Congestion charge a necessary step for KL

 

From Wan Agyl Wan Hassan

More than 4.2 million trips are made on Kuala Lumpur’s streets daily, leading to slower traffic, excessive burning of fuel, and loss of precious time for commuters.

This is a city of eight million people, four times more than what its network of roads have been designed for.

As a result, RM20 billion is lost annually in wasted productivity, additional fuel expenses, and pollution-related health problems.

Yet, at the mention of a congestion charge, everyone immediately assumes it’s just another tax. That’s where the conversation needs to change.

It is not about making people pay more. Rather, it is about making KL a liveable city for everyone.

But for that to happen, it must be done right, and the government must be clear about how the money is used.

A congestion charge isn’t a tax

Unlike income tax, where you don’t see immediate returns, a congestion charge is a user fee, just like highway toll.

But instead of using the proceeds to maintain highways, the congestion charge will underwrite the cost of improving KL’s public transport system and urban mobility.

Implemented correctly, congestion pricing can fund the very solutions needed to reduce our reliance on cars.

There are real-world examples to prove this.

In New York City the congestion charge, introduced on Jan 5, 2025, generated US$48.66 million (RM214.73 million) in its first month.

The city has projected that it would yield about US$500 million (RM2.2 billion) a year, and the money will be used to defray the cost of a US$15 billion (RM66 billion) public transit infrastructure upgrade, with subways, bus services and rail networks being modernised.

Travel speeds in the city have also seen a 48% improvement, while subway ridership has risen 12.7%.

In central London, it led to a 30% drop in traffic. The revenue has been invested in improving the bus service, cycle lanes, and pedestrian infrastructure.

The electronic road pricing (ERP) in Singapore, introduced in 1998, uses real-time congestion pricing to manage traffic and the revenue is reinvested in the expansion of the public transport system.

Just like KL these cities initially faced public resistance, but with the benefits visible now, people realise that congestion pricing is not to punish but to bring progress.

Where will the money go?

In Malaysia, many have seen enough of how revenue collection has not always matched reinvestment in public services.

This is where transparency is paramount. The government can ensure this by introducing a Congestion Charge Transparency Act to require:

• Publication of detailed revenue reports every three months to show amount collected and where the money is spent.
• A congestion charge dashboard — a website to show real-time updates on revenue collection.
• A citizen oversight committee comprising transport experts, businesses and community leaders to audit spending and hold the government accountable.

By law, revenue from Singapore’s ERP goes into public transport improvements. Malaysia should emulate that.

To ensure congestion pricing works, every ringgit collected must be reinvested into making MRT3 better, expanding bus networks, and creating more walkable city spaces.

Without full transparency, congestion pricing will just be another unpopular policy. But with clear reinvestment, it will be seen as a solution, not a burden.

A mistake to not act now

Waiting for MRT3 to be completed in 2030 before introducing congestion pricing will just mean five more years of worsening traffic, higher pollution, and billions in economic losses.

Other cities do not wait until their public transport system is “perfect”. Instead, they use congestion pricing revenue to improve their transport system faster.

For Kuala Lumpur, the best way forward is a phased approach.

Phase 1 (2025-2027)

• Pilot congestion pricing in KLCC, Bukit Bintang, and Mid Valley, where traffic congestion is worst.
• Charge RM10 during peak hours and RM5 off-peak, with exemptions for electric vehicles and public service vehicles.
• Use the first RM400 million collected to expand feeder bus networks and improve first and last-mile connections to train stations.

Phase 2 (2027-2030)

• Expand congestion pricing to major highways like MEX, DUKE, and AKLEH, and raise the charge by RM2 a year.
• Increase public transport frequency and expand park-and-ride facilities.

Phase 3 (2030 & Beyond)

• Fully integrate congestion pricing with AI-powered dynamic pricing, where fees fluctuate based on real-time congestion data.
• Introduce more extensive pedestrian-friendly and cycling infrastructure plan.

Addressing public concerns head-on

Opposition to congestion pricing is based a lot on misconceptions. Here are the fallacies versus the facts:

• “This will hurt the B40 group”

The government can help by introducing mobility vouchers for B40 households to be redeemed for My50 transit passes.

Low-income workers will benefit from better public transport and reduced congestion.

• “Businesses will suffer”

In London and New York, foot traffic rose with implementation of congestion pricing as better public transport made it easier for people to visit these areas.

With proper planning, KLCC and Bukit Bintang should attract more visitors.

• “Public transport must be fixed first.”

Stockholm implemented congestion pricing in 2006 before its metro system was fully developed. Within a year, traffic fell by 22%, and public support grew as people saw the benefits.

Kuala Lumpur should do the same — use congestion pricing revenue to speed up public transport improvements rather than wait for the “right time”.

The cost of doing nothing

The consequences of not taking action will be severe.

• Traffic speed could drop below 20kph by 2030, turning KL into another Jakarta.
• Economic loss from congestion could exceed RM100 billion in five years.
• Air pollution will worsen, leading to more respiratory health diseases.
• As commuting becomes more difficult and costly, businesses will suffer.

The longer we wait, the more we will pay in lost time, lost productivity and reduced quality of life.

Rather than a tax, congestion pricing is a commitment to a better, smarter city. It has made New York, London and Singapore more liveable and efficient. KL must follow suit.  - FMT

Wan Agyl Wan Hassan is the founder and CEO of My Mobility Vision, a transport think tank.

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