Klang Valley rail network fulfils larger objectives but needs improvement

From Amanina Hussain

Rosli Khan’s critique of the MRT3 project raises some valid concerns regarding alignment, accessibility and station placement. However, it also lacks a balanced understanding of the technical, urban, and long-term planning considerations essential for such a large-scale infrastructure initiative.

While some of his points merit further examination, his arguments often overlook the complexities and constraints inherent in modern transit development.

Contextualising differences in LRT and MRT

Rosli’s comparison of the MRT system to LRT1 ignores the vastly different contexts in which these systems were planned.

When LRT1 was built over two decades ago, Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya were far less urbanised, offering greater flexibility for routes to traverse residential areas.

Today, the reality of denser urbanisation, higher land acquisition costs and limited space necessitates different approaches.

Aligning MRT routes along highways is a deliberate choice, allowing the system to serve broader commuter catchments while mitigating logistical challenges and financial burden of land acquisition.

Modern planning must prioritise long-term urban needs, and while highways may not directly penetrate residential areas, the strategic use of feeder bus services, pedestrian crossings, and park-and-ride facilities addresses potential accessibility concerns.

Contrary to Rosli’s claims, passengers are not left to navigate unsafe crossings or inaccessible stations.

Aligning with economic hubs

The critique of MRT routes serving upmarket areas like TTDI, Damansara Heights, and Tropicana misses an important point. These locations are not just residential enclaves but thriving business and commercial hubs that attract significant commuter traffic daily.

Providing MRT connectivity to these zones ensures an efficient alternative for those working there, reducing congestion and reliance on private vehicles.

This approach aligns with global practices, where economic centres are prioritised in public transport planning to maximise utility and ridership.

Balancing immediate needs and future growth

While the emphasis on addressing immediate needs is understandable, it is short-sighted to discount the importance of future-proofing infrastructure. Global examples like Tokyo and Singapore demonstrate the necessity of planning for urban sprawl and evolving commuter patterns.

The transformation of areas like Kwasa Damansara showcases the forward-thinking embedded in MRT planning, where infrastructure drives sustainable urban development.

While the benefits may take time to materialise, they are critical for the Klang Valley’s long-term viability.

Integration challenges and progress

The concerns about integration between transit lines are valid but generalised.

Aligning systems developed at different times and under varying constraints is inherently challenging.

However, significant progress has been made, as seen in interchange stations like Muzium Negara and Pasar Seni, which enable seamless transfers between MRT, LRT, and KTM services.

The upcoming MRT3 further aims to enhance connectivity, facilitating an integrated network that encourages greater ridership.

The role of commercial developments

An overlooked challenge in Malaysia’s transit planning is the reluctance of existing commercial entities, such as malls, to contribute to or integrate with transit infrastructure.

This refusal often stems from fears of cost and disruption, undermining opportunities for seamless integration seen in cities like Hong Kong and Bangkok. There, transit stations are co-located with high-footfall commercial spaces, creating mutual benefits.

In Malaysia, a more collaborative approach with private developers could resolve this disconnect and enhance accessibility.

Learning from global models

When compared to the mature systems in London and Hong Kong, Malaysia’s MRT and LRT networks understandably face limitations. We must admit that the absence of a unified ticketing system and the less cohesive feeder network hinder convenience, contrasting with the Octopus Card in Hong Kong and Oyster Card in London.

Financial sustainability is another concern, with Malaysia’s heavy reliance on subsidies contrasting starkly with Hong Kong’s profitable Rail Plus Property model.

However, Malaysia’s unique challenges, including rapid urbanisation and limited land availability, make direct comparisons less straightforward.

Conclusion

While Rosli highlights important gaps in Malaysia’s MRT3 strategy, his critique overlooks key aspects of modern transit planning and its long-term objectives.

The MRT system’s challenges, including integration and accessibility, are part of an evolving process that requires incremental improvements.

The government must address these issues while continuing to draw lessons from successful global models.

Balancing immediate commuter needs with future growth is essential to ensure the system serves a diverse population equitably and sustainably.

By fostering greater collaboration between stakeholders, prioritising underserved areas and improving financial models, Malaysia’s public transport network can achieve its potential as a globally competitive urban mobility solution. - FMT

Amanina Hussain is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.