In the case of the extension of the Kelana Jaya LRT line to Subang Jaya, USJ, and Putra Heights I have already expressed my disapproval for the project.
I still do not believe that this proposed extension is a wise decision to make. It will be a costly mistake, potentially tying up funds that could be used to build mass transport lines elsewhere in the Klang Valley or Penang, where they are more desperately needed.
From a public transport planning perspective, there is little justification for the extension of the Kelana Jaya LRT line to Subang Jaya, USJ and Putra Heights. Unlike the Kota Damansara and Cheras areas, the existing usage of public transport in Subang Jaya and USJ and Putra Heights is very 'light', too low to justify the 'heavy' cost of constructing the extension. Currently there are no public transport services beyond the Goodyear Court apartments in USJ14 and bus operators have been cutting service in the area.
In addition, the extension to Subang Jaya and USJ and Putra Heights will put additional pressure on the Kelana Jaya LRT, which is already 40 per cent overcapacity. Even with four carriage trains, there will be little room on the Kelana Jaya LRT line for the small number of added passengers from Subang Jaya, USJ, and Putra Heights, and no room for the expansion of passenger capacity.
The construction will not come cheaply either. The line will probably cost somewhere between RM250-300 million per km, if not more. It will require costly overhead crossings over major highways and roads.
This lack of careful planning and protection of public transport corridors means that engineering and building (and paying for) the proposed LRT will have high financial costs.
The extension of the Kelana Jaya line should be simple and small: an extension to the existing Subang Valley depot (a quick and relatively simple project) to serve the up-and-coming Ara Damansara area along with 2 other stations, namely Subang Airport (a great site for a truly intermodal public transport hub with rail, road, and air transport) and Shah Alam Stadium (which is located near major highways, has excellent “park & ride” facilities and provides lots of space for an intermodal rapid transit hub).
My neighbours in Subang Jaya may not agree with this because they would not have the LRT that they have been dreaming about for decades. For them, I respectfully point out that they already have an MRT right under their noses – the underutilised KTM Komuter service. What needs to be done is to invest in KTM Komuter services.
Building the Port Klang-Serendah bypass would move freight trains out of the way, and allow more frequent KTM Komuter services, including express train service. KTM Komuter stations have room for six or even nine carriage trains, meaning that there is further room to expand.
As for the mass-transit within the community, for the same amount of money being spent on one kilometre of the Kelana Jaya LRT project, Subang Jaya could have 4-5 km of Rapid Tram lines which would serve more areas. Instead of building a single line, 3 lines could be built. Instead of extending the LRT from Kelana Jaya to Putra Heights, we could build 3 lines starting in Putra Heights, serving USJ and Subang Jaya and Sunway, linking to Kelana Jaya and Ara Damansara, Subang 2 and Kampung Subang, Damansara Jaya, Damansara Utama and Kayu Ara.
Change perspective
The point is that, if we change our perspectives on public transport, we can get so much more than just a single LRT line.
Another hurdle is that RapidKL and Prasarana might not agree with the extension to Shah Alam stadium that I have proposed. One reason for this might be that they will not be able to sell their depot in Subang Valley (which is sitting on highly valuable land) and set up a new depot in Putra Heights (where land will be much cheaper). I do not wish to deny RapidKL the opportunity to profit, but the profit should not come at the expense of proper public transport planning that is in the best interests of the rakyat.
I have generally been in support of the proposed Kota Damansara-Cheras line. Because it is a new line, it will provide new LRT service to the untapped catchment areas in the northwest and southeast of Kuala Lumpur. These two areas contain major residential, employment, and commercial services and they have not been yet been served by mass transportation.
I believe that the Kota Damansara-Cheras line is likely to be successful as the demand for public transportation services already exists along the proposed routing. The various bus services between KL and the northwest 'Damansara' suburbs and southeast 'Cheras' suburbs are almost always full of passengers.
In addition, the Kota Damansara-Cheras line will also reduce pressure on existing LRT and KTM services within Kuala Lumpur, especially in the northwest and southeast.
Although the government is talking about 4-carriage trains for the Kelana Jaya LRT, the line will still be overcapacity and have no room for future demand. For this reason I am worried that the Kota Damansara-Cheras line will not be built with the necessary capacity to serve existing and future demand.
Unfortunately, the government has said little about their plans for the new line, including the routing through Kuala Lumpur. I can only hope that the government will not make the same mistakes with the proposed new Kota Damansara-Cheras Line as they have with the Kelana Jaya LRT line.
Therefore, it is necessary that the government study existing passenger demand and make careful projections for the future. Since the line will be serving dense residential and commercial sites as well as the city centre, it must have enough capacity for current demand and leave lots of room for future expansion.
I will not be sure until I actually review the data, but I daresay that perhaps the Kota Damansara-Cheras line should be planned and built as Malaysia's first MRT (mass-rapid transport) line, rather than just an LRT.
As I have said before, the government has built 'light' capacity lines that have very 'heavy' design, engineering, and construction costs. Because of poor planning and execution, the lines have either become unsuccessful (the Ampang LRT is only carrying 70% of its passenger capacity) or too successful (the Kelana Jaya LRT is 40% over its capacity).
If the government continues with this pattern, we may see the Kota Damansara-Cheras line become too successful as well. Of course, a line that is successful for the planners and the government and the operators will be described as crowded, packed, and dangerous and unsafe by the passengers.
Future growth
This is why I believe that the government should build the Kota Damansara-Cheras line for 'heavy' passenger capacity: to justify the 'heavy' costs of design, engineering, and construction and to provide space for passengers now and in the future.
If using shorter, narrower 'LRT' carriages, the Kota Damansara-Cheras line could start at four carriages per train and be expanded to eight or even 12 carriages as demand increases in the future. If using longer, wider 'MRT' carriages, the line should be built for six carriages.
I just hope that the government will soon make public the information about the projected capacity of the Kota Damansara-Cheras line along with the projections for future growth. That way we can be sure that this project will be very successful and return great benefits, relative to the costs, for the rakyat.
And if the government is planning to build a line that is 'light' in passenger capacity but 'heavy' in costs, then the rakyat can question the government about their planning and they can stand up and speak out for a better public transport system.
We do not often get a chance to correct mistakes in infrastructure, and if we do get the chance, it is often costly and time consuming and disruptive. Thus, it is vitally important that things are done correctly the first time.
In the case of the extension of the Ampang LRT line from Seri Petaling, the federal government has most recently mentioned an extension to Puchong and Putra Heights. However, in the past the destination has alternated between 'Bandar Sunway', 'Old Klang Road,' and 'Puchong', depending on who was discussing the proposal.
In the current KLCity2020 Draft Plan, this line is described as going 'to Puchong' in one map and 'to Sunway' in a table on the next page!
How is that for confusing?
At present, I recognise that there is a need for better public transport service to Puchong. Unfortunately, the reason for the Ampang LRT extension is not really to bring public transport service to Puchong.
The true goal is to fill up the excess space in the Ampang line, which is operating 30 per cent below passenger capacity.
Rakyat interest
That is why the end point of the extension keeps on changing – to RapidKL and Prasarana it doesn’t matter where the LRT goes – just that it is extended so they can carry more passengers.
Like the Kelana Jaya LRT extension, the Ampang line extension is more about profits than it is about building public transport services in the interest of the rakyat.
I do agree that there is a need for the extension of the Ampang line from Seri Petaling. However, the preferred extension is to Old Klang Road and Petaling Jaya South. Ideally, this extension would serve the southwest of the Federal Territory and link the LRT and KTM Komuter service.
Add to this another extension of the Ampang line from Sentul Timur to Kepong would provide an extension of the LRT as well as a link between LRT and KTM Komuter in the northwest areas of the Federal territory. These two extensions would then be linked by a North-South line for Petaling Jaya.
This proposed two-phase extension of the Ampang LRT would bring reliable public mass transport service to many communities in KL and PJ and link LRT and KTM Komuter services as well. Once completed, this would create a single LRT loop line serving KL and Petaling Jaya efficiently and comfortably.
As for service to Puchong, it makes more sense to build a line from KL directly to Puchong, following Jalan Klang Lama and Jalan Puchong. This line would provide effective development along Jalan Klang Lama and Jalan Puchong, establishing these areas as a reliable public transport corridor.
A line along Jalan Klang Lama and Jalan Puchong would be a more direct and effective choice for the residents of Puchong than the LRT extension proposed by the government which does not really have their interests at hand. This line could also cost less than the LRT but it would have similar capacity to the LRT. 'Light' passenger capacity at ‘light’ costs sound a lot better than what we have been doing in the past.
The government has expressed that it is ready to invest in public transport – but it must also invest in the rakyat. While expansions to the rail network are very beneficial, the efficiency of these projects must be very high and much higher than the previous examples of LRT.
We need to see projects that are very “heavy” on the benefits and 'light' on the costs, not the other way around.
In this way, we can build a complete and effective and efficient rapid-transit network that meets the needs of the people – connectivity, comfort, and mobility.
Mass trasit taking us nowhere? Pt 1
MOAZ YUSUF AHMAD, a regular user of public transport, is deeply concerned that government plans to encourage the use of public transport will ultimately fail because of poor planning and lack of public support.
