Recent comments and articles in various media are creating an impression that Rapid KL bus services are not meeting the needs of some passengers. There are many example of these concerns - the need for private shuttles from KL to the new court complex in Jalan Duta, complaints about poor service in Cyberjaya, and inconsistent service with the city shuttle buses.
In the 2.5 years since I have arrived in Malaysia, bus services have changed four times. The various designs and operations of the Rapid KL bus routes, along with the existing system of buses into the city, have created interesting challenges for everyone.
Back in 2006, Rapid KL introduced the system of 'hub' and 'spoke' travel for passengers. Unfortunately, all of the 'hubs' were existing bus stand stands and bus stops. These 'hubs' were never built to the standards necessary for the continuous and regular operation of 12m long buses.
With the confusion, lack of information, and poor hub design, is it any wonder that the customers complained about the transfers that they had to make?
The recent (April 21) change to the revised service returned bus service to the more traditional format that is provided by Rapid KL's competitors. In other words, passengers gain more bus service into KL at the expense of suburban bus service. Even Rapid KL is admitting that there is a significant opportunity cost here. More buses and longer routes to KL makes things simpler for travelers to KL. However, things have become generally worse for suburban passengers because there are fewer local bus routes, and fewer buses. Service is less frequent and less reliable.
As it is, many of Rapid KL's 'Utama' buses and other stage buses are stuck in traffic on the way to and from KL, and there are not enough 'Tempatan' buses or minibuses for decent service in the suburban areas.
While it was necessary for Rapid KL to reduce some of the unncessary transfers of the 2006 system, I believe the new system has moved too far backwards.
Actually, Rapid KL should reconsider their revised service. First, they should work with the local government to make significant improvements to the design of the hubs. This would make them easier to use for both buses and passengers. This would make transfers more acceptable to passengers.
Second, Rapid KL should reintroduce the original Utama routes (like T63, T82). These routes were the main 'spokes' of the system introduced in 2006. These routes stuck to the main roads, traveled directly to their destination, and connected with only a few stops.
These routes would operate the same way as in the past, but they would now be called 'Ekspres' routes. Ideally, there would be one 'new' Ekspres route for each of Rapid KL's six areas. The Ekspres service would have a higher fare than the Utama service and be limited to passengers with Monthly Travel Cards, Pas Semua and Pas Ekspres.
The key feature here is that the Ekspres buses would operate alongside the Utama service.
By having the new Ekspres buses running along with the Utama buses, passengers will be able to choose the service that they want. Passengers would be able to see that a direct service with transfers (the 'hub and spoke' system) can be faster and more convenient than the traditional, but slower 'one seat to the city' service.
Third, in order to make bus travel easier, bus lanes would be necessary on the main routes such as Jalan Puchong, Jalan Klang Lama, the Federal Highway, Jalan Kepong, Jalan Ipoh, Jalan Cheras, and others. With more reliable bus service, bus frequencies can be improved and more buses could be diverted to provide local service using more routes.
Reliable service and better-designed bus hubs would also change the way that passengers currently use the Utama buses. It is a simple task to wait at KL Pasar Seni (Pasaramakota) or KL Sentral for your bus to show up. Unfortunately, the bus might be stuck in a traffic jam or in the suburban areas.
If Rapid KL organised the different bus routes at the main city hubs by the roads taken, and let passengers know this, passengers would probably start using the buses differently.
Knowing that all of the buses using the Federal Highway would stop at the same place at KL Sentral and Pasar Seni, I - as a passenger - might decide to take the first bus that comes along and transfer to my regular bus as I get closer to my destination.
For example, if I were waiting at KL Sentral for the U67 bus to Subang Jaya, I could also take any other bus that uses the Federal Highway (such as U63, U65, U80, U81 or U88), and switch buses at the PJ Hilton interchange.
Unfortunately for passengers, the uncontrolled competition of the bus transport companies in KL means that bus services stick to offering competitive services on the major routes. Planning is also inconsistent because different local authorities have different views on public transit. Finally, without enforcement from the CVLB, there is no way to get poor quality bus companies off the roads.
The only way real, effective service will be achieved is when there is a single, local transport authority that acts, plans and regulates public transit services. A Klang Valley Transportation Authority could regulate routes, allowing for complementary service instead of competitive service.
Right now there are more than enough buses (operated by so many different companies) running competitive service on Klang Valley roads. If these companies were organised under the control of a single local authority, there would be enough buses for complementary services throughout the Klang Valley, such as stage bus service direct to KL, as well as Ekspres, Utama , Bandar, Tempatan services. There would even be enough buses for more services, like minibuses and neighbourhood shuttles.
A single authority could also limit the number of companies offering service, and limit competition on routes. This would increase service quality and improve reliability. Enforcement would take place through regular inspections and license renewals. Customer feedback would also be obtained regularly. Companies offering terrible service would lose their license and their assets (the buses and the routes) would be taken over by the regulator to be distributed to other companies.
The cities with the best public transport systems in the world have all learned that having a local, government-linked regulator and allowing a limited number of private transport operators is the most effective way to operate public transport.
