Pengangkutan

A comparison of the costs between the use of private and public transport for middle-income earners shows a substantial difference exists between the two – 40% as against 15% of the disposable income between private transport and public transport users respectively. Commuting by private car incurs an additional expense of 25% (RM440 per month). It is clear that, given such a high cost for the use of cars, most people would opt for public transport if given the choice. The key is to make public transport available, affordable and reliable.

1. Admend Town & Country Planning Act to define parking lot maximum per development
2. Introduce incentives for car light development scheme such as discount in applicable fees
3. Lower parking, road LOS minimum standard on nearby to development in-lieu of proposer subsidizing regular public bus to residents to connect to nearest transit station and service with direct connection to center of commerce
4. Fast track shuttle operation permit under car light development scheme by APAD/MOT

1. Public transport may take the form of minibuses (for passenger transport) or utility vans (for goods transport); the essential function is to improve this enabling factor to assist these rural folks in their economic production process, be it for passenger or for goods transport.
2. The mobility needs of school children to and from schools are also of particular concern in the rural areas.
3. More equitable funding should be allocated for the transportation needs of the rural areas as they are often neglected and left out of the national transportation agenda.
4. Irrespective of the size of urban centres, bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways should be encouraged and be built as an integral part of the public transportation system. This “last mile” effort must not be overlooked.
5. The bicycle or pedestrian networks should be well-defined and continuous. Cycling and walking must be considered as basic transport modes and be accorded due importance in the promotion of a green and sustainable environment.

1. For cities with a population size of 400,000 or more, a mass-oriented urban rail system should be considered as the core public transit system. For cities with such a threshold population level, the demand for public transport service along its major corridors would generally range between 5,000 to 8,000 persons per hour (pph) for the corridor. An urban rail system would seem to be most suited for such a demand situation. Rails can be in the form of a tram system or a light rail transit (LRT) system.
2. For such an urban rail to be an attractive public transport instrument, it has to be well integrated with an efficient feeder system (bringing people from their homes to the railway system smoothly and reliably) and further complemented by effective dispersal facilities (delivering people to their desired destinations seamlessly and speedily). It means an well-integrated and effective public transport system would involve more than just the train system, it must be effectively supported by, for instance, a well-planned feeder bus system and a well-thought out pedestrian network. A good urban public transport system must involve good team work – inter supportive from different modes, walking included as a crucial component. If left standing alone, a railway system can be rendered rather ineffectual; when well-supported and integrated with other modes and facilities, its potential and effectiveness may then be greatly enhanced many folds.
3. An integrated ticketing system for both bus and rail, as well as parking systems are required for a seamless interfacing and integration.
4. Park-and-ride facilities are critical and useful provisions to encourage people to leave their cars behind and to shift over to public transport.
5. For a more sustainable urban environment in the long term, transit oriented developments (TODs) such as transit villages and mixed-use developments along defined public transport corridors should be promoted to enhance the relationship between transport and urban environments.
6. Public transport should be the core to urban transportation system. Cars, on the other hand, must not be allowed to create mass discord or to overrun the city’s fragile fabrics; cars must be tamed.
7. For urban centres with a population size between 50,000 to 400,000 people, a bus system is known to serve as a suitable backbone of the public transport system.
8. Travel is a derived demand, based essentially on the size of the population associated with a particular travel corridor or an urban centre. The fleet requirement for a bus system may be estimated from its associated travel market or population. Typically, a bus can serve a population of 800 people, or 12 buses for a population of 10,000.
9. By extension, an urban centre of 300,000 population would require the service of 360 buses. At RM400,000 each, the investment would amount to RM144 million for a fleet of 360 buses (Equivalent to 6km of highway at the prevalent rate of RM25 million per km). Or with RM1.4billion investment, the amount can take care of the public transport needs of ten (10) urban centres of 300,000 population for the likes of Sibu, Miri, Tawau, Sandakan, Kangar, Alor Setar, Melaka, Chukai, Kuala Terengganu and Kota Bahru.
10. For urban centres with a population of less than 50,000 people, a minibus system may be more appropriate as it is flexible, versatile and more penetrative in reach.

The management of transport services, especially in the Klang Valley, should be devolved to individual states or regions. This allows regions the capacity to make their own decisions about creating integrated transport systems in a location-sensitive manner.

A Parliamentary Inquiry into Public and Active Transport should be established. The Terms of Reference of this Inquiry should evaluate the safety and the effectiveness of public and active transport in Malaysia, and to give recommendations to that effect.

The current National Transport Policy document must be refreshed to coincide with the broader urban realm goal of 20-minute neighbourhoods. The focus of this refresh should be on with the goal of reducing car dependency in cities and regions. Statutory requirements to revise the Plan after a set number of years must be inserted into the 2010 Land Public Transport Act. The Act must also be amended to create statutory requirements to report, publish, and review commuter and performance datas.

Concerted effort must be given to upskill urban planners on transport good practices through professional education. Incentives should also be provided to practice in regional areas, where good planning expertise is currently scarce.

Building on the refresh of the National Transport Policy, all levels of government must build a public and active transport network that not only caters to work-home journeys between cities and the suburbs, but also travel between different suburbs. As city-regions grow, more effort should be taken to encourage inter-suburban transport to jobs, housing and social services.