THE ROLE OF EFFICIENT URBAN GOVERNENCE TOWARDS A UNIFIED AND SEAMLESS PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK

When discussing the issue of public transportation (urban, suburban, etc), the topic will always encapsulate the various modes of transportation that are either public or privately owned. When making comparisons between the two that provide almost similar services, the latter has always been considered as having the advantage by providing for example; door to door travel. In his view, in order for the public transportation services (particularly in urban areas) to gain the trust of the public, a seamless and integrated public transport network must be made available. To be ‘seamless’ is to provide almost door to door travel while being ‘integrated’ involves both tangible (such as planning) and intangible (such as sustainability) matters.

          The question of Malaysia’s public transportation system must be viewed as a matter of considerable urgency that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. As the country strengthens economically, its prosperity and population grows as well thus increasing the number of privately owned modes of transportation i.e. motorcycle, car, van, etc. Today’s traffic congestion (particularly in urban areas) is only temporarily alleviated by otherwise ad hoc and uncoordinated transportation centric projects (like highways) undertaken by various private and public bodies. In the meantime, the nation’s public transportation system bears the brunt of these projects that give would be users limited choices. the development of land especially in urban areas like KL must take into consideration the convenience of the general public. This is done by developing a ‘humane’ city where commuters of a seamless and integrated public transport network are given priority (instead of private vehicle users) in getting to their destinations without much difficulty.

       When touching on the inter relationship between land use and public transport, both aspects do complement each other. Public transport planning must not be done in isolation and should be highly integrated with land use planning/urban development. This is due to the fact that high population density has a direct impact on the capacity of the public transport network. Developing public transport in national strategies goes as far back as 1975 with the recent Ninth Malaysia Plan requiring an integrated and efficient public transport system as part of promoting sustainable human settlement development. Another example is the Principles of National Physical Plan (NPP) where it favours public transport over private vehicle use for inter-urban and intra-city movement. She had also mentioned that a land use planning tool called the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is used for a mixed-use residential or commercial area designed to maximise access to public transport. This would entail public transport being located in the centre of a relatively high-density development area with progressively lower-density development spreading outwards from it. With regards to the ongoing land use in KL, TOD proposals are always included in its potential development. State Structure Plans (SP) and District Local Plans (LP) also include the need for public transport.

        From this point of view, there is a need to address certain matters in order to achieve the goal of a seamless and integrated public transport network:

a. A lack of clear ownership (as regulations and operations have different owners);

b. The need for an Integrated Transport Authority/Public Transport Commission;

c. Consolidation;

d. The implementation of plans already decided upon;

e. The need for enforcement;

f. Local authority involvement (public transport plans and budget allocation); and

g. Increasing local authority’s role in public transport planning to complement the Integrated Transport Authority/ Public Transport Commission

According a train/bus journey would entail three segments;

a. Access to Service (home to train station/bus stop);

b. Mainline Journey (using a train or bus to the next train station/bus stop); and

c. Connectivity for Dispersal (train station/bus stop to the work place)

         Presently, the overall timing when using the bus services within the Klang Valley (from urban to suburban destinations and visa versa) is between one to two hours. Bus stops are generally overlooked or play a less an important role when public transport planning is concerned. Bus transportation particularly bus stops can play an important role in providing a seamless and integrated public transport network. Examples of bus stops located in Curitiba in Brazil, Nantes and Strasbourg in France and Zurich in Switzerland shows the emphasis of comfortable and sheltered bus stops located very close to bus and train service routes. Accessibility between Malaysia rail and bus service routes leaves much to be desired. There is a need to be ‘people orientated’ when public transport planning is being carried out in Malaysia. The development in Malaysia always gave emphasis to vehicle routes, buildings and other utilities and left out the pedestrian factor i.e. walkways but this is gradually changing. It is estimated that around 2.5 million people commute in and out of KL on a working day. Around 50 to 70% of these commuters walk to their destinations for the last segment of their journey. The following in order to meet the goal for a seamless and integrated public transport network:

a. A shortened journey time;

b. Accessibility to service;

c. Minimising transfer between destinations;

d. Reduce waiting times;

e. A smooth dispersal flow at destination;

f. Affordable cost of travel; and

g. Common integrated ticketing system

The concentrate on the stagnation and progress being experienced in enhancing Malaysia’s public transport and how to move ahead in making it a reality. The goal of a seamless and integrated public transport network has been compounded by a number of significant problems being faced:

a. Poor planning of transport, services & development;

b. Uncoordinated and incomplete planning;

c. Lack of timely investment in public transportation;

d. Overcrowding and network breakdown;

e. KTM Crisis (a shortage of trains while the number of commuters grows);

f. Existing networks have significant missing links and are not properly integrated; and

g. Many options for services i.e. buses that are deemed unreliable, inaccessible and inconvenient for many

On the aspect of organisation and regulation, the significant problems faced are:

a. Lack of interest/authority/ability/willingness to enforce regulations;

b. Incomplete understanding of what public transport can offer to a community;

c. Focusing on the lower-income group that don’t necessarily take public transport;

d. Operator driven competition does not help the public transportation industry; and

e. Operators may sacrifice quality, service, mobility, safety, rights of workers, etc.

Progress has also been made in some areas such as the establishment of RAPID Penang where the number of users of the service is increasing. In order to meet the goal for a seamless and integrated public transport network:

a. Parliamentary Select Committee;

b. Public Land Transport Commission;

- introducing and maintaining National Standards

- integrated planning across Malaysia

c. Local/Regional Public Transport Authorities;

- Regional and Local Planning

- Control of routes, fares, assets

- Operators under contract to provide services

d. Encouraging and using public feedback

PREPARATION OF OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREA : 10 PERCENT OF DEVELOPMENT OR 2 HECTARES PER 1.000 POPULATION

Preparation and distribution of quality open space is important to create a liveable city. Open space shall be provided in accordance with the Guidelines for Open Space and Recreation by Federal Department of Town and Country Planning. Local Authority (LA) should ensure that open spaces can be planned and distributed provided at appropriate locations. Policy provides for ten percent  (10%) of public spaces for each development can only be proven if green spaces are provided at suitable locations and facilities can be enjoyed by all levels of the local community. Local Authorities should take efforts to proclaim the open space so that these areas are not converted to another type of use. Open space and recreational areas have been prepared also to be ensured so that it is clean, safe, functional and can be maintained from time to time. In the development of a residential area, open space facilities are an important facility for the convenience of the public.

Open space is an important aspect in residential, industrial and commercial development. Thereby,  Federal Department of Town and Country Planning has been enforcing the implementation of the provision of open space in land development . It has been amended from time to time as necessary. The Government is deeply concerned with the development of open spaces and green areas in the physical development of the country. The Government believes that the development of quality green spaces not only create a balance of green spaces and areas of development, but also improve the quality of a society. For these reasons the government has decided that the ratio of open space 10 percent of the development area used as an indicator of development areas. This compares with the current indicators of 2 hectares for every 1,000 population. In the property development sector, there are many parties who are directly involved in the role and commitment will contribute to ensure that development goals are to achieve the target. Government plays an important role in shaping the policies, laws, standards or guidelines of government policy, development plans as well as circulars and guidelines in general. This is a responsibility on behalf of the government in implementing, controlling and monitoring the development growth in order to meet the economic, social, political and technology.

This article outlines the basic relation to the definition, principles of planning and open space planning standards to be adhered to by developers. It is the intention of this article can drive the state authorities, local authorities and developers in planning, control and monitor the preparation and development of open space in an effective and sustainable. Although the relevant planning policies and standards of open space and recreation has been drafted and adopted, but many issues and problems in the preparation and development of open spaces still exist. Standards of open space provision of 10 per cent of the development area has been used by developers, local authorities and the State Department of Town and Country Planning. If this standard continues to apply the target in order to achieve developed nation status by 2020 will fail. Thus at the Meeting of National Physical Planning Council (NPPC) No. 1/2005 has been decided that the provision of open space should be in accordance with the target of 2 hectares of public open space per 1,000 population. Accordingly, this article will explore the suitability of current open space standards 10 percent of the development area. In addition, the target of 2 hectares of public open space per 1,000 population was also studied and interpreted the literature review to see the benefits of this target to developers, local authorities and public.

Futher enquiry about this article kindly contact :

DR. AZMIZAM ABDUL RASHID
 Research and Development Division,
 Federal Department of Town and Country Planning,
 Ministry of Housing and Local Government,
 Unit No. 50-12-2B, & 50-13-1, Wisma UOA Damansara,
 No. 50, Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights,
 50490 Kuala Lumpur,
 Malaysia
 email address : mailto:bpp@townplan.gov.my

THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE ROLE OF URBAN GOVERNANCE IN SUSTAINABILITY CITIES

More than half of today’s global population currently resides in urban areas and this figure is growing. This means that any credible call for sustainable development on a global level must involve urban areas – a fact that finds expression in the concept of sustainable cities. Governing urban areas in a sustainable manner is, however, fraught with contradictions and dilemmas. The keys to understanding these difficulties, we argue, are to be found in the interpretation of good governance and sustainability and in their inherent contradictions. For the last two decades, the Urban Governance agenda has been based on ideas of democratic, decentralized, localized community and participatory approaches, most of which emanate from a development discourse and from experiences in rural and/or semi-rural areas. Sustainability is, ultimately, a global term – especially in the era of global climate change – and it may extend beyond the scope of urban government. Hence, urban areas – and in particular the emerging mega-cities that seem to be becoming an increasingly dominant sign of contemporary urban political economy – do not easily harmonize with either of these processes.

 

On the contrary, these areas are designed to be the nexuses of various kinds of flow – rural-urban; domestic-global – and they seem ill-suited to territorial decentralization and/or participatory local democracy. Moreover, major cities, which harbour vast numbers of  high-consuming inhabitants in a limited space, are typically the sites of unsustainable processes that exact a price from surrounding areas (ultimately the globe). So, major cities are often not amenable to established governance practices and they often fail to follow basic principles of sustainability. This paper aims to scrutinize the dilemmas involved in governing sustainable cities, and it offers a suggestion for how the challenge might be addressed. In addition to presenting a review of the literature, we will briefly explore some experiences gained from a number of pilot cases of sustainable cities and use these to illustrate the kind of dilemmas involved and to suggest possible solutions.

Finally, we present a discussion about what may be the most appropriate future agendas for research and development agencies alike. One of the questions that is often raised is whether participatory governance is likely to benefit or jeopardize democracy. The failure of representative democracy to govern complex cities and to solve current problems is frequently pointed out. The idea of grassroots democracy and participatory democracy may simply represent the interests of groups with good resources and organizational strengths and may be pushed through at the expense of the common good. From this perspective, participatory governance implies a risk of pseudo-democratic elites with special interests gaining dominance (Raymond 2002:183). Also the increasing complexity of knowledge-based society is used as an argument that elected elites are and should be responsible for representing the public good and they should not be led by the uninformed masses.

On the other hand, successful city management must be concerned with democratic renewal as well as with management innovation and ideally participation transforms citizens who have hitherto pursued selfish interests into responsible citizens who are focused on the public good . Many local authorities in a number of countries have also introduced various forms of area based decision making to increase the participation in planning and budgeting processes. Ward committees in South Africa are one example. The Local Agenda 21 programme was set up on the basis of participatory procedures. Local processes have no decision making authority, but can offer advice to the representative bodies with whom responsibility for making fiscal decisions rest. Within such processes, a high value is placed on incorporating marginalized groups such as youth and women.

When urban governance is successful in mobilizing the necessary support and getting local decision-making structures in place, outcomes - in urban areas – may still fail to yield higher technical standards of governance due to the urban areas’ increasingly complex and interconnected nature. Moreover, even if we accept urban as a partial success (for now) in terms of participation, there is no evidence that sustainable development practices are being pursued or that such policies as are being pursued actually foster sustainable development on a global scale. Instead, we need a locally grounded process that operates not on the basis of voluntary engagement or temporary enthusiasm but within a clear framework that is set at the national level, anchored in the legal system and developed in policy. Such a framework should in turn be in concert with international imperatives and should be outlined in research and at major conferences and UN conventions.

Hence, we need to look for the quality of the local processes, and in this, three links require further attention: i) deepened local government-to-people relations in order to ground any process and establish local advocates; ii) better local government-central government relations so that the local can operate freely, but still within the limitations determined by the central state; and, iii) central government should develop a proactive stance towards global sustainability through engagement in international negotiations and standard setting. Neither the local nor the centre can solve these sorts of problems without the support of the other. Hence, the interaction between the local and the centre is crucial and it is imperative that views are shared about who should do what and with which methods.

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO INTEGRATE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK IN MALAYSIA’S CITIES

The government is acutely aware of the serious short comings of the country’s public transportation system. Only 16% of residents in the Klang Valley use public transportation where as the majority uses personal transportation. This is due to the fact that the ratio of rail track to population size is just 19km per a million of population, that covers only certain parts of Klang Valley. Klang Valley’s three existing rail systems and stage buses are already overcrowded with 260,000 commuters during morning rush hour. A special task force headed by the Ministry of Transport has already been set up to make the Klang Valley publictransportation system more attractive. The taskforce’s goal is to increase the number of users from 16%to 25% by 2012. Urban areas with high population density such as Penang and Johor Bahru are also being targeted with a similar drive but with yet-to-be-mentioned timeframes. The government’s goal is create a world class public transportation system through enhancing its service, capacity, coverage and connectivity. Special emphasise will be given to rail transportation as the backbone to planned improvement of urban public transportation. Initial moves by the government is already underway with the planned purchase of 10 sets of electric multiple units (EMU) for Keretapi Tanah Melayu and 10 new trains for Kelana Jaya’s Light Rail Transport (LRT) line. The existing LRT lines will also be extended to 32km of track per million of population by 2012. Outside of the Klang Valley, certain segments of the ongoing electric double tracking project for KTM are nearing completion.

WHY MEASURE HAPPINESS AND WELLBEING IN THE CITIES?

More than half of the world’s population is living in cities and urban areas and this is predicted to rise to 70% in 2050. The scale of city growth presents new social, economic and environmental challenges for those who live, work and does business in them. Safety and security, public health, a sense of belonging are just a few of the factors that contribute to the happiness for urban citizens and well-being across the world. How do we create a city for its people and who are the parties that need to come together to do this? Which long-term visions as well as simple next steps can they develop in the face of rapid urbanization? Are we happy with our quality of life? The need to develop and implement systematic measures of wellbeing has become an international priority, largely because of the increasing focus on sustainable develop­ment. For example, in June 2007, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and De­velopment (OECD), the European Commission, the World Bank, the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference issued a joint proclamation that focused on the fundamental importance of developing new and expanded measurements of prog­ress.

The proclamation affirmed the organization’s…“commitment to measuring and fostering progress of societies in all their dimensions and to supporting initiatives at the country level. We urge statistical offices, public and private organizations, and academic experts to work alongside representatives of their communities to produce high-quality facts-based information that can be used by all of society to form a shared view of soci­etal well-being and its evolution over time. We invite both public and private organiza­tions to contribute to this ambitious effort to foster the world’s progress and we wel­come initiatives at the local, regional, national and international level.” The notion of well-being is also central to our conceptions of health and healthy com­munities. For example, the definition of health that is used by the World Health Organi­zation gives primacy to wellbeing - “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Most definitions of well-being have emphasized the notion of living a happy and sat­isfying life. In recent years, this notion has become the primary theme in the measure­ment of the concept - self-reported happiness and life-satisfaction.  GDP seems to be growing, but most people feel that the quality of life has become a rat race. The GDP as a concept does not measure or under-count what households and civil society produce. They certainly do not incorporate any measure of inequalities, since the average per capita GDP can disguise the sense of growing disparity. Most of all, GDP statistics do not measure at all environmental degradation or the decay of physical infrastructure around us. Nevertheless, as governments and companies prepare for the recovery, it is more timely than ever to think beyond GDP (gross domestic product), namely not the quantity of how much we produce or consume, but its quality.

Thus a new metric of human well-being should capture these dimensions economic and job security, health, education, personal and work environment, a sense of equality and respect, connectivity with family and friends, a pleasant natural environment, and physical security.In many parts of Asia, we are struggling with crumbling social infrastructure, overcrowding, environmental pollution and social disquiet. Social injustice is being expressed even in very wealthy and successful Asian cities. This month, we were stunned by the random and violent shooting of politicians and the crowd in Arizona. All of a sudden, we are reminded that in addition to our material living standards, such as income, most of us care a lot about our personal and physical security. What can governments and civil societies do? The Stiglitz Report is a very useful reminder that we should begin by measuring what people care about, not just in terms of the quantity of production or consumption, but the quality of well-being.T he report reminds us that GDP is a very narrow concept and does not measure many qualitative issues that human beings care about.

As Asia is going through rapid changes in demographics, urbanisation and social change, it is not surprising that the metrics that we are using to measure our economic success or failure is not up-to-date. It is as if we are driving a car whose speedometer shows that we are accelerating at 70 miles per hour, but there is no indication that we may be going into a bad neighbourhood or that the car may be falling apart. Indeed, if we focus on speed, we may neglect the direction that we are heading towards. Speed comes before a crash. Globalisation has created huge opportunities as well as threats. Governments need to appreciate that in the global competition for talent, people can easily walk with their feet. But they will not walk if they love the city or country-side they live in. We all want a sense of liveability clean air, good health, great culture, nice people, no fear of physical security. Well-being is a sense of community that people care for each other, a feeling of being more equal and mutual respect. We should not see strangers as another mugger, nor a policeman as a person to be feared. We want good governance in our society, most of all a caring community that looks after the poor, the weak and the under-privileged. As governments struggle with how to deliver better governance, we need to begin with better measures of social well-being than GDP.