Authorities Bus Rapid Transit Comments on Government Comments on Planning Commuter Train (EMU) Complaints & Feedback Economic Planning Unit Express Bus (Intra-Urban) Feedback Mass Transit (LRT/MRT/METRO) Mass Transit Proposals Money Better Spent Elsewhere Monorail On TRANSIT Pedestrian Socioeconomic Equity SPAD / LTC Stage Bus Stakeholders' Participation TRANSIT - Commentary Transit Audit and Review Transit Demand Transit Facilities TRANSIT For All Transit Infrastructure Transit Support Systems Transit-Oriented Development

MRT Update: Our feedback on MRT Open Day is here! (Update #1)

Updated with articles on the Open Day!

TRANSIT is compiling materials related with yesterday’s SPAD Open Day on Sungai Buloh – Kajang MRT line at MidValley. As you can imagine, this will take some time so please check back to this post and the post on the MRT public display regularly.

Announcement for MRT Open Day, 13 February 2011 at MidValley Convention Centre

More information & comments on the Open Day after the jump!

Click here for a larger version of the image above.

Our overall take is that we are happy the government offers chances from feedback from the general public, but we are not exactly happy to see many attempts and whitewashing (and greenwashing) through “fact-sheets” that are unhelpful in making the public to make a truly informed decision before endorsing or rejecting the project (which we know will ‘railroad’ ahead anyway).

Now, to be clear, the Railways Act 1991 (the Amendment in 2009 only related to replacing Department of Railways with SPAD) does not require the railway builder to provide anything except for a ‘railways scheme’, a list of landowners who will be affected, and some technical details.

This is an unfortunate weakness in our law that treats all railways the same – whether they are being built in the rural wilderness or the urban concrete jungle and it certainly needs to be changed.

Now, we at TRANSIT feel that the public needs to know what is planned between now till 2016, what study has been undertaken to tweak our current mobility infrastructure to move more people instead of cars such as our proposal on Expressway Rapid Transit that can be applied for present BET services especially in Sungai Buloh and Kota Damansara, and what happened to promises of five levers to improve public transport by 2012, especially on BRT/bus lane to Kajang as earlier revealed by PEMANDU in GTP’s NKRA for urban public transport.

Entrance to the MRT Open Day at MidValley's MIVEC.

The photos of the displays can be found here.

Articles on the Open Day are listed below:


Here are our core points on the ‘fact-sheets’ presented by SPAD yesterday:

1. Absence of plan to integrate land use and transportation planning

We have yet to figure out how to live and yet be able to move around (and vice versa)

Mass transit is no different from roads; they shape the way we work, live and play – and thus dictate on how we move around to meet those daily goals. We choose to let the way we work, live and play be shaped by roads more than by mass transit (of which we had none, before the inception of KTM Komuter in the mid-90s), and pay a heavy price for it: rampant urban sprawl that reinforce the necessity to move around by cars (and motorbikes).

We did nothing to reinforce the usage of our KL-bound roadways for the movement of people instead of cars, we totally ignore on investments in strengthening catchment potentials of existing KTM lines (and freight bypass), and we continue to erect high density buildings surrounded by car-oriented urban spaces. The results are:

  1. Congestion in and out of KL builds up as population increases along arterial motorways;
  2. New “low-density” terrace house developments with cul-de-sac road designs (biggest enemy to transit-friendly suburban layout) along those motorways;
  3. Concentration of growth in KL city center being shifted as new commercial and activity centers are pushed and scattered over cheaper lands on the outskirts;
  4. More highways were built to punch in housing estates landlocked by the already convoluted motorways so that people who can afford tolls get to the bottleneck points faster;
  5. Communities get physically divided with high speed infra that isolates low density spaces further apart (like LDP does to the populations around Kelana Jaya);
  6. Leftover fragmented land surfaces are filled with new high density flats, condos and even commercial centers;
  7. Finally we do not only have congestion in and out of KL, but at all multi-directional points across the Klang Valley;

That one BIG problem is not merely congestion. That one BIG problem is we never have a big picture on harmonizing the way we live and the way we move around. Congestion is the symptom of that bigger problem, public transport is a tool to solve the congestion problem, and MRT is one of various plethora of means that can be used to solve congestion.

But SPAD is presenting the congestion issue like this: We will grow 6 million t0 10 million in less than 10 years, cars are causing congestion, we want to get rid half of our cars on the road, other supercool cities with less congestion problems must have supercool trains (that our neighbor coincidentally coined as MRT), therefore, MRT is the answer!

Remember, the end does not justify the mean. The government should not apply short-term thinking (or Machiavellian politics) for something as long term and as far-reaching as transport.

2. Comparing rail km per capita with multi-context cities

This is like confusing dragonfruits with durians

Our rail length per capita is 19km/million population which is behind 40km average of Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York, London, and Singapore. With the completion of Prasarana’s LRT extension and MRT projects, the figure will boost up to 32. We wonder why ERL is being left out; the excellent, efficient infrastructure can serve areas south of Puchong and relieve KTM Komuter of the pressure of serving residents around Balakong/Seri Kembangan.

Try to reposition the encyclopedic statement into a more digestible bread and butter viewpoint – people catchment per stations (instead of ambiguous people for every km, as if everyone lives 400 meter next to the rail lines, and as if those same people can stop and board the train at any point along the rail lines). We will see that the financially sustaining urban rail projects in Hong Kong and Tokyo are due to concentrations of populations residing surrounding the rail stations. Urban planners call this palm-and-shape urban land use development, where populations live nearest to the transit nodes.

Greater KL went from a Compact City 100, even 50 years ago to a Dispersed City, when Greater Tokyo transformed straight to Corridor City. (photo from Australian CSIRO's study on Re-Shaping Cities for a Sustainable Future).

For our transit use share to jump up from 17% now to 50% in 2020, which Idris Jala himself mentioned as a reason for why we need MRT, we need to ask millions of bungalow, terrace and townhouse residents in Klang Valley to move from where they live now to ultra high rise places packed within 400m walking distance from the projected stations! The 6th Malaysia Plan says 50% transit modal share can be achieved by 2000 with completion of LRT. That did not happened – there was no sustainable effort to integrate land use and transportation planning – such as practiced in ‘Corridor Cities’ of Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong, and London and New York at a lesser degree.

Mixed high rise development allows population surrounding a particular MRT station to be higher than 7,000 people per hectare (ours not even passing 1,000 for many rail stations). Our density is way lower – why not experiment with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) for areas surrounding stations of rapid bus lines that performs the same level of service one would expect from more capital-expensive LRT or MRT?

More than half of new property developments in the Greater KL are not even classified as ‘high density’. They are too spread out, at an even faster rate than potential high density TOD that supposedly take place for low density brownfield areas around our existing LRT stations (and we hear nothing so far on how SPAD’s SPV that supposed to finance the behemoth MRT project will not repeat the same PUTRA and STAR SPV failures)!

Nonetheless, the purchasing power for urbanites in those cities are much higher than the average Malaysians. Can we afford RM9 for one unsubsudized mass transit ride? From the federal perspective, all taxpayers from every state have every reason to object to this mammoth undertaking – past LRT and Monorail bailouts cost taxpayers billions. Including land acquisition, the MRT will cost 4-5x greater – and that’s only for a single line. With tens of billions splurged for one line, can we be assured that the spare change can still afford to connect people not only bound for KL city center, but for mobility needs along other inter-suburban arterials, and also for other urban dwellers outside KL?

RM5 billion is enough to build 10 BRT lines that hit all key regional centers in Greater KL, and make future growths to be molded by these lines. (Graphics by Mission Group)

SPAD should change the factsheet title into this: Comparison of Mass Rapid Transport with Developing (or Poorer) Countries. The fact is Columbia’s Bogota and Brazil’s Curutiba are way ahead of us – they used to be ‘Compact Cities’ before ended up being dispersed, sprawled and disorganized like KL, but with BRT and TOD surrounding BRT corridors, they managed to realign their urban mobility and land use pattern towards ‘Corridor Cities’ on par with Tokyo and Hong Kong (and better than New York and London). Why SPAD fails to mention this?

3. MRT is the answer to all problems, period.

Here are the “facts” presented on BRT during the open day:

  • 8-car MRT (but on other display, only 4-carriages will be used!) can move 60,000 pax, whereas bi-articulated BRT can only move 16,200 pax (all numbers in pax per direction per hour)
  • Capacity for MRT is touted as “Adequate capacity for long-term growth planning”, and “Target demand is at top end of capacity” for BRT.
  • On feasibility, the MRT is made to sound as the most easiest to be implemented by saying “Tunnelling required in city centre”, whereas  for BRT, a 10-lane highway is required, plus can’t work in downtown area!
  • Easy conclusion by SPAD is, “BRT is not appropriate for direct access to city centre” and “MRT is the most suitable modal option for ridership, achieving modal shift and in view of constraints in city center”.

Channeling and easy transfers allow BRT to operate under different capacity levels. Passengers on a Federal Highway BRT can transfer from Pasar Seni to LRT or to inner KL trams for example. Above photo from

As the audience went to further sets of displays, SPAD finally tried to say, well MRT is not everything and we will work on supporting systems, by displaying a display on “MRT is not the only public transport initiative”. On the display, a simple line saying “(SPAD is) studying on bus lanes and BRT”.

How can SPAD say confidently that ‘only MRT can work because BRT can’t work in Greater KL’, and then say, ‘oh, we have yet to start researching on its applicability for Greater KL’? Not to mention that there are issues about how people living in the suburban areas (especially the ones not served by MRT) will get to the MRT – which may have not been studied.

It is getting more and more clear that the MRT is a rush job, with an unrealistic July deadline, and SPAD and the public may suffer in the end.

Frankly, there are reasons why planning and building a rail network takes decades!

4. MRT for connecting new greenfields, but what about the brownfields

The identified new developments are Rubber Research Institute land in Sungai Buloh, Warisan Merdeka, Cochrane and KL International Financial District.

Warisan Merdeka’s identified location is a walking distance from Plaza Rakyat and Maharajalela rail stations just like KLCC is from KLCC station; since that area is still lower in density, let’s create a new series of pedestrian malls (covered, if DBKL likes) from the nearby stations, so people can enjoy the sight of the 100-storey tower as they walk towards it (and there will be lots of places for souvenirs and photos).

The MRT then can capture more ridership from the working populations along Jalan Raja Chulan, and hit Jalan Tun Perak & Masjid Jamek (where grid road layout pattern still prevails, connecting Chinatown to the south and Chow Kit on the north) with very huge high density urban renewal potential, before punching through Jalan Parlimen towards Pusat Bandar Damansara.

The strengthening of KL as the downtown core where activity centers gravitate, and of key regional centers as the suburban cores are both crucial for Greater KL to be a ‘Corridor City’.

We see that Sungai Buloh station is locked between PLUS’ trumpet interchange, low density enclaves and industrial buildings. How TOD can take place? Are there going to be access to rapid buses or trams on dedicated lanes that MRT users can hop on to reach the respective urban cores? How the routes will be designed? Will the MRT feeder design, such as the one proposed for Cheras and TTDI, be used, when typically loop bus service will not attract transit users due to long overall door-to-door journey time?

This is to reflect what is put in GTP under urban public transport – suburbanites are connected to urban activity centers through local transit services, and these activity centers are connected to KL’s CBD thru rapid transit forms (mass rapid transit modes are not confined to MRT [aptly described as mass rail transit] alone but also Komuter, BET/ERT, LRT, BRT).

Golf clubs are clear example of unproductive use of land, especially where there are scarce residential and commercial lands. Will the vast golf areas of Tropicana and KGPA be opened up for high density development? How the long term structural plans for low density housing area near the proposed stations will be affected?

5. MRT whitewashing through eye-popping numbers and figures

The project was said to produce RM21 billion annual Gross National Income due to construction over the next 10 years. Lessons from LRTs and Monorail say – how about Gross National Debt for a change?

Imagine if SPAD opted for 10 lines of BRT – there will be enough opportunities for everyone – operators, vendors, traffic signaling specialists, tire makers, engine maintenance specialists… we are not locked in to any particular proprietary technology that can burden us in the future in anticipation of further maintenance, network tweaking, capacity upgrade, service overhaul or technological revamp. There will be greater transparency and competition, and less under-the-table direct deals and concessions.

The project promises RM300 million gross development value – only properties that are within the 400m walking distance from the stations. Billions of real estate value can be lost due to congestion in areas further away from the stations, and tens of billions more for areas not served by any forms of rapid transit! On structure plans properties may look like they are within five minutes walk from any rail stations, but due to highways, ramps, private land plots, and other urban barriers, one has to travel by car to reach the stations.

TRANSIT’s comments will continue but right now, we need your feedback. Please comment in the space below and do not forget to send your comments to SPAD using their comment form, or through email or phone 1800 82 6868

14 replies on “MRT Update: Our feedback on MRT Open Day is here! (Update #1)”

It is definitely clear that the Government wants to bulldoze ahead with the MRT.

Frankly speaking, and without wanting to go into the details, I foresee a horrendous disaster in the making. We’re talking about a country that’s having a hard time rationalizing the subsidy scheme, a large white elephant in the room called budget deficit and GDP to debt ratio.

I do not know how they did the math, but solving the traffic issue in KL can be simple. Problem is, I do not thing any of these ministers of Pemandu peeps have every taken the bus, driven or taken the LRT during the height of rush hour.
On Tun Perak, buses jam the roads, cars clog every single square inch of ashphalt and motorbikes shamelessly crowd the sidewalks. No, the MRT will not solve these issues…

How sad.

Thanks for all your efforts TRANSIT.


Hi Salem

The correct term is “railroad” (which comes from American history when railroads were pushed through or “railroaded” over homestead land & public objections – as well as natural obstacles like ravines, mountains, etc.).

Regards, Moaz for TRANSIT

actually, I have one feedback. How is SPAD going to prevent private vehicles from waiting at the roadside of all MRT stations in the future, especially during rush hour? it is happening at Pandan Jaya, Bukit Jalil, Kelana Jaya LRT stations. These inconsiderate vehicle owners are making the roads more congested, blocking bus access to bus stops, and creating major bottlenecks at these stations. What kind of plans does SPAD have to tackle this problem, and why is nothing being done right now? Are the relevant authorities at wits’ end, and thus encouraging this behaviour?

I can imagine the chaos caused by these waiting cars at stations located at major highways, like E7 (Cheras-Kajang), Sprint and LDP, and major roads like Jalan Cheras.

“How is SPAD going to prevent private vehicles from waiting at the roadside of all MRT stations in the future, especially during rush hour?”

… by building a tall crash barrier to prevent people from entering the station from the road.

“…and why is nothing being done right now?”

… obviously there are other more important things to attend to and the local authority do not want to be seen enforcing an unfriendly law, which you will obviously also not like if you were on the receiving end.

it seems like govt is rushing into building the MRT w/o prior studies on expanding the alternatives available (i.e. lrt, brt, monorel, komuter, trains). we are not talking about RM10mil things here, it is a WHOOPING RM36bil!!!

transitmy, keep up the good work!

Good stuff. The whole hype and drive to push the MRT seems to be eerily similar to a Simpsons episode, “Marge vs. the Monorail”, which is really to get things done as soon as humanly possible. (

Also, seeing as how roads in the Klang Valley are built for cars, instead of people, one can only imagine how packed these MRT stations would be when people decide to drive there instead of walking/cycling/busing there.

Somehow the project feels entirely rushed. Public transport is a good plan and should be of concern in this day and age but despite all the numbers that have been strewn around, one wonders why these trains could not be underground entirely

Hi @Emily

There are a lot of questions that the public have which deserve to be answered directly, specifically and in detail (and consistently) by SPAD and Pemandu.

It would be far easier if SPAD and Pemandu could be more proactive in addressing and answering these questions. For example, an F.A.Q. section on the website would be a helpful start.

Regards, Moaz for TRANSIT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s