More rail, same traffic

SHAH ALAM - Billions have been spent expanding Kuala Lumpur’s rail network over the past decade, from Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) corridors to Light Rail Transit (LRT) extensions and interchanges. Yet congestion persists, raising a central question: can public transport solve the city’s mobility crisis – or is it simply reshuffling traffic?

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Transportation and Logistics Professor Dr Muhammad Zaly Shah Muhammad Hussein said the answer is both encouraging and uncomfortable.

“Yes, MRT and LRT expansions are mostly redistributing congestion,” he said, highlighting that rail systems now carry about 300,000 to 400,000 passengers daily, but overall public transport usage in Kuala Lumpur remains low at around 20–22 per cent of total trips.

Car dependency, he said, has not meaningfully declined.

At the core of the issue is induced demand – where new road or rail capacity generates additional travel rather than reducing congestion.

“You add capacity and the roads remain congested,” he said.

In practice, new MRT lines or highway expansions often encourage extra trips from commuters who previously avoided peak hours, instead of replacing car use at scale. As a result, rail expansion functions more as parallel infrastructure than a substitute system.

“To make a real shift, driving must become less convenient and more expensive, while alternatives improve simultaneously,” he added.

Malaysia’s transport challenge is not only infrastructural but institutional. Despite transit master plans dating back to the late 1980s, planning remains reactive and often shaped by political negotiation rather than demand.

Zaly said projects such as MRT3 were delayed not due to technical issues, but disagreements over funding and governance.

“Project approvals tend to follow political geography instead of transport demand data,” he said.

Ideally, cities should plan land use and density around transit before infrastructure is built. In Malaysia, development often moves in reverse – rail lines come first, followed by property growth, with feeder systems added later.

Another key issue is fragmented data. Agencies such as APAD, Prasarana, DBKL and JKR collect transport data separately, with limited real-time integration.

Private mobility platforms also hold rich origin-destination data that is not systematically used in planning.

“More data has been generated than we actually use,” he said.

While adaptive traffic systems exist in Kuala Lumpur, they are limited to certain corridors.

Globally, cities like Singapore, Seoul and Shenzhen have deployed large-scale smart mobility systems. AI-driven adaptive traffic control can reduce intersection delays by 10–25 per cent, according to benchmarks such as Pittsburgh’s SURTRAC system.

Dynamic bus routing and real-time fleet optimisation also improve efficiency and waiting times.

“The technology is not experimental anymore,” Zaly said. “The question is whether agencies are willing to restructure operations to use it.”

Kuala Lumpur’s rail system has expanded rapidly but remains siloed. MRT, LRT, Monorail and KTM Komuter operate under different systems, fares and interchange designs, making transfers inconvenient despite physical connectivity.

“Technically you can transfer lines, but practically it is not seamless,” he said.

Three structural inefficiencies continue to undermine the system.

First is the first-mile and last-mile gap. Many stations lack reliable feeder buses, safe walking routes or cycling infrastructure, forcing commuters to drive.

Second is the relatively low cost of driving. Parking in Kuala Lumpur remains cheap, while subsidies and pricing structures still make car use competitive with transit.

Third is the weak bus network. In most global cities, buses carry the majority of public transport users, but in Kuala Lumpur they remain inconsistent, leaving rail to carry disproportionate demand.

Accessibility is another overlooked barrier. Most commuters are only willing to walk about 400 metres to transit, but poor pedestrian infrastructure often makes even short distances difficult.

Broken sidewalks, lack of shade and unsafe crossings discourage walking even when stations are nearby.

“A well-designed 300-metre shaded walkway can replace multiple car trips,” he said.

Zaly cautioned against comparing Kuala Lumpur to cities like Tokyo or London, which developed integrated systems over decades.

Instead, he suggested benchmarks such as Bangkok, Jakarta and Taipei, which are closer to Malaysia’s development stage but have made stronger progress in integrating transport modes.

Despite the challenges, he said one reform could deliver quick gains: full fare integration across all Klang Valley operators.

Currently, passengers often pay multiple fares when transferring between MRT, KTM and buses. A unified fare system based on origin and destination would remove friction and improve usability.

“This requires no new infrastructure, only policy alignment,” he said.

A more difficult reform is congestion pricing. Charging vehicles entering Kuala Lumpur’s central business district during peak hours – already implemented in London and Stockholm – has reduced traffic by up to 30 per cent while funding public transport improvements.

But he acknowledged the political difficulty.

“There are no technical obstacles,” he said. “Only political will.”