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.

Central park ... park connectors ... connect the dots

Back in 2014 or 2015 an idea was floated to turn the Royal Selangor Golf Club into a big park for KL, and connect it together with other parks with walking and cycling routes.

Article here:  https://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/central-park-idea-happier-kl

Buying the golf club to turn into a park was an ambitious idea; it doesn't appear to have found much traction.    But shadowed behind the park is another idea: connecting parks together.

There is an obvious comparison with Singapore's Park Connector Network here, which has been expanding since the 90's (now reached over 300 km of paths, apparently).  The great thing about this idea is that it necessarily creates a network.  

Why is a network so import?  Think of driving a car to go somewhere.  If you just have one small bit of road, disconnected from everywhere else, you will probably give up pretty quickly.  It's same with cycling and walking. 

There is a cycling path in Damansara Utama (Uptown) that just goes around the mall, and doesn't lead to anywhere.  If someone built a road like that, we would think they are bonkers (unless it was for racing).  But for bikes, it's somehow accepted.

Right now, the bike lanes in KL don't form a coherent network, and they have a long way to go before they will.  If there was a unifying concept, like connecting parks together, this would provide a planning incentive and a sense of direction/ purpose.   

Bike paths can be thin and easy to thread around infrastructure.  But they must be safe, convenient, reasonably direct, and designed to maintain momentum.

Transport or leisure?

Cycling as a transport choice is still pretty low on the radar for many Malaysians.  The current crop of uncle politicians are more likely to have an expensive road bike for the weekends than a commuter bike for getting around Putrajaya.  This probably won't change for another 10 years or so (what do you think?). 

So here's another strong point of the park connector plan - it lends itself to leisure cycling.  This is something that most Malaysians, and those uncle politicians, can understand.  Although not ideal for commuting, at least some routes across town would get built, which could then be used as commuting arteries too.

This is in part what happened in Singapore - they did make mistakes with it, for sure.  If planners in KL are willing, they can learn from Singapore's blunders.  But most likely, Malaysia will have to make its own, like with most things. 

Another article here, from The Star: https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/community/2015/10/26/plan-to-turn-golf-club-into-park-being-mulled-rsgcs-status-as-wildlife-and-bird-sanctuary-among-fact

Skypark Link

What's not to like?

A convenient, high capacity and affordable rail link from KL's cute city airport to its central transportation hub. 

The Skypark Link, opened in May 2018, will take you from Subang Airport straight into KL Sentral.

Sounds like a really good idea.  And the execution?

Here goes.

The basics are there - a twin-track, electrified railway line with a station close to the airport.  Let's start with the station access. After going to the expense of building a train station 200m away from the airport building, the planners (or those above them) then went and threw the benefits away in typical fashion - by making it awkward to access. 

The major problems come from the usual suspects - cars and car infrastructure.  

There is a pedestrian bridge connected into the airport building, although this is not well sign-posted.  There is also no train departure screen in the airport, so you don't get convenient information for the next trains.  This information can be so useful - it can be the difference between relaxing while sipping a cold brew, or hurrying over to the train station only to find that the train just left and there isn't one for another hour.

The bridge is covered, but has a steep spiral staircase and small lift that spits you out next to the car park.  While it may be called a pedestrian bridge, it is really infrastructure for cars.  To keep people 'out of the way'.  

From the lift to the station is just across the car park.  But, surprise surprise, cars have been prioritised again, so pedestrians have to make their way along the path skirting the edge of the car park.  This is about a 280m walk, with a cover.  If you try to walk directly towards the station, a guard will wildly blow his whistle at you (but probably won't be bothered to chase you).  

Once you get near to the station, if you walked inside the car park, you'll be greeted by a fence and a gate.   Locked of course.

After going up to bridge level, down to the car park, and walking a total of 345m (if you follow the designated route) you finally make it to the train station - and don't exactly get a welcoming greeting.

A dull, boring ticket area with information displays not function properly.  If you are ready to catch your train, you then have to go up to platform level.  So to recap, it's up to the bridge, down to car park, and up again to platform.  

Now to the train.  There is roughly one every hour, although it's slightly randomised and doesn't leave at the same time past each hour (ktmb.com.my/TrainTime.html). It takes about 35 minutes to get to KL Sentral (after stopping only at Subang Jaya on the way). 35 minutes may not sound bad, but let's think about that.  The route is about 26km.  So average speed is 26 / (35/60) = 45 kph.  This is very poor.  For comparison, the KLIA Ekspres takes about 28 minutes to go 57 km (118 kph average speed).  Granted, Skypark has to share tracks with all the other KTM services for most of the route, and there are railway upgrading works going on nearer to KL.  But really, this is painfully slow.

With low traffic, you can make it from Subang Airport to KL Sentral in a car in 25 minutes.  

The train itself is a commuter style affair, with lots of luggage storage space. 

The driver's door wouldn't close, so you might get to see the journey through the windscreen (better than through the dirty windows.)  But the train does the job.

A ticket was originally RM 11 between the airport and KL Sentral.  In 2022 this was drastically cut - to RM 3.50 - presumably in a (desperate?) bid to improve the ridership of the service.    

After spending your RM 3.50 and arriving into KL Sentral - you might be greeted by ...

Broken escalators!

To summarise the Skypark experience. 

- Awkward to get from airport to station

- Cheap

- Slow

- Reasonably good destinations for onward connections (Subang Jaya and KL Sentral).

The good news for the Skypark link is that its technical problems can be addressed very simply.  

1. Build an elevated walkway across the car park directly into the station.  Connect directly into platform level so that those who don't need to buy a ticket can go straight through some barriers onto the platform.  Add functioning train departure screens in the airport and include clearer signage to funnel people towards the train. 

2. If an elevated walkway isn't going to happen (for whatever reason), re-route the walking path at ground level in a straight line through the car park.  Also, add escalators between the bridge and the car park.  These escalators should be in line with the intended direction of travel.  Reconfigure the parking bays around the walking route to make this work.  Prioritise the pedestrians - it's that simple.  There's plenty of guidance around on how to make good, accessible routes.

3. Address the frequency and speed of the train service (this is a whole other topic, and, granted, will take a long time before it's possible). 

(As a bonus point, sort the bridge out over the NKVE.  The one that lorries keep crashing into because it's too low.)

Penang Sentral

Overall impressions

Oh dear, poor, poor Penang Sentral.  Where to start.

The design of this 'interchange' is shocking.   Leaving aside the hideous architecture, how does it function as an interchange?

Penang Sentral

The function of an interchange is to seamlessly and smoothly bring together different modes of transport at one nexus.  This should encompass as many modes as relevant and practical.

Butterworth is an obvious place, having a ferry port and a railway station already converging at the same point.  Bring together a bus terminal, a bicycle hub, and a vehicular drop off point, and the idea makes perfect sense. 

Unfortunately, the planners seemed to lose sight of this and decided to build a giant multistorey car park instead, adding on some awkward bus stops and a load of bizarre ramps.   (My advice to anyone planning urban transport in Malaysia: keep it on the ground.  Design out the need for ramps.  If you need lots of ramps, you are doing it wrong.)

Take the bicycle connection between the railway station and the ferry, for example.

In 2021, all but one of the big classic ferries were retired, now replaced by a small boat for foot passengers.  Bicycles and motorcycles are left with a modest 1 per hour.  OK, fine.  We can wait for the ferry.  Very cheap too. 

However, getting onto the ferry or to the railway station is a different story.   Up the ramp, round and round, down, through the toll booth, wait in the queue. 

Out of the port, through the barriers, up the spiral ramp, down another ramp, contra-flow along the main road (no decent pavement), into the station car park area, and then finally reaching the station. 

Time and time again Malaysia takes the long wiggly route to somewhere that is so near in a straight line.

The figure below shows a route you could take between the KTM station and ferry terminal, if you use contraflow. It's about 1.2km. Seriously. (If you don't use contraflow (i.e. cycling into traffic), it's way longer.)

Route between ferry terminal and KTM station for those using bicycle, scooter etc.  This could be solved easily by opening up a route near the toll booths directly into the railway station. 

Connections to the town 

A key issue with transit stations in Malaysia is their connections to the surrounding area - how accessible they are to local communities.  Penang Sentral is no different - in fact it is particularly poor.  The image below shows that there are significant residential and industrial areas within a 2km radius (25 minutes' walk or less, 10 minutes cycling/ scooting, or less).  If given convenient pathways to get to Penang Sentral, no doubt many would consider using the hub to catch their regional bus, ferry to Georgetown, local train, or perhaps long distance train.

Population areas within 2km of Penang Sentral.  

• The residential area to the south east, across the Prai river, is disconnected as there is no bridge.  (The Prai River Bridge is a major highway bridge - no entry for pedestrians.) 

• Residential/ kampung area directly to the east: good luck finding a decent cycle route, footpath or safe crossing points to get into Penang Sentral from here.

• Butterworth town to the north - you could try walking down Highway 1, which has a footbridge and some zig-zag pathways (not much shade).  It will probably take you a lot longer than it should.  Once you get to Penang Sentral, how do you actually get in?

A typical footpath on the way to the Butterworth railway station. 

It's a similar story trying to get directly into the railway station from the local areas.  Terrible paths, carparks in the way, entry roads jammed with traffic, major highway blocking access. 

During construction 

Like most construction projects in Malaysia, access during construction was relegated to the lowest priority. During the construction of Penang Sentral, it was not permitted to walk from the railway station to the ferry terminal (about 240m, or 3-4 minutes' walk). Pedestrians had to take a bus around the construction site, which inevitably took much longer. Perhaps not so bothersome to Malaysians, but it left plenty of foreign tourists disgruntled and confused.  Construction projects (especially ones near transport hubs) need to be planned to maintain adequate access throughout construction for active travel modes.  This is not difficult to do, and forms part of the standard practice for projects in other countries not so far away from Malaysia.  It does, however, need a change in mindset, together with enforcement from planning authorities and major clients. 

Barriers in the city

Let’s talk about permeability.   No, this is not about hairstyles.  It’s about the ability to travel through a medium, place or object. Say, a city.

Places tend towards permeability if given the chance. Yes, there are rivers, steep hills, and forests to contend with, but by and large, people find a way through.  This is a human phenomenon.  An animal phenomenon.  

The generations before us knew about permeability.   Just a few generations ago,  riding around on a bicycle was a primary means of transport, and this relied on the permeability of the town or district.   In KL that has mostly been swept up and away in the mass of tangled highways.  You don’t have to look far to find people who growing up didn’t think of using a bicycle as ‘cycling’ - it was just jalan jalan, and it was free and easy.

The modern city in Malaysia is becoming a ‘severed’ place rather than a permeable one.  Forces are at work making this happen, going against the grain.   It is usually the construction of a wall or a fence.   Why do we need these barriers?   Why do we need to sever one place from another?  The two main causes of the barriers in the Klang Valley are highways and fenced property.    

Highways are touted as providing connectivity, but do the sponsors and planners stop to consider that highways also bring severance?  They sever districts through the insertion of fences and other barriers coupled with heavy traffic thundering along in a near-continuous stream.  Not something easy to cross, to say the least.  This can have far-reaching consequences for an area, resulting in severed communities.   What once was a short walk now may be a long drive, with little or no alternative but to get on the highway.  Cycle around the Klang Valley and you will usually find your preferred route blocked by highways.  Some footbridges are provided - but not nearly enough.  They clearly haven’t been planned with active travel in mind.  Of course, with highways typically being toll roads, it is in the developers’ and operators’ interests to encourage car use and discourage active travel. 

Cycling is an incredibly flexible mode of transport - you can ride 5 minutes to the shop, go touring (maybe with the help of a train), invade a country, or take it off road, over the hills and far away.  There are so many options.  So a bicycle can be used in a shared space with pedestrians, on a motorcycle lane, on a road, on a gravel track, or, yes, even on a dedicated bicycle path.  Perhaps this is a curse, as well as a blessing.  Without a well defined need for bicycle-specific infrastructure, cycling routes get overlooked. 

What this all means is that we’ve ended up with areas in Greater KL that you can’t escape except by using a highway.    Easy, accessible routes can be worked into highway proposals for little extra cost, if the will is there. 

Modern private property developments in the Klang Valley tend to be relatively large scale. A common first step for a developer is to put a big fence around the new development site, thus reducing permeability.   Attitudes towards private property, land access rights, so called ‘security’, and various other aspects of the collective psyche can probably explain this to some extent.  There are simpler explanations too.  Perhaps the planner or developer doesn’t walk or cycle.  That would be perfectly normal nowadays in the Klang Valley.   If they never use active travel themselves, why would they think to cater for others who might?  Everybody knows that cars are the only way...  Education in planning and urban design can tackle this, together with planning policy:   mitigate severance caused by developments, maintain and enhance urban permeability. 

On the other side of the coin, the Klang Valley has many mature housing areas that are inherently permeable, with little lanes, alleys, parks and bridges.  Nowadays, many of these areas are fenced, like a compound.   People approvingly talk about their area being ‘gated and guarded’ - hideous terms better suited to a barbed wire dystopia.   Nothing says selamat datang like a 10-foot fence topped with razor wire.    

Welcome to the neighbourhood.

But where does this trend for fences come from?  There has been a history of fenced housing areas in Malaya for decades, particularly acute during the emergency years.  The British set up New Villages with perimeter fences to combat communist activity.  Did the residents decide they liked the fences?  Or did they just get used to it and as time went by, forgot that it could be different?  It is sad that people use the warped excuse of ‘security’ or ‘safety’ today (but that is a discussion for another time).

Let’s look at a few quick examples of severance caused by fences.

There is a road from TTDI, through Kampung Penchala and up to Desa Park City.  Well, there was once. It was a pleasant and convenient route on the bicycle, using a small lane along a babbling river.   Even better, the end of the road was a modal filter, blocking motorised traffic.  This made the road quiet and calm.  In 2021 the route was blocked by an uncompromising fence and barbed wire.  Some try to bypass the fence by going through the forest - a route unsuitable for most.  It looks like a typical case of the ‘one way in, one way out’ mentality.   With a little imagination and minimal budget, the route could be opened up to active travel, with all the benefits that would bring.

The developer is ParkCity Holdings, a subsidiary of Samling.  From Samling’s own website: “Samling Group and all its subsidiaries strongly believe in environmental protection and sustainable social-economic practices which caters to long-term business growth”. 

Just going to leave that there.

The road to Desa Park, now blocked.

There will surely be arguments for and against barriers in each situation, and in some rare cases a fence might be the least worst option.  But the point isn’t about one example, the point is that this is a trend and it’s happening everywhere.  Maybe permeability for active travel around the city just isn’t on anyone’s radar.  The people whom it currently affects the most are probably foreign workers, with little if any voice in these kinds of matters.  Maybe there is nobody representing these interests

A modest barrier in a typical PJ housing area.  This one is traversable, but not convenient.  There are plenty of other examples of high fences or mega gates.  No welcoming vibes allowed.

One of my favourites.  Bangsar.

It is not only private property that can cause massive severance - parks, campuses, and other areas in the city are also often fenced, cutting routes for active travel.

Let’s not forget that there are a few success stories, though.   Thumbs up to the golf course near the KL/PJ border that lets you cycle through it (but is it supposed to be a public road anyway..?).

There are good arguments for preventing motorised traffic in certain areas, but do these same arguments hold up against active travel?  That’s where the modal filter steps in. Some housing areas deploy these filters to great effect, blocking cars, and sometimes motorbikes, but remaining open to walking, jogging, or cycling.  There are plenty of examples of this kind of filter around KL, so it’s not something new.  What might be new is integrating it into a transport strategy.

While this discussion has singled out highways and fences as the causes of severance, there are other culprits lurking about in the shadows.  Technology has brought differences in the way the city is planned and constructed.  For example, modern retaining walls can be made much higher more easily than they could a century ago.   Where little terraces would have once been the norm, six metre tall concrete retaining walls now tower around us.  Few of us would consider scaling a wall like that as part of our daily commute, let alone doing it carrying a bicycle. Let’s remember: it is our choice how we implement technology.

 

A final thought - about intuition, and the severing of it.  Intuitively, how to get from A to B?  If you start at A, head in the direction of B mah?  No.  Wrong!  Not in the Klang Valley.  More likely, head in the opposite direction.  This could be different. For a city with a high degree of permeability, if you head towards B, by and large, you will end up at B.  Navigating without a sense of direction is a bizarre concept to me, but something increasingly normal to KLites.  Maybe technology is solving the problem - just got to turn brain off, turn Waze on.  But the tortuous routes we now take add on the miles, add on the minutes, add on the pollution, and add on the stress. 

___

OK, so the city has a problem with permeability, and it’s been heading in the wrong direction for a while.  But there are little positives here and there - modal filters, bicycle maps, footbridges, and private roads open to active travel.  Things that are valued by people.  Let’s build on these things, raise awareness and change minds.  There is a growing group of bicycle users who can spread the word and mobilise.  Who knows, with a few turns of the pedal, we might just get somewhere.