Transportation In Malaysian Context

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015 Last Modified: 05 May 2017

Unlike most other Asian cities, driving is the main mode of commuting in Kuala Lumpur. Hence, every part of the city is well connected by highways. As the capital of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur has a comprehensive road network that leads to the rest of Peninsular Malaysia.

Public transport in Kuala Lumpur and the rest of the Klang Valley covers a variety of transport modes such as bus, rail and taxi. Based on the article "Prasarana to buy trains worth RM1.2bil" by The Star in 2006, despite efforts to promote usage of public transportation, utilisation rates are low as only 16 percent of the population used public transportation. Rail transport in Kuala

Lumpur encompasses light rail, rapid transit, monorail and commuter rail.

Kuala Lumpur is served by three separate rail systems which meet in the city and extend towards other parts of the Klang Valley, namely RapidKL Light Rail Transit, KL Monorail, and KTM Komuter. These lines have underground, elevated or at-grade stations around the city. The main rapid transit hub is KL Sentral which facilitates as an interchange station for the rail systems. RapidKL is the operator of two light rail lines in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley, namely Ampang Line and Kelana Jaya Line which connect Kuala Lumpur to its satellite city, Petaling Jaya.

The issue of what transport system in Kuala Lumpur City Centre and Petaling Jaya has today is, people are too lazy. They are lazy to walk so they decided to park their car as close as they can to their destination. They are lazy to find car parks so they park at road shoulders, causing congestion to the drivers and also an obstacle for pedestrians and cyclists. They are lazy to walk a few miles to the nearest LRT station to go to city centre and opt to go there by car instead, despite the massive traffic especially during early morning and late evening. But they are okay with it. Because no matter how they said they hate the traffic, they would still go out using their cars, and put up hours on the road, wasting precious times.

So why would these people, simply put up with the traffic that they hate so much and deceiving the fact that they have the multi-million Ringgit worth of PUTRA LRT, which is one of the most advanced rapid transit systems in the world, and at the time of construction was the world's longest driverless metro. Because if they travel with LRT, it may not stop approximately at their destination. There's this term, faced by the LRT users, which are called first mile and last mile. And Malaysian hates this. So they prefer to sit in their little air-conditioned steel boxes which move slower than a bike during peak hours. Because of people's love for their cars, finding a solution to the question of access to these buildings, to avoid being surrounded by a sea of parked cars, is therefore an important part of the problem.

According to Brian Richards in his book Future Transport in the cities (1960), he summed up the approaches that being used towards dealing with traffic problems in the cities by the authorities. These approaches are:

There is a serious and effective grass roots opposition in most countries to more urban road-building on the basis that more roads mean more traffic.

Within residential areas there has been the development of traffic calming and town yards.

Controls on parking within city centres has effectively reduced and controlled the amount of traffic entering cities.

Planning laws are banning more out of town shopping centres or random car-oriented developments.

Public transport has been maintained and improved, without which any of the other measures would be effective.

Although these measures were introduced, there are problems with the continuing growth of cars, the political strength of car lobby and the desire for people to own and use their own cars. In this selfish world, people love their cars. It gives them a retreat from the real world which partly accounts for their popularity. It provides them with a degree of comfort and privacy for the user, which public transportation did not have. It allows the user to go straight to their destination without having the hassle to change stations or switch mediums like public transportations do. As a result, these cars caused the most problems to city life. It is now that alternative ways must be sought to provide transportation systems that are good enough for people to opt out for it and leave their cars for major trips like going back to their kampung and road trips.

Another reason that makes people opt for cars is the lack connectivity of LRT in Petaling Jaya area. Realising the problem, the Government of Malaysia is now working on a Malaysia Rapid Transit project. The proposal was announced in June 2010 and was approved by the government of Malaysia in December 2010. The newly-launched Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) will oversee and coordinate the entire MRT development in terms of cost and viability, alignment and integration, and will play the role of regulator once the project is completed. National infrastructure company, Syarikat Prasarana Negara would ultimately own and operate the MRT. A First Class Land Public Transport System Contributes to Social and Economic Development

Historical data in Malaysia and around the world indicates a correlation between GDP and mobility growth - increased population, employment and economic activity always translate into higher mobility requirements. In this context, a first class land public transport system is especially important given our immediate aims as outlined in the ETP: 6 per cent annual growth and 3.3 million new jobs by 2020. Travel vehicle demand grew from 13 million trips per day in 1991 to 40 million in 2010. Projections point towards this trend continuing in Malaysia, with the figure expected to reach a staggering 133 million in 2030.With urbanization expected to reach 70 per cent by 2020, there is a need to enable an efficient and smooth flow of people, which in turn also enables the growth of new urban areas through increased connectivity.

Beyond satisfying a growing demand, land public transport plays a catalytic role in accelerating and shaping economic growth. Provision of effective public transport services has the potential of opening up new growth clusters, enhancing the attractiveness of existing clusters, and driving urban revitalization. And there are other positive spill-over effects of increased economic activity built upon an advanced land public transport network - it yields employment and business opportunities in local economies by having synergies with other industries like advertisement, retail and property development.

Malaysia has seen a surge in ownership of cars and motorcycles across the country, which is an indication of our country's increased prosperity, but although private vehicles contribute to the mobility solution, sustainable and inclusive social and economic development cannot be overly dependent on private vehicles. As a general rule, public transportation is more affordable and mitigate traffic congestion as well as the attendant pollution problems caused by private vehicles on the road. All this puts tremendous pressure on the land public transport system to meet the mobility and connectivity requirements closely linked to the social and economic development agenda.

Public Transport Masterplan which was being proposed recently.

MY Rapid Transit (MRT) is a proposed three-line Mass Rapid Transit system in the Klang Valley. The MRT will be integrated with the LRT, Monorail, KTM Komuter and intra/ intercity buses and will help alleviate traffic congestion by increasing the number of people using public transport in the city centre. When operational, the system targets to carry 400,000 commuters daily. In 2020, it is estimated that the population in the Klang Valley will grow from the current 6 million to 10 million. This means that if every single trip is on private transport, the roads in the Klang Valley will be in gridlock. An effective public transport system is the only solution to this as it can move people in masses and it has an optimal usage of space to carry the same number of people.

Rail-based public transport, such as the MRT, LRT or commuter train, always forms the backbone of a city's public transport system as it can carry large numbers of people and can move people quickly because it is not hindered by road traffic. Klang Valley currently has a shortage of rail-based public transport coverage compared with most public transport-oriented cities. It has less than 20km per million population. Public transport-oriented cities such as

Singapore, Hong Kong and London have more than 40km of rail per million population. With the MRT, it will boost the rail-based public transport coverage in Klang Valley significantly.

The first line of this project is the Sungai Buloh - Kajang Line (SBK Line), which stretches 51km and have 31 stations. The line will pass through the city centre and will serve densely populated suburban areas including Kota Damansara, Mutiara Damansara, Bandar Utama, Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Bukit Damansara, Cheras, Bandar Tun Hussein Onn and Balakong, with a total catchment population of 1.2 million people. Out of the 31 stations, 16 stations will be equipped with Park and Ride facilities:

Sungai Buloh

Maluri

Pusat Bandar Damansara

Kota Damansara

Taman Bukit Mewah

Bandar Tun Hussein Onn

Taman Industri Sungai Buloh

Plaza Phoenix

Taman Koperasi

Taman Tun Dr Ismail

Taman Suntex

Saujana Impian

Seksyen 16

Taman Cuepacs

Kajang

Works on the MRT SBK line has begun in July 2011 and is expected to be completed by 2017.

The Klang Valley MRT will not only significantly increase the current inadequate rail network but will also serve to integrate the existing rail networks and expectantly alleviate the severe traffic congestion in the Greater KL metropolitan area. The new MRT system is to radically improve and transform Kuala Lumpur's poor and sorely inadequate public transportation coverage and to propel the Greater Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area to be on par with that of a developed city. The new lines will increase Greater Kuala Lumpur's rapid rail network from 15 km per million people in 2010 to 40 km per million people once completed. The proposal also envisages a fivefold increase in rail ridership, in line with the government's target for public transport usage in the Klang Valley of 40% by 2020 from 18% in 2009. The Red Line will go from Damansara in the northwest to Serdang in the southeast of Kuala Lumpur, While the Green Line will be from Kepong in the northeast to Cheras in the southwest. Both lines will pass through the city of Kuala Lumpur and converge at the Dataran Perdana (Kuala Lumpur International Financial District) near Jalan Tun Razak.

The underground MRT Line 2 looping around the city of Kuala Lumpur will serve an important role to tie-up and integrate the currently disjointed LRT and monorail lines. Under the Greater KL/ Klang Valley Land Public Transport Master Plan draft, MRT 2 would cater for orbital movements around Kuala Lumpur, provide linkages to existing areas such as the Mid Valley, Mont Kiara, Sentul Timur and Ampang, as well as proposed major developments identified in the DBKL City Plan such as Matrade. The master plan draft says the circle line would be developed in at least two phases - The first, comprising 29km with 22 stations - would be the western and southern sections linking Ampang with Mid Valley, Matrade and Sentul. The second phase (12km with 8 stations) would link Ampang with Sentul Timur, completing the northeastern sector of the circle line. The master plan also says MRT 3 or the north-south

(NS) line would cater for a north-west corridor of the Greater Klang Valley, linking developing areas such as Sungai Buloh, Kepong and Selayang with the eastern half of the city centre (including Kampung Baru and Kuala Lumpur International Financial District), which was forecast to be overloaded in the future.

Sustainably Enhancing Connectivity

Public transport has an important role to play in Malaysia's aspirations to develop holistically and sustainably. As populations in urban centres get denser, the problems of congestion and pollution will rise. Proper planning of public transport and land-use are essential to mitigate the ill-effects of population growth in urban areas and to make city-life a pleasant, healthy and environmentally sustainable one.

Under the Final Draft of Malaysia's National Land Public Transport Masterplan, chapter 3.7 ABOUT BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE states that policy 3.7.1 is to promote healthy living.

One of the indirect benefits of using land public transport systems is that they indirectly promote healthier lifestyles. This is because when the public transportation hubs are well connected, the first and last miles' of a public transport user's journey are typically travelled by foot, rather than in a car or on a motorcycle.

The stretch between the public transport station and the users' origin or destination is crucial to reduce the barrier of using public transport in the first place.

• Pedestrian facilities improvement to bus stops and railway stations will be encouraged as part of the local authority development plans. Walking structures should be defined around transit stops to increase the convenience of those locations. To enhance the accessibility of KL‟s public transport network, a target has been set of having 75 per cent of the population live within 400 meters of a public transport stop.

In addition to ensuring ease of access to the major transport nodes for pedestrians, fitting in cyclist-friendly infrastructure such as bicycle parking facilities and bicycle lanes will make it easier and more attractive for people to ride to the stations or interchanges. It will also increase the catchment area of these bus interchanges or rail stations as people living further away would not be put off by having to walk a distance to take public transport."

- policy 3.7.1 : Final Draft of Malaysia‟s National Land Public Transport Masterplan

First, let's take Singapore as a reference in terms of public transportation usage and connectivity. It is easy to take Singapore as a reference to this study because of its climate is the same as Malaysia and taking Kuala Lumpur City Centre and Petaling Jaya as a place of study, it is almost similar to Singapore in terms of urbanization. Then again, how did Singapore able to encourage their people to use their public transportation? Although the approach of Singaporean government is not through cycling, however, it is still beneficial to review their integrated transport system and compare with our own transportation system.

In terms of connectivity, public transportation in Singapore is highly connected all over its main town to its suburbs. Since Singapore is a small town with a high density of population, it is possible to do so. Furthermore, because of its size, it is possible to enforce restrictions on private car ownership this, curbing congestion and pollution. To own a car, one must pay duty one and a half times the market value and bid for a Singapore Certificate of Entitlement which comes in very limited numbers. Therefore, according to Singapore's department of statistics, only 1 very 10 people own a car. Within the absence of private cars, Singaporeans seems to live normally and manage their time effectively, to catch up with the public transportation's schedule.

Singaporeans usually travels either by bus, taxis, trains, or maybe a combination and some of them might cycle. Although according to Tan Mike Tze in a chapter of the book THE JOURNEY: Singapore's Land Transportation Story (2005), he says Singaporeans does not like the idea of pedal-powered bicycle as it is too hot and humid, the traffic is dangerous to the cyclist and so on. Also, generally bicycles are used by construction workers, say some. In the book, Tan Mike Tze has this thought where he wants people to imagine a world where everybody goes to work by bicycles or walking or public transportation and their companies are encouraging it by providing showers and changing room facilities allow people to freshen up before starting their work. A world with dedicated lanes and protected side road reserves for the bicycles. A world where the roads are dominated by cyclists and pedestrians and cars have to give way to them. Imagine the health benefits, environmental friendliness and sheer graciousness in such a world.

In Petaling Jaya, there are already bicycle paths and bicycle parkings at bus stops, being integrated as part of a residential area's streetscape in Damansara Jaya. Although not many people have come to know about these facilities, it is actually a part of Petaling Jaya's Green City big plan, where they are trying to decrease the carbon footprints produced and reduce the use of private motorised vehicles on the road. The bicycle path in Damansara Jaya is the pioneer project which tries to communicates urban parks within the Petaling Jaya area. Even though it was meant for recreation, it indirectly helps the cyclist to safely commute within that area. Children can now cycle to school without having their parents to worry about their safety on the road, thus, reducing the number of cars on the road during 7.00 am to 7.30 am and 2.00pm to 3.30pm. It is a very good example set up by the Petaling Jaya Municipalities on how to manage traffic in urban areas.

Singapore's transport planners have occasionally toyed with this idea. The Registry of Vehicles stopped registering bicycles in 1981, but a 1955 estimate reckoned Singaporean owned about 240 bicycles per 1000 population. This puts Singapore sixth in a table with other developed countries, a table inevitably topped by the developing world's most devoted cyclist, in Holland, with its 550 bicycles per 1000 people. But ownership does not equate with usage, of course. Most bicycles use in Singapore is recreational, and often the bikes belong to a child or teenagers but not working adults. There already is a good network of recreational bike paths in parkland areas. But only 1% of Singaporean trips were made on bicycles in 1995, way below the most other countries. In many admittedly cooler European countries, up to 50% of rail travellers and perhaps 20% of bus travellers may arrive at the station or terminus on a bicycle.

There certainly are valid safety concerns, given the current configuration of Singapore's roads; while only 1% trips were made by bicycle, the percentage of road accident casualties for cyclists is disproportionately large, at about 4%. But these conditions could be changed. The cyclist could be protected via dedicated lanes or paths among other strategies. Road planners, of course, panic that they are already short enough of land for road-building, without sacrificing any more for â€-frills' such as bicycle lanes. For engineers, all the glamour lies in rail. To some extent, this mindset can be seen in the 1996 White Paper A World Class Land Transport System. In this report, bicycles are relegated to a brief paragraph at the back, under the general heading "Supporting Measures". The provision of more facilities for bicycles would encourage short trips of about 3km within housing estates, and possibly to the nearest MRT stations as well. It is the strength of this lobby to create future demand that ultimately will determine whether the planners really embrace the bicycle. The Land Transport Authority, had provided some 869 bicycles at 38

MRT stations by 1997, but it seems significant that bicycles did not feature in the LTA annual report after that, and that a search of the current LTA website under bicycle- does not yield any information.

" How much friendlier and nicer our roads and public spaces would it be if more of us paddled around on bicycles instead of sitting high and aloof in our four-wheeled steel boxes. It will require a national cycling strategy integrated into the national transport, health and environmental policy. The such master plan will provide for necessary infrastructure such as traffic signs and bicycle parkings, redesign roads and â€Å¾traffic calming‟ measures in built up areas and school zones to slow down motor traffic. It will require some changes to the law, most importantly, it will require safety education and training for all road users."

- Chin Yih Ling, Singapore‟s Today Newspaper, 17 January 2005

According to existing cyclists, cycling in early in the morning and late afternoon hours could be much more comfortable than walking as they can feel the breeze during riding the bike and the temperature of the surrounding is quite cool. It would extend the catchment of the LRT stations of more than 45% walking, thus making cycling a better option than walking. In Malaysia, people are allowed to take motorcycle license as early at the age of 16 and car license at the age of 18. Malaysia has cheap petrols, subsidized by the government, lots of highways and wide roads to occupy the needs of urban transportation. Therefore, people here can't seem to find a reason to not own a car or ride one. Thus, the existence of bicycle is forgotten. Even kids are demanding to be sent and invited back home by cars. Bicycles in Kuala Lumpur city centre and Petaling Jaya are now merely for recreations, where people brought their bicycle by cars, to the urban parks, and ride it there for the sake of health benefits they claim. There are even peoples, who strived the congested roads every day after work, for the sake of riding a stationary bicycle at the gym, also, for the health benefits.

Figure 2.1.3 Copenhagen, Denmark, Mao showing 300km of cycle paths provided beside all existing regional roads and distributor streets, used by 30% of commuters daily. New cycle routes are being built, aimed at increasing the length of average cycle trips from 5 to 15km.

For those who aren't cycling, the idea of having a dedicated bike path would make them think as if it was a waste of space and resources. But looking things at a bigger picture, having dedicated bicycle paths would encourage more people to cycle as it ensures the cyclist's safety on the road. When more people cycles, the dependency on private cars lessens thus, reducing the number of cars on the road, and releasing the traffic's pressure, especially during peak hour.

With just a few millions spent on providing bicycle-oriented facilities such as painting the paths and providing bicycle parking, and give 1.5 metre minimum from the existing roads to these bike paths - instead of spending billions on building more highways and flyovers - the government could save billions more and able to spend it to increase the performance of existing public transportations such as increasing the number of coaches to the train to allow more people to enjoy the ride, increasing the number of trains and platforms to allow more frequent trips and better connectivity to places throughout the city.

2.2 Kuala Lumpur

Kuala Lumpur is the federal capital of Malaysia. The city covers an area of 243KM² and has an estimated population of 1.6 million as of 2012. At 1999, the administrative centre of Malaysia was shifted to Putrajaya as an approach to release the population pressure of Kuala Lumpur. Started as a tin mining town, Kuala Lumpur evolves rapidly as among the fastest growing metropolitan regions in the country, in terms of population and economy Malaysia.

After the big flood swept through the town following a fire that had engulfed it earlier in 1881, Kapitan Yap Ah Loy restructured the building layout of the city into new brick buildings with clay tiles inspired by shophouses in southern China, characterised by "five foot ways" as well as skilled Chinese carpentry work. This resulted in a distinct eclectic shop house architecture typical of this region. A railway line increased accessibility into the growing town. As the development intensified in the 1890s, Kapitan Yap Ah Loy spent a sum of $20,000 to expand road access in the city significantly, linking up tin mines with the city, these roads include the main arterial roads of Ampang Road, Pudu Road and Petaling Street.

Climate and weather

Protected by the Titiwangsa Mountains in the east and Indonesia's Sumatra Island in the west, Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya has a tropical rainforest climate which is hot and humid all year round. Average temperatures tend to remain constant between 31 and 33 °C and typically receives minimum 2,600 mm of rain annually. Flooding is a frequent occurrence in both cities whenever there is a heavy downpour, especially in the city centre and downstream areas. Dust particles from forest fires from nearby Sumatra sometimes cast a haze over the region. It is a major source of pollution in the city together with open burning, emission from motor vehicles and construction works.

2.3 Petaling Jaya

Petaling Jaya is a city in Selangor originally developed as a satellite township for Kuala Lumpur, comprising mostly residential and some industrial areas. It is located in the Petaling district with

First developed by the British on the former 486 hectares Effingham Estate,as an answer to the problem of overpopulation in Kuala Lumpur in 1952 and has since witnessed a dramatic growth in terms of population size and geographical importance. The migration from Kuala Lumpur to the Petaling area had indeed started before the town was officially named in 1953 as Petaling Jaya. The satellite town began to take shape in 1952 when 800 houses were built and another 200 under construction.

By the end of 1957, there were well over 3,200 houses in Petaling Jaya, along with more than 100 shops and 28 operating factories. The year also saw the opening of the first phase of the Federal Highway (Lebuhraya Persekutuan) which divided Petaling Jaya into two. Linking Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya and Port Klang, it enhanced PJ's reputation as a strategically located town, particularly in the eyes of industrialists and the affluent searching for prime residential land.

Transportation facilities and infrastructure are well developed in Petaling Jaya. Bus services were initially provided by Sri Jaya between the early 1950s until the early 1990s. The mid-eighties saw the introduction of minibuses. The introduction of the IntraKota bus system by DRB-Hicom saw the replacement of Sri Jaya and the minibus by the early 1990s. At the same time, some of the Petaling Jaya-Kuala Lumpur bus routes were also serviced by Metrobus.

The introduction of the Putra LRT service in 1998 saw the addition of the Putraline feeder bus services. The combination of Putraline and Putra LRT brought a relief to many Petaling Jaya residents especially those who had had to rely on public transportation. In 2006 RapidKL took over the operations of IntraKota as well as both Star and Putra LRT. Today, public transportation is provided by RapidKL in the form of buses as well as the KL Light Rail Transit System - Kelana Jaya Line, which extends slightly into Petaling Jaya. There are five Kelana Jaya Line stations in Petaling Jaya.Petaling Jaya has three access points to the national highway system North-South Expressway via Kota Damansara, Damansara, and Subang. Internally, highways such as the Damansara-Puchong Expressway, Sprint Expressway and the Federal Highway also exist.

There are plans for extensions to the existing Klang Valley light rail transit network with a new 30 km line from Kota Damansara in the northern part of Petaling Jaya to Cheras (southern Kuala Lumpur) with stops in Mutiara Damansara and Taman Tun Dr Ismail, to name a few. The extension line which would connect to Subang Jaya, the Kelana Jaya Line, will start operation on April 2011 and expected to be completed in 2013.

2.4 Cycling In The City

Before the economy of Malaysia blooms and the first national car, Proton Saga, was launched in July 1985 by Malaysia's then Prime Minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad, cars is a luxury to many, and cycle is the most common medium of transportation. People's daily travel distances were shorter and the city is more friendly towards people, rather than machines. People in those days treated cycling as part of their utility, rather than a hobby.

Utility or transportational cycling generally involves travelling short and medium distances, which involves a few kilometres and not more, often in an urban environment. It includes commuting to work, school or university, going shopping and running errands, as well as heading out to see friends and family or for other social activities.

It also includes economic activity such as the delivering of goods or services. In big cities, the bicycle courier has been often a familiar feature, and freight bicycles are capable of competing with trucks and vans particularly where many small deliveries are required, especially in congested areas. In Yokohama, Japan, bicycle also being used as a medium of public transportation through services called "Velotaxi". Similar to the old days rickshaw, Velotaxi provides environmental friendly transport to its user and is actually one of the main tourist attractions in the city.

Utility cycling is believed to have several social and economic benefits. According to a report by the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, ―Cycling in Netherlandsâ€-, policies that encourage utility cycling have been proposed and implemented for reasons including:

Improved public health

Individual health and employers' profits

A reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution

Improvements in road traffic safety

Improved quality of life

Improved mobility and social inclusiveness

Benefits to child development

In the Chinese city of Beijing alone, there are an estimated four million bicycles in use based on article ―China ends 'bicycle kingdom' as embracing cars, China Daily on 11th November 2004, which stated it has been estimated that in the early-1980s there were approximately 500 million cyclists in China). While in ―A Study on Measures to Promote Bicycle Usage in Japan

Department of Civil Engineering, Utsunomiya University, as of the year 2000, there were an estimated 80 million bicycles in Japan, accounting for 17% of commuter trips, and also, in ―Cycling in Netherlandsâ€- report, stated in the Netherlands, 27% of all trips are made by bicycle.

Figure 2.4.3 A common type bicycle in Japan where it comes with front and rear-mounted child seats. Source: Author's own

Factors That Influence Levels of Utility Cycling

According to a book by Grégory Vandenbulcke-Plasschaert, ―Spatial Analysis of Bicycle Use and Accident Risks for Cyclistsâ€-, many different factors combine to influence levels of utility cycling.In developing economies, a large amount of utility cycling may be seen simply because the bicycle is the most affordable form of vehicular transport available to many people. In richer countries, where people can have the choice of a mixture of transport types, a complex interplay of other factors influences the level of bicycle usage. Factors affecting cycling levels may include:

Quality of infrastructure, such as the availability of bike path, safe parkings,etc.

Retail policy

Marketing the public image of cycling

Integration with other transport modes

Cycle training

Terrain condition which influences bikeability

Distance to destinations

Levels of motorized transport and climate

In developed countries cycling has to compete with, and work with, alternative transport modes such as private cars, public transport and walking. Thus cycling levels are influenced not just by the attractiveness of cycling alone, but also by what makes the competing modes more or less attractive. In developed countries with high utility cycling levels, utility cyclists tend to undertake relatively short journeys. According to Irish 1996 Census data, over 55% of cycling workers travelled 3 miles (4.8 km) or less, 27% 5 miles (8 km) or less and only 17% travelled more than 5 miles in their daily commute. It can be argued that factors that directly influence the trip length or journey time are among the most important in making cycling a competitive transport mode.

Car ownership rates can also be influential. In New York City according to the

1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, more than half of all households do not own a car (the figure is even higher in Manhattan, over 75%), and walk/bicycle modes of travel account for 21% of all modes for trips in the city.

The length of trips and times consumed by each journey are key factors affecting cycle use. Town planning may have a key impact on deciding whether key destinations such as schools, shops, colleges, health clinics, public transport interchanges remain within a reasonable cycling distance of the areas where people live. The urban form can influence these issues, where it is believed that compact and circular settlement patterns tending to promote cycling. Alternatively, the low-density and linear settlement pattern of urban sprawl tends to discourage cycling. In ―Manual for Streetsâ€- in 2007, by the United Kingdom Department of Transport, it has been clearly stated that settlements that provide a dense road network consisting of interconnected streets will tend to be viable utility cycling environments. In contrast, other communities may use a cul-de-sac based, housing estate/housing subdivision model where minor roads are disconnected and only feed into a street hierarchy of progressively more "arterial" type roads. Such communities may discourage cycling by imposing unnecessary detours and forcing all cyclists onto arterial roads, which may be perceived as busy and dangerous, for all trips regardless of destination or purpose.

There is evidence in the article ―Safe Travels, Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic Safety Impactsâ€- by Todd Litman, that people who live in such estates are heavier than people who live in places where walking and cycling are more convenient. It is also reported that the extra motor-traffic such communities generate tends to increase overall per-capita traffic casualty rates. Designs that propose to resolve the contradiction between the cul-de-sac and the traditional interconnected network, such as the Fused Grid, have been proposed and built with varying levels of success. Particular issues have arisen with personal security and public order problems in some housing schemes using "back alley" type links.

As with other activities, cycling can be promoted by marketing or propaganda. Promoters may include official agencies and authorities. There are two themes predominate in cycling promotion:

The benefits for the cyclist

The benefits for society and the environment that may occur if more people choose to cycle.

The benefits for the cyclist tend to focus issues like reduced journey times in congested urban conditions and the health benefits which the cyclist obtains through regular exercise. Societal benefits focus on general environmental and public health issues. Promotional messages and tactics may include:

Financial savings on transportation

Keeping travel times predictable; in peak traffic, cycling can be the fastest way of moving around town

Ensuring best use of the space available (during trips and also while parked), therefore reducing congestion on the roads

Reminding people of the advantages in terms of health and of the effectiveness of using the bicycle

Making maps of journeys that can be completed by bicycle

Reduction of harmful emissions by fewer people driving motor vehicles

Reducing demand for oil-based fuels

The safety in numbers effect if more people cycle

Reduced noise pollution in urban areas

Amusement

Cyclist health

Lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease (when practised for more than a quarter of an hour a day at a moderate pace) and therefore improvement of individual and public health

Using cycling to tackle the obesity crisis facing rich countries

The financial savings for society if general health improves

On the other hand, there are various interests which may wish to portray a negative image of utility cycling on public roads for various reasons. In article ―Two-headed ministry threatens future of cycling Cycle Campaignâ€- by Network News on July 2003 revealed that some governments, wishing to promote private car use, have organized and funded publicity designed to discourage road cycling. Official road safety organisations have been accused of distributing literature that emphasizes the danger of cycling on roads while failing to address attitudinal issues among the drivers of motor vehicles who are the main source of road danger. Some road safety authorities have been accused of having a deliberate policy of discouraging cycling as a means of reducing bicyclist casualty statistics. In a report by Transport Research Laboratory ―Drivers' Perceptions of Cyclistsâ€- in 2002, the car industry's marketing efforts frequently try to associate the use of their product with a perception of increased social status.

Observers in some car-focused cultures have noted a tendency to perceive or portray people who use bicycles as members of a social "out-group" with attributed negative connotations.

2.5 Precedent Studies

2.5.1 Netherlands : How the Dutch Got Their Cycle Path

Netherland has the largest number of cyclists in the world. And it is also a safe place to ride a bicycle within the city, not just for recreation but as a mean of everyday transportation. This phenomenon might result from the large cycling infrastructure, which can be found throughout the country.

How did the Dutch get this network of high quality cycle path? Some thinks, including many Dutch themselves, the cycle path has always been there. That is only partly true. Yes, there were cycle paths, but they were in an entirely different type than today. The paths back then were narrow, of poor surfaces, dangerous, or even absent at junctions and not interconnected. And cycle path were not really necessary in those days. Cyclist outnumbered other traffic by far.

After World War 2, everything changed. The Dutch had to rebuild their country and they became incredibly wealthy. By 1948 to 1960, the average income up by 44%. And by 1970, the average income up for a staggering 222% more. People can now afford expensive goods. And from 1957 onwards especially, this lets too many cars into the street. Street that mostly old cities, which wasn't built for cars. So buildings were demolished to make room for the cars. Even some of the old cycling infrastructure was removed. City squares were turned into car parks and new developments have youth drove from the rising traffics. And daily travel distance went from 3.9km in 1957 to 23.2km in 1975.

But this progress comes at a terrible cost. Cycling was marginalized, it decreases by 6% every year an 3300 lives were lost in 1971 alone. Over 400 of these deaths were children under the age of 14. The kids got people on the streets to protest "STOP THE CHILD MURDER: CALL FOR SAFER STREETS AS PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST". Their calls were heard, especially when in 1973, the first oil crisis halted the country. This crisis got their Prime Minister to announce that this is life changing and they have to reduce their dependency to fuels and energy, but they need to do that without a decrease in the qualities of life.

Policies to encourage cycling fitted perfectly in that picture. The car free

Sundays to save oil, were a reminder to people of what a city looks like, if there were no cars. Around this time, the first city centre was made car free permanent, and the protest continues. Mass motorization killed people, their cities and the environment. Mass cycling tours through the city of the Netherlands and small protest in favour of cycling facilities creates awareness that eventually, change thinking about transport policies.

In the mid 1970's, the municipalities started to experiment on complete safe cycle routes, away from traffic. Financed by the local government, the first cycle route was created from the scratch, in Tilburg and The Hague. In retrospect, this could be seen as the start of a new cycling policy. Cycling increased in spectacular ways. In The Hague, cycling increases by 30 - 60% and in Tilburg by 75%. Build it and they will come, proven true in the Netherlands.

Therefore, to sum it up, what caused changes in the Netherlands? There were the problems of - cities could not cope with the increasing traffic that led to demolitions and public outrage over the amount of space, handed over to the motorized vehicle. An intolerable number of traffic deaths that again, let to mass public protest. Oil crisis and economic crisis of energy. The solution was found on a political will on the National and Municipal level with both decision makers and planners to deal with the situation, by turning away from car-centric policies, and making way for alternative forms of transport like cycling. Cycling is now an intrigued part of transport policy. And what success did the protests have? Child death went down from over 400 in the year of 1971 to only 14 in the year 2010.

The street got its cycle path, existing cycle lanes were transformed into a much

better permanent cycle path and cars were totally banned from there, and it's now the famous site of ―I AMSTERDAMâ€- site. The Netherlands problems were and are not unique. Their solutions shouldn't be that either. By reverting back to basics, it doesn't indicate the city is getting poorer, but it shows how the citizens are getting civilized.

2.5.2 Japan : Cycling Culture

Japan is very much a cycling country, but not like any other. Cycling here is all about getting to the shops or the railway station, often on a folder or electric bike, and long distance touring is regarded as rather weird. The Japanese may be amazed when they encounter cycle-tourists, but can be very supportive. On a typical day in Tokyo, there would be normal views of people using bicycles to commute in this urban sprawl of 30 million souls and it includes: the middle-aged salary man riding to work on his fold-up bike in his business suit every day; the trendy adolescent skipping off to do some window shopping; the stay-at-home mother dropping not one, but two kids off at school; the pack of old men determined not to be late for their morning gate-ball contest; and even the serious cyclist kitted out in tight lycra and a fancy water-bottle pouch.

Japanese roads are narrow, and very crowded in the cities. Theoretically, when the roads are smaller, drivers would drive much slower and a lot more careful.

It is a proven fact when the road gets wider, people tends to drive faster as they feel they are moving slow enough. The narrowness of the road is the psychological approach using infrastructure by the government to make their citizen reduce their speed during driving. The general crime rate is also low, so - relatively speaking - Japan may be one of the safest countries for cycling.

In Shinjuku area, Honan Dori is quite popular among bicycle commuters despite the fact that it has more traffic lights than many pacific countries, many of which seem to be permanently stuck on red. Many commuters on this route cycling as far left as they can go without striking their pedal on the curb. Some swerve to avoid drains, which is dangerously unpredictable for the motorists around them, others power over the drains which has its own dangers. Even though in Japan cyclists are pretty much free to ride the roads and sidewalks as they see fit, which is wonderful if there is a traffic jam or road works ahead blocking progress on the road, simply hop on the sidewalk, cycle around the obstruction, and return to the road once it's clear, the National Police Association is encouraging cyclists to use the road rather than the sidewalks to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Cyclists have a responsibility for their own safety and for the safety of those around them. They also have the responsibility not to overuse their super transport powers. Constantly jumping on and off the sidewalk whenever it suits is not acceptable.

While the National Police Association are encouraging cyclists off the sidewalks and onto the roads, which provide little in the way of cycling infrastructure, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government still suggests cyclists stay on the sidewalks. These contradictory statements are believed that the Tokyo Metropolitan government realise that their cycling citizens are not ready to ride on the roads and forcing them to do so would not do any good.

There were many initiatives in Japan to promote cycling, including the Green Pedal Map, which provides information in English and Japanese "on bike lanes, danger zones, rental locations, bike parks and so on," as well as the leadership role that needs to be played by government and businesses. The main reason that Tokyo is livable, is because of the people. While the Government plays an important part but it's the people that make all the difference. There are very little trash bins around but yet, the city is clean.

Their citizens just don't throw their rubbish everywhere. People are kind and very considerate of others. Notice that in Kanto, even when the train station is bustling with a sea of people (literally) at rush hour, ppl still stands on the left of the escalator and keep the right side open for moving traffic. When the train arrives, even like hundreds are queuing to get on the train, everyone parts like the Red Sea for the people to get off the train before the others start to board. In KL,what happens at our LRT Stations? Did the Government teach you to squeeze and fight your way through? Does the government need to teach us to line up? Japan is one place things are done properly, not because the citizen was forced to but because the citizens want to. Japanese mind-sets are completely different from a typical Malaysian.

2.5.3 Bicycle As Part of Public Transportation : Bike Sharing System

Overseas

A bicycle sharing system, also known as bikesharing, is a service in which bicycles are made available for shared use of individuals who do not own them. Bicycle sharing systems can be divided into two general categories:

Community Bike programs - organized mostly by local community groups or non-profit organizations

Smart Bike programs - implemented by government agencies, sometimes in a public-private partnership.

The central concept of these systems is to provide free or affordable access to bicycles for short-distance trips in an urban area as an alternative to motorized public transportation or private vehicles, thereby reducing traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution. Bicycle sharing systems have also been cited as a way to solve the "last mile" problem and connect users to public transit networks.

Public bike sharing programs address some of the primary disadvantages to bicycle ownership, including loss from theft or vandalism, lack of parking or storage, and maintenance requirements. However, by limiting the number of places where bicycles can be rented or returned, the service itself essentially becomes a form of public transit, and is therefore less convenient than a privately-owned bicycle capable of point-to-point transportation. Government bicycle sharing programs can also prove costly to the public unless subsidised by commercial interests, typically in the form of advertising on stations or the bicycles themselves.

Bike sharing systems have undergone changes which can be categorized into three key phases, or generations. These include the first generation, called white bikes (or free bikes); the second generation of coin-deposit systems; and the third generation, or information technology (IT) based systems. Recent technological and operational improvements are also paving the way for a fourth generation, known as the demand-responsive, multimodal system. As of May 2011 there were around 136 bikesharing programs in 165 cities around the world, made of an estimated fleet of 237,000 bicycles. Launched in 2008, the Hangzhou Public Bicycle program in China is the largest bicycle sharing system in the world, with around 61,000 bicycles and over 2,400 stations; and it is followed by the Vélib' in Paris, which encompasses around 20,000 bicycles and 1,450 bicycle stations.

Although users of such systems generally pay to use vehicles that they themselves do not own, sharing systems differ from traditional for-profit bike rental businesses. The first bike sharing projects were largely initiated by local community organizations, either as charitable projects intended for the disadvantaged, or to promote bicycles as a non-polluting form of transportation. In recent years, in an effort to reduce losses from theft and vandalism, many bike sharing schemes now require a user to provide a monetary deposit or other security, or to become a paid subscriber. Most largescale urban bike sharing programs utilize numerous bike checkout stations, and operate much like public transit systems, catering to tourists and visitors as well as local residents.

To date, no publicly owned and administered bicycle sharing program has yet been able to consistently operate as a self-funding enterprise, using only revenues generated from membership subscriptions or user fees and charges.

As a consequence, most publicly owned bicycle sharing systems utilize funding from public governmental and/or charitable sources. Bike sharing schemes may be administered by government entities, nonprofit private organizations, or via public-private partnerships. Many bicycle sharing schemes have been developed by a variety of organizations over the years, all based on one or more of the following systems:

Unregulated

Simply released into a city or given area for use by anyone. In some cases, such as a university campus, the bicycles are only designated for use within certain boundaries. Bicycle sharing programs without locks, user identification, and security deposits have also historically suffered large loss rates from theft and vandalism.

Deposit

A small cash deposit releases the bike from a locked terminal and can only be retrieved by returning it to another. Since the deposit (usually one or more coins) is a fraction of the bike's cost, this does little to deter theft. Other bike sharing programs have implemented rules requiring the user to provide a valid credit card, along with substantial security deposits for bicycles and mandatory security locks.

Membership

Bicycles are kept either at volunteer-run hubs or at self-service terminals throughout the city. Individuals registered with the program identify themselves with their membership card (or by a smart card, via cell phone, or other methods) at any of the hubs to check out a bicycle for a short period of time, usually three hours or less. In many schemes the first half-hour is free. The individual is responsible for any damage or loss until the bike is returned to another hub and checked in. Many of the membership programs are being operated through public-private partnerships. Several European cities, including the French cities of Lyon and Paris as well as London, Barcelona, Stockholm and Oslo, have signed contracts with private advertising agencies that supply the city with thousands of bicycles free of charge (or for a minor fee). In return, the agencies are allowed to advertise both on the bikes themselves and in other select locations in the city. These programs attempt to reduce losses from theft by requiring users to purchase subscriptions with a credit card or debit card (this option requiring a large, temporary deposit) and by equipping the bike with complex anti-theft and bike maintenance sensors. If the bike is not returned within the subscription period, or returned with significant damage, the bike sharing operator withdraws money from the user's credit card account.

Long-term checkout

Sometimes known as Bike Library models, these bicycles may be lent free of charge, for a refundable deposit, or for a small fee. A bicycle is checked out to one person who will typically keep the bike for several months, and is encouraged or obligated to lock it between uses. A disadvantage of this system is a lower usage frequency, around three uses per day on average as compared to 10 to 15 uses per day typically experienced with other bike sharing schemes. Advantages of long-term use include rider familiarity with the bicycle and a mode of travel that is always nearby and instantly ready for use. The bicycle can be checked out like a library book, a liability waiver can be collected at checkout, and the bike can be returned any time. The Arcata Community Library Bike Program of Arcata, California has loaned over 4000 bicycles using this system.

Partnership with public transport sector

In a national-level programme that combines a typical rental system with several of the above system types, a passenger railway operator or infrastructure manager partners with a national cycling organization and others to create a system closely connected with public transport. These programs usually allow for a longer rental time of up to 24 or 48 hours, as well as tourists and round trips. In some German cities the national rail company offers a bike rental service called Call a Bike.

In Guangzhou in China, the widely praised bus rapid transit system, under a private operator, is combined with bike lanes and a public bike system with 5,000 bikes. Bicycle station powered by solar panels many of the community-run bicycle programs paint their bicycles in a strong solid colour, such as yellow or white. Painting the bicycles helps to advertise the program, as well as deter theft (a painted-over bicycle frame is normally less desirable to a buyer). However, theft rates in many bike sharing programs remain extremely high, as most shared-use bikes have value only as basic transportation, and may be resold to unsuspecting buyers after being cleaned and repainted. In response, some large-scale bike sharing programs have designed their own bike using specialty frame designs and other parts to prevent disassembly and resale of stolen parts. Another advantage of bike sharing systems is that the smart cards allow the bikes to be returned to any station in the system, which facilitates one-way rides to work, education or shopping centres. Thus, one bike may take 10-15 rides a day with different users and can be ridden up to 10,000 km a year (citing Lyon, France). The distance between stations is only 300-400 metres in inner city areas. It was found - in cities like Paris and Copenhagen - that to have a major impact there had to be a high density of available bikes. Copenhagen has 2500 bikes which cannot be used outside the 9 km2 zone of the city centre. Since Paris's Vélib' program operates with an increasing fee past the free first half hour, users have a strong disincentive to take the bicycles out of the city centre. The largest system in the world are in China, with several systems counting tens of thousands of bikes. Paris (20,000) and London (7000) are the largest outside of China, although New York plans a large 10,000+ bike system. A handful of systems counts 3000+ bikes, mostly in Europe and China. A table listing down all known bicycle sharing systems that are currently active or firmly planned, all around the world was attached together in Appendix A. All systems listed here allow users to pick up and drop off bicycles at any of the automated stations within the network.

2.5.4 China : Integration of Bikesharing and Public Transportation

The Hangzhou Public Bicycle program in China provides many insights. In a

March 2010 survey of Hangzhou Public Bicycle members and non-members, it is found that bikesharing is attracting users who simultaneously employ other transportation modes such as buses, walking, autos, and taxis. In addition, users are incorporating bikesharing into their everyday commute. The survey also found that member households with personal vehicles were using bikesharing services. In fact, members exhibited a higher rate of auto ownership (22 percent) than non-members (11 percent). This suggests that car ownership does not reduce the likelihood of bikesharing use.

Hangzhou, China

Hangzhou's 2,050 bike-share stations are spaced less than a thousand feet from each other in the city centre, and on an average day riders make 240,000 trips using the system. Its popularity and success have set a new standard for bike54 sharing in Asia. And the city is far from finished. The Hangzhou Bicycle Company plans to expand the bike-share system to 175,000 bikes by 2020. As Bradley Schroeder of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy said, "I don't think there is anywhere you can stand in Hangzhou for more than a minute or two where you wouldn't have a Hangzhou Public Bike go past you." Overall, the Hangzhou survey found that members were satisfied with the service. Recommendations for program improvement included more bicycle parking spaces, increased bike availability (more stations and bikes), and extended service hours. Members also indicated that the program should provide real-time information regarding bike and parking availability. Nonmembers noted that improving bicycle locking mechanisms, increasing the number of stations, and improving the member enrollment process could attract them. These lessons can be used to expand bikesharing in Hangzhou and other cities.

2.5.5 Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya Car Free Day

Under the Low Carbon City Program by Petaling Jaya City Hall, Petaling Jaya Car Free Day Campaign saw the councillors and officers came to work and meeting by LRT, community bus, walking and cycling on 28th September 2011. It is a symbolic gesture of showing the Council's seriousness in supporting effort to reduce carbon emission and creating a green and low carbon city of Petaling Jaya.

Many do not mind taking the public transportation if the mode is efficient, reliable and affordable or even walking and cycling if it is conducive, comfortable and safe in doing so. Providing feeder bus service to ferry people from their origin to the LRT, Bus and Commuter Stations and later from the stations to place of destination are important to encourage people to shift to public transport as a way of commuting. There is no point of simply talking to people of asking them to reduce generation of car trip without providing viable option. Similarly asking people to cycle and walk on a busy road is not a help. Dedicated and well connected lanes should be built within the city centre to increase cycleability, thus promotes cycling as part of transportation. While waiting for that to realise, it is right to do something within the influence and means of everyone and not simply waiting everything to fall into places. In this respect, the celebration of Car Free Day in which some councillors are cycling in short distance is not only about raising public awareness, but a statement made on our commitment.

On the other hand, a total of 150,000 free one-way coupons on the Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Monorail will be given out on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays from 22nd September 2011 in support of World Car Free Day. Syarikat Prasarana Negara Bhd (Prasarana) chairman Tan Sri Ismail Adam said the aim was to reduce carbon emissions by vehicles and encouraging the public to choose public transport.

"The campaign encourages the public to ride bicycles as bicycle parking facilities are provided at 17 LRT stations," he said after launching the campaign…….We also provide many facilities at LRT and Monorail stations for the public using our services daily."

- Tan Sri Ismail Adam, Prasarana chairman

He said Prasarana also made service improvement by adding 150 buses to reduce commuters' waiting time from 20 minutes to 15 minutes. It also expanded coverage to more than 980 housing estates so that the public did not have to walk far to reach LRT or Monorail stations.

2.5.6 Cycling Infrastructure in Damansara Damai, Petaling Jaya Damai

In an effort to be dubbed as ―a true cycling city,â€- the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) is coming up with a proposal to build inner and outer dedicated bicycle lanes. The commitment of PJ City Cycleways Network comes in its 2012 review of the city's transport strategy that hinges on the Special Area Plan and the Local Agenda 21. Started early 2012 with the planning extends way before in November 2011, Petaling Jaya City Hall had taken a big step in moving towards the The Green City Programs under PJ City Cycleways Networks which aim to build dedicated lanes for cyclists around the city. Green City Programs 2012 by Petaling Jaya City Hall:

Green Figure Award

Promotions:

Souvenirs

Earth Day Celebration

World Environmental Day Celebration

Buying books/magazines or participating in international organization in promoting Green City.

Inventory Research - Energy Audit and Water Audit

Rebates on assessment tax on sustainable and environmentalfriendly buildings

Small Initiatives Demonstration

Handkerchief campaign

No-plastic Campaign

Green Tour

Off-Engine Zone

Petaling Jaya mayor, Datuk Mohamad Roslan Sakiman said the city had a vision to lay out an interconnected network of bicycle lanes that would allow cyclists to traverse parts of PJ on the dedicated bicycle lanes.