Why Penang needs the Light Rail Transit (LRT)?

Penang is a bustling state without a proper public transit infrastructure. Despite being second smallest and without natural resources, Penang has been punching above its weight by positioning itself as a robust industrial state, remarkably capturing 47 per cent of foreign direct investment in the first half of this year, amidst global lockdown due to Covid-19.

The pattern of post-pandemic mass mobility, with promising vaccine to be delivered in 2021, will very likely return to pre-pandemic proportion. Soon, roads in Penang will once again be packed by numerous users – workers, students, anyone – during peak hours.

The mobility modal split among the 225,000 person-trips taken during peak hours with a population of 1.56 million in a 2013 report was between 89% private vehicles and 11% shared transport services (including factory and school buses). The predominant public transport at that time was buses. When the population increases above 2 million from the current 1.8 million, the projected person-trips will be more than 300,000 while the level of modal split will be the same. (Penang State Government, The ‘Recommended Transport Master Plan Strategy,’ March 2013)

In layman’s term, if Penang remains status quo with just buses to serve the public, the increasing road usage will worsen traffic congestion. This is why Penang needs a reliable, safe, and efficient system – the Light Rail Transit (LRT) – as the main backbone for our public transport infrastructure.

The LRT is a time-tested rail system proven for its safety and reliability. The system is so established that according Asian Development Bank (ADB), one of the foremost authorities with a transport specialist team that has implemented sustainable public transport all over the world, the global trend is to build and expand LRT rather than metro or bus system.

While many cities have opted for the proven system, Penang Forum wanted to introduce a bus system known as Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) or “trackless tram.”

Despite its bombastic appellation, the ART is basically a bus. In fact, to David Levinson, professor of transport engineering at the University of Sydney, the title “trackless tram” is a “silly phrase” because it is actually a bus. The original cost for this bus was priced up to RM10 billion to be implemented in Kuching. Recently, it was announced to be less than RM6 billion.

A comparison study between LRT and ART, conducted by ADB for Penang, has recommended the LRT as a proven technology to be adopted. Penang deserves a time-tested public transport infrastructure which will serve as our main backbone line rather than a multibillion bus.

Innovation to develop excellent public transport

If you pay peanuts, you get monkey. The same applies to public transport. An excellent transit system is not cheap. 

However, public transport needs more than funds to achieve excellence. It requires good town planning. 

Here lies the problem - public transport and town planning are often conceived and operated as separate department. Transport experts focus only on mobility while planners on buildings and landscape. 

The result? Billions are pumped into public transport yet the usage of public transport remains dismal. 

The purported 2018 net losses of Prasarana Malaysia Berhad, the country's main operator of public transport, was between RM3 billion to RM5 billion, with estimated impairment of RM30 billion. 

With so many billions spent, how many trips were taken via public transport in Klang Valley? About 21%. At other places, the figure is way lower. In Penang, it's between 3% to 8%.

To complicate matters further, the states in Malaysia have limited control over tax money and automobile trade policies, which means that they don't have much say over public transport infrastructure.

States have more control over land use. Therefore, one solution is to incorporate town planning back into public transport development and vice versa. 

When we do that, then solving transport issues is no longer only about buying more buses or building a Light Rail Transit (LRT). It's about developing a transit city.

A transit city optimises public transport and generates fund through land usage to finance the development, maintenance, and upgrading of the transit system.

This idea, broadly known as 'transit-oriented development' (TOD), may be something new to many and suspicious to the skeptics, but it is time-tested and proven successful in various cities that are different from each other. 

Take Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway (MTR) as an example. When MTR plan was unveiled with a price tag of HK$3.4 billion in the late 1960s, professor Sean Mackey from the University of Hong Kong publicly criticised the proposal for its hefty cost.

Through an innovative town planning method known as 'Rail + Property', the MTR Corporation has not only managed to pay off the construction cost of the initial MTR line but also recorded a total profit of HK$139.67 billion from 2009 to 2019, with 90% public transport usage.

Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) had the same problem. The SG$5.3 billion MRT proposal was criticised by a team of experts led by professor Kenneth Hansen from Harvard University.

The Singaporean government did not back down. They undertook a 'land value capture' exercise to finance the MRT. The total revenue generated during the MRT development period from 1982 to 1987 exceeded SG$12 billion, more than enough to cover the construction cost. Today, the MRT serves as the backbone of Singapore's public transport system with 67% usage.

Other cities such as Copenhagen employs innovative 'profit sharing' method to fund their transit system.  In all sales agreements, the property buyer is required to pay additional fee every year for sixty years, after a metro station is built within 50 meters from the property. Copenhagen's public transport usage is 60%.

Details of these case studies can be found in Penang Institute's recent publication 'Exploring a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Framework for Penang’s Urban Growth.'

Penang is planning to build the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) over the next several decades. This development can explore some of the TOD methods to finance the long-term transport plan.

Only the synergy from the best of transit development and town planning will save our public transport system from being a monkey business.

High speed rail as catalyst for regional growth

The decision over the High Speed Rail (HSR) project linking Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, and Johor to Singapore has been deferred to the end of the year. This will be the last extension for Malaysia and Singapore to finalise technicalities before the project's launch.[1]

HSR system is not only a faster and more convenient mode of medium and long-distance travel but a catalyst for urban development and trade growth, as seen in several countries.

The construction of the South Europe Atlantic HSR that began in 2012 and completed in 2017 has created 14,000 jobs, generated €1.6 billion (RM7.6 billion) in production, with added value of €755 million (RM3.6 billion) in the three regions.[2]

After the installation of the HSR line that connects Cologne and Frankfurt since 2001, the GDP of the region had increased 8.5% faster than if the infrastructure had not been built. Provinces in China with HSR have observed 25% more revenues than provinces without HSR.[3]

Due to the immediate and long-term benefits, the United Kingdom has just launched their second HSR project known as HS2, connecting London to West Midlands, the largest infrastructure project in Europe.[4]

In southeast Asia, the two countries currently developing HSR are Thailand and Indonesia.

Thailand’s HSR will link three of their airports, serves as the core infrastructure development for their Eastern Economic Corridor, and an initiative aims to lift the country out of the middle-income trap.[5]

Indonesia’s HSR that connects Bandung and Jakarta is estimated to provide 40,000 jobs and anticipated to begin operation in 2021.[6]

These two immediate neighbours of Malaysia are now constructing the most advanced rail system despite having lower GDP per capita. Malaysia recorded US$10,254 GDP per capita in 2017, higher than Thailand (US$6,578) and Indonesia (US$3,893).[7] Should we be surprised if Thailand and Indonesia overtake Malaysia in the next one or two decades?

The HSR planned to connect the five states in Malaysia to Singapore has a huge role to play in the country’s progress. Not only does it serve the southern states but also be the first phase of a larger pan-Asian HSR network in the peninsula, as envisioned by the Kunming-Singapore rail line.

Seeing the HSR as a mere transport mode is underplaying its potential as a catalyst for the country’s and region’s growth.

References
[1] https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/malaysia-singapore-resume-discussions-highspeed-rail-project-soon-%E2%80%94-azmin

[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12544-017-0233-0#ref-CR24

[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12544-017-0233-0#ref-CR24

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16473296

[5] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Thailand-puts-high-speed-rail-project-on-track-with-land-pledge

[6] https://www.railwaygazette.com/in-depth/indonesia-making-progress-at-high-speed/55841.article

[7] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=TH-ID-MY

Learn from Taiwan's public transport infrastructure

About 43% of Taipei's residents uses public transport.[1] There is much Malaysia can learn from Taiwan if we want to hit 40% public transport usage by 2030.[2] All the more so for the state of Penang that is currently implementing the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

Last week, I get to check out Taiwan's various public transport systems such as inter-city buses, inter-state high speed rail, Kaohsiung's tram, Taichung's bus network, and Taipei's metro. Here are some observations.

Inter-city, inter-state network

Travellers who land at Taipei airport can get around Taiwan's northern region easily. There is a bus terminal attached to the airport with various bus companies providing connecting services from the airport directly to other cities and states.

I took a two-hour bus from Taipei airport to Taichung, located in middle of Taiwan. I also took the high speed rail from Kaohsiung in the south to Taipei in the north. The inter-city and inter-state public transport infrastructure is excellent.

The upcoming Light Rail Transit (LRT) in Penang will serve the high-demand route from the airport to George Town, enhanced by feeder bus services to other parts of the state. Intercity transport services should be provided at the airport, where travellers who fly in can take buses to Taiping, Sungai Petani, Gurun and other towns in Perak and Kedah.

Urban public transport

Kaohsiung's tram blends well into the port city which houses the famous Pier 2 art district. The tram's low-passenger capacity and slow speed allows for plenty sightseeing.

Taichung's and Taipei's public buses have exclusive lanes to maximise their speed on congested roads. Bus stations are located in the middle of the road to minimise traffic interruption.

Nonetheless, both the on-ground tram and bus have weakness and limitation when serving high-demand route. Their weakness is the high risk of collision with pedestrians, vehicles, and other road users.

In 2018, Taipei saw 466 bus accidents (27% increase from 2017) with various causes such as failure to note people or vehicle in front of the bus, driving negligence, violation of turning, violation of traffic light signal, and not yielding to pedestrians.[3]

The limitation of on-ground tram and bus is their inefficiency as they need to stop at junction and pedestrian crossing, delaying commuting time.

Elevated or underground rail system such as LRT and metro have much lesser risk of collision. Since they do not share road space with other users, these systems are more efficient compared to on-ground tram and bus. Kaoshiung and Taipei have built rail transit to serve busy routes, complemented by tram and bus respectively. The rail transit acts as the backbone of the public transport system.

Lobbying for a single tram or bus system to serve high-demand route makes no sense. Penang Forum's demand to replace the LRT plan with tram and bus will only expose commuters to high risk of collision and short-change Penangites with an inefficient public transport system.[4]

Instead of wasting time with Penang Forum's nonsense, we should listen to the evaluation by Universiti Sains Malaysia's deputy vice chancellor and professor of transportation engineering, Dr Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah: "This is why I believe having an urban rail system is imperative and urgently needed for Penang. Rail is on the highest hierarchy of public transport. Only rail will have a chance of changing the fate of public transport and provide a better option towards a demand and supply equilibrium situation."[5]

There is much for us to learn from real expert and real examples from Taiwan cities to improve our local public transport infrastructure.

References

[1] https://international.thenewslens.com/article/92882

[2]https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/90793/new-policy-looks-to-double-public-transport-usage-in-malaysia-by-2030/

[3]https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMzkxL3JlbGZpbGUvMTk3OTAvMzMyODM3NS81MjM1NDhiYi1lOGQ0LTQwNDEtYTg3ZC00NWU0OTM5MTI3MmIucGRm&n=eTA3LnBkZg%3d%3d&icon=.pdf

[4]https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2019/12/28/penang-bayan-lepas-lrt-moving-people-or-moving-goalposts-khoo-salma-nasutio/1822834

[5] https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/09/521306/transforming-penangs-transport-system

Learn from Singapore to improve public transport

Oliver Wyman Forum and University of California have recently unveiled the Urban Mobility Readiness Index that ranked cities with the best public transport system. Singapore came up on top.[1]

Separately, McKinsey & Company had also produced their own index last year to measure the best public transport system in the world. Singapore also appeared at the top.[2]

There must be something right about the city-state’s public transport that we can learn from.

The first thing to notice about Singapore’s public transport is that it is multi-modal, which means the entire infrastructure adopts several modes or types of public transport such as bus, mass rapid transit (MRT), light rail transit (LRT), and monorail.

In the late 1970s, Singapore was deliberating between having an all-bus system or a bus-rail system. Despite having a team of experts from Harvard University pushing for the all-bus system, the government opted for the more expensive bus-rail system and begun the construction of their first MRT.[3]

After the launch of the MRT in 1987, the Singaporean government studied the bus-rail system for nine years and concluded in their Land Transport Authority's 1996 White Paper that, “Only rail transport can meet the transport needs of heavy demand corridors while maintaining high travel speeds and predictability of arrival and departure times... [Cities] have opted for rail even though it is a more expensive option than the bus.”

In other words, multi-modal system may be more expensive but it provides targeted solutions that correspond to the various needs of urban mobility. For instance, a rail infrastructure (MRT or LRT) is more effective at high-demand corridor while buses work better in neighbourhood with short-distance stops. A good public transport infrastructure has various modes to complement each other to deliver the best result.

This is one reason why cities with mono-modal system such as Curitiba – even though famous for its bus rapid transit (BRT) – does not rise to the top. One size simply does not fit all.

It is high time for Malaysian cities to adopt the multi-modal principle to improve our public transport.

Comprehensive strategies like the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) – comprising LRT, monorail, tram, BRT and other transport modes – is an instructive model of how public transport infrastructure should be planned locally. 

References

[1] https://www.oliverwymanforum.com/mobility/urban-mobility-readiness-index.html#

[2]https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Sustainability/Our%20Insights/Elements%20of%20success%20Urban%20transportation%20systems%20of%2024%20global%20cities/Urban-transportation-systems_e-versions.ashx

[3] https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/urban-systems-studies/uss-transport.pdf

Transport policy needs updated theory – a reply to Ahmad Hilmy

I’m glad that my previous article on public transport policy has invited the response from Ahmad Hilmy, a transport expert from Universiti Sains Malaysia. He has marshalled a list of other transport experts to support his point that the construction of roads is the cause of increasing private vehicle usage.

However, the expertise that Ahmad has cited is a misapplication as those experts are dealing with different subject matter of a different era. For instance, they did not study the present Hong Kong like I did.

In fact, it is impossible for them to include the present Hong Kong in their study as some of them were writing their observation more than half a century ago.

The experts such as R. J. Smeed and J. G. Wardrop, whom Phil Goodwin relied on and cited approvingly by Ahmad, wrote their study in the early 1960s, before Hong Kong even started building their Mass Transit Railway.

These experts whom Ahmad referred to are limited by their era to incorporate the present Hong Kong into their study. Ahmad has access to Hong Kong’s public mobility scenario today, yet the USM expert prefers to stick to the obsolete observation. A disclaimer, a theory is not obsolete by the virtue of its age but by the emergence of new data that does not fit the theory.

Likewise, the studies by Petter Næss, Martin J. H. Mogridge, Synnøve Lyssand Sandberg, Adam Mann, Matthew Beck, Michiel Bliemer, and Susan Handy, cited by Ahmad – not a single one of them examined Hong Kong.

The point I’m arguing is that the cause of increasing private vehicle usage in a city is not due to construction of new roads, but the growth of population and capital flow.

This is most obvious in the case of Hong Kong, a city with 90% of public transport usage, and yet they are still building more roads to improve the dispersal network.

This ranks Hong Kong among the least car-dependent cities in the world. And Hong Kong has been building new roads, spending RM45.5 billion on roads construction recently. A robust theory must be able to explain this.

If building roads will lead to more private vehicle usage, then why is Hong Kong’s public transport still so high despite the fact that they have been building new roads all these years? The fact that it did means that the supply of new roads was not the determinant factor, and there were other factors involved.

If supply of roads will increase private vehicle usage and reduce public transport usage, then Hong Kong’s 90% public transport usage should not have happened – but it has. And the theory that Ahmad holds so dear cannot explain this.

And, let’s assume for argument’s sake, that the supply of roads will indeed increase private car usage, then we have to ask, why would Hong Kong want that? It does not make policy sense for Hong Kong to do that, unless of course the theory is wrong, which it is.

The most probable explanation is that the cause of increasing private vehicle usage in a city is not due to construction of new roads, but the growth of population and capital flow.

When people who can afford private cars move into the city, and people in the city become more able to afford private cars, that’s when there is an increase in private car usage and an increase in traffic jams despite the availability of good public transport. 

Hong Kong was able to increase public transport usage without being affected by the supply of new roads because of capital control (for e.g. reduce affordability of private vehicle ownership and usage, while increase affordability of public transport) and employing an effective multidimensional approach to transport policy that simultaneously improves traffic dispersal network and public transport infrastructure to cater to the growing population.

This is why the city continues to build new roads while still able to maintain high public transport usage.

PTMP models best practices - Response to Rosli Khan

Earlier this week I was in a working group organized by Penang Green Council on the topic on sustainable mobility and connectivity. The objective of the group is to prepare an official recommendation to the state authorities.

As part of the deliberation, we interacted consecutively with three experts on transportation. All three were academically qualified and experienced expert in the field. All three had different view on the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

The first one was of the view that Penang needed a good hierarchy of transport system, with the Light Rail Transit (LRT) given top priority. The second expert dismisses the LRT and recommended on-ground tram. The third expert promoted the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

This should not surprise anyone as it is common for experts to disagree among themselves. One just need to read enough doctoral theses to know that it is necessary for each expert to outsmart every other expert. This is not to deny scholarly consensus but pointing out the nature of the academia that is driven by the prestige of originality.

A recent comment by a transport consultant added another take on the PTMP, although not a new one. I will respond to some of the points he made.

The author questions PTMP for its multidimensional approach that includes the building of an inter-modal public transport system and the construction of a traffic dispersal network. With all his tirade against the latter, it seems that his alternative plan for PTMP is to stop building road.

This is very odd as not one city with good public transport system has stopped building roads. Hong Kong with more than 90 percent of public transport usage still continues to build roads to improve traffic dispersal network.

The author insists that PTMP should look to Singapore as model. Singapore spent more than RM502 million building roads in 2017, excluding the RM23 billion North-South Corridor. Yet, when Penang plans its own traffic dispersal network, the author condemns.

It is a pseudo-conflict to pit the building of public transport versus construction of traffic network. If we look at cities like Hong Kong and Singapore, it is not about ‘to build or not to build road?’, but ‘where to build roads to disperse the traffic?’

The suggestion for congestion charges in Penang is premature as such policy can only be implemented when there exists a good public transport system. When Singapore started their congestion charges, there was already a widely used public transport system in place (begun with all-bus system before transformed into bus-rail system from 1970s to 1980s). Besides, the author is wrong to say that Singapore’s Area Road Pricing Scheme was introduced in the late 1980s, as the actual year was 1975.

The author also questions the PTMP for its inter-modal public transport system that consists of LRT, monorail, tram, BRT and sky cab. This is odd as cities with high number of public transport usage have inter-modal system.

Hong Kong has MTR, tram, bus, taxi, boats and cable car. Singapore has MRT, LRT, bus, taxi, and cable car. Inter-modal public transport is common given the different traffic demand in various location. This is so common that in fact the consultancy firm the author has worked at provide consultation on multi-modal or inter-modal system. It therefore boggles the mind why when it comes to PTMP, there is such condemnation.

The author seems to imply that the PTMP is planned “relying solely on politicians” and hence lacks expertise. Again, if only the author had actually studied the PTMP documents during the public display, he would have known that the team of experts behind PTMP comprise of individuals with doctorate in relevant fields and technical consultancy with track record of hundreds of projects.

It is not surprising to see experts having different view on PTMP. What is surprising is for expert to condemn a plan without demonstrating detailed knowledge about it.

A grateful letter to Yoga Adiwinarto of ITDP

Dear Yoga,

I have read your suggestions on how to improve public mobility in Penang.  There is much to agree with you as your suggestions cohere with much of what is already happening here.

For example, your advice that Penang “should start by investing in pedestrian facilities as well as cycling infrastructure,” reflects what the local councils and state government have already been doing for years.

Back in 2014, the state government has launched a RM30 million bicycle lane project. Two years ago, through partnership with private sector, the bicycle-sharing services LinkBike was started, with 250 bicycles achieving up to 3,500 ridership per month.

The state government has recently initiated RM40 million Ecodeck project that will build lanes that measure 3.5m in width, with 2m and 1.5m designated for bicycles and pedestrians respectively. The current 180 km of cycling lane in Penang will be further expanded to 200 km.

In terms of pedestrian walkway, it is estimated that there is 80% pedestrian infrastructure in the city centre. In 2017, the local council allocated RM2.5 million for 14 walkway improvement projects, with another RM2.4 million for a collaboration with Think City to build pedestrian-friendly public space.

Besides those projects, the local government is working on two business improvement district schemes (BIDS) to expand walkability in the surrounding areas of KOMTAR and the nearby “seven-street district.”  In addition to these, a 50 km coastal park and 65 km of cycling lane are in the pipeline.

There is of course still much to be done in the city, not least in the suburbs. The point is that the local authorities are already working on them. Your suggestions show that the governments are right on track.

With regards to the “BRT vs LRT” debate, you have rightly noted that “the development of LRT, tram and BRT should go hand in hand and well integrated with the improvement of the Rapid Penang bus system.”

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I and others have highlighted this matter many times for many months, through official and informal channels. The state government also shares this multidimensional approach.

A local group that needs to hear this from you is ‘Penang Forum’. The group has been lobbying against this integrated plan by opposing the LRT plan for a BRT and tram only public transport on the island. I believe you are acquainted with them, and should share your thoughts with them if you haven’t.

As for the Penang Transport Master Plan, the state government would require BRT-experts like your good self to advise on the BRT plan on the mainland. Till then, wish you the best in your BRT business in Jakarta and this region.

Best regards,
Joshua Woo

BRT expert sweet-talking Penang to install bus system?

It was reported that Yoga Adiwinarto, country director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) in Jakarta had recommended the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for Penang in a presentation organised by Think City yesterday.

The ITDP specialises in BRT and their institutional mission is to promote the bus system around the world in that their “specific area of expertise is the bus rapid transit (BRT) and we work to spread knowledge about BRT and provide high-level technical assistance to cities pursuing BRT projects in the US and abroad.”

Urban planning expert, Diego Silva Ardila has observed that think-tanks like ITDP “have focused on BRT systems as the only plausible solution for urban transport in the developing world, and have not seriously and rigorously analysed the possibilities that rail-based systems have [...]”

Ardila further noted that “the think-tanks and their claims have been deemed biased by the fact that they represented the interests of funding sources and donors of these think-tanks, mostly foundations of companies related to a certain level with the automobile and oil industry.”

Matteo Rizzo, development studies expert in the University of London, calls the ITDP and similar institutions the “BRT evangelical society” for their fervency in recommending the BRT for developing countries. It is an established fact among field experts that ITDP’s sole option for public transport is the BRT.

In his presentation yesterday, Yoga reportedly hailed the BRT as the “best system to graduate to larger rail systems”. Yoga mentioned, if I recall correctly, that the installation of the BRT took lesser time and Penang needed such a system to address immediate traffic needs before moving on to constructing a rail-based system like the Light Rail Transit (LRT).

His remark that the BRT should be an intermediary system before graduating to LRT sounded odd as he disagreed with such a graduation process in Jakarta. Yoga is reported to prefer to expand the TransJakarta BRT system rather than supporting the LRT plan.

His preference was in contrast to Jakarta's deputy governor-in-charge of transportation, Sutanto Soehodho, a  former professor of transport modelling with a doctorate from the University of Tokyo, who thought that the city required an LRT.

On ITDP, the deputy governor said that, “They have been monitoring our TransJakarta buses for 10 years and they are not getting better. The number of passengers is even declining.”

This had me wondering that if after the installation of the BRT, will Yoga really support graduation to an LRT? After all, he is the head of an institution with the mission to evangelise BRT to the world and his past record shows that he disagreed with such a plan. Was he merely sweet-talking the audience into supporting the BRT?

Besides, I do not remember an instance when Yoga highlighted the limitations and weaknesses of the BRT compared to other public transport systems.

Each public transport system has merits and weaknesses. One weakness of the BRT is that it is accident-prone. TransJakarta, even with its dedicated lanes, has seen increasing road accidents. Here is the data from 2015 to 2018.

In four years, there were 134 percent and 233 percent increase of BRT-related accidents and deaths respectively. A public transport system like the LRT plan for Penang will not have such risks. And none of these was highlighted in Yoga’s presentation.

Such silence over BRT’s weaknesses is not surprising to researchers like Matteo Rizzo who wrote that, “the narrative of BRT as a ‘win–win’ intervention to solve the public transport crisis in developing countries obscures the many tensions associated with their implementation.”

Rizzo further postulated that, “Such a narrative stems from research sponsored by international finance, its NGO brokers and BRT vehicle manufacturers and is functional to their interests in opening up public transport markets in developing countries.” (Matteo Rizzo, Taken For A Ride, Oxford University Press, 170)

Perhaps the ITDP should consider changing their name to “Institute for BRT and Development Policy” in order not to give the wrong impression to the public that they are public transport experts when their expertise is solely the BRT system?

Now that we have heard from BRT expert, it will be good if we can also hear from experts of other modes. Hopefully, Think City will consider having sessions on other types of public transport.

Cities need complementary public transport system

Planning public transportation for a city with population of 10 million, the government of Jakarta knew that they needed more than the TransJakarta Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). That's why they are currently building Light-Rail Transit (LRT) and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).

The advocates for buses such as the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) disagreed with rail-based system. They preferred to have the BRT system be expanded with more buses and routes with better services.

Jakarta's deputy governor in-charge of transportation, Sutanto Soehodho (former professor of transport modelling at University of Indonesia with doctorate from University of Tokyo) thought that the city required a complementary network of bus-based and rail-based system.

On ITDP, Sutanto said, "They have been monitoring our Transjakarta buses for 10 years and they are not getting better. The number of passengers is even declining."

Each public transport system has merits and weaknesses. One weakness of BRT is that it is accident-prone. TransJakarta, even with its dedicated lanes, has seen increasing road accidents. Here are the data from 2015 to 2018:

TransJakarta-related Incidents	2015	2016	2017	2018 (until Nov)
Accidents	23	96	43	54
Deaths	3	7	5	10

In four years, there were 134% and 233% increase of BRT-related accidents and deaths respectively. It is therefore not wrong for Jakarta to build other system as safer alternative for the public, instead of expanding the BRT.

Think tanks such as ITDP has exclusive preference for bus-based transit, and this is rather unusual. The organisation's self-description states that their "primary programs include the development of bus rapid transit (BRT)".

Urban planning expert, Diego Silva Ardila has observed that these think tanks "have focused on BRT systems as the only plausible solution for urban transport in the developing world, and have not seriously and rigorously analyzed the possibilities that rail-based systems have in high-demand corridors in the intervened urban agglomerations."

This has led Diego to note that "the think tanks and their claims have been deemed biased by the fact that they represented the interests of funding sources and donors of these think tanks, mostly foundations of companies related to certain level with the automobile and oil industry."

Development studies expert, Matteo Rizzo in his research on BRT has made similar observation, that "the narrative of BRT, as a ‘win–win’ intervention to solve the public transport crisis in developing countries, obscures the many tensions associated with their implementation. Such a narrative stems from research sponsored by international finance, its NGO brokers, and BRT vehicle manufacturers, and is functional to their interests in opening up public transport markets in developing countries." (Matteo Rizzo, Taken For A Ride, Oxford University Press, 170)

A city's public transport should be a network of several systems complementing each other to leverage on different merits and closes the gap of weaknesses. That is the approach adopted by Penang Transport Master Plan with various types of systems working together.

As to why there are think tanks that advocate only one type of system is anyone's guess.