The first part of this article discussed why many people feel that LRT is the only real public transportation choice in Kuala Lumpur, even though there are other options that can cost less and be implemented faster.

This article will further discuss the gap that exists between bus services and LRT services, and present the first of two alternatives that can be better and cheaper than the bus or LRT.

It is interesting to note that there is a very large gap between the maximum level of service offered by the buses (1,000 passengers per hour per direction) and the maximum level of service currently offered by the Kelana Jaya LRT (10,000 passengers per hour per direction).

Being stuck in this service gap has created significant problems for public transit use in the Klang Valley.

Rather than seriously improving the bus service, or investing in transit options that would fill in the service gaps, the government seems to have neglected basic public transit services. Instead, they have made the choice to focus on LRT projects, more and more road upgrading, and highway construction.

The people have responded by purchasing more cars. Public transit services have generally deteriorated with the loss of passengers. Ten years later, witness the results. Public transit usage has dropped from 30% to 16%, according to government statistics. Roads have become increasingly jammed and the number of cars continues to increase.

Add to this mix the attitude held by many that public transit is only for the lower and middle income people, the assumption that anyone who can afford to drive, would drive, and the idea that roads should only be for cars.

No wonder the climate for public transit has been so hostile.

Business model

With a few exceptions, Malaysian bus companies have never operated as an organised, public service with frequent, scheduled buses. Because the companies operate on a business model, they cut costs and sacrifice quality of service. Many avoid using buses because they think them to be unreliable.

However, the creation of RapidKL has led to some changes in the way public transit services are offered in the Klang Valley. RapidKL offers both bus services and LRT services with increasing integration. The company is offering more routes, with more reliability, and is moving towards schedules on most bus routes. There is talk of having RapidKL operate the monorail service, but this is at a preliminary stage.

If the government had chosen to invest in basic bus services and improved those services 10 years ago, then things would be far better than they are now. If the government had looked at all of the available rapid transit options and invested in a complete rapid transit network, then things would be very different.

But today, we have the service gap and the assumption that LRT is the only wayno matter the cost.

LRT construction cost a lot of money. The construction of the Star line (Seri Petaling LRT) was RM3.5 billion, or an average of RM126 million per kilometer. The cost of the Putra line (Kelana Jaya LRT) was RM4.5 billion or an average of RM150 million per kilometer.

The LRT lines can move a lot more people than the buses, but the costs of construction and operations are high and passenger numbers may be lower than expected. Even today, the Sri Petaling LRT line is operating below capacity. One purpose of the planned extension to Puchong (or Bandar Sunway, or Old Klang Road, depending on who you talk to), is to increase the number of passengers so the line gets closer to capacity.

On the other hand, in some cases passenger numbers may even be higher than expected. But this can cause problems as well. The Kelana Jaya LRT line, if using two-carriage trains with a capacity of 260 passengers, can move about 8,000-10,000 passengers per direction during peak hours. But this line is now running above capacity during peak hours.

When the Kelana Jaya LRT begins using the recently ordered four-carriage trains with a capacity of 530, the maximum number of peak hour passengers could be expanded to 20,000 passengers per direction. However, any future extensions (such as the planned extension to Subang Jaya and USJ, or the recently mooted extension to Shah Alam and Klang) would bring the demand for the Kelana Jaya LRT up to its new maximum capacity in a very short period of time.

If that happens, any future demand would have to be met with expanded KTM service, bus service, or new LRT lines.

Filling in the service gap

The Klang Valley needs a complete network of rapid transit lines, but they do not have to be only LRT. KTM lines can and should be upgraded to provide faster rail service. Bus routes, if upgraded and redesigned, can move a lot of people as well.

Aside from the existing bus and rail transit in the Klang Valley, there are two additional options which would be especially useful. These two options would be used to provide rapid transit service when passenger numbers are between 1,000 passengers per hour per direction (which might be offered by a typical bus service) and 10,000 passengers per hour per direction (the numbers offered by the LRT).

By operating at ground level, and perhaps on existing streets, and forgoing grade separation, (except at intersections), these options would be able to fill the existing service gap between bus and LRT, without forcing us to pay the high cost of LRT.

Of course, these options might not be as sexy as LRT, but if designed properly, they can move a lot of people, and for a lower cost than LRT.

Remember that the Kelana Jaya LRT line cost RM150 million per kilometre in the 1990s. Today, the cost will be higher thanks to inflation, as well as the increased cost of materials, and land acquisition. The real question to ask is this: if there are options that will allow the Klang Valley to get more rapid transit lines, and at the same time spend less money, why should we choose LRT?

Bus Rapid Transit

The first option is Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT. BRT combines the flexibility and low cost of a bus with some of the advantages of a train service. There have been various versions of the BRT system implemented in cities throughout the world. Curitaba in Brazil and Bogata in Colombia are well known examples of successful BRT systems. Beijing and Jakarta are examples built closer to home.

In a Bus Rapid Transit system buses are separated from regular automobile traffic. This is referred to as a Category B right of way. The service may travel along existing roads in bus lanes that are painted or separated from other traffic by kerbs, or use bus-only roadways (also known as busways or transitways). To speed up the frequency of service, buses are given priority at intersections.

Isolation from mixed traffic, signal priority at intersections, and passing lanes allows service frequencies in a Bus Rapid Transit system to be as high as 30 seconds, meaning that a bus could arrive even more frequently than a LRT train. For safety, buses would typically arrive every 2-3 minutes during peak hours, and less frequently at other times.

A typical BRT vehicle could be an 18 meter-long articulated bus, with two segments. This bus can carry 130-150 passengers. The longest articulated buses, 23-25 meters, have three segments and might carry 180-200 passengers.
BRT systems often have "stations" that are separated from regular traffic as well.

Using "stations" allows passengers to pay their fare before boarding. Passengers can also board and alight from all doors. This saves time because the bus driver does not need to check fares and passengers do not need to queue.

Providing longer buses and allowing passengers to purchase advance tickets and allowing them to board and alight from all doors means that the driver drives, less time is spent at the "station," and overall, the bus can move more people, more quickly.

Together these improvements lead to increased service frequency and reliability.
If a 150 passenger bus is able to operate every three minutes (20 buses per hour) then the service can move as many as 3,000 passengers per hour per direction. At 60 second frequencies (60 buses per hour) the service could move 9,000 peak hour passengers per direction. This is as many as the existing Kelana Jaya LRT line!

Doing more with less?

The concept of Bus Rapid Transit is based on two main ideas. The first is the idea that improving bus services (through BRT) is a better alternative over rail construction, because BRT has lower-costs, greater flexibility, and can be constructed and introduced faster than rail. The second is the idea that BRT is very different from the typical bus service. BRT is promoted as being faster, more reliable, and more modern than bus services. In fact, many companies promote BRT as being effective rapid transit, just like rail service, except on tyres.

Depending on the system, different methods are used in the promotion of BRT as rapid transit. What is common is that BRT vehicles (especially in modern systems) are almost always curvaceous and streamlined, unlike the typical buses which have a more blocky appearance. In addition to the overall design outside, the interior design of the BRT vehicles is unlike typical buses. BRT vehicles are non-step, and the seats are larger and more comfortable than the typical bus. Services like wireless internet and power points and even mini-desks (for laptops) are added to make the experience as "un-bus" as possible.

In fact, to improve the marketing of BRT and deal with the image problems associated with bus service, the term "bus" is avoided as much as possible. Far greater emphasis is placed on the term "rapid transit."

For example, the Viva service introduced outside of Toronto, Canada originally marketed their service as the "un-bus" service. The Van Hool buses operated by Viva are called "RTVs" (Rapid Transit Vehicles), and bus shelters are "Vivastations," all to suggest that the service was much unlike the typical bus.

In Los Angeles, USA the Orange Line and Metro Rapid bus services use the same vehicles. However, the Orange Line is a BRT system, and it is identified as a rapid transit line on transit system maps.

Two types of BRT

There are various examples of BRT, but two main categories of service. The term "Closed Architecture" describes a BRT service that is designed very much like a rapid transit line. This type of BRT service is isolated from other traffic as much as possible, often with a specially designed right-of-way to reduce noise and make travel smoother for passengers.

This BRT service has "stations" and offers frequent service. No other vehicles are allowed to enter the BRT right of way. In contrast, "Open Architecture" refers to a BRT system that is less isolated from other traffic. The BRT service may have its own "right of way" but may also use regular roads or highways. The service may have "stations" and/or regular bus stops, and service may vary in frequency. The key feature of the "open" architecture is that other bus routes may use the right-of-way as well.

With a large number of fast, upgraded roads and expressways, the Klang Valley would benefit from BRT service. The challenge is to identify routes that could be converted to BRT service, whether "open" or "closed" architecture, and develop these routes properly.

Three routes that would benefit from BRT or upgraded bus services would be the Federal Highway from Kuala Lumpur to Klang, Jalan Klang Lama, and Jalan Puchong. These routes are appropriate for BRT because they have consistent, frequent and reliable bus service.

Although they are heavily traveled, all of these roads are quite wide. This would allow the upgrading of existing bus services in stages, to eventually reach the level of BRT, without having an extremely negative effect on the flow of automobile traffic.

The first step would be to introduce bus lanes on these routes, with strict enforcement with cameras. Once bus services become more frequent and reliable, an investment in "stations" and BRT right-of-way can begin.

When RapidKL introduced their new "hub and spoke" bus system in March 2006, the Trunk Bus/Bas Utama routes presented an interesting opportunity. The promise of frequent service (10 minute frequencies) and limited stops suggested that these buses might be a precursor to an open architecture BRT service. Upgrades on certain routes would have allowed this to happen in stages.

Unfortunately, there was never any push for isolation of the buses from other traffic by using bus lanes. This meant that service was unreliable. Another problem was transferring from bus to bus. Passengers were generally unfamiliar with transferring, were unhappy with the number of transfers required, and the conditions in which transfers were made. SPNB and RapidKL never built any transfer facilities either. The result was that transfers were highly inconvenient, and passengers complained about the service.

The recent changes launched on April 21 reduced the number of transfers, extended more routes into the city and combined other routes. While the new service has been generally well received, it may have effectively put aside the chance for BRT service on major routes in the Klang Valley.

It is unfortunate that RapidKL did not take the opportunity to invest in BRT service in 2006, but all is not lost. The existing Express Bus/Bas Ekspres service can still be enabled as the foundation for the BRT. An expansion of the express service into all five areas outside of KL, a commitment to bus lanes and frequent, reliable service would be enough to start.

Lessons to be learned

There are lessons to be learned from the spread of Bus Rapid Transit in recent years. The use of BRT can implement rapid transit lines far faster than LRT construction. Jakarta, for example, now has five TransJakarta bus lines, with two more on the way. Though the LRT and Monorail lines will still be built, but they have not been able to move forward as quickly as the BRT service.

In the Klang Valley, BRT can complement LRT and KTM services. Routes that are heavily used but do not meet the demand for LRT services, can be designed as BRT service instead. Expanding the existing Express Bus/Bas Ekspres service will allow RapidKL to introduce BRT to the Klang Valley, in stages. This will bring rapid transit to more people in a way that is faster than LRT and costs less than LRT.

We have to realise that much as 10km of Bus Rapid Transit could have been built using the RM150 million that was spent on each kilometer of the Kelena Jaya LRT line during its construction.

Now that the federal government is willing to spend RM10 billion and the Selangor government has proposed spending as much as RM12 billion on public transit it is time for the people to demand more, better, public transit service.

Allow BRT to complement bus and LRT and KTM services in the Klang Valley. It is an alternative to the investment cost that is associated with rail and LRT construction. Many BRT lines can be upgraded to LRT lines in the future, as demand increases.

The city of Curitiba, Brazil, became the pioneer of Bus Rapid Transit in the 1970s. Now, the service levels have reached a plateau. The mayor of Curitiba and many others are now mooting the idea of constructing LRT lines to complement or even to replace the BRT system.

Ultimately, because of higher capacity for expansion and lower operating costs, rail service becomes the best and fastest way to move large numbers of people. However, Bus Rapid Transit is a good way to improve bus service on an existing bus route, or build many rapid transit lines in a short time, or complete a rapid-transit network in situations where rail transit is too costly or too time-consuming.

Between the bus and LRT (Pt 1)

Between the bus and LRT (Part 3)

MOAZ YUSUF AHMAD is a regular user of public transport who is deeply concerned that government plans to encourage people to use public transport will ultimately fail because of poor planning and a lack of support from the public.