Why build metro lines?
Spending a lot of money on extensive metro systems is generally something capital cities do with good intentions. Intentions to provide a better city for their residents, a way for them to move around freely and efficiently. The first and most fundamental test of these metro systems is their ridership. The intention is to to build up ridership which shows people are either using them instead of some other form of transport (e.g. cars) or are making new journeys that the system has enabled for them.
When looking at the Klang Valley, it is sometimes unclear if the people behind the public transport systems actually intended to achieve high ridership. Perhaps it was more about telling the world that Malaysia has a first-world metro, rather than actually getting people to use it?
This question arises because the first & last mile connectivity is so poor. It really doesn't take a transport expert to know that for a metro line
to maximise its usefulness, it has to be easy to get on and off. In the same way,
everyone can see that if the internet wasn't accessible (let's say it
was only available in fish farms, nowhere else had internet) then not
many people would use it. The terrible state of the first/last mile in Malaysia is mainly because of poor station placement, disjointed planning approaches, car-centric infrastructure, lack of investment in buses, and severe disregard for walking and biking.
Making the most of it
So with extensive metro lines in place in the Klang Valley, and more lines still to come, how can their effectiveness be maximised for Klang Valley residents?
There's a breakdown of the typical choices people have for first/ last mile in the figure below (yes, a lot of words and arrows in there...)
Jalan kaki
In many capital cities (including Singapore), by far the dominant mode for first/last mile is walking. This is the obvious, convenient choice - after all, all journeys start with walking in some way or another (or could be wheelchair). However, this absolutely relies on the public transport stations being well-placed near to population centres and highly accessible to a decent network of walking routes.
In much of Malaysia, we find that the walking routes are not there. In fact, they are often physically blocked (sometimes by a highway). So the number one priority for MRT planners, local authorities and other stakeholders is to open up walking routes to the stations. (It seems incredible that this was not understood by the planners of the metro systems and local authorities in the first place.)
Wheels
Let's face it, not all metro stations are within walking distance of all destinations and that level of coverage is unlikely to ever be achieved. But we have wheels. Many types of wheels, human powered, or electric. The bicycle (and electric scooter) are game-changing devices that are light, compact, efficient, enjoyable, and convenient. And they hugely extend the range of anyone who uses them. In Malaysia people might be comfortable walking 600 - 800m only. With a bicycle they can quickly cover 5 or 10 times this (and improve their fitness and health at the same time). Cities like Paris and London have seen massive rises in the use of this micromobility since the policies and infrastructure have been in effect. A walk around Seoul will make it clear that a lot of people are using the bicycle as a quick and convenient way to get to the metro line.
Image of bicycles at a Seoul Subway station. These are dockable bikes but if the docking station is full, you can just park nearby.
Again, for people to choose bicycles or scooters, the right policies and infrastructure need to be there. If all the cars disappeared, then walking and cycling would become easy. However, planners need to work a bit harder if they want a city with lots of cars but also one that works for bicycles and scooters. There are simple low-hanging fruits that still make a big difference, like good bicycle parking (some downtown stations in KL don't even have any bike parking), availability of Beam scooters etc. But to really shift people over to micromobility, there needs to be a proper network of safe, direct routes to stations.
Planners could start by rating all the roads around stations - small neighborhood roads with low speeds, mid-size roads that need segregated bike lanes, or urban highways and ramps that are no-go for micro-mobility. Then work out how to turn this into something better - including adding some dedicated routes and shortcuts just for micromobility.
Vehicular transport
Road-based vehicles obviously have their place in transport. In urban areas, busses are generally effective because they can transport a large number of people in a relatively small space and for low cost. In cities, where population density is high, there are usually lots of people wanting to go the same way - let's say from an office area to an MRT station. So busses make sense. Private vehicles, on the other hand, are extremely inefficient in urban areas. They require huge amounts of space when moving, AND when not in use (which is over 90% of the time). On top of this, for every person, they move around large metal components, seats, tanks of fuel or batteries, and need to be powered by high-energy sources. Common sense therefore indicates that private vehicles are not a good first/last mile option for cities with large populations. The parking issue also has a compounding effect, whereby the space needed for parking around stations blocks alternative uses and makes pedestrian access more difficult. Most big capital cities have policies with very low targets for the share of first/last mile connectivity provided by private cars or taxi/Grab.
There is a 'third' option, perhaps somewhere between a bus and a Grab. This is known as Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) and tends to be in the form of vans, as has been rolled out in PJ and other areas. This is low-cost to the user and can be more direct than a bus. However, it doesn't move large numbers of people and is still subject to the traffic jams, breakdowns and general delays we see on the road network. It has its place, but it's definitely not the answer to the first/last mile. It might even be more of a distraction or an excuse to avoid providing the real solutions - walking, micromobility, and the good old-fashioned bus.
Rather than subsidizing DRT, perhaps it would be worth spending more on regular busses and associated infra, like bus lanes and bus stops. Bus routeing needs to be studied too. People prefer trips with fewer changes. For example just using one bus to get home, rather than a bus and then an MRT or MRT+LRT. So routing busses a bit further and to more destinations will also help. As an example, say you're in KL and you want to take a long distance train or airport train from KLSentral. There is no metro station nearby you, but there is a feeder bus. So you need to take the feeder bus, then wait, then take a metro line a few stops to KLSentral. Instead of this, just route more busses direct to hub stations like KLSentral.
Once busses reach a sufficient level of service (especially frequency) there will be a step-change in their use. Yes, it will need a big push to reach that level of service, but it will really help drive modal shift onto busses (which ... will be good for car drivers too).
