From: tloh@husc8.harvard.edu (Teck Loh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: MRT in K.L
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:48:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr16.014855.11154
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

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

I am not an expert or a PhD in bussiness but I have a few ideas to share.
The best way is by having a comparison of the MRT in Japan,Taiwan,Europe(eg.
France) and US. Since I have live in Japan, I have seem one of the most
complicated MRT system in the world. I believe that MRT is extremely
beneficial if it is well managed. Here are some of the advantages
and disadvantages which I can think of.

Advantages:
1. If all the trains are punctual as in Tokyo, fresh vegetables,fishes,etc
   will be able to be transported to their destinations without delay
   without having to worry about traffic congestion. Not only that we
   can have fresh food,fruits and fish, the farmer and fisherman will also
   benefit by being able to sell to further places (a larger market). But,
   if the MRT works as in Boston, then it is not beneficial at all.

2. As there are no traffic congestion, one can reach a place in the desire
   time without having to go earlier or late for an appointment. This will 
   prevent the waste of time, thus increase the activities in life such as
   bussiness. Look at the bullet train in Japan. There enable bussiness
   man to do bussiness without having to stay overnight in hotel.

3. The use of MRT will certainly reduce the use of cars. This will reduce
   the air pollution.     

4. Every MRT stop should be build with some special characteristic to 
   attract tourists. This will increase the bussiness activities in 
   these areas.

Disadvantages:
1. The use of train will cause some problems for other industries such as
   bus and taxi. Thus, a discussion with these groups should be carried
   out before planning the MRT.

2. Although it reduces air pollution, it cause major noise pollution to 
   the areas around the rail. This problem can be overcome by building
   it underground. The only problem is that it can be extremely expensive.

3. New areas for building the rails can also be a problem. It is usually
   difficult for the people to move or sell their lands where they have
   stay for generations.

4. It is always true that MRT can only be profitable in densely populated
   area. A trial MRT system in a densely populated area should be build
   first and then slowly expand to rural area so that all Malaysian
   can benefit from this development.

5. Experience from Japan shows that MRT alone will not be a very profitable
   bussiness unless other bussiness such as selling of souvenirs,food,etc
   are undertaken too. Maybe, we caN have a roti canai or nasi lemak at the MRT
   station before going to work. Sometime, they even organise special tours.


 Most of what I have mentioned above is based on one assumption that the 
MRT system is managed efficiently. No delays, well trained and dedicated
drivers, and good management are the criterias for the success of the MRT.
These are purely my personal experiences from my stay in Japan and US. 

 I will be please if anyone can point out the mistakes or add to the above.
    

T-P Loh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean