SEMINAR ON SUSTAINABLE

TRANSPORT
Organised by CETDEM
24 November 2010

M Zulkarnain Hamzah
TRANSIT Klang Valley
 The Association for the Improvement of
Mass-Transit (TRANSIT), Klang Valley
 A united voice for diverse public transport
users
 Our Goal
◦ To ensure the voice of the passenger is heard in
public transport planning, regulation, and
operations
◦ To increase awareness about what public transport
can bring to our communities
 ISSUES & CHALLENGES
 SOLUTIONS
 BEST PRACTICES
TRIP
 (Mass) transit journey is too tiring
can’t arrive there on time and in one piece
ROUTE
 Transit routes are very complicated
don’t know how to get there
PLATFORM
 Transit points are not accessible

“don’t want to go through all the hassle”

 LONG WAIT
 No fix schedule;
operators modify
schedule to reap
maximum occupancy out
of their fixed routes
BADLY DESIGNED ROUTES
• Intercity lines choose time-consuming routes and local
lines zigzag and loop excessively in the suburban areas
TRAVEL DISCOMFORT
 Overcrowding of entrances,
exits and gangways
 Restricted commuter flow
and door failure cause
delays
 Sardine-packed conditions
for very long duration
DIFFERING FEE STRUCTURE AND NO INFO
 Unfair distribution of fee pricing across commuters
from differing places where a short trip involving
multiple routes can cost more than a long, single
route trip
 No integrated transit information across different
operators, service lines and transit points
 Info not user friendly, confusing and hard to obtain
HARD TO SINGLE OUT
TARGETED VEHICLE
 Too many different lines share
the same clogged routes
 Bus signs hard to be identified

 Commuters have to be over-alert

and venture onto the traffic
space so as not to miss the fast
approaching targeted vehicle
NO FIRST & LAST MILE CONNECTIVITY
 Available infrastructure not friendly to
pedestrians
 Distance between halts are inconsistent with
population distribution around halts
BAD TRANSIT PILE-UP
 Transit flow blocked by idling
and parked public and private
vehicles
 Haphazard loitering of vehicles
with no proper platforms, signs
and spaces to facilitate
passenger pick-up and drop-off
BAD TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
 Neighboring communities are divided by limited
access Tolled Highways and congested Freeways,
limiting direct transit interconnection possibilities
 Paths from hubs to highway exits are very complex,
congested and time-consuming
 Who does what in public transport
This highly systemic and strategic task should be entrusted to
an Organizing Authority with access to a high-level of
legislative and enforcement powers
• Collective movement of people

• Servicing common corridor with greater

This operational task is typically taken by private / quasi
efficiency -government operators serving an Organizing Authority

• Facilitated by pooled resources (stations,

street signals, dedicated lanes etc)
Pooled resources refer to commonly shared infrastructures funded by taxpayers.
by local and regional level authorities is a must.
Current & past systems did not work
1. We did not fund the common infrastructure necessary to
because: support public transport in the same way as we fund
infrastructure for private cars.
4. We have introduced government-linked
services in competition with private
• Collective movement of people operators

• Servicing common corridor with greater

2. Operators pitted against each other will take every
efficiency cost savings they can get away with in absence of any
reasonable standards, regulations and enforcement

• Facilitated by pooled resources (stations,

street signals, dedicated lanes etc)
3. Mass transit vehicles SHARE travel space with private vehicles
Operators maximize whatever they can squeeze from any loophole in public
infrastructure (i.e. loitering of parked buses, unruly road hogging and speeding)
 Transit journey Make trip fast
TRIP is too tiring and comfy

Routes are too Make moving

ROUTE complicated around simpler

Transit points Make transfers

PLATFORM are inaccessible hassle-free
 The question is, how to move a whole lot of
people fast and easy?
 PRIORITY NUMBER ONE: integrate all support
systems for mass rapid transit, and have all of
it properly coordinated
 Transport Cabinet EPU
Ministry of
Housing and
Ministry (Planning)
Local Committee
Government Public
Works
RTD Dept
(JPJ) Traffic
(Puspakom) Police

CVLB Ministry of Finance

(Licensing,
Public
Routes)
Feedback
(Insignificant)

MECD Prasarana
(Permits, Fares)

Local
Governments Private Government
(Insignificant) Operators Operators
(Metrobus, SJ, KGN-
HIN, Milan, Red, etc.) (RapidKL, RapidPenang)
 Multiple Highway
TOLL FEES Concessionaire Holders
Federal Funds and Road Expenditures
compensation
Governme
nt RapidPenan
g
Local KTM
Councils
ER
L
RapidKL

Private
STAKEHOLDE
RS
operators
Transit-Oriented Mobility
Structured level of authorities for government agencies to provide holistic direction
Highest Chamber of Legislature Federal Agencies
(Parliamentary Committee on Economic Planning Unit
Public Transport) Ministry of Transport
Ministry of Housing & Local Gov’t
Ministry of Finance
National Public Transport Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia
Statutory Authority (SPAD) JKR, JKJR, JPBD
JPJ, PDRM
IKRAM, MIROS
State Transport Council
(State Assembly) Local Public Transport
Authorities (LTPAs)

State Agencies Metropolitan Public Transport

Local Governments
Authorities
Bureau of Motor Vehicles
State Board of Accounts (clusters of large cities)
Public Amenities Council
Town Planning Department
Housing Development Office Rural Transport Authority
(sparse district and villages)
 Parliamentary
Public
Committee
Feedback
Finance
EPU SPAD
(Planning) Ministry
(Vision & Standards)
(Funding)

LPTA LPTA LPTA LPTA LPTA

NCER Kinta V Greater KL ECER IRDA
(Oversight) (Oversight) (Oversight) (Oversight) (Oversight)

Bus and Rail Operators are under contract (time limited) to each LPTA.
The Ministry of Finance would buy buses and provide capital funding
where needed. LPTAs would own the buses and routes and maintain local
oversight and provide direct operations subsidy where needed.
 Transit Consultation Model
The 4 stakeholders can improve efficiency through specialization

LOCAL / STATE GOVT TRANSPORT

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT &
Local Development Plans ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
Transit Oriented Development Planning and managing
State Oversight REGULATORY INPUTS transit operations and
FEDERAL GOVT & FEEDBACKS resources
National Standards & Oversight
Government-funded Research

Consultations
&
Engagements

OPERATORS
RESIDENTS Time limited
ASSOCIATIONS, Contracts:
Info & feedback platform
NGOs Private local
Participate in LA21
inside transit vehicle
GLC-funded local
Private foreign
 Non-discriminating distribution of tax revenue and fee income to cover entire populatio

LOCAL / STATE GOVT FUNDING

Quit rent rates depend on proximity TRANSPORT
to transit connections PENALTY IF AUTHORITIES
Parking tariffs, congestion charges KPIs NOT MET
Revenues from traffic violations
FEDERAL GOVT
Tax per mileage driven
Fuel consumption tax

CIVIL
DUTY

OPERATORS
STAKEHOLDERS Contracted to:
EXTRA FEE FOR VALUE-ADDED Private local
SERVICE
COMMUTERS GLC-funded local
Private foreign
 Fair allocation of risks and responsibilities between transit operators and authorities
Used by SPAD to form Used by SPAD to form
sustainable public INPUTS sustainable contracting
funding framework for framework between
Public Funds Transit Fare
KPIs in LPTA Operators and LPTA
 Accessibility
Infrastructure Technology
 Availability
Land Use Energy
 Reliability
Route Planning Labor
 Safety
 Comfort

CONSUMED OUTPUTS SERVICE PRODUCED OUTPUTS

Travel Duration Service KPIs: EFFICIENCY Operational cost/mile
Cost/Passenger - Safety Vehicle seats/mile
CO2/Passenger - Reliability Used by LPTA to Pollution/mile
Infra KPIs - Comfort evaluate operators Journey covered/labor

Used by LPTA to evaluate Used by Operators to evaluate own performance

schedules & routes
 Right efforts in reducing  Urban Sprawl
•Human Dev. index
tangible cost of traffic ◦ Socioeconomic gap between
congestion in the short communities

term will eventually  Traffic Congestion

◦ Poor quality of life
reshape the present urban
sprawl towards low carbon
footprint and sustainable
land use in the long term

•Carbon footprint per capita •Travel time reliability

 Urban Sprawl
 Urban Sprawl
◦ High carbon footprint
◦ High infrastructure cost
 Traffic Congestion
 Traffic Congestion
◦ Pollution
◦ Wasted time (Productivity loss)
◦ Green House Emission
◦ Wasted fuel
◦ Hospitalization Cost
 Present Method (vague)
KL transit modal share is counted
by factoring in peak hour
commuting across outer and inner
city cordon borders. Transit share
was targeted to be 60%, before
plummeting to 50%, and finally
25% (National Key Result Area).
Mid-Term Economic Long-Term Overall
Sustainability Sustainability
Amsterdam’s modal split pattern takes into
account all journeys made – hence explains
progression from walking towards transit and car
use in tandem with increase in distance
travelled.
Traffic modelling in Manhattan, NY churns For mass transit to be
out delay costs. Like most cities,
congestion costs are highest during peak
effective, its delays and
hours as traffic volume beats associated costs must be
infrastructure capacity.
made lower than that of
private vehicle!
  

 

  

 



 



 
  

 
  





 
 
 

  

       
 
 
    
      
  
        
 
   
   

 
 
    
  
     
  
     
  

    
   
     
           
       
     

   
 

 
        
    
       

   
 
    
 
  
        
  

 
 
     
      
     
 

  
         
 
  
 
           

   
    
        

  

 
      

 
  
 
  

  


  
            
    
         
   
  
  


 





             
    

  

 
     

       

 
     

  


      
 

  
  

    
   
     
             
   
        
  
    
      
 
 

      

   

       
    

         
 
 
 
  
       
 
  





        
  
  
  


   
  
         

 
   
      
         
  
    


     
 
    


  
    
 


 





 
       
   
   
     


      
 
  
 
    
          
     
         
  
  
 
         
   
                    
  


         

           
 
 
 

 



  
 
  
  

  
  
 
 

     
   
    
       

  
    
     
  
 

 

 


  


         
   

    
        
          

        
   
 
            
      
  
 

          
  
    

  
  
     
  

     

  
 



   


             


 

           

 

          

        
   
       
 





 


   

   
        
       

  
 









   


         
    

    
      



   




















  
           
 
     

        
 





 
   

 
   
          
   
  
     
  

        
 
  

 
 
 

   
   
         
  
  
  










   
    
         
 
 


 




   
      

  





 

 



 




         
 


  

   

 



    
 
    



 

























    



 

 
  


 




  
   
 



 


 








  
      
      
  








 











        
 
    
  
    
  

 

 
 
  


      
 







 
 
 
       








 
 


          
      
    
 
  

  

 

 
           

  
  






 

  
  


  




        
  




 



  

   

    

 


















    

 
        


     
 









 

 
     
       

     

 









 



       
          
 
 

 
    
 
     
     
   




 
 



 

  
 
  

  
       
  
    










 
 


 


 

   
 
   
  
     
     
    

 











    
  
 
       

    

    
   






  

  
   


 
 

  
 
           

 

 

 
  

  

 
   
  
   
  
    
 

   


  





  
             

 

 

      
            
      
 
   

 




 





  


 
  
 
             

 

 

 
 

   


 

  
 
    

     
   
 


 






 



 
 
 
 

                





  
  
     
     
  

 
   

 

     
 

 
        

 


     
    
        

    
   



 





 
 

                  





    
      
 

       
   
 












       

 
               
     












    
         
 
 

  



 


     
















           
    
 

 
  
        

 
  
  











  
          
        
       

    
  
  

   
    
      

 
   
 

    
        
  
   
 
 
         
         
     
 

     

      
 
    
     
  

     
     
      
     
  

 
 

 
   


              
 
 
 
  




 
 
     

           
            
     

     
 

   
       
  
  


   
  
  
  

 

  


   
         
 
  
 
 
        
  
 



 
 
       
 
   
           
    
 

         


   

    
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
      
     
 


 
        

    
   
 
    
   
  
   
      

     
     
    
  
 
    

   
     
    
 
  
   
    
    
  
  
   
    
  
  
  
        

 

    


   
 
     
 
    
    
      
  
 
    
      
   
 

  
   
    
 

 
  


  
   
    
 
  
 
   


Origins Destinations Alignments Traffic priority measures

With correct modelling approach,
transit can be more attractive
than private vehicles!
Through google traffic, car users feed real-
time GPS data that allow transit planners to
not only decide mass transit’s optimal
alignments, but on traffic volume and
capacity analysis (via comparing GPS-fed
data with established local plans) so that
the right traffic priority measures can be
undertaken (for mass transit to at least
match private vehicles’ travel time)
Transit project’s outcome must result in
cheaper cost of travelling!
Sharing is not only
caring, but also
time/money-saving!
Simpler routes mean more
services over less travel
distances: more frequent
and faster service
trip

MASS
RAPID
TRANSIT plat-
route
form Make transfers fast &
TRIP
 Collective seamless wherever possible!
movement of
people
ROUTE
 Servicing
common corridor
with greater
efficiency
PLATFORM
 Facilitated by
pooled resources
(stations, street
signals, dedicated
lanes etc)
 Direct
By sorting the way we
Service travel, we can cross
great distances faster,
MRT/Commuter Train ERL

Trams/Monorail/LRT
Express- and access smaller
way
Maxi-taxi/Minibus Bus Rapid Transit
Rapid
Transit
urban blocks easier!
Unobstructed accessibility
Lane/Road Boulevard Expressway
Level
Street Level
Level Level at origin/destination and
uninterrupted mobility
Regular Line
during in-betweens:
Bypass Line
more stress-free travel
Limited Stop Line
Non-
Stop
Line
Public transport is a Traffic infrastructure shapes
urban attractions, and hence
tool to shape future
traffic volume
urban growth, but our Traffic volume increases when the benefit
present choices are of leaving present point of origin and
reaching destination is higher than the
limited by the mobility cost of overcoming the distances (stress,
plans made in the time, income loss, damage)

past
Investment in setting up
traffic flow network in the
past affects the present and
future pattern of urban
1807 - 2007
development

Traffic corridors should be

designed to move people,
not cars!
 Going outwards, land use shifts
from people-based to
Grid street layout makes spatial and transit planning
logistic-based activities
less complex. It offers pedestrians greater
connectivity and permeability.

Transit is a tool for sustainable urban growth!

Private vehicle use within areas closest to transit points can be
significantly reduced with commercial districts offering
knowledge and creativity based services, instead of logistics-
driven services (furniture centres, hypermarkets, workshops
etc). Through transit proximity-based assessment rate and
parking taxes, density surrounding transit stops can be
increased.
 Old cities of the developed
world can sustain urban
growth due to its pedestrian-
friendly urban forms.

Remember, walking is the

biggest mean to reach public
transport!
Grid street layout in heart The need to speed up traffic flow to accommodate motorized
of KL (Chinatown & Little vehicle use increase resulted in a complicated mesh of motorways
India) 100 years ago and highways for KL and its satellite towns in the past 100 years

1890s 1990s KL’s urban form has no particular

resemblence in general; in fact, it looks
more like spaghetti
And exclusive spaces hamper connectivity and permeability, and drains significant resources
that should be dedicated towards fixing uninviting sidewalks and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

Emphasis is still on
more exclusive
walkway projects
connecting transit to
adjacent and
selective private
lands, when the
existing ones fail to
attract pedestrians.

Kuala Lumpur needs more inclusive and

inviting sidewalks that link places.

At grade crossings
should replace
overhead pedestrian
bridges along traffic
corridors within high
density commercial
areas.
 Roads within urban centers must be designed to move people, not cars!

Efforts to create more car-free streets in Copenhagen 1962 - 1996

THE CULPRIT!
Peak hour commuting corridors are gravitated towards high density urban employment centers.
Emphasis on car-oriented
infrastructure accommodate
available traffic corridors towards
flow and speed of cars, instead
of moving people. Vicious cycle
continues to create
unsustainable urban sprawl.

Car parks dominate scene near

downtown Houston, TX

Pattern seen mostly in North

America (and Malaysia)

Pattern seen mostly in

Western Europe (and in
Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore,
Curutiba, Bogota)

Seoul’s highway-
turned-river case
study shows us
how tearing down a
highway can
relieve traffic jams
(and save our city)
 Choose the right alignments and centers, and the rest will follow…
We can’t change pre-existing land use, but we can definitely influence its evolution through
strategic commuting choices (designation of transit alignments and employment centers) to
orchestrate realistic transition from car-oriented to transit-oriented commuting behavior, and
finally to a more sustainable land use and overall urban environment.

KL

KL City Center-centric alignment…

will it solve the problem?
Congestions along fringes of the city border
show mobility requirements targeting other
urban centers within Greater KL are also unmet
Straight Transit Line
Transit is most effective when straight
alignments can be achieved, hitting
target TOD nodes.

Zoning policies in Curutiba, Brazil foster

high density TODs to concentrate along
BRT corridors
 Alignment dilemma for Washington DC,
on the proposed BRT extension to final
Shady Grove MRT station on the red line.
Blue squiggle line hits urban centers, but long journey
time does not encourage car users who can drive faster
via highways. Yellow straight line promises more rapid
and efficient service, but skips important urban centers!

Squiggle Transit Line

Transit is not effective if alignments have
to accommodate detours to hit TOD
nodes.
 In Shah Alam, rapid
circulator lines can connect
Ideal situation VERSUS reality suburban centers (marked
with yellow) with KL-bound
rapid transit stations.
EXPRESS ERT via NKVE to Sentul LRT (on DUKE)
SERVICE Better than mere feeders, the
circulator lines provide
locals intracity travel during
off peak hours.
lo
innercal
s e ring
(both rvice
directi
ons)

L HWAY
FEDERTALINE
Mass Rapid
BR
Transit Hub

INE (KTM)
MRT L s
ibu
LEGEND min
8-20
sec.1 local
Mass RapidTransit Stop outer ring
Feeder Bus Stop service
Regular Line (both directions)
Bypass Line
EXPRESS
kg.pdg SERVICE
TAMAN B
Feeder TAMAN C jawa minibus
bus line B Feeder ERT via KESAS to Cheras LRT (on MEX)
bus line C
Through channelization and
transfers, city-bound rapid SUBURBAN
SECTION 1
SUBURBAN
SECTION 3

TAMAN A
transit lines can be linked to
SUBURBAN
Feeder SECTION 2
bus line A

Mass suburban centers via local

Rapid Transit Line
circulators.
Street Median Pedestrian Island

Due to straight alignments, local circulator

lines can’t accommodate all residential SUBURBAN
SECTION 5

pockets. Minivans and carpoolers can feed

commuters from deep housing pockets SUBURBAN
SUBURBAN
SECTION 4
SECTION 6
towards the circulator lines.
Rapid Transit Stop
Interchange
RAPID TRANSIT LINE Feeder Stop
FEEDER TRANSIT LINE 0 250 500 750 1000 m
 Greater KL is designed to
be car-oriented from the
ground up!
• Low density housing dominates the majority
of the residential areas in Greater KL.
• Direct access of these housings depend on
existing motorways and tolled highways.
• Developments within residential districts
are further segregated through cul-de-sac
street layout by independent land
developers

Unless proper land use audit is done to examine barriers to walking

(pedestrian-vehicle conflict, artificial barriers, motorways), the 400m radius
of transit catchment in local plans are unrealistic!

Piece-meal
development of land
parcels affect
permeability and transit
use negatively.
Selangor’s Structure Plan
Red line is for metro, and blue
line is for LRT. Plenty of zig-
zagging and squiggling lines.
 Available railway
network hard to be
extended for straight
alignments due to
uncontrolled low
density urban sprawl
Do not repeat past
mistake: Ignore universal
approach using inclusive rapid

River line
transit (BRT, trams) & put all River line
bets on few exclusive ones
(MRT, LRT, monorail)
•Commuters will never be ok to average
fare of RM8 (vs current RM1.60)
required for Prasarana to recoup LRT
and Monorail infra debts.
•Bailouts siphoned massive public funds
from many with no direct benefit from the
lines.
•Failure of integrating transit with spatial
planning (neither by Prasarana nor KTM)
further diminish opportunity to reap value
from present TODs.
TNB Power Lines

Majority of the alignments for the RM10 billion Light Rail projects (Ampang line, Sri
Petaling line, Kelana Jaya line and KL Monorail line) commissioned in the late
1990s – early 2000s were manoeuvred out of expediency rather than studies on
actual transit demand pattern and corridors. No transit masterplan has ever existed.
RM43 billion for 3 Rapid Transit lines?
When transit fundamentals are all wrong with the past RM10 billion investments!
Other taxpayers want MRTs too…
 Why the policy
makers distance
themselves from
the most
pragmatic
solution:

LEVERAGE on
available
infrastructure and
travel corridor!
 Concentric density development does not go in
harmony with prevailing low density layouts
Example: Taman Paramount LRT Station
•Two high rise buildings (influenced by high land value prospects near LRT)
stand like sore thumbs in the midst of very low density housing area
•Surrounding residents annoyed by overutilization of local roads to access
the high rise buildings
•Road alignments not conducive for rapid transfer from LRT to local bus
lines (feeder or circulator)

Piece-meal high density development

without holistic approach in pedestrian
permeability damages real TOD potential
Example: Setiawangsa LRT Station
•Residential barriers (yellow lines) significantly reduces number
of population within walking distance from transit catchment
•One low density luxury housing enclave and another exclusive
condominium project (completed >10yrs after LRT!) completely
block residents of many high density housing units behind it
(mainly low cost) access to LRT
•Road alignments not conducive for rapid transfer from LRT to
local bus lines (feeder or circulator)
BUS RAPID TRANSIT: 6-lane highway or 1-lane busway?

Cars stay
clear from
the median
lanes

EXPRESSWAY RAPID TRANSIT: Demand-driven toll rates for cars?

Car use discouraged with

high peak hour toll fares,
smooth flow for all vehicles
 • Off-vehicle
ticketing

• Proper platforms with

stand behind the yellow
• Multiple service
line rule
lines (regular,
limited stops,
skip-stops)
• High frequency
• Right-of-way
infrastructure

• Stepless floor, highly

accessibile
• Platform names, stop
• Wide doorways and smooth
announcements
passenger flow
 Queue jump, priority signals and bus bulb (instead of normal bus bay) ensures buses get a head start
compared to cars.

Enforcement signs should be accompanied with cameras.

In parking-prone stretches, loud speakers can be used to
warn offenders. Raising bollards can prevent cars from
entering bus-only road.
Reversible bus lane can be implemented for roads that can’t be widened
further. Suitable for roads which suffer traffic congestion only on one side of
the road at a time. Unsuitable for arterial roads connecting two urban centers
together, where peak hour congestion can occur on both directions.
 Entry and exit barriers can
be implemented in
accident-prone stretches

Open design with road humps converted as platforms for

rapid transit vehicles such as trams and buses (downtown or
local lines) allow fast and easy boarding.
Costly and complicated infrastructure and barriers can be eliminated with
external ticketing mechanism. No extra lane is required for middle platform.
Platform docking allows train-like same level
boarding experience Check in and check out
scanners for contactless
card readers allow better
management of fare
collection and evasion
(riders charged in full
during check in, refunded
based on distance
travelled during check out)
BRT with at grade crossing within an inclusive
pedestrian setup shortens commuting time
without the stair-climbing and other efforts for
other rapid transit modes with exclusive
infrastructure.

Contraflow BRT prevents other users from

breaching into the bus lanes
 BRT and high speed traffic

High platform shelter with

automatic glass doors protects
commuters from outdoor
elements and cross-median
accidents. With bypass lanes
for express services at BRT
stops, capacity can exceed
40,000 pax per direction per
hour, compared to 2,000 for cars
per lane per hour!
 Consider high
speed, closed
system highways
as rapid transit
tracks
High speed highway infrastructure should
be prioritized for rapid transit.
Demand-driven toll rate can be easily adapted to closed
system expressways, so that ERT buses can travel rapidly
and smoothly with less headway and greater frequency.

ERT buses should only operate within high speed

expressways. With overhead or side terminals ,
buses do not have to negotiate complex entry
and exit routes to reach suburban or city
terminals. Sawtooth bus bay design allows max ERT
capacity of >20,000 pax per direction per hour!
ERT allows clever load balancing
options
Opex can be greatly reduced by
using underutilized intercity buses
(up to 70pax/bus) during urban peak
commuting hours. Double decks’
lower floor can easily adapt
wheelchair access.

ERT reduces riders’ aversion to

time-waste
One-seat one-ride journey allows
passengers to sleep or work on
laptop, compared to unproductive
idling stress and energy drain
faced by standing passengers.
Uninterrupted, direct journey adds
in towards overall comfort.

ERT gateway terminals speed up

transfers
Exclusive ERT ramps provide
buses direct access to gateway
terminals (transfer to local/city
rapid lines), escaping bottlenecks
at highway interchanges
 FAITH IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Making it easy for people to move around is part of faith

 “Belief has over sixty branches. The best of

them is the words,
„There is noIN
FAITH god but
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
The God (Allah)‟ and
the least of them is to
remove an obstacle from
the road.” (Hadith)
Muhammad Zulkarnain Hamzah 019-280-0608
Shah Alam, Selangor zk9@hotmail.com

Association for the Improvement of Mass Transit (TRANSIT)

http://transitmy.org
klangvalley.transit@gmail.com

It is easy to join TRANSIT’s online discussion group. Just email

klangvalley_transit-subscribe@yahoogroups.com