Addressing flaws in MRT3’s strategy

 

When I wrote my piece on MRT3 earlier this month, it was intended as a constructive, clear and specific critique of why the project should be delayed and better planned.

My arguments are grounded in real-world examples and highlight several key issues: poor alignment choices, neglected catchment areas, and insufficient integration between different transit systems.

Unlike LRT1 which runs deep into the residential areas of Petaling Jaya and KL, the alignment of routes for MRT1, MRT2 and LRT3 run parallel to highways.

This is a fundamental flaw as they do not penetrate high-density residential areas.

Instead, they serve low-density up-market areas like TTDI, Damansara Heights and Tropicana.

Public transport facilities such as the LRT or MRT are primarily conceived to serve people without access to private transport.

Secondly, they are meant to serve those who do own private transport but cannot use it regularly, particularly for commuting to work due to the high costs involved.

Commuting to work

This commuting-to-work category is significant because these trips are essential to earn an income.

Reducing daily travel costs by using public transport rather than private vehicles is a fundamental reason public transport is developed as an option for this group in the first place.

As we know, commuting by private transport can be expensive. In addition to car ownership costs like monthly instalments, there are fuel expenses, toll fees, and parking charges to consider—not to mention the time wasted in traffic congestion.

Public transport facilities such as the LRT, MRT, and KTMB services could provide a viable alternative for these commuters.

Therefore, such facilities must be designed with these factors in mind, particularly by aligning routes and placing stations within targeted catchment areas.

FMT reader Amanina Hussain’s response to my column, however, comes across as defensive, especially when addressing alignment and station placement.

Her claim that station placement is deliberate to “maximise overall accessibility” glosses over the real inconveniences faced by commuters.

For instance, how can a station located adjacent to a busy highway maximise overall accessibility? Potential users cannot stop on the highway to access the station and should not be made to cross three or four lanes of traffic to reach it.

My examples of poorly located stations—such as Pusat Bandar Damansara, Taman Naga Emas, Sungai Besi, Serdang Raya Utara, and Serdang Raya Selatan, Tropicana, Glenmarie, and many others—are specific and relatable. In contrast, her counterarguments remain largely theoretical.

While she highlights practical constraints like land acquisition costs and urban space limitations, her arguments dismiss the importance of passenger convenience, usability and accessibility.

We can design beautiful stations above highways, but without adequate passenger access, they remain ineffective.

Focus on core issues

In my column, I addressed not only systemic challenges like poor alignment and station placement but also the neglect of catchment areas and the lack of integration between systems like the LRT1, LRT2, LRT3, MRT1, MRT2, and KTMB lines.

I emphasised the importance of integration, where passengers can easily transfer between systems during their journeys.

This integration is a fundamental issue affecting the usability and efficiency of public transport systems and is a hallmark of successful transit networks in cities worldwide.

Stations serving multiple lines should be designed to maximise user convenience and ridership potential.

Unfortunately, what we see today is far from satisfactory, explaining the low ridership numbers for MRT1 and MRT2 compared to LRT1, which overflows with passengers especially during peak hours.

Moving forward

The LRT1 line was also designed with an extendable option in mind for the future addition, whereas MRT1, MRT2 and MRT3 are basically standalone lines that were not done in phases as demand increases.

This is another flaw which must be corrected.

In the “moving forward” section of my piece, I have offered practical recommendations, such as reevaluating project objectives, improving procurement processes, and discouraging the construction of competing expressways.

This final point on competing expressways is important to ensure that public transport expenditure is not undermined by private sector investments, whose primary motive is to encourage the use of more cars to maximise toll revenue.

This adds balance to my critique and demonstrates a solutions-oriented approach.

My emphasis on the underserved areas and the need to prioritise the B40 and M40 groups is an advocacy for equity and reflects a commitment to making public transport accessible to all income levels.

This is a critical aspect of sustainable urban planning, which the planners have failed to adequately address, and deserves serious consideration.

Multiple cars in driveway

This oversight, if not rectified, will weaken any counterarguments and trivialise any long-term vision for future growth and urban development.

Amanina’s piece also relies too heavily on the promise of future benefits (e.g., Kwasa Damansara’s transformation) without sufficiently addressing current inefficiencies and missed opportunities.

Moreover, developments like Kwasa Damansara, much like other land-scarce areas in Klang Valley, primarily target mid-to high-income housing markets—a category of residents with multiple cars in their driveways.

In public transport planning terms, these individuals are not the primary target demographic for public transport infrastructure and services.

If this is indeed the strategy for MRT3, then a complete overhaul of its development plan is warranted. - FMT

The author can be reached at: rosli@mdsconsultancy.com

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