APRIL 27 — I was pleased to note the recent commentaries in your website discussing issues related to public transport. It is nice to see comments about public transport that go beyond the “project-based solutions” (build this, extend that) that are so often favoured in Malaysia. More importantly, the comments by Associate Professor Sabariah Jemali and Jema Khan raise interesting questions about what kind of public transport we actually want and need to have.

As a public transport advocate, I note that it has been some time since this type of discussion was actually taking place. The prevailing mood today is to get as much government funding for as many projects (including public transport-related ones) as is possible, in the shortest time, without asking too many questions. 

While I applaud the government of Prime Minister Najib for catching up on a decade of underinvestment in public transport — and welcome the added buses and trains, new types of services, LRT extensions, the proposed MRT, new ticketing system, etc. — I have to wonder if, in the rush to start and complete as many of these projects as we can, we are losing sight of the bigger picture — that we have to build public transport based on the needs of Malaysian public transport users.

In other words, we are building more public transport but we do not really know what we are going to do with all of it. And no one is asking the public transport user what kind of system they want, and what kind of system they want to use.

This is precisely why I agree with Prof Sabariah’s statement that the MRT is not a “silver bullet” that will solve our public transport problems. Frankly, neither are any other “project-based solutions”. What we need to do is to find ways to build a public transport system that will meet users’ current and future needs. In order to do that, we need to engage public transport users and consult them constantly on what they need.

The Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) is the organisation responsible for land transport in Malaysia. It is also the one tasked to find out more about what public transport users need. Unfortunately, SPAD is a bit busy with the MRT project, re-licensing all public transport vehicles, and enforcement of rules and regulations. SPAD is also a national-level organisation. This is fine for overall planning and financing, but public transport operates best at the local level. The needs of public transport (the users, the operators, the very system itself) will be different in KL, Penang, Kuching, Kuantan, Simpang Ampat, etc. This is why the most important decisions related to public transport must be made at the local level, with consultation at the local level.

For this reason, I found myself unable to agree with Prof Sabariah’s proposal that we have Prasarana take over the responsibility for the management and organisation of public transport in the Klang Valley, with other bus operators offering service under contracts to Prasarana.

While this is a good idea in theory, the problem is that it does not necessarily improve the actual public transport experience for the user. Sure, there will only be one brand, and one plan and one fare system — so everything will be simplified — but that does not necessarily mean that the public transport user will have any part in the way the system is managed, organised or developed.

It is my greatest fear, as a public transport advocate, that well-meaning actions to “improve” public transport will pull it further and further away from the actual users who use it and depend on it. Prof Sabariah’s proposal would put us on that road.

I would rather see a different road, where all stakeholder groups are recognised as partners in the goal to improve public transport by developing good national and local policies. I call this the “4-stakeholders’ model” — a way to bring the four different stakeholder groups in public transport together to plan and build and organise and manage the system in the interests of all.

In case you are wondering, the four stakeholder groups are:

• The Federal Government, through its public transport-related agencies (which regulate and fund public transport investment and services),

• The local councils (which are responsible for development planning and local services as well as local investment),

• The public (including public transport users and related NGOs, who provide the system with revenue and the necessary demand), and

• The public transport operators (who actually provide the services).

Each of these stakeholder groups bring their responsibilities to the policy-making table. Because they are independent but also interdependent, they would need to cooperate and consider each others’ interests in order to develop the best national and local public transport policies. The government agencies would provide regulation and overall management as well as holistic investment. The local governments would provide planning and local investment. The operators would provide services and give feedback from the operations’ perspective. The public would generate demand and give feedback, and they would be the source of direct revenue (from fares) and indirect revenue (from taxes and investment).

Now, one might look at this organisation and see it as unwieldy and complex. Looking at all the stakeholders involved, it might just be easier to hand everything to Prasarana and say “we’ll give you the money, you fix everything”. And one could even point to other cities with strong organising authorities (London, Vancouver, Hong Kong, Singapore, and others) to show that they only have one brand or use one way to provide service (contracted services and/or government-granted monopoly) or operate from the top-down approach.

But if you look closely at places that have successful public transport systems, you will see that all four stakeholder groups — especially the public transport users — are well-represented in their organisation and management. 

My personal favourite example is London because it has had so many different types of approaches to public transport policy and management and organisation — from competition to nationalisation and everything in between. Today Transport For London is both a private company (with shares traded on the LSE) as well as a government agency. And the Chair of Transport For London is the directly elected Mayor of London (currently Boris Johnson), who is responsible for the development of the master plan (The Mayor’s Transport Strategy). The Chair’s political success as Mayor of London is thus directly tied into the success of his or her public transport policy and the public transport service provided. Not to mention, Boris Johnson’s chances for re-election are tied to the success of London’s transport system in facing the challenges of the 2012 Olympic Games.

Singapore and Hong Kong take a different approach to public transport organisation and management but the view of the public are still important. While most of the planning in Singapore is done by the Land Transport Authority, fares and routes are considered by the Public Transport Council, an organisation that includes public transport users. In Hong Kong there is no public transport council, but there is a very vocal media and assemblymen in the Legislative Council and Executive Council — who are definitely ready to hold the government and public transport operators to account if necessary.

Could the model be applied to Malaysia? Well, if we were to use the four-stakeholders model to create a public transport organising authority in the Klang Valley it might look like this:

Composition of Klang Valley Transport Council

• Chair (1) — Federal Territories Minister

• Vice Chairs (2, observations only) — Selangor Exco member, KL Mayor

• Local Government Representatives (3) — 1 officer from DBKL and 2 officers representing the Urban Transport Departments at MPAJ, MPSJ, MBPJ, MBSA, MPK, MPS & MPKj;

• Representatives from Federal Agencies (3) — 1 representative each from Prasarana, Economic Planning Unit, SPAD;

• Representatives from Operating Agencies (3) — 1 representative each from RapidKL, KTM Komuter, and 1 representing all other stage bus operators.

• Public transport users (3) — 1 representative each from a local university, an NGO focusing on OKU and universal design issues, and an NGO focusing on consumer affairs.

This composition, with only 15 members (12 active ones, with three responsible for overseeing the process) would provide a balance of views and perspectives: private citizens and private companies, public services and government agencies, public transport user to service provider, from service provider to regulator, etc.

Most importantly, public transport for the Klang Valley would be organised and managed at a local level. The presence of the public and public transport user would be regularly felt from the planning and development process all the way to the management and organisation and operation of the actual services. That is the model of inclusiveness that we need.

So what would the Klang Valley Transport Council do? They would look at:

• Revamping bus routes to improve reliability and service frequencies, to improve access;

• Implementing net-cost service contracts with bus operators to guarantee service levels according to what the users need;

• Restructuring fare media and communication and information delivery;

• Using modern technology (GPS system, Open Data) to give the user more access to information;

• Implementing bus lanes and “rapid transit” to make service faster, more comfortable and more reliable;

• Investing in the growth of the public transport industry so that growth is regular and constant, rather than occasional;

• Introducing planning and development that would work with transport planning and developers — to make public transport more effective and more efficient;

• Regulating public transport at a local level, and enforcing those regulations;

• Providing free “City Shuttle bus service” for public transport users inside the MRRI area to help them get around;

• Renovate the soon-to-be-freed-up bus terminals (Putra, Duta, Pasarakyat, Pasaramakota, Pekeliling) to provide parking facilities, terminals and staging areas for stage buses, and access to City Shuttle buses;

• Collecting local revenue and reducing congestion through a congestion charge (which would pay for the free City Shuttle bus service).

That is but a small summary of what the four stakeholders could do if they were brought together in a Klang Valley Transport Council. As you can see, they would be kept busy for many, many years.

I vote for the four-stakeholders model, local public transport, and public participation. But this is just my view — and we need to hear and discuss many more views before we will be able to find the solutions that the Klang Valley (and by extension, Malaysia), will need. We can go through decades of painful reform (as they did in Hong Kong, Singapore, and London) or we could learn from their experiences and create a public transport system that works, in a far shorter time.

Back in 2008, the Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute held the first National Summit on Urban Transportation. I was proud to attend that summit and share my suggestions and ideas and discuss some of the issues and challenges that were being faced. Since then the interest has waned — which is why I believe that we need to go back to the spirit of that first National Summit and get that discussion and debate going once again.

* Moaz Yusuf Ahmad is a member of TRANSIT, The Association for the Improvement of Mass-Transit, which is Malaysia’s public transport forum. You can join in the discussion at transitmy.org

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.