From: rezal@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rezal Adzly Abdul Rahman)
Subject: Re: MRT in K.L
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 05:29:33 GMT

In article <54759@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6737b@prism.gatech.EDU (JAAFAR,EMERIZAL AHMAD) writes:
>Dear friends,
>	I'm sure a lot of us know that the MRT project in K.L is currently
>undergoing some complicated problems.  Let us disregard that fact for a 
>brief moment and proceed discussing the idea.  
>	From what I understand, the MRT is supposedly to reduce the traffic
>problem due to the ever increasing number of automobiles in K.L and its'
>vacinity.  However, is MRT really going to reduce traffic conjestion?
>If you live in K.L, you would probably noticed that the people who are
>using the busses are mostly the 'little people', people who couldn't
>afford to buy a car anyways(asuming that the gov't will still enforce
>high tax rate on inported cars).  Thus, I don't really see the rationale
>behind the move to have MRT service.  I doubt that a lot of my friends
>would rather use the public busses to get around(knowing that some of
>them adore european cars!!!)  Would you use MRT and leave your BMW,
>Mercedes, Porche, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Rolls Royles, or perhaps lambourghini
>at home. Hmmm...most unlikely!

Aha! Personally, I know "some of us" who adore European cars and drive them.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the city (SF), a car is not practical for
the finite amount of parking and downtown traffic. Not to mention them 45
degree hills that require extreme clutch work if you're driving a stick
shift (generalization: real men drive stick! :))

What we normally do is park our car in Daly city which is the nearest BART
(Bay Area Rapid Transit) station to Stanford. BART is a semi underground
rapid transit system that is both cheap and convenient. It has several stations
and the ones in SF are located smack in the middle of the commercial area.
Parking spaces are abound at BART stations and are free. Why NOT?

Back home, I live in Kajang. Due to the growing population of the area (at
least over 200,000 maybe more), parking spaces are very limited. The problem
is made worse by people who work in KL but park their cars in Kajang and take
the bus for parking is free in Kajang. 

If we could have a really efficient MRT which is as clean as Singapore's,
I wouldn't mind parking my car in some remote area (provided its crime free)
and hop on the MRT to say Lot 10 or Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman.
`
>	Another thing abt this type of public transportation is that it's not
>profitable.  If Dewan Bandaraya or Federal Gov't, don't mind subsidizing it
>no problem then.  Perhaps, somebody with a strong business and commercial
>background should back me up.(  Knowing micro&macro economics or even 
>monetary and banking is not enough.  I need somebody who has a degree in
>business, a PhD would be nice).  A lot of examples where the city's
>subway and/or MRT system is facing severe financial problem.  take Atlanta,
>Philly, Boston(once before I think) for example.(maybe calgary too?)

Sorry eme, I do not hold any economic degrees nor am I majoring in it.
But I can tell you this.

There is a line that separates between profit and loss. If enough people 
use the MRT, why should it not be able to make enough money beyond this
margin? After all, if the system is not profitable, why are they running
MRT in London and SF?

As far as cities with MRT financial problems, the are several reasons which 
may cause the problem. In a city where the buses are caught up in traffic 
like KL, I don't see why the people would not opt for MRT if it is faster.
There are two ways to compensate for the running costs of the system.
Either charge high enough or charge low enough to maximize the volume of
people using it. The former will have poor reception but the latter could
be feasible. Since a MRT coach will still have 30 seats reagrdless of whether
5 or 30 people ride it, why not make the fares low enough so that 30 people
will always ride on the MRT.

In the long run, MRT should remain profitable enough if KL continues to
grow at its current rate due to the volume of people wanting to use the
MRT. Btw, do not estimate the consumer power of the "little poeple" and
it is them who make up a significant number of KL's population. Besides,
with the astronomical costs of cars back home, the people who can afford
a Proton now would probably not be able to afford a motor cycle ten years 
from now.


>	I support PM's call for a better bus systems.  That would be a more
>realistic approach.  However, please bear in mind that this is just one
>person's opinion.  I'm sure K.L city planners already thought about this
>matter and considered it thoroughly(I think!...how can we know...we weren't
>involved...we can merely speculate the rationale behind their decisions).
>(exchanging ideas...that's about it that we can do...hopefully thru exchanging
>these ideas, something good will come out of us...make us more aware of
>certain things...that's abt it that we can do...assuming that's what we want 
>anyways...at least a lot better than cursing at people etc.) 
>

As far as KL's city planners are concerned, one of the best cities that they
could probably emulate would be SF for like KL, SF expanded decades ago in
a haphazardly way unlike LA. The roads in LA are arranged in a grid pattern
but the roads in SF twist and turn following the contours of the hills.

Better bus systems would not work without better roads. Period.
Somebody has to start anew from scratch. Roads can be improvised only so
far. Then, expensive structural  changes must be made. Anyone playing
SimCity might have encountered this problem.


>Well...one can't know all there is to know in this world....
>
>-- 
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>|**EMERIZAL AHMAD JAAFAR, ATLANTA.  HOME OF THE GEORGIA TECH YELLOW JACKETS**|
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Rezal