National Summit on Urban Public Transport 2

advertisement
Enhancing Public
Transport…
2nd National Summit on
Urban Public Transport
15 October 2009
Moaz Yusuf Ahmad for TRANSIT
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
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
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.
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 on profits rather than
network and mobility
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
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
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
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
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?
Real Investments in Public
Transportation






Change of Attitude – We are investing in
infrastructure which is an asset for 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 cars from our roads daily
Fewer jams = greater economic productivity &
economic growth
Moving Forward
Parliamentary Select Committee
Public Land Transport Commission
1.
2.


Local/Regional Public Transport Authorities
3.



4.
Introduce and maintain National Standards
Integrated Planning across Malaysia
Regional and Local Planning
Controls routes, fares, assets
Operators under contract to provide services
Encouraging and using public feedback
Enhancing Public Transport …
National Level
CABINET
MoF (Finance)
MoT (Regulation)
EPU (Planning)
SPAD
Prasarana
KTMB, Intercity, Express bus
R.A.P.I.D.
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
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.”
A new organizational model
Fair allocation between operators and authorities
KPIs in:

Accessibility

Availability

Reliability

Safety

Comfort
CONSUMED OUTPUTS
Passenger/mile
Passenger/energy unit
Infra. KPIs
Service KPIs
INPUTS
Taxpayers Money
Infrastructure Technology
Resources
Labor
SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
PRODUCED OUTPUTS
Journey covered/labor
Operational cost/mile
Vehicle seats/mile
A New Specialization model
The 4 stakeholders can improve efficiency through specialization
LOCAL / STATE GOVT
Local Development Plans
Transit Oriented Development
State Oversight
FEDERAL GOVT
REGULATION
OVERSIGHT
PENALTIES IF KPIs
NOT MET
TRANSPORT
AUTHORITIES
•Planning
•Oversee Operators
National Standards & Oversight
COMMUTERS /
RESIDENTS
Participate in LA21
PROVIDING FEEDBACK &
INFORMATION
OPERATORS
Time limited
Contracts:
Private local
GLC-funded local
Private foreign
A new financing model
Fair allocation of benefits, risk and cost
LOCAL / STATE GOVT
Quit rent rates depend on proximity
to transit connections
Congestion charges, summons
FEDERAL GOVT
Direct or Indirect
FUNDING
PENALTIES IF KPIs
NOT MET
TRANSPORT
AUTHORITIES
Taxes, royalties, duties, levies
COMMUTERS /
RESIDENTS
EXTRA FEE FOR VALUE-ADDED
SERVICE
OPERATORS
Contracted to:
Private local
GLC-funded local
Private foreign
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 costeffective, quick,
comprehensive
solutions our cities
desperately need
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
Moaz Yusuf Ahmad
Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya
[email protected]
On behalf of TRANSIT
w. transitmy.org
e. [email protected]
tw. twitter.com/transitmy
012-248-3330
Download