Traffic ideas stuck in jam

On Dec 18, newly installed Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Ab Hakim Borhan proposed a levy on vehicles entering the city centre during peak hours. Ab Hakim said the levy, intended to reduce traffic congestion, was justified as commuters could rely on the city’s improved public transportation. ANIS IBRAHIM of NST speaks to two city Members of Parliament with opposing views.

Segambut MP Dr Tan Kee Kwong

Q: What are your views on the levy proposed by Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Ab Hakim Borhan?

A: I support it wholeheartedly. I’ve spoken about it twice in Parliament while debating the annual Budget, so this is a matter which I feel strongly about. The public may complain about the levy but they forget that traffic jams are not just the government’s responsibility. We can all play a part to reduce it. I think people’s attitudes have to change where public transport is concerned. They cannot say that buses or the LRT are for those in the lower-income group. Sometimes, it makes a lot of sense to take public transport — I live in Bangsar but when I need to get to KLCC quickly, I use the LRT. I had a car when I was a doctor in London but I never drove to Soho for my chicken rice because the underground and the buses were more practical.

Q: How much do you think the levy should be?

A: You must enforce it till it hurts. There’s no point having a RM2 levy. It should be at least RM10 or RM15. The government must impose this strictly and not let it turn into traffic offences where you pay a compound. Everyone can afford a RM30 compound. The government must be firm about this and not worry whether it’s the election year or otherwise. When you do something for the greater good, the people will eventually see its worth. Most of the time, congestion is caused by inconsiderate people. Malaysians can exercise, play tennis and golf outdoors but when they go shopping they must park right in front of the rumah kedai. They don’t want to inconvenience themselves but they don’t give a damn when they make other people’s lives difficult.

Q: You don’t think the levy will be a burden?

A: You see, the levy has to come. It’s not nice to consumers, people are going to grumble but it has to be done. I know there is the belief that the public will not accept something if it involves an extra cost to them and that it won’t be good for the government if elections are going to be held but when the levy does reduce congestion, the people will accept it.

Q: What areas do you think should be subject to the levy?

A: High traffic volume zones such as Jalan Raja Laut, Jalan Sultan Ismail, Petaling Street and Bukit Bintang. The government should also do something about Puduraya, there is too much traffic there.

Q: Do you have any other suggestions to reduce traffic congestion?

A: I think that once the levy zone is defined, bus rides within the zone should be free. This may not be too difficult because RapidKL is already under the government, so that is a start. Free bus rides within the city centre are already a feature in Perth, Australia, and closer to home, in Georgetown. Another idea that can be implemented is the “Park ‘n Ride”, practised in Oxford, England. You park your car at the “Park ’n Ride” centre where you pay only £2 (RM13.6) for 24 hours and a bus picks you up and drops you somewhere in the city. The “Park ’n Ride” system could work here as well. The government has 89.03 hectares at the Sungai Besi airforce base and a few hundred acres at Kampung Pandan. These areas are all potential ‘Park ’n Ride’ stops.

Q: Do you think the present transport system is efficient enough to support the increase in the number of commuters after the levy?

A: Yes, Kuala Lumpur’s public transport is good enough, it has the capacity.

Q: But feeder buses don’t go to every residential area, so some commuters might find it difficult to go to the stations.

A: People using the LRT, Putra line or monorail can always get a lift from their husbands or wives or neighbours. They can still car pool and park at the stations. The problem of parking and congestion will be sorted out by having staggered working hours.

Seputeh MP Teresa Kok

Q: What do you think of the public transport system in Kuala Lumpur?

A: The transport system is very poor. There are more Rapid KL buses than before but the normal complaint is that people have to take two or three buses to enter Kuala Lumpur. If there had been proper planning from the start, more people would be taking public transport. So while I’m glad that our new mayor recognises that traffic congestion is a serious problem, I think the levy is burdensome.

Q: But don’t you think the levy will make a difference, since you acknowledge that Kuala Lumpur has a traffic problem?

A: No, I don’t agree at all with the levy. We’ll end up having to build more toll plazas to collect the money. This will just create more queues.

Q: So what do you suggest?

A: The only way out is to have more LRT stations and routes. If Datuk Ab Hakim can see to it that KL has more LRT routes and more parking spaces, then it will be a major success for him. People are still expected to drive or take taxis or buses to the monorail, LRT and Putra stations. My point is if the transport system is improved, it will be natural for the public to use it, rather than being forced to rely on public transport by a levy intended to ease traffic congestion. Unless his term is extended, a mayor only has two years. If Datuk Ab Hakim can increase the number of taxis and buses by 50 per cent, people will definitely use public transport.

Q: There are congestion charges on vehicles in central London, which has apparently helped to reduce traffic and pollution.

A: London is different. It is well planned, with a far superior public transport system. So when traffic is congested even when there is efficient public transport, then maybe a levy is all right. Here in Kuala Lumpur, most of us don’t have a choice because there aren’t enough LRT routes, buses or taxis. When public transport is efficient, people will use it because they want to, not because they are forced to, which is what the levy seeks to do.

Q: Do you see any practical hurdles if the levy goes ahead?

A: Firstly, how do you select the chargeable zones, what is the yardstick? Let’s say you want to include Bukit Bintang or the Golden Triangle. That’s going to meet with a lot of resistance from businesses there. Both areas are tourist areas. There are five-star hotels, large shopping centres and so many cars. Secondly, how do you collect payment? In Singapore, the charge is collected via electronic gantries, so the government would have to spend more money to construct the gantries.

Q: Drivers in London can pay the congestion charge by SMS, telephone, online or at pay points in the city.

A: Not all Malaysians are savvy enough to know how to pay online.

Q: Let’s say the public transport system in Kuala Lumpur improves in a few years but congestion continues to be a problem. Would you object to a levy then?

A: We would need five to 10 years for the situation to improve, but if that were the case, I suppose the levy would be more acceptable. I commend the new mayor’s intentions. He wants to reduce congestion but he should improve public transport first.