Enhancing Public Transport…

1. Enhancing Public Transport… 2nd National Summit on Urban Public Transport 15 October 2009 Moaz Yusuf Ahmad for TRANSIT

2. Agenda • Then and now • Where we were last year • What has stayed the same • What has changed • Moving forward • The case for local public transport • Making it happen • Making it work

3. Then … Significant Problems • Poor planning of transport, services & development • Uncoordinated, incomplete planning • Lack of timely investment in public transportation • Overcrowding, network breakdown • (“KTM Krisis”) • Existing networks have significant missing links and are not properly integrated • Many options but services are unreliable • Inaccessible and inconvenient for many

4. Then … Organization and Regulation • Not enough interest / authority / ability / willingness to enforce regulations • Incomplete understanding of what public transport can offer to a community • Focus on “Lower-income group”  low expectations • Operator–driven competition does not help the public transportation industry • Operators may sacrifice quality, service, mobility, safety, rights of workers, etc.

5. Then … Regional / local planning • Local government focus is on catering for private car usage and managing congestion • Development planning does not include public transportation early enough • Planning is inconsistent and not coordinated with other governments within the region • Privatisation model – most improvements / proposals focus onprofitsrather than network and mobility

6. KLCity2020 Draft Plan for Rail • 11 Lines proposed • 7 monorail • 3 LRT • 1 MRT • Cost vs. Benefits • Initial Cost: RM200-250 million per km • RM40-50 billion • Low carrying capacity (11 lines with less than 12,000 ppdph) • Prasarana has other plans

7. What has stayed the same? • Most of the significant things are the same • Planning is still inconsistent • KTM Komuter is still in ‘Krisis’ (but we have come to accept this state of crisis as a “new normal” ) • Still many “acceptable” gaps in network & service • CVLB and DBKL appear powerless to maintain enforcement on bus operators • Operators still using the “wait-waste-fill’ system • Illegal ‘pajak’ system openly practiced

8. What has changed? • Renewed effort to make change happen • RapidPenang Sdn. Bhd. (very well-received) • CVLB moved under the J.P.M. • Improvements  I.T.T., Enforcement, Puduraya • KRA for public transport & Urban PT Panel • However • Government is still looking for ‘feedback’ • Metrobus successfully ‘sued’ the CVLB • Stage Bus fares now cost more than KJ LRT fare

9. Now … Federal Government Improvements • 35 trains for Kelana Jaya LRT • 3 Proposed lines costing RM35 billion (est.) • 17.7 km Kelana Jaya LRT extension from Kelana Jaya to Putra Heights (RM 7 bn.) • 17 km Ampang LRT extension from Seri Petaling to Putra Heights (RM 7 bn.) • Sg. Buloh – KL – Cheras Line (RM 21 bn.) • 5 Electric Trains for KL – Ipoh Service • Puduraya & Integrated Transport Terminals

10. However… • What about Komuter & KL Monorail? • KTM Komuter needs significant fleet expansion • KL Monorail  a move to 4-carriage trains will improve capacity and help demonstrate Malaysia’s SUTRA monorail design to the world! • Lowered expectations – 25% now the target • Inconsistencies remain within & with Prasarana, State and Local draft plans • Is this a failure of the planners or a failure of Prasarana to consult with the planners?

11. Real Investments in Public Transportation • Change of Attitude – We are investing in infrastructure which is an assetfor this nation • Rail infrastructure is the most efficient way to move people and goods • Complete, accessible rapid-transit networks increase people’s mobility • Better planning + mobility = better quality of life • Remove thousands of carsfrom our roads daily • Fewer jams = greater economic productivity & economic growth

12. Moving Forward • Parliamentary Select Committee • Public Land Transport Commission • Introduce and maintain National Standards • Integrated Planning across Malaysia • Local/Regional Public Transport Authorities • Regional and Local Planning • Controls routes, fares, assets • Operators under contract to provide services • Encouraging and using public feedback

13. Enhancing Public Transport …National Level

14. Making it happen … Rapidly • R.A.P.I.D. is … • An acronym • “Rangkaian Pengangkutan Integrasi Deras” • “Rapid Integrated Transport Network” • A service provider (bus and LRT operator) • A network planner • A ‘national brand’ for public transport • The face of our local public transport

15. Making it work • We need national standards, finance & planning • However, public transport operates best when most of the action takes place at the local level • Transport Council engages 4 stakeholder groups • A sharing of assets, costs, risks and responsibilities will be introduced • “R.A.P.I.D.” is positioned as the “brand” of the Transport Council • A public figure (Prime Minister / MB / Minister) is the “face” • All planning, permits through “R.A.P.I.D.” • Existing operators contracted to “R.A.P.I.D.”

16. A new organizational model KPIs in: Accessibility Availability Reliability Safety Comfort Fair allocation between operators and authorities INPUTS Taxpayers Money Infrastructure Technology Resources Labor OPERATORS’SCOPE AUTHORITIES’ SCOPE COST EFFICIENCY COST EFFECTIVENESS CONSUMED OUTPUTS Passenger/mile Passenger/energy unit Infra. KPIs Service KPIs SERVICEEFFICIENCY PRODUCED OUTPUTS Journey covered/labor Operational cost/mile Vehicle seats/mile

17. A New Specialization model The 4 stakeholders can improve efficiency through specialization REGULATION OVERSIGHT TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES • Planning • Oversee Operators LOCAL / STATE GOVT Local Development Plans Transit Oriented Development State OversightFEDERAL GOVTNational Standards & Oversight PENALTIES IF KPIs NOT MET SELECT OPERATORS USING COMPETITIVE OPEN TENDER PROCESS PENALTIES IF KPIs NOT MET PROVIDING FEEDBACK & INFORMATION COMMUTERS / RESIDENTS Participate in LA21 OPERATORSTime limited Contracts:Private local GLC-funded localPrivate foreign PROVIDING FEEDBACK & INFORMATION

18. A new financing model Fair allocation of benefits, risk and cost Direct or Indirect FUNDING LOCAL / STATE GOVT Quit rent rates depend on proximity to transit connections Congestion charges, summonsFEDERAL GOVTTaxes, royalties, duties, levies TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES PENALTIES IF KPIs NOT MET PENALTIES IF KPIs NOT MET PAYOUTS BASED ONDISTANCE TRAVELLED AND DRIVING MANHOURS UNIFORM FEE COLLECTION(integrated ticketing system) COMMUTERS / RESIDENTS OPERATORSContracted to:Private local GLC-funded localPrivate foreign EXTRA FEE FOR VALUE-ADDED SERVICE

19. Thinking past the LRT Dream • People want connectivity and convenience but LRT takes time to build and serves limited areas • Other forms of rapid transit do exist • These may be the cost-effective, quick, comprehensive solutions our cities desperately need

20. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME Moaz Yusuf Ahmad 012-248-3330 Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya Moaz.ahmad@gmail.com On behalf of TRANSIT w. transitmy.org e. klangvalley.transit@gmail.com tw. twitter.com/transitmy