MRT 3 feedback

A public display and feedback exercise is now underway for the Klang Valley's planned MRT3.

Will this circular MRT line suffer the same fate as MRT1 and MRT2, where first/last mile, station integration and accessibility were often afterthoughts?

There are some 'thrusts' and principles listed on the MRT website for the new line.

 

There is no mention of getting ridership, reducing car dependency, or improving health (e.g. reducing stress, encouraging a bit of exercise). 

Some have called Malaysia's first MRT lines vanity projects, and there may be a bit of evidence for that - certain leaders wanted KL to have a fancy, shiny, high spec metro system, but not necessarily for anyone to use it.  So it was more about the prestige of having it than the actual practicality of getting people around the city efficiently.  Let's move on from that.  If we really want people to use it, make it super convenient, easy to get into, going to places where there is lots of stuff within easy reach. 

Here is a small selection of some of the design and planning issues found in the previous MRT (& LRT) lines that can be turned into requirements and principles for MRT3 (amongst many others).

1. Stations in the middle of nowhere and/ or next to highways with no convenient pedestrian/ bicycle/ scooter access. 

2. Stations in the middle of a giant car park.  

3. Fences everywhere.  Don't block access to the station with fences.  If needed, use modal filters to prevent parking in undesirable areas.  But open up the area around the station to ensure easy flow of people (that means walking/ micro-mobility) to the station.

Stations should be well integrated with their surroundings and accessible without cars. Public transport will shift people out of their cars if you let it - but with the stick of poor first/ last mile connectivity and the carrot of lots of cheap parking at the MRT station, the effort will be undermined.

A local integration/ accessibility plan should be produced for each station in consultation with the local council and other major stakeholders.  This should cover a radius of at least 0.6km with the aim of making the station accessible without a car from multiple directions (ideally at least 3).  New pathways should be opened up where needed (if some land acquisition is needed for this, so be it) and covered walkways should be installed along routes with high footfall. 

4. Stations excessively high in the air.  Bring stations closer to the ground where possible.  If it's near a hill, connect the hill to concourse level with a linkbridge.  This is something that seems to be worse on the MRT lines than the LRT.

5. Awkward routes to platform level.  This is especially true in underground stations where there are sometimes excessive level changes too (e.g. LRT Masjid Jamek).  Routes to platform should be obvious, intuitive, direct, and low-effort.   

Solving point #4 first will go a long way to solving point #5.

6. Obscuring sight-lines in the station.  Keep sight-lines clear.  Allow people to see the way ahead - don't design a maze and don't block the view through railings with advertising boards (like at Bangsar LRT station).

Points #4 and #5 go together with accessibility for OKU, which is a fundamental requirement for public transport.

7. Poor wayfinding and signage.  If you have a sign with left and right directions, don't stack them on top of each other.  Split them to the left and to the right.  Display exploded views of the station so people can find their exit easily.  Display the next train times on big clear screens around the station.   There are many great design standards out there for signage and wayfinding - aim for the highest standard for Malaysia's public transport.

8. Having to pay to cross the road.  If the station has a route under or over a road, don't make people pay just to cross the road (e.g. Medan Tuanku Monorail).  Station access routes should be integrated with and form part of the wider city accessibility network. 

9. Lack of bicycle parking, poor quality rack design, or bicycle parking that gets clogged up with motorbikes. Make the bicycle parking inaccessible to motorbikes by putting the parking racks close together or raising it up a few steps.  Also provide good motorcycle parking.

10.  No plan for micro-mobility.  If there are safe convenient pathways, micro-mobility becomes an obvious first/last mile solution, easily widening the range around a station to 2km+.  Provide decent parking for people's own micromobility and provide some space for operators like Beam.  Et voila. 

11. Broken lifts and escalators. Specify high-quality, reliable equipment and undertake 'proactive maintenance' (not just reactive) during the night when stations are closed to the public. Provide well-proportioned steps (see point 4) as an alternative.

12. Lack of integration with the bus network and lack of bus information in the station.  Non-feeder busses can stop at MRT stations too if it's a strategic location.  Next bus information should be displayed clearly on screens as soon as you get out of the MRT gates, with clear signage to the bus stop, which should be nearby and covered.

13.  Poor interchange facilities.  Keep interchange stations compact with quick and easy connections between lines.  Make sure paid-to-paid access is provided.

14. If it's a real TOD, integrated with shopping centres etc, have a plan for micro-mobility access.  How are people going to get to the station from north, east, south and west? (Tip: don't make them park their thing far away and then walk).  Also have a plan for late night access.

15. Open the station until late at night (AFTER the last train has gone) and early in the morning.

These types of points can be added into a Requirements Register and Design Principles Matrix.  The principles can be grouped according to type (e.g., accessibility, safety, maintainability etc.), and ranked if needed.  The planners and designers of the stations will then need to demonstrate how they comply with the requirements and principles through their design documentation.  This is planning.  This is design. It must already be in place for other basic requirements (systems, lighting, PA etc.) but the evidence shows it is lacking in terms of accessibility.   MRT Corp needs to have the expertise to develop these requirements/ principles and enforce them.  The designers will almost certainly include international consultants who are well-versed in this kind of thing and should be able to develop compliant designs.

Stakeholders who can't understand the need to get into the station easily (perhaps they always drive and are suffering from 🚗🧠?) can go on training courses and workshops to develop their planning skills.  And they can start using public transport to get to work too.

Riviera City, Brickfields (parking development)

Riveria City, Brickfields

There's a new development opening soon in Brickfields. DBKL and the developer have somehow conspired together to burden the city with another car-centric project, enabling excessive use of cars in a downtown location.

Labelled a 'Transit Orientated Development', the location is 100m away from the monorail and 300m away from Malaysia's biggest transport hub, KL Sentral. 

First eleven levels dedicated to cars.

Car-brained policies

Yet, car-brained policies have produced ELEVEN levels of parking beneath the residential tower and adjacent to it.

In what almost seems like a parody, the monorail line goes THROUGH the parking block.  Public transport is obviously getting in the way of all the important parking space so they need to build around it. 

All-important parking space wrapping around the monorail.  Is this the best use of space for our capital city?

DBKL, when will you realise that your policies are enabling car traffic, even at so-called Transit Orientated Developments?   You have a policy to 'solve traffic' by 2030 but at the same time you are pushing for insane amounts of parking space to be dumped right in the city.

Missed opportunity

On top of this, the development is right next to what could be a cycle superhighway, the River of Life (South West Dedicated Bicycle Highway), which feeds into the heart of KL and also to Midvalley and on to PJ.  With its traffic-free location alongside the river, this could provide an ideal route for commuters, with a bit of joined-up thinking. 

Why not put a bicycle parking garage at the foot of the building, directly accessing the River of Life?  Make it covered, secure, and free for residents.

Even better, sort out the missing link in front of the new development and the monorail depot.  With a bit of creativity, a seamless bike route could be implemented to make bike journeys quicker, safer and smoother.

Possible solution for missing-link River of Life pathway to help prioritize walking and cycling over car traffic.

Instead, the bicycle route is blocked by the development, a new road bridge, and the monorail depot.

The route continuing past the development, and the new bridge across the river, designed for cars (right side).

End of the line.  RoL route gated off at the monorail depot.

Local inspiration

People say look to Singapore to learn about people-centric developments for the city, and yes there are some good examples there, but there are other examples much closer to home. A short distance away in Kampung Attap is Sam Mansion.  

Sam Mansion.  No elevated parking.

This has 11 levels of homes with NO PARKING BLOCKS, just a small parking yard next to the building (and it's not even full!).  

Small parking area.  The rest of the space is for people.

DBKL, there needs to be a serious re-think of these insane parking minimums that end up enabling traffic in downtown areas, make Malaysians unhealthy (with the highest obesity rate in S E Asia) and drive up the cost of housing.  There are great examples from the past and from around the world that urban planners, policy makers and other stakeholders can look to for inspiration.  

Mall bicycle parking

Recently, there have been reports of bicycles being turned away from parking in convenient places near Pavilion Mall Bukit Jalil.  

How common is this?

What are the different malls' policies on bicycle parking, and for that matter, on sustainable transport related to their developments?

Some malls do have bicycle parking in convenient places near their mall entrances (e.g. MyTown, Sunway Putra mall).  So for those that have battled all the other inconveniences to ride their bike to the mall, at least they can park.   Good characteristics are:

• Safe
• Close to mall entrance/ convenient
• Covered (ideally)
• Easy to lock bike to.

It's not really that difficult for malls to do this.  In fact, it's an easy win for mall owners and operators to show they are thinking about a diversity of ways people get around.  The malls might even understand their responsibility towards accessibility, pollution, congestion, noise etc. etc. in their area.

Sometimes, such as in MRT stations, motorbikes can be seen crowding the bicycle parking area, making it difficult to park.  Malls usually don't have this problem as there is a security presence who can deal with this. 

At Pavilion Bukit Jalil, the security seems to have been briefed by the mall management to be hostile to bicycles.  Same goes for Beam scooters.  Security has been seen directing Beam riders away from the mall parking and onto the public roads outside the mall boundary.  Why not have a Beam parking area at the mall?  If someone has used a scooter, it has probably saved one car journey.  

Motorcycles are also banished from the property at Pavilion Bukit Jalil, so they end up blocking the walking path for others.

Interestingly, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that expensive-looking bikes get turned away less often than cheap, tatty looking bikes.  Is this some kind of deeply-embedded, possibly subconscious bias, perhaps fueled by the mall's attempt to project a 'premium' or fancy image?

As one of the big-name malls in the Klang Valley, Pavilion can play a role in how the urban environment operates around its malls.  Does the leadership at Pavilion feel a responsibility towards the city that makes them rich?  Or do they purely think about profit, and just pay lip-service to sustainability and CSR. 

From the Pavilion website:

Pavilion KL leads sustainable practices, ensuring a vibrant future while enriching communities and preserving the environment for generations.

Their latest article is about supercharging your Tesla.  How inclusive.   (How car-brained.)  

So, while there are still some malls that deny convenient bicycle parking, let's give a thumbs up to those that have made an effort, and call on the big malls to do better and live up to their words.  

 

The convenience of tickets

Transport accessibility is often focused on physical aspects as they tend to be the most obvious.  Other components of accessibility include wayfinding, access to information (maps, apps), and access to convenient ticket options.

Recently some tourists were overheard asking at the MRT station ticket counter:

"please can we buy a day pass"

The answer came back bluntly:

"we don't do a day pass".

The rest of the conversation was not heard but it sounded like the tourists were confused and had some follow-up questions. 

On the train, day passes and 3-day passes are advertised.  There is a small hash-tag mentioning domestic tourism, but it's in Malay and not particularly clear. 

It turns out the 1-day and 3-day passes are only for Malaysians.  There is no equivalent option for tourists. 

So, what does the tourism ministry think of this? Does it agree with the policy of no equivalent passes for non-Malaysians, or does it think the convenience it might bring to tourists is worth pushing for?

Clearly someone thinks it's a worthy idea, as there appears to have been a ticket like this introduced in 2019 as shown on this page: https://www.klia2.info/promotions/mycity-pass/

At the link, the then-Chief Operating Officer of Prasarana is quoted as saying:

“Our regular customers have the privilege of unlimited travel with the use of the My100 pass for 30-day unlimited travels on our rail and BRT networks. On the other hand, these new passes provide immense convenience to non-Malaysians and non-regular users to travel unlimitedly within a short period of time.

This initiative is also part of our contribution to Malaysia’s tourism industry as traveling on our integrated rail and BRT network will allow you to extensively cover Klang Valley and Selangor, which is blessed with plenty of places of interests, food paradise and shopping outlets”

So, someone gets it.  And clearly, tourists are interested in a ticket like this.  It wouldn't be difficult to survey tourists in KL to further gauge the appetite for it.

This issue was highlighted in Twitter, which generated plenty of comments.

Some commenters didn't seem to understand that there could be a different price for tourists and locals, if needed.

Other commenters felt the need to say that the Malaysian day pass was "subsidised" but none of them managed to explain why they thought this was important or even relevant.

Public transport in Malaysia is typically subsidised, as is travel on the road.  There are various questions for policymakers and planning professionals to think about, including:

• what mode share do we want for tourist transport?
• do we want to encourage tourists to come to Malaysia, and what part can transport play in that?

In terms of attracting tourists, convenient, efficient transport has its part to play - this shouldn't be underestimated.  Arguably the biggest factor is convenience.  While still important, price is usually secondary.  The price just needs to be affordable.  Certainty in price is also important, and a day pass will give this. 

This Blog is not the place for an in-depth analysis of these opinions, but it is hard not to think that this near-obsession with "subsidised" prices and special prices for Malaysians is mainly coming from a place of ignorance and mean-spiritedness, in the absence of any clear logical explanation of the sentiment. 

The point of helping the country prosper by making it attractive to tourists seems to get missed by many.  There are even some commenters talking about exchange rates and the relative weakness of the Ringgit, totally missing the irony that what they want will probably make it worse!

To be fair, there were also various sensible comments on the Twitter post - let's hope these attitudes can pervade Malaysian transport to make it a better place for everyone.

MRT Serdang Raya Utara

This is a new station on the MTR Putrajaya Line, which finally opened in March 2023.

Billions of ringgit were spent on the new MRT line but station access is still a failure. It is not that difficult to understand desire lines and create convenient pedestrian crossings.

The station is opposite a bustling area - it should be as easy as possible to get to the station from here. But there is a 6 lane road in the way and fences along the walkway under the station.

Bridges, ramps, escalators, lifts have all been included in the design, but crossing the road has not been solved. Come on MRTCorp and MBSJ. It’s time to prioritise walking and wheeling.

This is just one example of poor access into a big MRT station. There are many more/ worse examples.

So there is a long term problem with this stuff. MRTCorp and the councils need to do some serious thinking about the purpose of MRT stations.
It is critical that the stakeholders *work together* and the integration plan for the station and surrounding area needs to be prioritised - it’s not optional. Quite often it is nothing to do with cost - it is just prioritising the right things and using good design principles.
These design principles are fairly straightforward - give a good design consultant the guidance and they will come up with something that works. The hard part is getting that standard and guidance in place, agreeing to prioritise what needs to be prioritised, and daring to slow down car drivers for the benefit of more efficient modes of city transport.
Interestingly, someone posted an earlier design of the station access, which included a footbridge across the road.
https://twitter.com/JdUnknownperson/status/1675079230970015744?s=20
There have been comments on the Twitter post about cut-backs - perhaps this footbridge was one of the casualties. However, footbridges are rarely the answer, and access into stations can be excellent without footbridges. (The footbridges in Brickfields, which are very high but only take you across a narrow road, take the concept of footbridges across roads to extremes of absurdity.) Usually, a simple pedestrian crossing will be all that's needed, as long as it gives priority to pedestrians. This doesn't need to cost a lot of money and can usually be done within the same budget as the road resurfacing around the station.

K-Hell Sentral

KL Sentral is a commercial development site mixed with a transport hub.  Stops include the KL Monorail, LRT (Kelana Jaya Line), the KTM routes, and the KLIA Ekspres/ Transit (also known as ERL).  The station opened in 2001 as a growing Transit Orientated Development (TOD).  So, 22 years on, has it been successful?  That depends what the question is.   References are certainly made to it being 'successful' - perhaps from the point of view of the developer?

Let's not forget that it is touted as Malaysia's prime transport hub.  So, does it prioritise transit, connectivity, accessibility, or is it more of a parasitic development - simply exploiting everyone's need to get around?  Perhaps it is somewhere in between. 

A central station - understanding the purpose

There is no shortage of central transport hubs around the world which provide efficient connections between transport modes and a gateway to the city.  Being car-centric, KL Sentral's planners refused to heed these examples and went ahead and built an island surrounded by cars, prioritising cars.  

Accessibility principles can be boiled down to some fairly straightforward concepts, such as prioritising walking/ wheeling routes routes and creating a pleasant environment.  This last part shouldn't be underestimated.  If someone is coming into KL, this will be their introduction to the city.  When they step out of the station door, what is their experience of the public realm?

To start with, there are the ramps.  So many ramps, so confusing.  Someone has mapped these - see image below.  Ramps like these are direct anti-people measures.  They support car traffic and discourage people.  

The station is surrounded by ramps for cars (image courtesy of LCCT)

If this wasn't enough, any intuitive routes for pedestrians (or those with bicycles) have been littered with anti-people features - railings, roads, yet more ramps.

                       

Pro-car ramps and anti-people barriers deployed around the station.

Gateway to the city (or at least Brickfields)

People enjoy navigating on foot by using a viewpoint, looking around, and walking in the direction they want to go.  The planning team's design should be providing opportunities for that.  Not to build a maze.  While some of the connections between LRT or KTM are straightforward, others, such as the route to Muzium MRT, are maze-like and simply do not provide good connectivity. 

When you find your way outside, if you've used a 'main entrance' you will end up in a pick-up area.  This is not meant for pedestrians, and you probably won't get very far without a car.

Two of the main entrances/ exits at KL Sentral.  Unless you're in a car, there's nowhere really to go.

Some people try, and they end up crossing busy roads with no pedestrian facilities or walking down the side of a car ramp.

Who planned this??

In theory, KL Sentral is conveniently located for Brickfields.  But again, the planners had other ideas. One of their favourite tricks is to prioritise a multi-lane one-way road - if you find yourself needing to cross it, there are barriers too.  Most people are forced to take the longer route using the overhead bridge, leaving car drivers free to rule the street.

An exit from KL Sentral onto Jalan Tun Sambanthan - pro-car barriers deployed

If you manage to make it across the street, the next hurdle will be narrow paths, motorbikes, and inconsiderate parking.  

If you do find a pedestrian crossing point, it has probably been blocked by a Mercedes driver.

Venturing further, on what could be a pleasant walk to historic Brickfields and the River of Life, you may find a neglected path and an abandoned building under the monorail.  There is a half-hearted sign prohibiting passing through.   Welcome to Kuala Lumpur.  Welcome to Malaysia. 

  

Another pedestrian crossing blocked by - you guessed it - a Mercedes driver.

This is a huge missed-opportunity to integrate KL Sentral with the surrounding area and take on a gateway position.  The technical solutions are relatively cheap and easy, too.  Pedestrian crossings, clear paths, welcoming signs and good public realm design in general.

Internal layout

A central station will have many people moving around inside so usually needs a 'great hall' to allow this to happen.  Such a hall should have a focus and a clear sense of orientation, instantly providing a sense of place and direction. 

KL Sentral manages to be dull and lack a clear orientation so that visitors are left wondering if they're walking in the right direction.  The various transport entrances are randomly littered around, awkwardly split over two levels (other stations around the world, notably in China, make good use of split levels). 

Maps of KL's Sentral's two levels - messy?

Some principles for making large places easy to navigate:

• Enforce a sense of level - what level am I on?  Am I on the ground? Is it easy to tell?
• Provide landmarks and unmistakable references for easy orientation
• Use open spaces and long sightlines to encourage navigational visibility
• Reduce clutter and distractions (like electronic billboards).

A low ceiling blocking the view up the stairs/ escalators. Where does it go?  The advertisement boards are much bigger than the wayfinding signs.

More low ceilings over random corridors

A key principle of a transport hub is that it should be intuitive - after all, it's supposed to cater for thousands (millions?) of newcomers each year, not just locals who get used to the layout.  Exiting to street level should be simple and convenient, and intuitive.  KL Sentral's split-level design ignores this principle and makes it hard to exit to 'street level'.  Yes, there are pedestrian connections to channel consumers towards shops, which would be fine, if the primary objective of connecting people to destinations freely had been taken care of first. 

One good thing is that there is a free local bus service - GoKL - available from the station.  Again it's not very intuitive to find - you may need to follow signs for taxis to get to the bus stop.  There are the usual complaints about inconsiderate drivers, crowded busses etc. but at least there is a bus. 

For long distance buses, you have to make your way down to the 'bus dungeon' below the station. 

This is a dark, unwelcoming corridor that could have been so much better.  This is also probably the best walking route to Little India although it's still pretty unpleasant and not sign-posted.

Bicycles and bike parking

When asked if there is any bicycle parking at KL Sentral, the attendant at the information desk just gave an amused chuckle and said "no" - not surprising in KL really.  There was some bicycle parking at NuSentral (terrible design) but it has been taken over by motobikers.

Wrapping up

There are plenty of other things that could be improved too, such as wayfinding, KTM ticketing, and bringing back the airport check-in facility, but those are better left for another time.

As to whether the station is a success, perhaps a clue can be taken from the developer's website:

"The Kuala Lumpur Sentral masterplan features a self-contained city concept comprising corporate office towers and business suites, international hotels, luxurious condominiums, a shopping mall and an international exhibition, convention and entertainment centre."

This single paragraph reveals two things:

(1) that the real priority is to extract money from the development, leveraging people's need to get around, and

(2) the self-contained city concept is not meant to be well integrated with the local area - in fact it is meant to trap you within the development.  

So perhaps it is a success on its own terms - good for the developers, at least.

Plenty of towns and cities around the world have planned and built good central stations, so it can be done.  The principles of good architecture, access and connectivity apply globally, with small adjustments that should be made to suit the local context (e.g. ventilation, shade). 

While ideally the station's accessibility needs a complete re-think, there are plenty of modifications that can be done to improve KL Sentral's general offering especially for those on foot or bicycle.  

• Prioritise clear, visible pedestrian routes out to the surrounding area
• Provide easy cycling routes into the station from multiple directions
• Provide good-quality, convenient and secure bike parking at the station
• De-clutter, improve wayfinding, and re-decorate with some orientating features at the right scale.