The recent launch of the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit Project’s proposed Sungai Buloh-Kajang MRT line was received by the public with mixed responses. Many of us think that start work order was given too soon without consulting the public feedback, especially those affected by the project. I strongly feel that there is a need to assess the surrounding issues before rolling out the project. These issues affect the people and should be given utmost priority.
Among the surrounding issues are:
1) Dubious Tender Process
There was a serious lack of documentation and specifications before the tender award to Gamuda-MMC. From the website of Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) at http://www.kvmrt.com.my, we can only see limited information about Project Background, Noise Level Table, Station Facilities, and Technical & Safety Features. I personally do not call it a specifications as they do not elaborate in detail the Building and Engineering requirements. There was a joke calling it a build first, plan later approach. It makes you wonder how the tender company can calculate and quote for the total project cost without referring to any specifications.
SPAD is also risking its credibility by not doing their homework of identification of potential location and budgetary planning but instead asking vendors to propose and compete amongst themselves using the “Swiss Challenge” approach. This approach tends to give the upper hand to the spec-in company. Unless the full specification is disclosed, other the vendors are left in a black-box competition with a high chance of losing the bid. This is not a fair deal as the final evaluation is NOT really comparing apple with apple. Choosing Gamuda-MMC’s proposal directly as a spec-in benchmark without open tender is one of the worst example of favoritism from the SPAD commission. It will also reflect very badly on the governance of the project.
2) Environmental issues
A proper EIA assessment needs to be done on the areas affected by the construction of MRT. This will ensure that the development does not have an effect on the environment and eco-system and create hazards like flood and landslides. Furthermore, the affected areas and their surrounding community must be given fair chance to voice out their concerns on the MRT project.
3) Impractical Design
I am also against showing the fictitious station views or artist impression without proper architectural information because it is like a tool to deceive the public into believing that the project is viable. A nicely drawn station may turn out to be of limited use after all. We want to see the actual station design, the capacity, as well as passenger flow needs to be carefully examined to remove any potential inconveniences to the commuters.
Some ERL or LRT stations became the laughing stocks of the people because of its many flaws and impractical design.
A good example is the nice Tasik Selatan ERL station, which has a very narrow entry and exit path and thus cannot cater for a large crowd. Furthermore, to enter or exit the station to either Tasik Selatan or TBS, one has to go up, down, up and down again. Imagine the hassle a traveler with heavy luggage that has to drag the bag up and down the escalator or lift. The lift was also very slow despite only serving Level G and 1.
Another example is the Salak Tinggi ERL station. Despite a fantastic shell like design, the waiting platform has a store room located just in the middle of the waiting and commuting area, thus forcing people to walk near the yellow line in order to pass through to the other end. This exposes the traveler to unnecessary risks.
4) Coverage and Focus
It seems the project aims to cover 3 different niches of needs – general public, tourists, business. However, there seems to be disproportion in these focuses.
a) Tourist Spots
The emphasis on tourist spots however is lacking. If tourism is really on the centrefold, then we would expect the following stations at the country’s top tourist spots:
i) Between the Parlimen, Taman Tasik Perdana, National Monument, Carcosa Seri Negara, National Planetarium, Asian Sculpture Garden and many more.
ii) Between Taman Tasik Titiwangsa, Istana Budaya and National Library.
iii) Batu Caves, FRIM, Templer Park etc*.
iv) Zoo Negara*.
Note*: As it is far away from the main line, we will have to wait and hope that it will be built it in future.
b) Densely populated Areas
The focus on areas with dense population is also not clear. Some stations are questionable in nature as it does not have huge population. It is hoped that the story of underutilized stations like Abdullah Hukum will not be repeated again. Among those are Taman Koperasi and Taman Mesra. These two are definitely not hotpots.
i) Taman Koperasi station is the inner most housing area after Tmn Lingkaran Nur and Taman Rakan. Instead of Taman Koperasi, why not a station between Taman Rakan, Mahkota Cheras or Sg Long? Those areas are more densely populated and it has two IPTS around the vicinity. It would be a strange thing why the densely populated area have no stations and majority of the people have to travel a few kilometres to reach the station.
ii) Taman Mesra station is only useful to two adjacent housing areas - Tmn Delima and Tmn Mesra and hence is economically infeasible. It can be postponed until later when the need arises. Saujana Impian station is also in nearby vicinity. There is still a need to add access road to Kampung Sg Sekamat and Tmn Sri Sekamat to Saujana Impian to facilitate access.
iii) Cochrane (PPR Cochrane) to Pasar Rakyat seems a bit far. By right Pasar Raykat is not a popular hotspot and hence a station there will be of not much help. There is no station to cover major areas where there are many schools near the following:
(A) SJK(C) Chin Woo, SJK(C) Kung Min, SK(L) Jln Pasar 2, SK(L) Jln Pasar 1, SK Jln Pasar and
(B) SMK(P) Bandaraya, SJK(C) Jln Imbi. A station near Jalan Davis is more desirable than the one in Pasar Rakyat.
Public convenience should the top priority but unfortunately it is not emphasized in certain areas.
c) Business Areas
Probably the only thing that we can applaud on the proposed MRT map is on its extensive coverage of business areas in PJ, Damansara up to Sg Buloh. The only area that is far from coverage is Mont Kiara and it would probably be covered by the feeder bus.
5) Operational issues
a) Slower long distance travel
Given the long distance of the coverage of 60km and 35 station, the train stops would incur on average every 1.7km. This will limit the train speed to average 45km/h, plus a wait time of 10-15 seconds per stop. The travelling time end-to-end (Kajang - Sg Buloh) with MRT is around 1 hour 30 minutes. A person driving on Sprint highway (47.8km) will need just 48 minutes. Similarly, a person driving on North-South expressway (46.3km) will need just 47 minutes. Travelling with MRT on long distance does not help to save time at all. People will still prefer to drive as the duration is shorter! Short distance travelers and people going into or out of the city centre will probably benefit more than those travelling longer distance.
b) Connecting Journey
From the diagrams supplied by SPAD (http://media.kvmrt.com/pdm/Alignment_Map.pdf and http://www.kvmrt.com.my/media/pdm/MapKVMRT-B_opt.jpg), the linkages to other modes of transportation relies on two stations - Maluri and Pasar Seni. One can’t help but to ask why is there no MAIN interchange station at KL Sentral to monorail and Putra. Having looked at the monorail line, there seems to be no way to connect from monorail to Putra LRT without exiting the station and walk for some distance.
The connecting stations must be carefully planned so that it is convenient for users to change trains. The disjunction between Putra and STAR LRT interchange at Masjid Jamek has longed been ridiculed by locals and foreigners and we cannot afford another joke like this.
c) Poor maintenance
The existing LRT stations and surrounding areas are badly maintained. The Central Market station, in particular looks good on the front, but at the backyard leading to Menara Dayabumi, you can see moulds, sands, patches of water and vandalized wall. I don’t suppose the SPAD people has ever visited the LRT station from Dayabumi. It is really a shame if a foreign visitor came and saw it. I sincerely hoped that the current LRT and the future <RT infrastructure will be properly maintained.
Frequent power failure of the Putra LRT system is also another major concern as it causes service disruption that affects the people, especially the working class.
Missing/ confusing signage is also another problem area to look into. Some station does not even have a station name written on the pillars so that commuters can easily recognize the current station. The voice prompt is sometimes too weak and can be overridden by the loud squeaking sound of the rail track.
As a conclusion, if we were to build world class transit system, we will have to go back to the basics first. Jumping steps and taking the easy way out will not help us to go far. Planning and debates should be held before the specs are discussed. We do not have to travel far to learn how to plan a good and effective transit system. Have a look at our neighbours, Bangkok and Singapore. These are good examples of well planned mass transit system. More information can be found at http://www.urbanrail.net/as/asia.htm
Written by Steve Teoh
