

So…who are you?

 The Association for the Improvement of Mass-Transit (TRANSIT), Klang Valley  A diverse group of public transport users  A united voice for the passenger  Our Goal  to ensure the voice of the passenger is heard in public transport planning, regulation, and operations  To increase awareness about what public public transport can bring to our communities

Resolving Public Transport Issues in Malaysia

MYTH

:  Public Transport is a mobility service for poor people Hence the following

misunderstandings

:  Investment in private transport is more important the nation than investment in public transport for  Supporting the needs of private transport users is a priority in Malaysia  There are no “choice users” of public transport  We should give the users

(those poor souls)

cheap, basic service that they want/need the  Real improvement to public transport requires scale investments such as

LRT or monorail

large-

Resolving Public Transport Issues in Malaysia

FACT:

 Public transport provides 3 functions for society  Mobility for those not using private transport  Development tool to reduce infrastructure costs  A business operation with potential for profits  Investment in public transport is investment in

critical

communications

infrastructure

 Far less money has been invested properly into public transport than in other infrastructure

Why don’t “choice users” choose to use public transport?

TRIP

 (Mass) transit journey is too tiring

ROUTE

 Transit routes are very complicated

PLATFORM

 Transit points are not accessible

To make people use public transport…

TRIP

MAKE TRIP FAST AND COMFORTABLE

 (Mass) transit journey is too tiring

MAKE GETTING TO PLACES SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT FORWARD

ROUTE

 Transit routes are very complicated

MAKE TRANSFERS CONVENIENT AND HASSLE FREE

PLATFORM

 Transit points are not accessible

The current system cannot work because:

The single most important competitor to public transport is private transport Taxpayers’ money has not been used to fund common infrastructure to

TRIP

support public transport the way it is used to build and maintain roads for cars.

 Collective movement of people

ROUTE

 Servicing common corridor with greater

Operators pitted against each other will take every cost

efficiency

savings they can get away with in absence of any

PLATFORM

reasonable standards, regulations and enforcement

 Facilitated by pooled resources (stations, street signals, dedicated lanes etc)

Mass transit vehicles SHARE travel space with private vehicles Operators maximize whatever they can squeeze from any loophole in public infrastructure (i.e. loitering of parked buses, unruly road hogging and speeding)

Regulation has to change

 Public transport is not coordinated  Various disconnected services operated by various disconnected corporations  Some important questions  Why are government corporations competing with private corporations?

 Will the

S.P.A.N.

be just another agency? (#14)  Does the government have a clear, realistic plan for public transport?

 Are government and operators listening to us?

So?

 To do this we

must appreciate and understand all functions

of public transport when we plan, regulate, and operate these services  Is the service providing universal accessibility ?

 Is the service enhancing development ?

 Is the service planned and implemented to reduce other infrastructure costs ?

 Have we

maximized the benefits

minimized the costs?

 Are we

planning ahead

and or planning too late?

The importance of planning:

TRIP

 Collective movement of people

ROUTE

 Servicing common corridors with greater efficiency

PLATFORM

 Facilitated by pooled resources (stations, street signals, dedicated lanes etc)

Who does what in public transport

TRIP

This highly systemic and strategic task should be entrusted to a centralized authority with a high-level of legislative and enforcement powers

 Collective movement of people

ROUTE

 Servicing common corridor with greater

This operational task is typically taken by private or

efficiency

quasi-government operators.

PLATFORM

 Facilitated by pooled resources (stations, street signals, dedicated lanes etc)

Pooled resources refer to commonly shared infrastructures funded by taxpayers.

Ownership by local and regional level authorities is a must.

The bottom line of public transport…

MAKE TRIP FAST AND COMFORTABLE MAKE GETTING TO PLACES SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT FORWARD MAKE TRANSFERS CONVENIENT AND HASSLE FREE

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS in:

 Accessibility  Availability  Reliability  Safety  Comfort • • • The measurement of performance is the key, because…… If you can’t measure it, you can’t control it… If you can’t control it, you can’t manage it… If you can’t manage it, you can’t improve it.

Change the regulation…

 Public Transport is a “

rakyat

issue”  Public Transport Oversight and Regulation should be handled by a Select Parliamentary Committee  A Centralized Authority (

S.P.A.N.

) to:  Create national standards for public transport  Integrate planning with National Physical Plan  Determine funding needs and provide funds  Invest in critical improvements to infrastructure

Change the regulation…

 Local / Regional Authorities are empowered to carry out the regulation of public transport  Local / Regional Authorities would be integrated with economic growth regions  Focus on local and regional planning as identified in the National Physical Plan  Ownership of crucial public transport infrastructure  Provision of investment capital and funding

A new model for public transport

 Authority  provides & owns all vital infrastructure (incl. routes)  Operators  contracted to the Local or Regional Authority for a 3-5 year period  Contract  through open tender and KPI  Operators are paid a contract fee for services provided with additional incentives for meeting/exceeding KPI  Feedback from passengers becomes vital

A new organizational model

Fair allocation of risks and responsibilities between operators and authorities

KPIs in:

     Accessibility Availability Reliability Safety Comfort

INPUTS Taxpayers Money Infrastructure Technology Resources Labor CONSUMED OUTPUTS Passenger/mile Passenger/energy unit Infra. KPIs Service KPIs SERVICE EFFICIENCY PRODUCED OUTPUTS Journey covered/labor Operational cost/mile Vehicle seats/mile

A new financing model

Non-discriminating distribution of tax revenue and fee income to cover entire population

FUNDING LOCAL / STATE GOVT

Quit rent rates depend on proximity to transit connections Congestion charges, summons

FEDERAL GOVT

Taxes, royalties, duties, levies

PENALTY

IF KPIs NOT MET

TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES CIVIL DUTY COMMUTERS EXTRA FEE

FOR VALUE-ADDED SERVICE

OPERATORS Contracted to:

Private local GLC-funded local Private foreign

The view from TRANSIT

 Indiscriminate LRT expansion not needed  Go back to the RapidKL “hub-and-spoke” model used from 2006-2007  This time, we make it work!

 Authority builds vital infrastructure (hubs, lanes)  Authority directs local councils to identify bus routes  All bus operators under contract to Authority  Packaging of “Areas” will combine lucrative trunk routes with express and suburban routes

TRANSIT’s Klang Valley Network

 Our “Strategic Plan” - Start from the basics  Make the bus service work well  Enhance the bus services by introducing critical infrastructure (lanes, hubs)  Introduce “Quality Bus” or “Rapid Transit” services to improve speed, frequency, reliability  Then, we invest  How many passengers per direction per hour?

 Choose the appropriate technology to meet our needs  maximize benefits at the lowest cost!

 Ex.  Kelana Jaya LRT to Lembah Subang

To move 10,000 pax/d/h we can choose:

LRT Monorail Tram* Bus* Capital Cost/km Pax/d/h (000s) Right-of Way type Flexibility RM250 300 mn 9-25 none Community Urban RM150 200 mn 6-20 Class A Class A none Urban Growth 2 gen 2 gen RM40 150 mn 4-15 Class A/B/C some U/Sub 3 gen RM25 50 mn 3-10 Class A/B/C greater U/S/Rur 2 gen

Moving 10,000 passengers/d/h

So what does that mean?

   The LRT solution is not the only one we should look at – the costs are higher and benefits lower Mass-Transit  only when demand is proven For congested urban areas, monorail

may

more cost-effective solution than LRT be a  Rapid Trams have the greatest combination of costs, capacity, and flexibility  Rapid Transit on main roads (BRT, Trams) and expressways (ERT) is the best way to introduce rapid transit to our communities  Uses the existing (and paid-for) road infrastructure  Construction costs are lower so more km of routes  Can be built faster and fine-tuned more easily

Perhaps you want to see lines on a map?



-ve >

+ve

 I feel it is an attempt at

misdirection

 we see the map, we think the line will be built  We stop asking those serious questions  We wait and wait and wait and promises continue 

but no improvements!



Ex. Subang Jaya LRT



Ex. Penang Monorail

Conclusion

 Understand what makes public transport works best (utilizing all 3 functions)  Public Transport is a “

rakyat

issue”  Involve the

rakyat

& involve them 

S.P.A.N.

plus Local / Regional Authority  Gov’t management + Private operators  Fair allocation: funding, resources & risks  Maximize benefits, minimize costs!

 Keep it simple and make it work!

Thank you for your time

 Moaz Yusuf Ahmad  [email protected]

 012-248-3330  On behalf of TRANSIT  http://transitmy.org

 [email protected]

 klangvalley_transit [email protected]