PUTRAJAYA MONORAIL | Federal Territory | Stalled [Archive]

ZaHiRnYa???

June 9th, 2004, 02:33 AM

Taken from Utusan Malaysia :

Projek monorel RM400 juta di Putrajaya ditangguh sementara

PUTRAJAYA 8 Jun - Projek pengangkutan monorel Putrajaya bernilai lebih RM400 juta yang sepatutnya siap menjelang akhir tahun ini ditangguhkan sementara berikutan ketiadaan peruntukan.

Menteri Wilayah Persekutuan, Tan Sri Mohd. Isa Samad berkata, kementeriannya bagaimanapun berharap masalah itu dapat diatasi sebelum akhir tahun ini bagi membolehkan perancangan menyeluruh sistem pengangkutan awam di pusat pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan itu disempurnakan.

Pihak kementerian juga akan berbincang dengan Perbadanan Putrajaya bagi menentukan alternatif lain yang boleh ditawarkan kepada orang ramai di sini sekiranya projek itu dibatalkan terus, tambah beliau.

``Sekarang ini laluan sudah ada, terowong pun semua sudah ada, cuma tinggal landasan dan gerabak saja.

``Setakat ini, ia (monorel) belum dapat dilaksanakan jadi pihak Perbadanan Putrajaya dan kementerian saya akan lihat pendekatan-pendekatan lain yang boleh digunakan,'' katanya kepada pemberita selepas mengadakan lawatan kerja ke sekitar Putrajaya di Hotel Shangri-La, di sini hari ini.

Beliau mengulas mengenai sistem pengangkutan monorel Putrajaya yang sebelum ini dilaporkan akan disediakan bagi kemudahan penduduk dan kakitangan kerajaan yang bertugas di sini.

Ogos lalu, bekas Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor menyatakan sistem monorel Putrajaya yang meliputi jarak sepanjang 18 kilometer itu dijangka disiapkan pada akhir tahun 2004.

Tengku Adnan yang menganggarkan nilai projek itu kira-kira RM1.8 bilion menyatakan ia akan dibahagikan kepada dua fasa dengan menghubungkan beberapa lokasi penting antaranya Pusat Konvensyen Putrajaya, Masjid Putrajaya, bangunan-bangunan utama pentadbiran kerajaan, pusat kediaman diplomatik serta kawasan sekitarnya.

Pembinaan monorel itu telah disepadukan dengan pembinaan Putrajaya bagi membolehkan terowong dan laluannya disiapkan selaras dengan pembangunan bangunan serta jalan-jalan di sini.

Menurut Mohd. Isa, beliau berpuas hati dengan perkembangan pembangunan di Putrajaya yang berjalan mengikut jadual dan berdasarkan Pelan Induk yang telah ditetapkan.

``Semua kementerian dan agensi kerajaan akan berpindah sepenuhnya ke bangunan-bangunan kerajaan seperti yang dijadualkan menjelang akhir tahun ini, begitu juga dengan pembinaan 1,500 tempat meletak kereta di Terminal Pengangkutan Barat (WTT) yang akan siap sama ada pada Julai atau Ogos ini,'' katanya.

WTT yang terletak di Presint 7 merupakan stesen ERL Putrajaya yang menghubungkan Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur dengan KL Sentral.

Berikutan itu, tambah Mohd. Isa, kerajaan akan meneruskan sistem meletak kereta yang menetapkan had 30 peratus sahaja kenderaan boleh diletakkan di sekitar bangunan-bangunan kerajaan di sini.

``Sebab itulah kita mahu berbincang dengan (Perbadanan) Putrajaya, apa cara terbaik untuk pengangkutan awam di sini,'' katanya.

baqthier

June 9th, 2004, 02:53 AM

:drunk: :drunk: :drunk:

:wallbash: :wallbash:

Greg

June 9th, 2004, 09:14 AM

...and here the bad news for us non-Malay-speakers:

The RM400 million monorail project in Putrajaya has been shelved for the time being.Federal Territories Minister Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad said the system, initially scheduled for completion by the end of the year, had to be stalled as the Federal Government had not approved funding.

The monorail system was supposed to link several important landmarks like the Putrajaya Convention Centre, Putrajaya Mosque and the Government Administrative Complex.

MTRANS Holdings Sdn Bhd, which won the concession to develop the system, had initially estimated the development cost to be RM100 million per kilometre.

Mohd Isa said his ministry would conduct a detailed study on the nine-kilometre system and may push for funding for the project to be included in next year's budget.

On another matter, he said the ministry was drafting a plan to limit access to Precincts Two, Three and Four. These are the areas where government offices and commercial centres are located.

The move, he said, was necessary to prevent traffic congestion in the "heart" of the administrative centre.

"We are planning to allow only 30 per cent of vehicles to enter the areas," he said adding the proposed plan would only be implemented once an integrated transportation system was in place. The public transport system in Putrajaya had to be improved, he said, noting that more ministries, including the Education and Health Ministries, would be located at the administrative capital soon.

Meanwhile, Putrajaya Corporation president Tan Sri Azizan Zainul Abidin said that parking charges to be introduced soon would be reasonable.

"We will take all factors, including what the people want, into consideration before deciding on a rate," he said.

:badnews:

TYW

June 9th, 2004, 11:53 AM

what a dissappointment:(

ethan

June 9th, 2004, 02:06 PM

what a dissappointment:(

OMG!!! THey can't be serious!!!!!!

nazrey

June 9th, 2004, 02:23 PM

What happen on the Putrajaya monorail.But this project is still OK I think.
You know I went to took this pic too when I was in putrajaya western transport terminal later.

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4638.JPG?9134

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4633.JPG?9594

This pic you can see the monorail suspension bridge.

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4635.JPG?5692

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4636.JPG?7280

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4637.JPG?2313

nazrey

June 9th, 2004, 02:27 PM

The sign bord in the terminal.Monorail station is in the 3rd floor.

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4631.JPG?3068

preparing for the ticket counter too

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4629.JPG?4424

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4648.JPG?4986

nazrey

June 9th, 2004, 02:30 PM

And this is look like the linked bridge to the monorail's level and bus stop which is already finished.

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4656.JPG?6258

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4657.JPG?9818

nazrey

June 9th, 2004, 02:34 PM

Nadi putra bus : the public bus in Putrajaya.Some car like intrakota bus in KL as well.But the colour different.looks unique.

http://www.xpphotoalbum.com/data/500/9797DSCN4655.JPG?2553

TYW

June 10th, 2004, 10:11 AM

looks like many parts are completed. :bash:

szehoong

June 10th, 2004, 11:39 AM

...and here the bad news for us non-Malay-speakers:

The RM400 million monorail project in Putrajaya has been shelved for the time being.
:badnews:

Why? why? why? :cry:

No wonder the monorail bridge took like forever to complete if compared to many of Putrajaya's bridges. They can't somply postponed it indefinitely as the Monorail bridge is kinda huge and it is more than 3 quarter completed :D

Hope they would resume the project by the year end ;)

June 13th, 2004, 04:00 PM

szehoong

June 14th, 2004, 11:50 AM

Completed so many things already baru say want to postpone?! I had read The Star newspaper and say that they had some financial problem and MAYBE can be solve in the end of the year. But i thought i had read this part that made me confuse
"Tan Sri Mohd Isa Samd said discussion on alternative modes of public transport would be initiated with the Putrajaya City Council if the monorail project was cancelled'
This is really confused me :bash:

Nothing to be confused about cause he said 'If the monorail project is cancelled' which I think very highly unlikely given the amount already invested and most of the infrastructure are in place already ;)

So there's atill hope and we're all crossing our fingers! :D

TYW

June 21st, 2004, 11:43 AM

http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/Putrajaya.jpg
Opening ?

18 km

23 stations

A spectacular new city is being developed about 20 kilometers south of Kuala Lumpur. The City of Putrajaya is being called Malaysia's first Intelligent Garden City and will be host to many government and business facilities. Lush greenery, botanical gardens and parks are spread across landscapes enhanced by large bodies of water and wetlands. A light rail system was being planned for the city, and tunnels for the system were actually under construction when a major change was decided upon. Monorail Malaysia, builder of a 8.6 km system in Kuala Lumpur, convinced decision-makers to switch from light rail to monorail for the new city. Putrajaya Monorail will eventually consist of two lines. One line will be 12 km long with 17 stations and the second will be 6 km long with six stations. The system will be mostly underground on the central island and elevated in the city's 'mainland' areas. The completion of the Putrajaya Monorail has been delayed until there is a higher occupancy of the new city.

baqthier

October 19th, 2004, 11:25 AM

International Projects Will Augur Well For KLinfra

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 15 (Bernama) -- Monorail transit operator, KL Infrastructure Bhd (KLinfra) is confident that participation in international monorail transit projects would augur well for the group's future prospects.

MTrans Holdings Sdn Bhd (MTrans) the company's holding company, has been relentlessly pursuing potential monorail system projects in more than 12 countries with potential values of US$5 billion.

MTrans is one of only three urban transit monorail manufacturers in the world after Bombardier of Canada and Hitachi of Japan.

In the 2004 annual report, KLinfra said recent efforts had borne fruit with the crystallization of an agreement concluded on Sept 8, 2004 between the company, Monorail Malaysia Technology Sdn Bhd (MMT, a wholly owned subsidiary of MTrans) and the Gangnam District of Seoul, Korea to establish a joint venture company to implement a 6.7 km monorail transit system in Gangnam on a privatisation basis.

The proposed system costing US$175 million will complement the extensive subway system currently serving Gangnam, with a population of 550,000 and the city of Seoul of 10 million.

The company will be the designated project manager and the system integrator for the project and MMT will be the turnkey monorail system supplier.

The Gangnam district has shown its strong backing for the project by the provision of a subsidy of 40 percent of the total project cost and will subscribe up to 25 percent equity interest in the joint venture company.

The balance of the project cost will be funded by a combination of equity and external borrowings.

The project is subject to approvals of the relevant Korean and Malaysian authorities.

The final terms and conditions of the joint venture will be formalised between the joint venture partners upon the finalisation of the concession agreement.

KLinfra said the company's KL Monorail patronage was also set to increase following a steady influx of tourists and visitors to Kuala Lumpur.

KLinfra said the KL Monorail with its dominant alignment continued to attract strong interest in its advertisement media.

KLinfra has another project in mind in line with its transport masterplan - the Putrajaya Monorail Line 1.

This project upon completion will serve as the public transportation backbone of Putrajaya City.

With the completion of more than 4km of tunnels, Western Transport Terminal and the soon to be completed, Western Monorail Crossing all serving the Putrajaya monorail alignment, only the elevated structures and the monorail system remains uncompleted.

The recent announcement of the deferral of the project has delayed plans for an earlier completion date.

This project upon completion would have provided another platform for KL Monorail to contribute its expertise in monorail transit operations.

However, with traffic congestion building up in Putrajaya it is anticipated that the project will recommence soon.

For the financial year ended April 30, 2004, KLinfra achieved a revenue of RM15 million and posted a loss after tax of RM46.2 million.

-- BERNAMA

baqthier

February 15th, 2005, 12:49 PM

sigh..still no news ar?

baqthier

April 23rd, 2005, 08:24 PM

Putrajaya will look ugly if this is to halt for more years to come.

szehoong

April 24th, 2005, 07:41 PM

^^^ No it would not if they we're to complete the MOnorail Bridge and the elevated section of the West Transport Terminal. But looks like the bridge is very very slow in taking shape and the monorail elevated tracks at the Western Transport Terminal is still untouched :(

nazrey

June 20th, 2005, 01:20 PM

Construction of Putrajaya Monorail System: KLinfra in the running
Updated : 20-06-2005
Media : Malay Mail
Story By : SHAREN KAUR

KL Infrastructure Group Bhd (KLinfra), the operator of the monorail system in Kuala Lumpur, has emerged as the front runner to win a contract valued close to RM1 billion, to help build a similar system in Putrajaya, insiders said yesterday.

Mail Money was told the company may receive a letter of award from the Ministry of Transport in the very ¡§near future¡¨.

The 9km monorail track will seek to link several landmarks in the nation¡¦s administrative centre, among them the Putrajaya Convention Centre, Putrajaya Mosque and the Government Administrative Complex.

It is estimated that it will cost RM100 million per km of monorail track, and the contract will include the supply of trains for the track.

The Government, last year had deferred the project after a review by the Economic Planning Unit, which led the Federal Government not approving funding for the project.

Mail Money was told the money will be made available in the coming budget, but the cost will be much higher than the RM368 million, that was initially cited.

The company had built the country¡¦s first monorail link in Kuala Lumpur at a cost of about RM1.18 billion, which runs through the heart of the city.

KLinfra is the country¡¦s third urban rail system operator after Sistem Transit Aliran Ringan Sdn Bhd (Star) and Projek Usahasama Transit Ringan Automatik Sdn Bhd (Putra) light rail systems (LRT).

Andrew Goh

June 23rd, 2005, 01:45 AM

OMG! This thread is like 2 years old!!! :D:D

nazrey

July 31st, 2005, 02:22 PM

Putrajaya Monorail Project To Resume Soon
July 31, 2005 12:38 PM

PUTRAJAYA, July 31 (Bernama) -- The monorail project in the federal government's administrative centre will resume soon for the convenience of the residents, workers and visitors, said Deputy Federal Territories Minister Datuk Zulhasnan Rafique.

He said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was expected to announce the details soon.

Speaking to reporters after flagging off 165 vehicles which took part in the Putrajaya Treasure Hunt 2005, Zulhasnan said the areas where the rails, underground tunnels and stations would be built had been identified.

He said project implementor Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd was ready to hand over the facilities to the Transport Ministry for further action.

The first phase of the project would involve constructing an underground and overhead monorail system spanning 8km from the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry in Precinct 3 to the Education Ministry in Parcel E, he said.

Zulhasnan also said Putrajaya Corporation, the local authority, was expanding the public transport system in Putrajaya in stages.

He said it had offered a new tender to Nadi Putra, which operates the bus service, to deploy 53 more buses run on natural gas.

Hopefully, with the monorail in service and deployment of more buses, the transportation problem faced by a large number of the 70,000 residents and workers who commuted within the Putrajaya area daily would be overcome, he said.

-- BERNAMA

nazrey

August 1st, 2005, 10:38 AM

Putrajaya's delayed monorail project may be back on track

Updated : 01-08-2005
Media : The Star

The long-delayed monorail project here may be back on track again.

The decision to revive the project came in light of the increasing number of residents, workers and tourists who now congregate to the country's administrative centre.

Deputy Federal Territories Minister Datuk Zulhasnan Rafique said there would be an announcement soon by the Transport Ministry on the status of the project.

กงWe canกฆt say much about the project at the moment. But a decision will be made soon on its status.

กงAt present, most of the infrastructure necessary for Phase One of the project, involving some 9km, is already up,กจ he told reporters here yesterday.

The infrastructure, he added, included a 4km underground tunnel linking many of the government complexes and a bridge across the main lake here.

กงThe main components of the project have been put into place. All the monorail operator has to do, once the company has been chosen, is to put in the rail and other subsidiary systems,กจ he said.

In June last year, Federal Territories Minister Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad had announced that the RM400mil project was being shelved, as the Government had not approved funding for it.

It was supposed to have been completed by the end of last year. Initially, the plan was to have two monorail lines in Putrajaya.

Zulhasnan said Putrajaya Corporation was trying to implement the park-and-ride concept and enhance public transport to ease parking woes here.

กงAt present, the concept is only implemented at the Express Rail Link station in Precinct 7 while we have plans for seven such facilities. We cannot really put this plan into place until the Putrajaya monorail, which is an important part of the public transport system here, is completed,กจ he said.

He added that local bus company Nadi Putra was acquiring 55 more vehicles to add to its existing fleet of 25 to cope with demand for public transport.

Parking problems are reaching a critical point in places like Parcels B, C, D and E, where the major government offices are located, and major tourist spots like Dataran Putra.

Zulhasnan said that in addition to this, the number of Putrajaya residents had swelled to 53,000.

Vince

August 4th, 2005, 01:13 AM

bobdikl

August 4th, 2005, 03:11 AM

This makes no sense. There is no logic at all. Residents in Putrajaya = 53,000, cities like Johor Bahru and Penang > 1,000,000, cities like Kuching and Ipoh = no less than 500,000. So tell me the logic why the monorail project has to be constructed in this "Federal Territory"? Sometimes I wonder if public projects in Malaysia are built for the sake or benefits of its citizens or are they just grandeur showpieces for tourists just to get a "Wow, I never knew Malaysia is so developed" from them. Residents in other major Malaysian cities are riding on dilapidated public buses that belch black smokes on pot-hole-filled streets while a few "priviledged datos and tuns and tan sris" and tourists get to ride on spanking new monorails (the former probably never step foot on the monorails, except during opening ceremonies). Putrajaya is no disneyland, so question yourself: who needs the monorail?! Go figure my fellow Malaysians........

Putrajaya, petaling jaya, Klang, Shah Alam, and seremban etc are all the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur.
when solving Kuala Lumpur's traffics chaos one should consider the whole of Klang Valley. The modern new satellite city should has a well-designed public transportation for present and ready for the future.
Putrajaya's monorail system is just part of Klang Valley rail transportation where interchange at KLIA Express or ERL's putrajaya station. There are more people moving in putrajaya but actually work in KL or PJ and vice
versus every year. More housing development toward the KL south and Seremban. There said about 1.8 population in KL. I would rather think around 5 millions if you included all PJ, Subang, Klang, Shah Alam, Kajang.
People are moving in this valley from all around the country. I'm so surprise the current regime is so stingy on adding more transit lines in the capital city compare with other major capital cities in Asia. But the city is expanding!!
Putrajaya is an adminstrator capital, very soon most of Klang Valley ppl have get things done there often, a better transporation could discourage them using their cars.

Apart from Klang Valley..I do believe the government should fund more rail projects in Penang and JB.

James Foong

August 4th, 2005, 10:51 AM

Vince, you r definitely right. it doesn't sound right and logic at this moment. Putrajaya is a modern city with new benchmark standard for other cities to follow...but it is still a new city with expanding population. This current and projected population growth there does not justify of having a rail system to work economically now. By right, their public bus transportation should be improved by connecting to other main cities around klang valley. I also doubt people will use ERL combined with monorail to commute since its ERL stations are hardly accessible to many rail users and the fares are not fit for regular passengers too. if the monorail is connected to any other LRT or KTM Komuter, then it makes sense to have it now. The money for that monorail can be utilised on somewhere else, probably on improving the condition of ill managed public bus operators around klang valley. Still, it is even not enough when you hv a good bus and rail infrastructure, because our local streets are not pedestrian friendly and not practically fit for local climate. We should emulate singapore or hong kong success, not european standard.

the most obvious reason why our govenrment is not putting public transportation in their priority spending is because public transportation does not gives much return on investment to the government coffer. We do not have enough resources to spend because most of the infrastructure money go to the road expenditure and utilities. futhermore, this is an auto-based nation where we depend heavily on cars. so, the government has the obligation to spend more on road than others because the road users pay taxes. public transport users dont and all the fares are heavily subsidised. This however does not means the public transport users are being sidelined. the problem with that public transportation is that many had abused the system of awarding management contracts to the unfit companies and the selected management companies are either inexperienced or too greedy for a quick cash and then let the government bail out them. the government has learned and of course they also do not want our rakyat money goes to these inefficient managements. so, as long as our nation is still very automotive oriented based and these politicians still not getting used to public transportation to travel, i guess we wont see much public transportation spending in the country for many years to come.

weiaze

August 4th, 2005, 12:47 PM

[QUOTE=James Foong]Vince, you r definitely right. it doesn't sound right and logic at this moment. Putrajaya is a modern city with new benchmark standard for other cities to follow...

** I actually hope other cities don' follow Putrajaya. It is a very badly designed city as it was designed for the automobile not for pedestrians or with high density in mind to make public transport viable.

bobdikl

August 5th, 2005, 03:16 PM

Hello James Foong, I love this debate!!

I also doubt people will use ERL combined with monorail to commute since its ERL stations are hardly accessible to many rail users and the fares are not fit for regular passengers too. if the monorail is connected to any other LRT or KTM Komuter, then it makes sense to have it now. .

ERL as an express service is quite well integrate with LRT and KTM at KL sentral station and Bandar Tasik Selatan.
I believe at the present those who don't drive just have to take the ERL or buses to transport themself between KL downtown and Putrajaya.
I hope eventually the LRT and Komuter would all spraweds across the Klang Valley including putrajaya.
Still...I estimate we need to take around an hour or more to take LRT from KL downtown to Putrajaya since so many stations in between if they expanded LRT all the way from KL.
By the time KL needs more 'express' lines. Like Greater London, in between heathrow airport/suburb and central London there served 2 lines.
One is the normal speed underground system (1.25 hour to central) and another is the express line(around 20 minutes).
The same in KL, maybe one day we need more expree rails to link Wansa Maju - Kelana Jaya, KL-PJ, KL-Port Klang, KL-Seremban etc.
The problem now ERL is very very pricy. They should integrate all the KL rail systems under one standard pricelist and introduce monthly ticket could
cover all klang valley networks by zones.

We should emulate singapore or hong kong success, not european standard.

Yes, Hong Kong and Singapore public transportation are far superio than many big european cities. In fact there are so many ghost stations in London by Asian standard..I believe the Singapore authority would close it down for economical reason.
But unfortunately KL is expanding so horizontally other than KL downtown. KL situation is more similar to those west coast Americcan cities. So we shouldn't expect the same density per station in klang valley. To stop traffic and pollution in KL, we need to introduce rail networks to the whole of Klang Valley. Like many new european cities, I believe we should build the rail first and buses system before the new townships is born.
In fact, I'm not a fan of monorail for satellite city like putrajaya, I would like them to introduce some cheaper rail alternative modern tramway or 'Real' LRT in Port Klang, Shah Alam, Kajang, Seremban, putrajaya etc.

so, the government has the obligation to spend more on road than others because the road users pay taxes. public transport users dont and all the fares are heavily subsidised. This however does not means the public transport users are being sidelined. the problem with that public transportation is that many had abused the system of awarding management contracts to the unfit companies and the selected management companies are either inexperienced or too greedy for a quick cash and then let the government bail out them. the government has learned and of course they also do not want our rakyat money goes to these inefficient managements. so, as long as our nation is still very automotive oriented based and these politicians still not getting used to public transportation to travel, i guess we wont see much public transportation spending in the country for many years to come.

At present, the governement is subsidizing the road users too. Because of the cheap road tax system in Malaysia. The petrol and gas are very very much heavily subsidiesed in this country too. The money could have been used in funding more environmetal friendly public transportationn projects. However in short term we could not do much about it, since the whole economic is already depended on energy subsidation.
I personally would like to see the London, Oslo and Singapore congestion charged to be adopted in KL. The London was introduce in 2003, the daily fee of £5 for cars entering the central London. Now on its expanding way into Greater London and fee raised to £8. The whole idea is to raise money for improving public transporation and to encourage travellers to use public transport instead of motor cars, thus reducing congestion and allowing for faster, less polluting and more predictable journeys. Plus despite Britain's scotland and Norway are some of the largest petrol and gas producer countries, they don't subsidise the petrol, but heavily taxed to fight pollution!

James Foong

August 8th, 2005, 02:40 PM

Like Greater London, in between heathrow airport/suburb and central London there served 2 lines. One is the normal speed underground system (1.25 hour to central) and another is the express line(around 20 minutes).
I, as you love this debate.

Serving close major cities with 2 different lines speed is an ideal solution. Of course it costs a lot of moneys to construct and maintain, but it gives an opportunity for commuters to travel hassle free and faster. in this short or near future term, we can actually put this concept to here but on a single rail. That is, 2 different trains on a single rail network. An express commuter will serve only highly busy stations and skipping the rest of inactive stations. Another one will stop at all stations, but comes with cheaper fare. However, this solution should work for those trains frequency that are more than 15 - 20 minutes per train, i.e. the KTM comuter. The frequency of this express train should run at between the gap interval of those slower trains. With 2 different trains run, it can relieve much of the congestion in the train and the station as well.

Like many new european cities, I believe we should build the rail first and buses system before the new townships is born.
i fully agree that basic transportation facilities should be provided first before other developments take in. however, the current local guidelines of town planning does not have a practical guide to implement an ideal walkway street and others facilities that solely suit for our local climate and surroundings. local bus stops/stands do not have a large roof to cover the commuters from sun and rain. Bear in mind, we are not in 4 seasons soil... the tropical thunderstorms here are furious.. the temperature is always in high humidity with lots of dust and unbearable sun heat. does the town planners or policy makers have this in their mind? have they forgotten this very obvious problems? or could be they never had tasted this kind of hardship of commuting daily?

in Curitiba, Brazil, which is 10x poorer than us, their authorities have a lot of common sense in implementing local bus transport system. their bus stops are fully ventilated/air conditioned with low rise platform. Commuters do not have to worry of getting wet from disembarking from bus when the the rain comes. with this comfort and secure feelings, the commuters there are much happier than the rest of the world. moreover, their buses must be replaced every 5 years in order to have cleaner bus and efficient service. its fare system charges higher fares for short distance, so that the excess incomes could subsidised the longer distance fares. back to our home, the local bus system is just disgusting to talk about. most of the buses around the country are much much older than the first nokia 3210 handphone.

with this n that problems, how are we going to encourage people to switch to public transport if these concerns are not fully understood and authorities have no strong willing to implement it successfully? Do we have to wait for our PM goes 4 surprise travel on buses, so that all things get started to work well? C'mon, cancelled the idiot JB causeway '?' shape alike, and dont just think of building new flyovers, new bridges like second penang link.. we dont really need it after all.. the money can be used to build more rails in penang and JB. like i said b4, malaysians are too depended on cars (which you can't blame them), and this put our politicians in catch 22, either to fulfill the road users or the poor commuters... In most cases, it is safer to fulfil the road users because the road users' voices are stronger and crucial for their survival in politics.

I personally would like to see the London, Oslo and Singapore congestion charged to be adopted in KL.
All these 3 cities have 1 thing in common, their public transport warrant them to have reliable, secure and comfortable journey. In kl, so long as there are new highways, new flyovers, and cheap financing car loans without equal spending on public transport, will there a change in our mentality to go for public transportation? I would still prefer for taking a car (because i have no choice here), and also the pleasure of driving on new highways. Congestion charge will surely be implemented one day but i doubt we can see it within the next 10 - 15 years.

bobdikl

August 9th, 2005, 03:25 AM

and this put our politicians in catch 22, either to fulfill the road users or the poor commuters... In most cases, it is safer to fulfil the road users because the road users' voices are stronger and crucial for their survival in politics.

you are quite right. Yes and unfortunately this work well in certain countries including the world most polluted country, USA.
Unless our society reach the stage that we need to pay for plastic or paper bags at the supermarket checkout. Some european cities have already 'progressed' to the stage to ban all sort of plastic and paper bags. You just have to carry a basket to go shopping or else you just have to use your shirt.
Things have changed by higher price of oil. In fact more than half of world population (China/India/etc) are just started rising like never before. I hope this would encourage us to reconsider our energy rate consumption. And convice them the rail system is very productive than driving. Isn't that the government is encouraging lifelong learning? Million of people could or 'force to' read more books or just relax/resting doing nothing on the train by extending Klang Valley rail lines.

bobdikl

August 9th, 2005, 03:31 AM

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9240/klangvalley6wk.jpg

James Foong

August 9th, 2005, 05:59 PM

it is sometimes weird to see how our government implementing measures to counter the rising cost of energy. It is a wise move to reduce or just take off the petrol subsidy altogether, so that the money can be channelled to social development. however, the public bus companies and school buses should be spare from the move. since the majority of these public transportation commuters are poor to middle incomes bracket, why do they have to pay for the rising burden of energy cost? if the fares do not increase, more people will have the second thought of switching to public transport. did u notice new rapid kl charges 20cent higher now? most of the road users can absorb the 20cent...but not for poors, whom still cant afford to own a bike!

nazrey

August 14th, 2005, 06:58 AM

Putrajaya Monorail Suspension Bridge, Malaysia
Putrajaya Monorail (http://www.klein-engineering.ch/bridgegallery/Putrajaya-Monorail)

http://www.klein-engineering.ch/albums/Putrajaya-Monorail/Susp1.jpg

nazrey

August 14th, 2005, 07:04 AM

http://www.klein-engineering.ch/albums/Putrajaya-Monorail/Susp3.jpg

nazrey

August 14th, 2005, 07:05 AM

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3207/pmono1an.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://static.flickr.com/22/37924741_8e3454de84_o.jpg

nazrey

August 14th, 2005, 07:06 AM

http://www.klein-engineering.ch/albums/Putrajaya-Monorail/Suspension_Bridge.jpg

Vince

August 16th, 2005, 03:37 AM

I still feel that resources are just not spent in places which critically need them. Putrajaya only needs a very good "mini-bus" system. If the monorail were to be built there, judging by the size of the population right now, the stations would be empty for many years to come. As you guys admitted that Malaysia is such a car-dependent country, why would the putrajaya residents take the monorail when they can easily drive to work, especially since the roads there are wide and congestion free? Think of the daily commuters of bigger cities like Penanag and Johor Bahru who have to brave sweltering heat waiting for run-down public buses, while the drivers face tremendous traffic congestions in the city streets. Just check out the design of the "suspension bridge" for the monorail above, does it look like a functionable and economical bridge, or can anyone see that the purpose is simply to "wow"?? What a waste of rakyat or tax money!!

choon

August 16th, 2005, 03:47 AM

I agree with Vince...Putrajaya still under utilise the congestion free road...(me from Southern Johor as well..)

szehoong

August 17th, 2005, 06:54 AM

Guys guys......firstly EVERYONE here must understand this:

Putrajaya is a showcase city and everything there is off-the-scale and showy/gaudy. It is built for that purpose and it served its purpose so we all should at least be grateful that Putrajaya are building its own monorail before its population reaches critical level (which I doubt so). So every Malaysian cities and towns should have such mentality......planning ahead that is! :D

BUT the problem why as to most of these metros are not implemented doesn't lies with the Federal Govt. And people shouldn't get 'jealous' why it is implemented in Putrajaya and not elsewhere. In fact not only that the Johoreans or the Penagites whould be frustrated, KLites too as KL is still inedequate of metro lines despite the various modes of metros it had now.

Okay.....most of ya might be thinking.....why shouldn't the fed govt be blamed for not putting such system in places where it is needed most, I would say.....ask your repective State Economic Planning Unit. Even the city council had a part to play. The Penang govt should invest in a metro system instead of spending money on the PORR or something like expansion of roads which always resulted in protests. In fact metro lines are planned for JB and Penang ages ago (wayyy before even Putrajaya is completed) but so far nothing had come out of it yet. Thanks to all the bereaucracy and all the 'complicated' stuffs that are involved in bringing most of these projects to light. Ever wonder why KL got things done so fast? Cos the fed govt doesn't need to refer to umpteen parties before getting things done. :)

As for Putrajaya, I would say that I FULLY support the decision to resume the monorail based on these reasons:

- the current incomplete infrastruture is an eyesore
- most of the infrastructure are already in place awaiting system implementation
- as a tourist attraction
- Nadi Putra isn't very efficient and its frequency sucks
- and lastly and most importantly.....do not wait until like other Malaysian cities that when congestion finally kicks in then only start thinking of a metro solution.

Since we've already invested so much money in Putrajaya, I would like to see everything goes accordingly to plan. No point delaying this and that and such action would hurt the tourism industry as tourists nowadays are flocking to Putrajaya. The only thing that irks the tourists are its buses and with the completion of the monorail system which integrates with KLIA Transit at the Western Transport Terminal at Precinct 7, I am sure more people would love to visit Putrajaya. ;)

Putrajaya is a well-planned city and it had some kind of a planning stages as of when there should be a metro line or when it should be extended. It does not conform to the 'normal' practises of other Malaysian towns and cities. If we Malaysians we're to be always jealous of how wasteful Putrajaya is and stuffs like that, then Putrajaya wouldn't have the chance to be developed as it is planned. If that fails then Putrajaya would be a folly and we can't afford such a large white elephant. So point sulking over spilled milk as the 'damage' is already done. Putrajaya is here to stay and wether we like it or not, I would certainly like to see it lived-up to its plan and concept. Look on the bright side - Putrajaya is now a tourist attraction and a perfect govt showcase :)

As for Penang and JB.....it is more of the state's (or the city's) initiative and not the fed govt's :(

szehoong

August 17th, 2005, 07:33 AM

Actually I fully blamed both the authorities and the public for the agonising state of out public transportation. I could safely say that I am an ardent fan of public commuting and despite having a car for 9 years already, I still know my public tranpostation routes and stations by heart and I do take public tranportation quite regularly so I do know what I am talking about :D

Firstly, the buses. I still remember the joy of taking my first Intrakota bus from Pusat Bandar Damansara to downtown in August 1994 (I was in Form 4). At that time I reckon that the Minibus days are numbered and I am glad that they are replaced. At the same time I questioned the rationality of using Isuzu buses as opposed to the more expensive but reliable buses by Daimler-Benz. Look at where all these Isuzu buses are now? Obviously in this case, a Form 4 student knew better than the authorities but do I smell favouritism? :D

Fast forward 3 years later......despite the 'comfort' of the 'new' buses (meaning less rattling and air conditioning), I yearned for the return of the pink minibuses. Nevermind the bad image they portray, service was regular and frequency was good. In fact it is the frequency that I craved for. Intrakota, Cityliner and Metrobus had all failed me. Even Putraline (Putra LRT then feeder bus line) isn't too good although the buses are cleaner and newer. :(

That is however not the same case as our Metro systems - Starline, Putraline, KTM Komuter and KL Monorail. I find em pleasant and I love to be on em. My major complain are solved recently with the introduction of the Touch N' Go as a common ticketing platform. However I am hoping to see a better integration of the systems especially in platform to platform connectivity which KL Monorail and Rapid KL are working on at the moment.

Why do I blame the Malaysian public for creating a car-centric nation instead of solely pointing my fingers on the authorities?

Try asking yourself this question: When is the last time you took an LRT or Monorail?

I am not asking about the buses which still sucks big time in terms of both comfort and frequency. But our metro systems are on par with many of the world's better systems (please do not compare with the best like Singapore's MRT or HK's MTR lah cos that's a diff story). With such a good system, our ridership is still low (except for Putraline). So now who to be blamed except for those whom refused to take public transport?

Many times I've asked my friends to join me on a LRT ride to PWTC, Bukit Bintang or KLCC to go jalan-jalan or to exhibitions (esp PWTC where parking is so darn difficult and the place are often jammed up). Immediately I was branded as 'crazy', 'gila' etc etc etc. Lucky for me, I've got a few kaki whom are willing to travel with me :D

Here's a challenge: Try that to your family or friends....you'll be peppered with disbelieves and shocked reaction :D So now who to be blamed for all the jams? :D

szehoong

August 17th, 2005, 07:46 AM

most of the road users can absorb the 20cent...but not for poors, whom still cant afford to own a bike!

yea......but the 'poors' here have lotsa attitude problem too. Can't afford a bike? :lol: You should see the ASTRO dishes perched to the window sills of thier low cost flats and squatters. I personally had seen squatter dwellers as having a brand new Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry.

No doubt that there are those really hard core poor but some of these people refuses help (for some very funny reasons) or that they refused to help themselves (such as eccessive gambling or drinking). I worked with many charities before (and I am still currently active in charitable work) and it is really disheartening to see such people :ohno:

szehoong

August 17th, 2005, 08:08 AM

you are quite right. Yes and unfortunately this work well in certain countries including the world most polluted country, USA.
Unless our society reach the stage that we need to pay for plastic or paper bags at the supermarket checkout. Some european cities have already 'progressed' to the stage to ban all sort of plastic and paper bags. You just have to carry a basket to go shopping or else you just have to use your shirt.
Things have changed by higher price of oil. In fact more than half of world population (China/India/etc) are just started rising like never before. I hope this would encourage us to reconsider our energy rate consumption. And convice them the rail system is very productive than driving. Isn't that the government is encouraging lifelong learning? Million of people could or 'force to' read more books or just relax/resting doing nothing on the train by extending Klang Valley rail lines.

Having an environmentally-friendly neighbourhood actually depends on the maturity of the people's mindset.

Have you guys seen how people shunned Makro for not giving plastic bags? (it is their practise not to as they are a bulk supplier and not your regular hypermart)

Or how some aunties demanded for more plastic bags at Carrefour?

Even places like Ikea where a lot of 'educated' people from 'high-class' neighbourhoods like USJ or Bandar Utama frequents demand for plastic bags like Ikea made em.

Then we've got people whom opposed to Incinerators when we're actually creating more and more landfills on forested land.

And not forgetting the lots of excuses when someone mooted of having separate bins for garbage separations. Excuses like how people are not used to it and bins being misuse are most commonly spewed out. I do not see such public reaction when I am staying in Auckland when they implement garbage separation.

Just the other day, I bought some bread and a bottle of milk at a local grocer and when I refused the plastic bag, the counter guy had question marks written all over his face. Many times I've refused plastic bags but retailers give it to me anyway. But I always reuse the bags and I have the tendency to fold em neatly in two bins at home - one for the clean ones (those use for books and clothings) and one for the 'dirtier' ones ;)

And on driving, I am a strong advocate of car pooling! :D To my surprise, many people are still opposing to such move when it is clearly beneficial to them as in savings for car park, petrol and tolls. Normally I volunteer to drive as my car could fit many people and I am very willing to pay for parking and stuffs. So I still wonder why that 4 years back, many of my friends refused to car pool to KLIA to 'send' one of my friend off. There are 14 of us and there are 10 cars! :ohno: The best part is that everyone stays near each other and after KLIA we all went mamak together. I still dun get it why people refused to car-pool. I for one love it for as I do not need to drive if someone else is driving. But for now, as I am encouraging it, I did most of the driving :(

szehoong

August 17th, 2005, 08:17 AM

** I actually hope other cities don' follow Putrajaya. It is a very badly designed city as it was designed for the automobile not for pedestrians or with high density in mind to make public transport viable.

Putrajaya are designed to be pedestrian and cyclist-friendly. It had all the best public transport amenities like bus stops etc. The problem is that the weather here are often punishing for cyclists and pedestrian making the city car-centric.

As for density....you're right :okay: Putrajaya are designed to be a low-density township thus making most public transportation not viable. But city planners forecasted its day visitors to be double or triple that if its residents in the near future so it is better to be prepared ;)

musang

August 17th, 2005, 08:36 AM

szehoong.. well said and hope it will clear the haze some people have over the monorail system in Putrajaya.

Tulsa

September 9th, 2005, 11:20 AM

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/CnstPutra01a.html

pretty good article on putrajaya monorail by the monorail society (includes map of rail alignment, etc.)... enjoy!

D_Y2k.2^

September 10th, 2005, 01:20 PM

good link man.Btw,welcome to the forum Tulsa!!!

Actually i think Putrajaya still dont really need a monorail yet coz of population reason.Its just my opinion yo

Sinjin P.

September 10th, 2005, 01:27 PM

good updates :ok:

bobdikl

September 13th, 2005, 01:34 AM

Vince

September 13th, 2005, 04:17 AM

This is the town of Muar, Johor, a typical Malaysian town, with a population much larger than that of Putrajaya. It used to be a wealthy town, still is, but due to a lack of attention from the federal government, look at this: No, these pictures of the Bus Station area are not from the 60s or 70s, they are in 2005. So tell me if a monorail should still be built in Putrajaya when the rest of Malaysia looks like this?? http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/25.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/27.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/607.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/608.jpg

Vince

September 13th, 2005, 04:20 AM

Reality check people, Malaysia should spend to spruce up and improve the rest of the country before spending on grandoise projects on newly established cities, just to satisfy the whims of a few priviledged. Many older towns like Muar are quite a distance from the new highways and therefore the government thinks that foreigners can't see them. But, think about it, this mentality is like sweeping dust under the carpet.

szehoong

September 13th, 2005, 04:41 AM

Oh gosh Vince..........I've explained in post#156 already. Actually Putrajaya need the grandoise to 'impress' visitors and tourist alike. It is like a goverment-funded Disneyland :D Just like some of the world's capital cities where grandoise and city planning are the rule (example: Washington DC, Canberra, Brasillia.......). Much had been spent in Washington despite the lack of these excesses in other US cities but no one is complaning.

Reality check for ya.......how many governments in this world actually developed all its cities in tandem? Does that mean that the Msian Govt should built monorails in all cities with 500,000 population first before doing anything in Putrajaya?

If the govt screwed-up Putrajaya (which is a well-planned city from the very beginning), there would be a public outcry of public fund going to waste. And yes the monorail is part of this planning. SO for the govt is like 'Damned if you do not, damned if you do'. So whichever way......our government is gonna bet fired for so I'd rather they have a monorail system in Putrajaya. Afterall I would like to see how Putrajaya fourishes as a well-planned city and it would be a blueprint for all future townships in Malaysia and also the rest of the world. ;)

At most times it is not the fed govt's fault that monorails (and other metro systems alike) are not built in the various towns and cities. It takes a lot of effort on the state govt's part as well as the local town/municipal council too. If possible, private sector should and could chipped in too like as the case of Bandar Sunway. But of course we all know that the financial crises hit em hard and that the monorail are badly implemented so it is not a viable transportation solution to begin with. :)

Vince

September 13th, 2005, 05:12 AM

Szehoong, if u travel around the more developed countries, you notice that the rural areas develop quite in par with the urban areas. For example, rural communities have clean and updated bus stations, parks, playgrounds, and other amenities and facilities. Just look at the more developed European countries, you don't really see the rural folks ride on buses from the 70s. Look at the photo from Muar, that was taken only a few months ago and notice that yellow bus there? How can we allow our government waste money on projects which only favour a few and yet many still live in squalid conditions? That is simply not practical. Everyone pays taxes, tax money should be equally distributed. Tax money should not be concentrated on "Federal Territories" only. Even though the States may be willing to improve their own cities and towns, they lack the capital as tax money would go to federal hands first. Do you know that there was one time when many towns were more wealthy than KL? The unequal pace of development does not speak well for Malaysia as a whole. If we don't improve on the smaller places, there would be a constant migration of people to the urban centres, making the older settlements seem like dilapidated ghost towns. One should Patch up the holes of old clothes before making new ones.

Vince

September 13th, 2005, 05:13 AM

But well, that's my opinion.....so we're cool buddy! :)

szehoong

September 13th, 2005, 06:51 AM

In many developed countries ( well...heck they are DEVELOPED aren't they? :D ), rural areas are not really on par......not even towns. Yes, they are clean and organised but there are antiquated public transportation too. It actually depends on which of these 'developed countries' you're referring to but there are many out there even in Europe. As for cleanliness and urban planning, you can't fault the fed government as the residents and the local council had a big hand in that. And of course for everything else, we could blame the weather as most of these 'developed countries' are located in less harsh (weather speaking) condition :D

I believe that our government is doing all the best it could. There are many 'non-federal territories' projects abound and some of these are the first mega projects during Dr.M's era. For example: Penang Bridge & PLUS highway. Among the more recent projects that are non-KL & Putrajaya are JB Sentral and the many-many cyber cities that the govt is so fond of creating :D

You said that the taxes goes straight into the fed govt's coffer....true......but each state have money that goes directly into the state's coffer. And on top of that, the fed govt grant a certain amount ( a large amount ) to the respective states. So it all depends how are the wealth distributed within the state and also the local council.

Let us take PJ for example......it is under Selangor which is the richest state in Malaysia. Its largest 'city' which is PJ had MPPJ which is equally as rich. But why does its roads have so many potholes while the roundabouts have 'expensive' structures and flowery plants? This is a good example of bad spending.

I have not been to Muar but looking at many other smaller towns like Lumut & Sitiawan in Perak (which is much smaller than Muar and both are like about 1 and half hrs away from PLUS), the infra there is very good and the transportation system had improved tremendously over the years. I think the Manjung Municipal Council is doing a very good job :okay:

Oh....and the fact that most of these cities and towns like George Town and JB are not built to have a metro system in mind (just like KL) and having one is prohibitively expensive. Putrajaya's Monorail is pretty 'cheap' (damn cheap if you ask me!) as they already had the infrastructure in place. The monorail tunnels are built before the above ground structure are so they are already there. No need any new diggings or fly-overs unlike those you have to had in older urban centres.

One can't be jealous of Klang Valley (I must confess many out-of-towners does) as it housed almost a quarter of the country's population so it befitted that most of the development took place in that area. It is also the entry and exit point for most of Malaysia's tourist as well as the centre of exports and imports. Although I would like to see other places developed as well but after giving the examples above I conclude that many of these state funds are misused or are distributed wrongly. ;)

szehoong

September 13th, 2005, 06:51 AM

But well, that's my opinion.....so we're cool buddy! :)

:rock: COOL! :okay:

DW25

September 13th, 2005, 07:20 AM

Allow me to express my opinion on this issue. We all know that we reckon the fact that Malaysia lacks modern public transportation for its rakyat.
But this is indeed a problem that all developing countries are facing ; not to mention Malaysia has our very own , not one but two car companies under the purview of federal Government. So, what Vince appeal up there do make sense in the long run.
After all , our 26 million population is increasin even as we speaks. I totally agreed with Vince sayin that Central government do not pay enough attention to other parts of Malaysia , not to the extend of having a monorail at Muar but at least at the strategic cities of each states. What Szehoong say is also true , Putrajaya as a leading administrative centre of Malaysia , it MUST equipped itself with the best we can offered. You wun want foreign representatives like reporters "just' to take Bus within the different premises of putraJaya . Definitely Malaysia can do and afford more to improve its whole Transportation link. Ppl ... with that in mind , we have to take alot of things into consideration , the building funds , the population that can support the kind of Transportation like monorail . And how we can all achieve these without hurting the Car industry. Thanks

szehoong

September 13th, 2005, 07:34 AM

^^ Good points! :okay:

Actually there's only one car company under the 'care' of the government which is our beloved Proton. Others such as Perodua, Inokom and Naza are all under private hands but are no doubt granted 'national car' status ;)

But like I've said above, there is only so much the fed govt could do to other cities. The bulk of the responsibilities lies in the hands of the state govt. Like when JB or Penang plans its metro system, it is all under the full control and perogrative of the state govts. Only the fed govt (when requested) have a say in these issues. That goes the same thing if they needed more funds.

Our current administration is very public transport un-friendly :( Although great strides had been made to standardised all toll collection systems and public transportation under RapidKL, projects that are vital to all parts of Malaysia like the double-tracking had been put on hold. Even Klang Valley are not spared as there are no news of any metro expansion in the pipeline (apart from the KTM Kumuter extention to Batu Caves) :(

And it does not help to protect Proton at all cost. This had cost us a bigger pie in the auto industry which most car companies had set up their assembly plants in Thailand. Throw Proton out in the sea and let it learn how to swim. Competition is good :okay:

bobdikl

September 13th, 2005, 04:26 PM

Since an estimated half of the malaysian population will be in main cities for the next decade, how about the solution to fund more modern public transportation in Klang Valley, Penang and JB. And let's the cars rule the smaller towns and villages(There are about 10 millions moving cars on motorway despite we only got 24 millions population). For God sake, why don't we plan ahead to move population to those potential towns have much more viable opportunity and further to improve it. For example there are many towns died out last century in England and Scotland. It was so sad when I traveled to north Scotland when discovering many empty ghost towns and was told the comunity had migrated to America or move to south century ago. It would be too expensive to sustain every town in the country. Malaysian should have proper urban planning. I would be the first to oppose if the government really allocate big sum of cash to every town in Malaysia and not calculate the 'investment' returns. And how foolish if the federal government had built a good quality highway similar to PLUS from Kuching all the way to Sabah. It would be cheaper to physically migrate all the rural folks to those 'selected' main cities. By the way my experince with the public transportation (Bus, boat, Ferry etc) in Sarawak(Kuching, Miri etc) was quite positive one.

DW25

September 13th, 2005, 07:05 PM

Malaysia is currently facing a deficit GDP , so its hard to venture into Big expenditure like giving a nation wide public transportation facelit, especially when public transportation is fully privatized unlike KLRapid. Ask yrself gentleman , what actually driven Singapore Economy for the last 30 years or so besides its clean government ; SMRT .

Heart is our economy , whereby veins are the roads . If the latter could not support a smooth ride for its blood supply , we will bound to experience a heart failure in a long run. U think by any chance Orchard Road success as the main Shopping paradise in Asia without its transporation means, no way man. True , if u were to say that Singapore is smaller compared to states in Malaysia . Of course things are easier to implement around when u r small. But thats not the reason why we refused to have a fully integrated transportation network like the one in KL.

l am not playing two headed snake down here. All I want to say is that we can do things bit by bit , phase by phase . Meaning : we dun straight away pour in high amount of funds. My kind of idea proposed to the states government is , firstly : find ways to interoperate different bus operators to standandize pricing , bus route , or better still convert shillings { the 1 dollar shillings issue } to "Concession" ticket. Secondly , for States government like Johor or Penang where proposed monorails are at planning stage . We can have an investment arm from non - government organisation build up by different spectrum to cater a small significate amount of money each month/year to operators for a period of time , lets say 5 years . In return , the members of the NGO can request for more Bus stations near their area or individual premises. In this way , the coverage spread wider , and can offered Bus operators more income to upgrade their services if they desired . Since monorail needs 5 - 10 years time to maternalise.

globocentric

September 13th, 2005, 08:25 PM

bobdikl

September 13th, 2005, 09:41 PM

tomkat

September 13th, 2005, 09:59 PM

"Economically viable" does not really go in tandem with public transportation field.

I seriously doubt that all public transportation company in world major cities really make any profit out of it despite their high ridership. Even some of the transportation companies in Japan, where ridership of the public transport mode is the highest in the world, are running in red.

Like what Szehoong had posted earlier, I doubt that the company which would be running Penang monorail, if it get built, will make profit out of it. KL is the perfect example. Eventhough monorail would seem like a good idea to alleviate the traffic congestion in Penang roads, it takes more than that for people who are used to the comfort of his or her personal vehicle to leave it in his or her garage.

Majority of the people has to undergo major overhaul of their mindset towards taking public transportation. People has to be educated that there is no shame in taking public transport. And this mindset has nothing to do with the country being "developed" or "developing".

Public transportation does not really work in most of US major cities despite it being the most technologically advanced country in the world.

weiaze

September 14th, 2005, 08:23 AM

Actually last few weeks back some of my malaysian close friends living in London had a gathering in chinatown. We gossiped a lot and particularly about the property market in Klang Valley. Some were evilly cursing the market to crash in KL. Most of them are serious about buying property in KL ,since nearly all of us are awaiting to work in KL once we got enough pounds. One girl questioned us where is the best traffic free suburb location for her. I actually suggested her putrajaya. Putrajaya? Low traffic in Klang Valley? They all showed suspicion, as since there are so many classic failed examples throughout the booming Klang Valley, from Seremban all the way up to Shah Alam and Port Klang. Remember not long ago, when the new townships of puchong, Bukit kiara, Kelana Jaya, Sri Damansara etc were launch. Everyone said thanks god, we could avoid the similar jam in Subang and Cheras. But unfortunately less than 5 years everywhere is jam like hell. My girl friend is very serious about getting a property in Klang Valley. She hates driving and her future prestigious job requires her to travel between KLCC and KLIA(overseas). If anyone could convince her putrajaya unlike the other failed suburb of KL and is traffic free for the next few years or coming decades. I might consider buying a house in putrajaya too. :)

Your GF should consider KL Sentral condos like Suasana Sentral. The CEO of Microsoft Malaysia lives there. Easy access to trains to KLCC (RAPID), KLIA (ERL) and Mid-Valley (KTM Komuter) and Bintang Walk (Monorail). Unfortunately, KL is not high density enough like Paris or Hong Kong to have extensive public transport. However, the city center is getting denser and in a few years you can probably live near KLCC without having to use a car. For affordable units Perhaps you can consider Berjaya Central Park or Capital Square. For less affordable maybe you can look at Cendana, Avare, 168 Kia Peng etc. Good Luck!

szehoong

September 14th, 2005, 10:21 AM

A monorail in putrajaya is completely laughable. You dont even need a high school kid to tell you that it's not economically viable. Someone even mentioned that the population of putrajaya is smaller than the population of muar. The government must wake up from it's fantasyland and take a reality check. What's the rationale of building one in a city which has a very low density with a population of less than 50000. Even 250000 is not enough to keep it viable. The funds should be channelled to Penang as it's traffic system is choking at it seems even during non peak hours. Statiscally The percentage of congested roads in Penang can easily outnumber KL during non peak hours. Furthermore, the compact and high density nature of the island is the perfect place to bulit a monorail

Ayoyo........since when ANYTHING at all in Putrajaya is 'Economically viable'? :D

It is either you ignored my previous posts or that you just do not get it :D

May I repeat again: Nothing in Putrajaya are rationale. Penang are well-funded but it seems that the govt there are just too happy with the construction of the PORR and the 'beautification' of the roundabouts there more than a transportation solution. It is not SOLELY the responsibility of the fed govt.

Putrajaya....you people must understand this:

- It is a SHOWCASE city.

- Grandiose and gaudy structures are at its best there.

- It is also a touristy city.

- It is a DIPLOMATIC and a PROTOCOL city

- Budget spending doesn't make sense there :D

- a well-planned city

I have more to add but I think the above suffice ;)

rgen

September 14th, 2005, 10:39 AM

Just look at the more developed European countries, you don't really see the rural folks ride on buses from the 70s. Look at the photo from Muar, that was taken only a few months ago and notice that yellow bus there?

i believe dat gvt shouldnt get the blame for this, its the bus operaters whom should taking care of the bus condition. most of the intracity buses are at that kind of condition. just look at the express bus, they are simply comfortable.

James Foong

September 14th, 2005, 07:45 PM

Lets put in a fairer comment:

Putrajaya is a showcase city, equipped with best of the best infras to make a good package of an ideal city. We shld emulate putrajaya's many examples. Monorail must be in the package too, but not necessarily right now. If we want putrajaya to be the lead model city for others to follow, we shld start from the bottom first (thats touch millions of malaysians, not just klang valley). Highway? LRT? Noooooo... Its public bus system!

By right, putrajaya's bus transport system shld be transformed into the nation most reliable (again, RELIABLE), modern and most user friendly. The fund for monorail shld channeled into the putrajaya bus system. I m sure it can be very successful if we can get the RIGHT fund to implement the nation best bus system. Furthermore, since malaysian is obsessed with 'malaysia boleh', there ll be tremendous riple effects to the whole nation. Just like the bintang walk, now every city loves that idea because it is successful n proven. It catches the eyes of local councils.

Public rail transport or LRT are already existed in malaysia for sometime. its not an eye opener to the public. By right, government shld look into areas that need urgent attention. Public bus system, its infra n management condition is like watching local soccer match. The quality gap is widening in many part of our country. We need an example to follow. Putrajaya fits it because it build from good urban planning. however, its bus system is not getting 'wow' from local councils, politicians, n most importantly the rakyat, although it is in good condition.

There is also someone claimin that malaysian feel ashamed of takin public transport. thats not true, after all. We r just SICK of takin it. Take off the riches, none here feel ashamed. Its not the mentality thats stop us from takin it. Its the condition thats scare us away. We(malaysian authorities) r just getting things done, but not getting the RIGHT things done. We issue out operators licenses n build bus stops, n thats all. We r not integrating bus stops with pedestrian walkways, n regulate the operation. We dont even hv a real time bus schedule. Mind u, daily commuters like me is left with time guessing everyday n keep wondering when will i reach home. And if rain, how r u going to step out from the bus with yr shining shoes? And would u leave yr gf to walk on a badly lit, quiet n unsecure walkway after disembarking from bus? C,mon, look at the real picture. We hv no choice here. Owning car is the only choice, even we hate it ($$$).

Even if putrajaya has no monorail but it does hv superb bus system, i m sure nobody will complain about its accessibility. Take off the diplomats n foreign tourists, we not showcasing for them only, but in fact to malaysians generally.

Again, i believe that pedestrian friendly bus infra n efficient service are the keys to make it success. If we dont hv the reliable public accessibility, can u turn the malaysian mindset of swithing to public transport? Definitely no.

szehoong

September 15th, 2005, 04:24 AM

^^ Yes......you're right about the bus thingy. Did you happen to know that Putrajaya had a cheap yet clean and efficient bus system? Yes.......NadiPutra is the best Malaysia could offer despite its long waiting time due to the lack of commuters during non-peak hours. Why efficient if the long waiting time during non-peak hrs? Well......it only make sense for NadiPutra to operate this way or else its buses would be always empty and that itself is not good for the environment. ;) BTW a single trip )irregardless of distance in a NadiPutra cost only RM0.50 so it is indeed a steal! :D Furthermore the bus stops are indeed comfortable and some of em is a work of art! ;)

Back to the monorail......well.....why I am an advocate of the monorail despite Putrajay could well use its buses? For the start, the monorail would reduce road usage and adding more buses and taxis would just clogged up Putrajaya's road system.

The monorail system is a reliable service which would also lessen both noise and visual pollution of the city - something the city planners yearned for. The infrastructure is already in place making the monorail 'cheaper' to implement.

ONe MUST also UNDERSTAND that Putrajaya had ceased to be a city on its own. Just like PJ, Subang and even Kajang, Klang and Shah Alam - all are (despite officialdom and technicalities issues) part of Klang Valley which is another word for Greater KL or KL Metro. Yes......Putrajaya are gobbled up by KL's rapid expansion and just like Tokyo gobbling up cities like Kobe, Putrajaya would be a suburban city or should I say part of the KL Metropolis ;)

So to have a monorail system there does make sense especially when it is now part of KL. It is a local metro loop that would service the people there. True that its population is a mere 100,000 but its day population is definitely much higher. Sometimes the number of residents in a city doesn't really make a difference but its visitors does. ;)

James Foong

September 15th, 2005, 12:49 PM

Why efficient if the long waiting time during non-peak hrs? Well......it only make sense for NadiPutra to operate this way or else its buses would be always empty and that itself is not good for the environment. ;)

For operators, it does make sense. :okay: But 30 minutes wait is not makin sense for daily commuters. LRT off peak hr frequency run at 15 minutes. That's consider very good. We r getting used to high speed, n long waiting time can turn u off from public transport. We r talking about efficient to carry the people, not the management. Operators hv the obligation to provide reliable n efficient service to the masses. If not, y shld we privatise them? I m not pushing them to the limit. They hv to realize that some parts cannot be compromised i.e. the schedule n safety. What they shld care is the way they handle their vehicles and the spare parts. Quality management is supposed to be their priority, but it is mishandled by greed of corruption. Parts being ordered at a sum, but came with the lesser parts (bcoz they dont need it tht much). Technician said it cost 100,000 to repair, but actual cost sum up to 50,000 only. Top management either has no experience or no eyes or it is part of the group. This is the dark area.. we dont get in d news. We only think it is not a viable business, n usually we always heard they put blame on competition, overlapping of service, n rising energy cost. These are logic excuses. The problem is that our authority doesn't hv a special committee to oversee the privatise companies, unlike malaysian GLC corporate arms like TNB n MAS, we got government representative in the board. Intrakota is a sad story. It does hv the resources to buy new buses or upgrading it. It doesn't hv to provide infra n i can't understand what burden r they carry? Transnasional can make profit bcoz they hv sound n not overgreedy management. They made drastic cost cutting measure like by moving the whole buses engine to the back from front. If a bus die halfway, they juz hv to overhaul the engine, n replace it with another engine. So, there is no sleeping buses in the workshop. Things like that r one of the many ways to cut cost. it is just the matter whether that particular group want it or not.

Empty buses during off peak is not a good excuse. It is a temporary setback. Only when we see it, that would make us to believe there is a reliable service during off peak. Give it to mature for awhile (n so government shld subsidised here), and it is very likely it will convince people to use it all the time. It is about reliable service. when u talk about environment, which would u like to c more cars or buses on the road? Environmentalist would go for buses n NGV taxis. The bus market has matured more than we realized. Todays market has seen a lot of improvement on bus emission. Bus technologies have reduces emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulates by 80 to 90 percent, and it requires the use of low-sulphur diesel fuel to operate efficiently. ;)

ONe MUST also UNDERSTAND that Putrajaya had ceased to be a city on its own. Just like PJ, Subang and even Kajang, Klang and Shah Alam - all are (despite officialdom and technicalities issues) part of Klang Valley which is another word for Greater KL or KL Metro. Yes......Putrajaya are gobbled up by KL's rapid expansion and just like Tokyo gobbling up cities like Kobe, Putrajaya would be a suburban city or should I say part of the KL Metropolis ;)

So to have a monorail system there does make sense especially when it is now part of KL. It is a local metro loop that would service the people there. True that its population is a mere 100,000 but its day population is definitely much higher. Sometimes the number of residents in a city doesn't really make a difference but its visitors does. ;)

There is no doubt that we need an integrated rail systems on the whole of klang valley one day. ;) The reality is that areas like Kepong, Damansara, Kajang n klang need public rail more urgently than putrajaya. These area are also important as putrajaya. It is boomin area too. We juz cant ignore it, at first.

for me, bus system is the best way to reach the people needs. Reason is bcoz it tranverse more areas as unlike the rail system, which only permanently centred on selected locations. Moreover, we always forget that rail uses up a lot of energy powers as well. Thats also cause degradation of environment. So, i believe that comparing bus n rail's environment damage is actually not as great as to car effects. Both are the future of malaysian choice, after all :)

James Foong

September 15th, 2005, 01:32 PM

It is well known that a very poor nation can boast the world best transport system. it happened in curitiba city, brazil. Its success had been documented long long time ago, and it proves that it is not necessarily to go for expensive ideas. If u hv the time, take a look at this article or on webpage: http://www.solutions-site.org/cat7_sol110.htm

FAST FACTS Curitiba
Metropolitan Population 2,700,000
Urbanized Area* Population 2,250,000
Urbanized Land Area: 310 Square Miles
9thlargest metropolitan area in Brazil

Curitiba’s Transportation System

Lerner’s administration commenced in 1971 by creating Brazil’s first pedestrian network in the center of the city. But, the most significant changes in the transportation system were taken in 1974 with the creation of the road hierarchy and land control system (Rabinovitch and Hoehn, 1995). In coordination with the Master Plan they began to construct the first two out of five arterial structural roads that would eventually form the structural growth corridors and dictate the growth pattern in the city. These structural corridors were composed of a triple road system with the central road having two restricted lanes dedicated to express busses. Parallel to the express bus lanes were two local roads running in opposite directions. They allowed local traffic to pass through the city. In 1982, all five structural corridors were completed with inter-district and feeder lines. In accordance with these structural roads, zoning laws were set in place to structure the growth of the city. Large buildings holding a high density of people were permitted to be built along these corridors, but, as one moved away from these central corridors, the admissible densities declined from urban apartment buildings to residential neighborhoods (Rabinovitch and Hoehn, 1995).

Solving The Fare Problem

With the evolution of the transportation system there increased a need for an effective mode of payment. Curitiba’s city hall wanted to expedite bus service and recognized that one of the factors that generated delays is the hold-up in the mode of passenger payment. Over the years there have been many forms of payment implemented. A new system to avoid delays was created in which the city eliminated transfer payments and substituted them with transfer tokens made of paper. But after 7 months of implementation, the city discovered major forgery of the paper transfers. The city then tried to install a two-fare payment, separating the express fares from the feeder fares (fares for the outlying buses connecting to those going to the city center). This system was repealed after one and a half-years because it favored the rich who resided closer to the center and paid only one fare over the poorer population who resided on the periphery of the city and would have to pay two passages to arrive in the center.

Realizing the social imbalance imposed by this fare mode, the city dropped the feeder fare and allowed passengers to ride the feeder busses for free. After a while the city received public complaints about the unsanitary conditions on the feeder busses. They became sleeping places for the homeless and bus drivers refused to drive these busses. The city then decided to return to the one fare method and built fences between stops for the express and feeder busses. This method proved to be successful until they became overcrowded. They became unsanitary and were often referred to as “pig stalls.”

In 1980, the city finally developed and constructed transfer terminals that operated like subway stations. The terminals, constructed with telephone accessibility, attracted newsstands and flower shops and became aesthetically attractive and user friendly.

It was also at this time that the city introduced automatic ticketing to the system. This form of payment allowed passengers to purchase metal tokens at terminals, newsstands or shops, or pay with money at the bus terminals. They hoped to increase the speed of transfers and boarding of passengers which would expedite bus circulation. The city believed that under careful planning of transfers, passengers could travel throughout the system for only one fare. Despite the fare issues, the city had to deal with the overwhelming attraction of the express system. Upon its implementation in 1974, its novelty and popularity resulted in overcrowded busses that caused delays in boarding at stops and terminals. To compensate for the loss in time, bus drivers would increase speed, creating potentially dangerous situations and accidents. The city found it necessary to implement speed control monitors, create boarding tubes and tailor bus designs to accommodate the growing demand.

The city also had to create a system in which individual bus companies that catered to the various zones in the city could share revenues without competing with each other. Traditionally the city was partitioned in different zones that were serviced by individual bus companies. But, with the creation of the inter-district routes and the implementation of the Integrated Transportation Network along with the unified fare, passengers could pay one company at a terminal located in a particular zone and ride the system without paying the other bus companies. In 1987 the city addressed this problem by distributing transportation revenue based on the number of kilometers traveled by vehicle type for any given company.

With each company given a number of route kilometers and a timetable, each company competes with the schedule not with other companies (Rabinovitch and Hoehn, 1995).

Bus and Station Design

After the construction of terminals and the implementation of the unified fare, the city wanted to develop busses and stations designed with the intention of avoiding fare evaders. For this reason, busses are designed with three doors, two doors for exiting and a front door for boarding. In a category by itself, these urban busses are constructed with turbo engines, lower floor levels, wider doors, and a convenient design for mass transit. Curitiba also developed boarding tube stations that were placed along direct routes and express lanes. To increase convenience, boarding efficiency and reduce fare evaders the tubes elevate passengers to the bus platform level where automatic doors operated by the tube conductor open parallel to the bus doors. Passengers pay an entrance fare at the turnstile and wait for their respective direct or express bus to pass. Disembarking passengers leave the stations through a direct exit.

To further assist passengers, each tube station is equipped with station and route maps and with small lifts situated beside the entrance of the tube to help disabled passengers, strollers, and passengers carrying heavy bags enter the tubes with agility.

The Present System of Transportation

The transportation system is made up of three complementary levels of service that include the feeder lines, express lines and inter-district routes. The feeder lines pass through outlying neighborhoods and make the system easily accessible to lower density areas. Sharing the roads with other vehicles, these feeder lines connect with the express system along the structural corridors. The express system then utilizes these dedicated bus lanes and transports large numbers of passengers to various locations along these structural corridors, thus operating much like a surface subway system. The inter-district routes allow passengers to connect to the axis of the express lines without entering the central city area. The Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) encompasses transfer terminals, express routes, direct routes using boarding tubes, feeder and inter-district routes supplemented by center city routes, neighborhood routes, night routes, special education routes, and pro-park routes which collectively make up Curitiba’s Mass Transit System (MTS). Through carefully planned tube or terminal connections, passengers can pay one fare and travel throughout the system. To facilitate use of the system, passengers can identify a specific route by the color and type of the bus used. The thirteen express lines that make up the express bus system for instance, operate on the structural corridors and are represented by large red articulated, bi-articulated or silver “padron” busses.

Articulated and bi-articulated busses are large busses capable of carrying 170-270 passengers respectively and are joined in the center by a pivot joint and flexible tubing that allows the bus to curve around turns without occupying more than one lane of traffic. Articulated busses have one joint and bi-articulated have at least two connected units. They are virtually like a train with connected cars. These busses connect the transfer terminals to the city center. Passengers pay, enter and exit at tube stations.

The feeder routes are characterized by orange conventional busses that connect the terminals with the surrounding neighborhoods. Inter-district routes use green padron or articulated busses that connect transfer Terminals to different districts without passing through the center of the city. The direct speedy routes are silver and use the tube stations along routes that link the main district and surrounding municipalities with Curitiba. Then there are Conventional Integration Radial Routes that are marked by yellow padron busses. They operate on the normal road network between the surrounding municipalities, the integration terminals, and the city center. The City Circle Line is a fleet of white mini-busses that circle the major transport terminals and different points of interest in the downtown area. All school busses are marked with a yellow stripe and busses dedicated for the disabled are blue. The Integrated Transport System is made up of 340 routes that utilize 1,902 busses to transport 1.9 million passengers per day. The entire network covers 1,100km of roads with 60km of it dedicated for bus use. There are 25 transfer terminals within the system and 221 tube stations that all allow for pre-paid boarding. The Integrated System also has 28 routes and special busses dedicated to transporting special education and disabled patrons.

Conclusions

Curitiba’s system of transportation is an example of effective urban planning. The city’s urban planners recognized that even if growth in population cannot be controlled, the development of infrastructure in the city can guide the city’s expansion. By approaching transportation as tool used to attain a greater solution rather than as a solution to an advancing problem, they were able to implement an efficiently constructed, cost-effective transportation system that finances itself. The city used busses because it had a tradition of using busses. While this system is powered by diesel, the reduction of the number of cars used compensates, if not surpasses, the difference in carbon monoxide emissions. Like every city, Curitiba’s transportation system is plagued by overcrowded peak hours and untimely busses. But, this is a relatively minor inconvenience in comparison to the service provided and the proximity served. From personal experience I can testify to the agility of this system. In comparison with transportation systems in Rio de Janiero, where passengers have to flag down and run after a number of private busses that provide service to the same destination using different routes and New York City were busses are often caught in unrelenting city congestion for a good part of the working day, Curitiba's integrative bus system with its express lanes and bus expediency, essentially works.

szehoong

September 15th, 2005, 01:35 PM

^^ Wah.....I din know that one of my minor point could be rebutted at such a length! :D

Anyway I do know that empty buses are not an excuse in Putrajaya esp when 'cost is of no concern' over there. And of course it is a no-brainer that public transportation such as rails uses more energy as our electricity are from fossil fuel as well. But what I am trying to say and perhaps you misses out is that PUtrajaya are designed to be pedestrian and metro-centric ....meaning it is not for buses zipping here and there. It is the visual and sound sound pullution that irks planners so they called for a metro system. Furthermore, buses brings pollution to the city and a metro system (monorail) are 'cleaner' to the city....no necessary a more energy efficient counterpart. ;)

You have to understand that Putrajaya had to be developed not in tandem with the entire country as it is a showcase city. Putrajaya is therefore experimental. Should Putrajaya's development be in tandem with the rest of the country .....or even Klang Valley's, it would take decades before even we get close to see what we have in Putrajaya today. :)

I know how efficient a bus system could be as I often take the buses when in HK and Singapore and their bus service is EXCELLENT! :okay: However I do think that buses should be improved in other places in Klang Valley first and not Putrajaya because the current system is adequate. Maybe they need a few more buses to cut the waiting time of non-peak to 15mins but apart from that, NadiPutra is fine ;) Our government should see first that an efficient bus service would bring the masses to use public transportation than by just implementing rail services. IN HK and Singapore......the buses comes first then only the rail services. And now they've got some of the best system in the world with both the buses and the rail complementing each other :okay:

szehoong

September 15th, 2005, 01:40 PM

Yes......Curitiba in Brazil are known world-wide for its efficient and great bus network and if I am not mistaken, some of our govt officials have visited the city a few years back to study their system. ;)

As mentioned in my previous post, I agree that Klang Valley should have an efficient bus system but Putrajaya is different. Putrajaya is an utopian vision of an aesthetically pleasing city as well an experimental prototype government city which is very much like Walt Disney's EPCOT project (Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow). Unlike EPCOT which had been turned into a mere themepark by coporate America, Putrajaya is a living and breathing city. :)

James Foong

September 15th, 2005, 02:01 PM

^^ Wah.....I din know that one of my minor point could be rebutted at such a length! :D

Yours minor or not, i respected each of your points n views. :okay:
Its interesting to debate with forumers here like u. Whose knows, somebody at putrajaya is reading this thread as well. He might hand u a patriotic award! :colgate:

szehoong

September 15th, 2005, 02:20 PM

^^ Hoho.....hahaha......I am not that patriotic :lol: .....just that I've happened to be following Putrajaya's developement since its inception and I've been there countless times. :D

Plus I do read pro ad anti-putrajaya articles and viewpoints and it gives me a 2-sided view on things. :)

So I do know what is their vision and weaknesses......Putrajaya is not all that perfect you know and I do have a lot to complain :D

globocentric

September 15th, 2005, 03:31 PM

choon

September 15th, 2005, 04:42 PM

szehoong

September 15th, 2005, 05:23 PM

I do admit that Putrajaya is meant to be a showcase city. . However, constructing buildings that are meant for occupation for government servants or bridges for vehicular use are very different to building a monorail network that will be almost empty during non peak hours and how about the cost? 1.8bil. we have to admit that the population in Putrajaya is not huge enough to keep a monorail network filled during non peak hours. How many buildings can you built with 1.8 billion? How much do you have to spent to co-ordinate bus services which is much cheaper and better option to a monorail. Putrajaya is very similar to Canberra which was constructed from scrath on a vast farmland. It is a well planned and showcase city as well. However, The aus federal government did not spend unnecssary money on unviable mega infrastructure projects like monorail or subway as the pop of canberra cannot sustain it. Penang is suffering from a chronic shortage of federal funding. The government is not reluctant when it comes to implementing projects. They have been waiting for years when it comes to federal funding for some simple projects such as construction of bridges over rivers etc.

I dunno how the price of the monorail got inflated to RM1.8 billion (as reported in the article posted by Ethan and what you've posted above), but the monorail should cost only RM400 million (source Utusan Malaysia & The Star). Yes....that is still a lot of money but it is indeed puny if compared to many extravagances in the city. As I've mentioned umpteen times that eveything in Putrajaya is not about cost so I am not repeating here. :ohno:

Many times also I've said that Putrajaya are planned from the top to bottom. As a planned city, it had a target of when to built what. So now it is the time to be called for a metro system. Also like I've mentioned before, the daytime population of Putrajaya is much higher than its residents. So it is hard to gauge the popularity of the monorail esp on Sundays and public holidays. ;)

Although many compared it to the likes of Brasillia, Washington DC or Canberra.....it is simply different due to its proximity from KL. Like I've mentioned previously too, it is more like a suburb of KL than an independent city like Canberra. You should know the history in the setting up of Canberra as the country's capital first before you compare it with Putrajaya. Canberra is the result of a tussle between Melbourne and Sydney as the country's capital so the Aussie govt decided that they construct a city in the middle to solved this problem. Putrajaya from its inception is to create an utopian city with the extravagance and pomp. Canberra is just lacking of that and it is indeed a fully functional capital city unlike Putrajaya where most of the essential component of a capital city isn't there. And Putrajaya isn't the capital to begin with so no comparison there. ;) And like I've put it before......the monorail is a mere extention of the Klang Valley metro in Putrajaya.

I have read that Penang got quite a substantial amount of fed money and its own coffer isn't small either. It is the second richest state in the country after Selangor and I am sure it could fund itself a monorail system. Monorails are cheap to begin with and it should cost less than PORR or BORR which I think isn't as urgent as a metro system. So where's the priority? Penangites have to bear in mind that one of the country's first mega project is the Penang Bridge and it is funded by the fed govt. Who says the fed govt ignore Penang? Even if the govt ignore Penang, the state govt shouldn't be too dependent and should be self sufficient. It shouldn't be a cry baby and always crying out for pocket money. I believe Penang's currently lack of funds is due to its bad spending and not lack of fed govt funding. KOMTAR in my opinion is such wastage and they should have built a metro system with the money. Now that KOMTAR is 20 over years old, it is kinda dilapidated. So where had all the maintenance funds go? If they can't even set aside funds to maintain KOMTAR, I think they couldn't have save the money for a metro system. And every now and then we see that the Penang govt is spending uneccesarily on some beautification projects which IMO is kinda ugly :ohno:

Sometimes I can't help it but to think that a metro system could generate vibrancy and population to an area. There are many examples around. I just hope that the Putrajaya Monorail could do just that. ;)

bobdikl

September 16th, 2005, 01:19 AM

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/204/longbus4nt.jpg
new london long bus system quite similar to Brazil's "Pay before you board"

bobdikl

September 16th, 2005, 01:24 AM

How about modern trams system for penang? perhaps it could fit well with cities like penang and Melacca. But I sense not much asian fancy old tram system as era ago after the success stories in Hong Kong and Singapore. Trams can be very efficient too and some required no cable at all. The modern trams are quite along the lines of LRT, but much more cheaper to build and flexible enough to alter the route along with the city development. The mayor of London is planning a couple new long tram lines in London. Of course, again, there are motorists protest against the tram system because the project required to convert the existing motorway into tram track after the bus lane and there left only one or none lane for cars.

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3503/tram36sa.jpg
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4391/nancy50ea.jpg
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/5305/atmeinerbito032op.jpg

bobdikl

September 16th, 2005, 02:06 AM

Although many compared it to the likes of Brasillia, Washington DC or Canberra.....it is simply different due to its proximity from KL. Like I've mentioned previously too, it is more like a suburb of KL than an independent city like Canberra. You should know the history in the setting up of Canberra as the country's capital first before you compare it with Putrajaya. Canberra is the result of a tussle between Melbourne and Sydney as the country's capital so the Aussie govt decided that they construct a city in the middle to solved this problem. Putrajaya from its inception is to create an utopian city with the extravagance and pomp. Canberra is just lacking of that and it is indeed a fully functional capital city unlike Putrajaya where most of the essential component of a capital city isn't there. And Putrajaya isn't the capital to begin with so no comparison there. ;) And like I've put it before......the monorail is a mere extention of the Klang Valley metro in Putrajaya.

who was the planner of putrajaya? I guess he/she had done a good job to study Brasillia, Washington DC and Canberra. It was a brilliant idea to position putrajaya at just between to KL and KLIA (malaysian gateway) serve as a suburbs and governments administrator zone. People are forced to by pass putrajaya anyhow when come and leave KL by rail or expressway from airport.

szehoong

September 16th, 2005, 03:59 AM

James Foong

September 16th, 2005, 08:23 AM

^^ Technically, Dr. Kisho Korukawa (<sp?)....whom also designed KLIA, designed the masterplan for Putrajaya. But as to where it is located and what should be there.....I think the 'real' planner for Putrajaya is none other than our Dr. Mahathir. :okay:

Dr. M made this malaysian forum such an interesting place. Without him, nothing much to gossip on skyscraper. He is not just a great planner, he is a skyscraper fan too. :okay:

szehoong

September 16th, 2005, 08:26 AM

^^ Hahahaha.....you're right! :okay:

That's why he personally oversee the planning of the Petronas Twin Towers! :)

globocentric

September 16th, 2005, 09:28 PM

I dunno how the price of the monorail got inflated to RM1.8 billion (as reported in the article posted by Ethan and what you've posted above), but the monorail should cost only RM400 million (source Utusan Malaysia & The Star). Yes....that is still a lot of money but it is indeed puny if compared to many extravagances in the city. As I've mentioned umpteen times that eveything in Putrajaya is not about cost so I am not repeating here. :ohno:

Many times also I've said that Putrajaya are planned from the top to bottom. As a planned city, it had a target of when to built what. So now it is the time to be called for a metro system. Also like I've mentioned before, the daytime population of Putrajaya is much higher than its residents. So it is hard to gauge the popularity of the monorail esp on Sundays and public holidays. ;)

Although many compared it to the likes of Brasillia, Washington DC or Canberra.....it is simply different due to its proximity from KL. Like I've mentioned previously too, it is more like a suburb of KL than an independent city like Canberra. You should know the history in the setting up of Canberra as the country's capital first before you compare it with Putrajaya. Canberra is the result of a tussle between Melbourne and Sydney as the country's capital so the Aussie govt decided that they construct a city in the middle to solved this problem. Putrajaya from its inception is to create an utopian city with the extravagance and pomp. Canberra is just lacking of that and it is indeed a fully functional capital city unlike Putrajaya where most of the essential component of a capital city isn't there. And Putrajaya isn't the capital to begin with so no comparison there. ;) And like I've put it before......the monorail is a mere extention of the Klang Valley metro in Putrajaya.

I have read that Penang got quite a substantial amount of fed money and its own coffer isn't small either. It is the second richest state in the country after Selangor and I am sure it could fund itself a monorail system. Monorails are cheap to begin with and it should cost less than PORR or BORR which I think isn't as urgent as a metro system. So where's the priority? Penangites have to bear in mind that one of the country's first mega project is the Penang Bridge and it is funded by the fed govt. Who says the fed govt ignore Penang? Even if the govt ignore Penang, the state govt shouldn't be too dependent and should be self sufficient. It shouldn't be a cry baby and always crying out for pocket money. I believe Penang's currently lack of funds is due to its bad spending and not lack of fed govt funding. KOMTAR in my opinion is such wastage and they should have built a metro system with the money. Now that KOMTAR is 20 over years old, it is kinda dilapidated. So where had all the maintenance funds go? If they can't even set aside funds to maintain KOMTAR, I think they couldn't have save the money for a metro system. And every now and then we see that the Penang govt is spending uneccesarily on some beautification projects which IMO is kinda ugly :ohno:

Sometimes I can't help it but to think that a metro system could generate vibrancy and population to an area. There are many examples around. I just hope that the Putrajaya Monorail could do just that. ;)

Well i disagree with that. the state budget for penang is no larger than the budget for the Penang general hospital. How can the state be self sufficient when all the tax revenues are collected by the federal governement unlike other countries that confer more power to the state. Penang is awaiting federal funding for many overdue flyovers and new bridges. For example, there is a road widening project and a new bridge that were supposed to be completed years ago and consturction hasnt even commence due to lack of federal funding. They would have been granted straight away if KL or Langkawi asked for it. The tourism budget in Langkawi is at least 5 times the tourism budget for Penang as well. Penang will only be a position to be self sufficient if all the tax revenues go the state government instead of the federal government and penang is not getting back what they give to federal government whereas the northern states and eastern states give less tax revenues to the government. Their GDP is smaller than the GDP of Penang. Even Sarawak ( the biggest state) has a smaller GDP than Penang(the smallest state).Only Selangor and Johor have a bigger GDP than Penang.

James Foong

September 17th, 2005, 08:19 AM

Well i disagree with that. the state budget for penang is no larger than the budget for the Penang general hospital. How can the state be self sufficient when all the tax revenues are collected by the federal governement unlike other countries that confer more power to the state. Penang is awaiting federal funding for many overdue flyovers and new bridges. For example, there is a road widening project and a new bridge that were supposed to be completed years ago and consturction hasnt even commence due to lack of federal funding. They would have been granted straight away if KL or Langkawi asked for it. The tourism budget in Langkawi is at least 5 times the tourism budget for Penang as well. Penang will only be a position to be self sufficient if all the tax revenues go the state government instead of the federal government and penang is not getting back what they give to federal government whereas the northern states and eastern states give less tax revenues to the government. Their GDP is smaller than the GDP of Penang. Even Sarawak ( the biggest state) has a smaller GDP than Penang(the smallest state).Only Selangor and Johor have a bigger GDP than Penang.

Quite true. Fed grant shld be based on state's tax total collection revenue, but not for here, in malaysia. There ll be unequal funding to all states if u implement such policy. It ll only provide opportunity for the rich states of a more powerful say in getting fed fund. How can u give out sufficient fund to poor states if the fed is keep pressured by the richer states? U r makin fed contraints. And here the poor states suffer even worse if u do that. The gap btwn rich n poor will be bigger, n poor states will lose much much of its population bcoz of migration to richer states. Do u want to wait until that state goes bankrupt n then we only realized it is under funding all the time? well, it is easy to blame state gov for not doing good job on developing its own state. But how do u want to attract investment if yr state is underdeveloped? Self developing is not enough without fed help. They are merely depending on its population n limited industry to survive. West coast states had been benefitted from fed long long time ago. NS highway had brings more benefits to the west coast than the east coast itself. fair or not fair, we needed it badly that time, bcoz we dont hv much choices. Either u develop west coast first or somewhere else. We r not rich as u might think. Its time for poor states to shout louder than penang.

szehoong

September 17th, 2005, 08:20 AM

^^ One thing for sure.....Penang IS self-sufficient on its own. As for other figures.....I'll try to dig em out. I am very sure that the federal fund is not as ridiculous as you make it sounds like but I'll just have to prove it to ya ;)

But I am very sure of the misuse of funds and wrong priority in funding projects which made the Penang govt 'poor' :( ....yup.......that is what we call POOR FUND MANAGEMENT and the state govt should buck up on that. :ohno:

Vince

September 18th, 2005, 12:57 AM

Yes, statiscally and historically, Penang (port and manufacturing), Perak (tin-mining and fruits), Johor (rubber, oil palm and bauxite for aluminium) and Sarawak (lumber and oil) had been and still are the richest states in Malaysia. Look at the major cities of these states now, they pale in comparison with KL or even the new city Putrajaya! Why is that? I don't think these states are not economically competitive, in fact, the bulk of the Malaysian economy depends on them. It's just that a lot of the revenues earned go to the Feds where they freely build new resorts like Langkawi (in Dr M's birth state, showcase resort), Labuan Financial Centre (don't really hear too much of it these days) , KL, and last but not least Putrajaya (supposed showcase city which makes no sense). These places are not even close to any big population centres and so improving the livelihoods of the rakyat theory just does not hold water. These places were or are built with the whims, unfair, and uncontrolled spendings of the Feds. It is very obvious. Other older resorts (Desaru, Port Dickson) and cities (Ipoh, Kuantan, Georgetown) are just left on the sidelines if not rot. They should be enhanced as many of these places already support healthy economies and markets. Why create new ones when older ones need to be upgraded?

Vince

September 18th, 2005, 01:03 AM

Canada's population is similar to Malaysia's. Yet when u visit the different cities and towns in the provinces of Canada, they are all well-planned and maintained. Historical places are well preserved and existing urban centres are enhanced. Even with the poorer provinces, the cities there get federal fundings and therefore are very presentable. This is not the case in Malaysia where the contrasts are just so huge! I am not trying to compare a developed nation to Malaysia, however, if Malaysia were to achieve its 2020 vision where the country sees itself developed, then steps have to be taken now to ensure the fair distribution of wealth throughout the country, and improve on the existing infrastructure before building new and perhaps unsustainable ones.

Vince

September 18th, 2005, 01:11 AM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/18.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/608.jpg

Vince

September 18th, 2005, 01:18 AM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/bridge.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/27.jpg

globocentric

September 18th, 2005, 05:25 AM

totally agree with you vince If Malaysia doesnt want to be an international laughing stock in development, the federal government should not waste state tax revenues on unnecessary grandiose projects such as Langkawi and Putrajaya. Malaysia's economic growth in the mid 90's is always taken for granted but back then many of the Asia's economic tigers were still in slumberland. The situation is distinctly differently. China, Vietnam, India , Thailand and a few ascending economies are drastically reforming their economy and it's only a matter of time before they overtake Malaysia. The gap between thailand gdp per capita and malaysia's gdp per capita is getting smaller and smaller(the difference is only US 2000 now) when the gap used to be a lot wider.

tomkat

September 18th, 2005, 07:34 AM

James Foong

September 18th, 2005, 07:47 AM

It is very obvious. Other older resorts (Desaru, Port Dickson) and cities (Ipoh, Kuantan, Georgetown) are just left on the sidelines if not rot. They should be enhanced as many of these places already support healthy economies and markets. Why create new ones when older ones need to be upgraded?

Your statements give me an impression tht i m not talkin alone. How many tower cranes can u spot in city likes ipoh, kuantan, alor star, etc..? Absolutely can't match the putrajaya alone! Thats enough to show the HUGE gap of malaysian urbanisation. There is not much difference from 10 yrs ago in many many major towns around the country, compare to JB, penang, n KK. The sad truth is that 9/10 people telling me its either u study/work in kl, kl, kl, kl......or pj,pj,pj,pj.... Its like no better other choice.

Personally, I would like to see Penang, JB, Kuantan n Kuching emerged as the satellite cities to KL. It is about balance developments. Unfortunately, we dont hv enough 'big eyes' at putrajaya to see the big picture.

James Foong

September 18th, 2005, 08:47 AM

The construction of the city is mostly funded by the real estate revenue gathered from selling off the former government massive premises in KL. And of course Petronas topped it up with some of its profits. But so far, I don't see any state tax revenue goes into building the city.

Do you have any supporting documents saying that Putrajaya is funded by state tax revenue? I would love to read it...

Me too. D love to find out how putrajaya is funded by so called state tax revenue.

Not to forget, Petronas issues out multi billion ringgit bonds to finance it too. ;)

Vince

September 18th, 2005, 10:11 AM

Are you sure that Putrajaya is being developed using state tax revenues?

I thought Putrajaya is being developed by Putrajaya Holdings which the majority share holder is Petronas, the state-owned oil company. The construction of the city is mostly funded by the real estate revenue gathered from selling off the former government massive premises in KL. And of course Petronas topped it up with some of its profits. But so far, I don't see any state tax revenue goes into building the city.

Do you have any supporting documents saying that Putrajaya is funded by state tax revenue? I would love to read it...

Key words here, Tomkat: Petronas, state-owned company. Oil is obtained off Pahang, Sarawak and Sabah. So does government direct Petronas to fund those states in their development? I hardly think so. We already know that the government has a hand in the directions of these state-owned companies. If not state supported, a healthy oil company like Petronas would not venture into building a brand new city. This is suicidal in the business sense. The government must have made guarantees for them. Also, would you think selling off prime government premises in KL would be able to fund an entire city with those grand buildings, administration centres and mosques? I hardly think so. We don't have an absolutely open government, and I am very sure a lot of the money used for Putrajaya's construction comes from government's coffers.

The government is indeed tight on their coffers. Just look at regular income earners, many have to wait for 2 to 3 years before they get their tax refunds as the government lacks the necessary capital. This shows a misuse of government funds.

Blessed with natural resources, Malaysia ought to be debt-free but yet we are not.

tomkat

September 18th, 2005, 11:55 AM

The key issue here is that someone claims state tax revenue is directly being pumped into the construction of this sparkling new city. Any claim must be backed by good reference. We would like to keep our mind as open as possible. Any claim without concrete reference is no difference than an unjustifiable smear attack, or to put in your words, doesn't hold water.

It is very easy to criticize the goverment when we are all not in their shoes. Just because some of us are not well informed of the real direction, vision, or even the purpose of building Putrajaya doesn't mean that the money is not well spent.

Whether the money came out from Petronas' coffer is a different issue altogether. Petronas profit has no relation with state tax revenue. You're right that bulks of the Petronas' profit is coming from Terengganu, Sarawak and Sabah. One loves to argue that profit reaped from these states goes straight to government's coffer with no benefits given to them in return. What I fail to understand why can't he or she calculate the amount of investment Petronas had poured into the states in building all those state-of-the-arts petrochemical facilities.

Do you know that Petronas had invested more than USD80 billion in Kerteh Petrochemical facilities alone. That's not included Gebeng Petrochemical complex in Pahang and PFK plant in Gurun, Kedah. How about the largest LNG complex in the world and ABF complex in Bintulu, Sarawak? And recently Petronas had announce another RM2.5 billion urea plant development in Sabah. Petronas has major investment in all states in Malaysia except Perlis and Kelantan. Employment, economic spinoff as well as technological advancement created by these investment are too vast to be reckoned with. All these investments dwarf the amount of money Petronas put aside for Putrajaya development. It is too minute to be considered.

KLCC and Putrajaya development are few of Petronas civic duties. And to me, these developments have been proven as real success. And heck, look at one of Petronas Mission Statements - To protect the well-being of the nation and the people.

Building Putrajaya is an investment. The city will be self-sufficient and self-funded once the commercial precinct development starts. Even now, 4 commercial plots have been tendered out. As you can see, these commercial developments do not involve even a cent from the government or Putrajaya Holdings. These are all pure business, spear headed by private sectors.

And do you know that all the government offices in Putrajaya are leased by the government from Putrajaya Holdings? The government is paying monthly rent to Putrajaya Holdings. So, technically, the government did not fund the construction of their new offices as these offices are not theirs to begin with.

FYI, Petronas is in the middle of finalizing masterplan for Seri Iskandar city development. It is where University Technology Petronas is situated. And guess which city becomes it reference point?

It is imperative for Putrajaya to succeed.

James Foong

September 18th, 2005, 02:18 PM

Oil is obtained off Pahang, Sarawak and Sabah. So does government direct Petronas to fund those states in their development? I hardly think so.

Blessed with natural resources, Malaysia ought to be debt-free but yet we are not.

US is rich with natural resources, but still arguably they r the world largest debt country + plus the unimaginable TRILLION dollars deficit economy. Practically, this equation: owning huge oil = debt free country is very rare to happen.

The oil doesn't belong to the states. It belongs to the Fed gov. Any natural resources found at off shore of malaysian coast and beneath the state's land (beginning at certain depth from surface) are under the Fed gov. State producing the oil get its benefits from the huge investment at downstream activities (oil refineries n petroleum end products). To make thing simple, if u argue tht off shore area is belong to its state, then dont be surprise if someone claim his freehold land owns the entire soil till down the earth core! Sound weird but true, u may be surprised if one day, u found out that people r digging a road tunnel right under yr home. It is considered legal digging bcoz it is not yours, it belong to gov.

So, next time if you discover gold under yr house, keep it in silence or else if they find out, your house ll be in great trouble. :)

szehoong

September 19th, 2005, 10:55 AM

If not for our country's investment in Putrajaya, our construction industry would be long dead. And one industry collapsed isn't good for the country. Look at the current slowdown in that sector (largely due to Putrajaya's slowdown)........it is affecting our economy badly.

Putrajaya cushioned the construction industry from immenent death during the Asian Financial Crisis. Just ask anyone from inside the industry and they would tell ya. I know cos I've got a lot of friends whom are contractors and engineers. ;)

What can other smaller town provide? When a country developes to a certain extend.....smaller towns are the casualties while large urban are grew larger. That is what is happening to some western countries. How can the govt sideline Klang Valley (read: Putrajaya and KL) which houses a quarter of the country's population?

And Langkawi's success had nothing that Port Dickson and Desaru should be jealous about. Yes.....the govt concentrated a lot in Langkawi but I seriously doubt that it had anything to do with enhancing Dr. M's birthplace. I believe that Dr. M saw the opportunity in Langkawi for further development as it is big and beautiful. The only bias development that I could see is the Kulim area where I think more of Dr. M's birth state development could be seen taking place. But then again......being close to Penang does have its advantage.

Seriously.....if not for Langkawi, we would be earning much less tourist dollar. Langkawi's development couldn't have been replicated in other islands in Malaysia as many are not large enough. The dirty waters off the Straits of Malacca is not helping PD while Desaru's tourism which is at the mercy of the Johor govt isn't promoted and its accessibility is not too good. Just look at how the govt of Sarawak promoted itself ....many state govt could take a cue from there ;)

szehoong

September 19th, 2005, 11:06 AM

Also, would you think selling off prime government premises in KL would be able to fund an entire city with those grand buildings, administration centres and mosques? I hardly think so.

First of all TOmkat did not say that ALL of Putrajaya are funded by the selling of govt land in KL. ;)

Secondly there is only 1 completed mosque in Putrajaya now and it is NOT funded at all by any Malaysian company or the govt.

Thirdly......I am not too sure if you are familiar with the property market in KL or not but the land the govt used to occupy in KL fetches many millions each and the landbank could easily fetches up to billions of Ringgit which could built many things in Putrajaya because of the relatively cheap land there and lesser obstruction ;)

szehoong

September 19th, 2005, 11:15 AM

Your statements give me an impression tht i m not talkin alone. How many tower cranes can u spot in city likes ipoh, kuantan, alor star, etc..? Absolutely can't match the putrajaya alone! Thats enough to show the HUGE gap of malaysian urbanisation. There is not much difference from 10 yrs ago in many many major towns around the country, compare to JB, penang, n KK. The sad truth is that 9/10 people telling me its either u study/work in kl, kl, kl, kl......or pj,pj,pj,pj.... Its like no better other choice.

Personally, I would like to see Penang, JB, Kuantan n Kuching emerged as the satellite cities to KL. It is about balance developments. Unfortunately, we dont hv enough 'big eyes' at putrajaya to see the big picture.

Well....Malaysian cities are kinda balanced but not all that balanced because of the relatively small population we had. Just like New Zealand, we had one megacity and a few smaller cities and lotsa small-small towns :D

But if compared to our neighbours, we are much better off. If you just do a few clickings away to the City Vs. City section, you'll see that the like of Kuching, JB, Melaka and Penang being compared with many cities around the region. Think of Thailand and only Bangkok comes to mind. Pattaya, Changmai, Haadyai is simply not big enough even to be compared with Melaka or JB let alone Penang. That goes the same with smaller cities in The Philippines and Indonesia.

As much as the govt tried to set up public universities out of KL (and sending many KLites out of town), more and more private institutions wants to set up in Klang Valley because of economic reasons. Our govt can't force em to set up in Kuantan or Kota Baru. :)

szehoong

September 19th, 2005, 11:25 AM

Blessed with natural resources, Malaysia ought to be debt-free but yet we are not.

Tell me which country which are blessed with an abundance of natural resources and yet are debt-free? :D

The first debt-free country pops up in my mind is actually Japan and they are not rich because of the natural resources there. And then comes Singapore.

IN today's world, trading and manufacturing gives more $$$ compared to natural resources. It is easier to built factories and ports compared to mining diamonds or petroleum. Most poor countries are filled with natural resources but can't be rich because they have no means of exploiting em. Even if your backyard have a huge oil deposit......do you think you have the money to drill em out in the first place? You'll have to employ foreigners like Shell or BP to do the job for ya. And where do a bulk of the money goes? Not into your pocket you know :D

That is the reason why Petronas are set up. Oh .....and Petronas doesn't just sell oil and get rich. Many countries have National Oil companies and even that they produces more oil than Malaysia, their companies still loses money while Petronas earns tons of em. Why? Well.....Petronas is profitable because it is a very trim and well-managed oil company. They are also involved in oil and gas trading which reaps em a lot of profit. Their refined Petroleum products are top-notch and selling em gave em profit too. Compared the cost of Putrajaya with KLCC and Petronas last year's profit and you'll see that they could built both projects twice over! :D

Vince

September 20th, 2005, 03:27 AM

bobdikl

September 20th, 2005, 02:57 PM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/vsgan/Johor%20Bahru/27.jpg

I understand there are still many areas under developed in this gradually but relatively comfortable country. But what's wrong with this pictures? It visually reminds me of the poetry fishing towns in east coast where my loving parents hometown(Terengganu).

James Foong

September 20th, 2005, 05:16 PM

As much as the govt tried to set up public universities out of KL (and sending many KLites out of town), more and more private institutions wants to set up in Klang Valley because of economic reasons. Our govt can't force em to set up in Kuantan or Kota Baru. :)

I see that govt set up public universities out of kl is more on political reasons rather than other reasons.i.e as in terengganu n pekan, pahang.

I also dont agree that economic reasons can turn off private sectors from setting up in smaller cities. Education base is not just to cater for the locals, but also for a region, regardless of its population. Miri shows a good example of attracting international university, though it is a small population base. Tronoh has a UTP, while Kampar ll soon get UTAR. Its all bow down to how the local govt. attracts them, by means of power incentives n authority support.

Kuantan is a perfect place to study as i believe. It bring down the cost of student expenses because of the cheaper cost of living. It also provides a good balance environment to study; vibrant city with nice beaches n adventurous jungles. The town has all the basic needs that would sufficient to conclude it is viable to set up. I believe what really turn off the private sectors is that these private sectors hav the problem of attracting students into smaller cities, that are widely unknown to many malaysians. Its about malaysian mindset... We tend to believe smaller town = dead town, and hence we cant enjoy study life to the fullest. Its very obvious not just in education, but also in job market.

Therefore, i would like to c our govt. to push more developments on these potential cities. It is not balanced as u believed. It does expand, but the pace is very slow. The growth is too slow to keep it competitive as other bigger cities.

And it does not benefit the country as a whole. Over dependence to a certain cities ll cause imbalance of nation wealth sharing. :)

James Foong

September 20th, 2005, 05:55 PM

Many of you may be very pro-Putrajaya or other so-called new "showcase" developments. The fact that many forumers here feel discontented about state allocation of funds into their respective cities or jurisdictions show that people are not very content at the current distribution and fairness of the country's development. Again, one can't have a new gleaming city while the services and amenities in many other cities and towns are still lacking and sometimes virtually non-existent. for instance, how can we worry about traffic problems of Putrajaya when there is none when many other cities are currently choking with congested roads and highways? Priority my friends, Priority, that's what I'm trying to argue here. Cheers people! :)

Vince, i do agree with some of your arguments here. Priority is not done at the right place, at the right time. But putrajaya is not really as bad as many hav argue. It does benefit the country as a whole. Without putrajaya, our country might not be so lucky to escape from financial crisis. During the crisis, private sects contribution to the economy came to a halt. Govt. got to spend to stimulate economic activities to keep the country running. You may argue why not we use putrajaya fund to upgrade other areas that need urgent attention during the crisis, but that is not a simple case. At that turn of the crisis, it is very difficult to spend money wisely on upgrading nation infra bcoz it involved time for planning n red tapes. It would be economic wise to spend on putrajaya since all the planning is well ready. Also, putrajaya is not built for showcasing only. Once its offices are completed, people start to move in to work. Unlike building infra, its return on investments is not fast as putrajaya. Govt. saves money from renting offices in kl, n it is better pay cheaper rent on its own playground. After all, petronas is a good son of the country. It doesnt dare to ask 4 high rental too.

Vince

September 21st, 2005, 01:39 AM

You guys have your points there. :) I just hope that the growth of everything created would take the path as planned and hoped. It would be a disaster if all these newly-created places do not function as envisioned . (Cyberjaya, Putrajaya, Labuan, Langkawi etc.) I guess ultimately time would tell. And let's hope after the development of these places authorities would finally turn their eyes to the older cities and resorts and make them better, so that the majority of the rakyat who reside there now do not leave those places where their forebears had worked so hard to build.

szehoong

September 21st, 2005, 06:07 AM

I see that govt set up public universities out of kl is more on political reasons rather than other reasons.i.e as in terengganu n pekan, pahang.

I also dont agree that economic reasons can turn off private sectors from setting up in smaller cities. Education base is not just to cater for the locals, but also for a region, regardless of its population. Miri shows a good example of attracting international university, though it is a small population base. Tronoh has a UTP, while Kampar ll soon get UTAR. Its all bow down to how the local govt. attracts them, by means of power incentives n authority support.

Yes......true that politics played a big part in setting up universities out of big towns. And it is very true that economics alone isn't the only factor but it is indeed the main factor ;) But of course no one can deny that local student population are usually the main target of these private education institutions thus a large of an affluent population had to be considered.

Although Miri isn't a big town but its proximity to Brunei does played a big role in Curtin's selection. Furthermore, the Sarawak state govt had been pro-active in attracting univerisities to its shores. Curtin's reputation itself could be a magnet to attract more Sabahans and Sarawakians if not those from the peninsular as it is definitely cheaper and nearer to home than Curtin's main campus in Australia :D

Just as I've stated above and that you've mentioned, lesser red tapes and a friendly and supportive local govt too played a big role in university selection of its campus ground. But still everything boils down to economics. Most private ( or should I say semi-private :D ) campus such as UTAR and UTP are located out of urban centres is not because of just the environment and cost of living but also because of the availability of landbank and the cost of it. UTAR is in Kampar due to a generous land donation and other incentives by the Perak govt. UTP is of the same reason too and the land required by UTP is huge so setting it up in the Klang Valley isn't very economically viable. Not that Petronas can't afford it but it too had to answer to shareholders as well as its role to support the govt's political call to locate as many universities out of Klang Valley as possible. So in UTP's case, it is a win-win situation ;)

Kuantan is a perfect place to study as i believe. It bring down the cost of student expenses because of the cheaper cost of living. It also provides a good balance environment to study; vibrant city with nice beaches n adventurous jungles. The town has all the basic needs that would sufficient to conclude it is viable to set up. I believe what really turn off the private sectors is that these private sectors hav the problem of attracting students into smaller cities, that are widely unknown to many malaysians. Its about malaysian mindset... We tend to believe smaller town = dead town, and hence we cant enjoy study life to the fullest. Its very obvious not just in education, but also in job market.

Therefore, i would like to c our govt. to push more developments on these potential cities. It is not balanced as u believed. It does expand, but the pace is very slow. The growth is too slow to keep it competitive as other bigger cities.

And it does not benefit the country as a whole. Over dependence to a certain cities ll cause imbalance of nation wealth sharing. :)

Again like you've mentioned above, not all the problem lies with the fed govt or MOE. The local govt played a very important role too. Then comes economics which is an even larger determining factor. Sometimes the land (cost & availability) factor are offsetted by logistics too. Smaller towns tend to have lesser infrastructure such as a reliable broadband connection and residential options for students. Thus, the universities have to build hostels or any form of in-campus accomodation and this added to the cost of building. And to add to the problem, not everyone is happy living in-campus and smaller towns simply do not have the mass of residential for rental. Anyway most universities which provide residentials too do not have enough places most of the times and they are often catering only to those in the 1st year or so ;)

Smaller towns too are turn-offs for the students which I think are a bigger decision-maker than their parents. Students need to socialised and sometimes have fun. Smaller towns do not offer much excitement. Heck......even when I study in Auckland, many asked me is it boring there as to them New Zealand=BORING & Sheeps :D To these boarding students, I do not blamed em as they are away from their family and regular friends so they need to socialised & have fun once in a while. I have friends whom have studied in university towns overseas such as Fredericton in Nove Scotia, Canada and they complained a lot! A couple of em even returned to Malaysia to continue in a local Uni! :D So it is not so of a mindset but also in terms of practicality and social life. ;)

Bear in mind that big cities like KL, JB, Kuching, Melaka and Penang are well-off even without further pushing em by the govt. It is the people which kept going to these cities and there is nothing the govt could do about it. IN many developed countries, even large cities are the envy of residents of smaller towns and are often imbalance. Switzerland for example had Zurich & Geneva while France have Lyon & Paris. New Zealand had Auckland only. Malaysia is too small land-wise and population-wise to support many urban centres and to have these super-towns as there are simply not enough population to inhabit these towns. The govt thus can't spend all the money to beautify a 50,000 pop town while ignoring places like Klang Valley which holds a quarter of the country's population. :)

I know some of ya might say what about the 100,000 pax Putrajaya? Well....like I've mentioned earlier, Putrajaya acts more like a satellite city to KL or should I say more of a suburb to KL than a separate city. Putrajaya is where the govt is and we can't expect the same amount of money spent on a well-planned seat of govt to be spent on Muar for example. Sometimes we must not see small towns or kampungs as a bad thing. KLites in most festive seasons need to go out of town to go to such places. What would happen if towns such as Bidor starts to looked more like Subang Jaya? Isn't that ridiculous? Even the most developed and riches nations can't afford that and it doesn't make sense to do so ;)

szehoong

September 21st, 2005, 07:12 AM

Guys, the US is one of the worst-managed country in the whole world, so we shouldn't compare Malaysia to this big waste of a nation. It's humongous ecological footprint, like the usage and demand for natural resources, is totally unforgiveable. Is is also holding its descendents hostage by being in so much debt. We are blessed with natural resources, so if even resource-starving nations can be debt-free and have a sound and sustainable way to develop the country, I see no reason why Malaysia can't. We need to ensure that existing Malaysian cities and towns are transformed into showcases around the world where citizens are happy and proud, and shouldn't just build new ones at the expense of others. Many of you may be very pro-Putrajaya or other so-called new "showcase" developments. The fact that many forumers here feel discontented about state allocation of funds into their respective cities or jurisdictions show that people are not very content at the current distribution and fairness of the country's development. Again, one can't have a new gleaming city while the services and amenities in many other cities and towns are still lacking and sometimes virtually non-existent. for instance, how can we worry about traffic problems of Putrajaya when there is none when many other cities are currently choking with congested roads and highways? Priority my friends, Priority, that's what I'm trying to argue here. Cheers people! :)

Seriously, if not for Putrajaya or Langkawi (which I am not too sure why so many are so jealous of), our country would just be like any other country. Now with such a 'boring' country, how are we going to attract foreign money in particularly tourism? One must not deny that the Petronas Twin Towers and Putrajaya put Malaysia on the map and in the eyes of many investors. Only with these 'initial investments' can we only see the development of other towns and cities.

Langkawi for example is not entirely new. It is just being enhanced. So is Port Dickson, Pangkor, Redang and Cameron Highlands but Langkawi shone out the rest not because of its infrastructure nor that because of its duty-free status. If it is because of infra and dutyfree, Labuan should too :D. Langkawi's success is due to its ecological qualities that most islands on the Andaman Sea has. That is why the islands off Southern Thailand are such a magnet for film-makers. Langkawi too had the land needed for resort dev and because of that it outshoned Redang and Pangkor. Its crystal-clear sea beats PD and Desaru hands down. Langkawi are successful not just because the govt believe it would, the private sector too must have faith in it. The govt could only go as far as providing the infrastruture to the island and the regulations but the rest depends on the people. Labuan had the same level of attention from the fed govt but it failed because the private sectors shunned it due to its location. Even when repositioned as an offshore financial centre, it kinda failed too :( Location plays an important role ;)

Seriously, when Putrajaya first mooted, I was very skeptical of it. In fact there is this one time that I hated it because of the way the money are spent there. Over the time, I get to know and have friends working in Putrajaya and I know how essential it is to spurred the economy during the onslaught of the Asian Financial Crisis. It also give KL downtown the much needed 'space' and relieve. Anyone whom is a longtime resident of KL would certainly remember the traffic jam used to start at 4:30pm when the govt servants goes back home for the day. Then who could forget the numerous road closures and traffic jams during events like NAM Summit (before the Putrajaya Convention Ctr are completed) . The OIC Summit a few months later which are held in Putrajaya demonstrated otherwise. So you see.....apart from the monetary aspects from the sale of the ex-govt premises, Putrajaya give a much relieved space to KL. Did you all know too that the up and coming SMART project are built on ex-govt land as well? ;)

There are funds which had been allocated to Putrajaya's development from the very start and like I've mentioned earlier, there is a schedule as to what should be built and when. So the monorail is part and parcel of Putrajaya. Other cities and towns have no such planning and they should. From what I know, the local govt are passive and most of these towns are located off major urban areas so the priority isn't there. I do not blame many forumers here from out of town to feel discontent because of the rapid dev in the Klang Valley. Most are certainly not exposed to smaller towns and cities in many developed countries. All are the same. Many see nice LED traffic lights and they want that in their hometown. Many see 4 lanes highways and they want those as well. But they do not realised that DBKL is many times richer than their hometown council - and that is without fed govt help. Smaller towns do not have the population to support such infrastructure and to generate enough local tax money for development. This is a worldwide thing.

My many years as a Malaysian forumer have exposed me to the many antics of forumers. Penangites gets the prize for the most complains :D (dun get me wrong on this as I have many-many Penangites friends!) Seriously......if you are from Penang, you would realised that in Penang, even the felling of a single tree gets 20 NGOs and dozens of letters to the newspapers. Not that I condone the felling of trees but that is just an example :D Govt projects like PORR, BORR and even the Penang Bridge gets criticism. No development also gets criticism! :D Everything got criticised! :lol: Sometimes I think it is a good thing as such level of development and social attention by the locals there actually saved many architectural beauties. Unlike KL that gems like the Pavillion Theatre, Madras Theatre and Bukit Bintang Girls School got torn down without much protest :ohno:

So I think forumers here should have an openmind about developments in Malaysia and not always think that our govt is spending everything in Klang Valley (yea....Putrajaya included!). Go to rural Terengganu and you could see gigantic and beautiful schools for the kampung folks which facilities and its building quality could anytime rival the likes of Sek Aminuddin Baki, VI, Seri Bintang, St. Johns and even private schools like Sekolah Sri Garden! This is no joke........ ;)

Vince

September 21st, 2005, 08:49 AM

Not jealous of those places Sze! nothing to be jealous since the populations there are so small!! Just want every Malaysian to enjoy the same or not similar kinds of facilities. Moreover, I don't live in JB right now (or Muar where I was born). Mostly in KL or Vancouver... ;)

James Foong

September 21st, 2005, 06:39 PM

Sometimes the land (cost & availability) factor are offsetted by logistics too. Smaller towns tend to have lesser infrastructure such as a reliable broadband connection and residential options for students. Thus, the universities have to build hostels or any form of in-campus accomodation and this added to the cost of building. And to add to the problem, not everyone is happy living in-campus and smaller towns simply do not have the mass of residential for rental. Anyway most universities which provide residentials too do not have enough places most of the times and they are often catering only to those in the 1st year or so ;)
Smaller towns too are turn-offs for the students which I think are a bigger decision-maker than their parents. Students need to socialised and sometimes have fun. Smaller towns do not offer much excitement.

From monorail to putrajaya - petronas - state fund - and now education, what's next?? :D This thread is getting expanding out of title scope, but its fun! Btw, I like your explanation because its leave a lot of thoughts n informative too. :)

From my personal gathering of feedbacks, most do really love to study at somewhere out of kl. Kl is more suits for law and business school and more likely it suit for pampered children n wealthy children as well, because everything they want can be found there. The issue of socializing n hv fun makes not much difference in which town u r in, except those in isolated place. Main town like Kuantan is not really a dull town. It is a relatively hectic town. Excitement is your own preferences, and hence not everyone has the same preferences. While kl is the centre of entertainment and shopping, Kuantan does have, but at a lesser scale. What kl doesn’t have is conductive study life as in Kuantan. My friends whose had been studied there had expressed their likeness toward Kuantan not because of the sweet memory, but because it is a place that make you feel fascinating in a learning environment. At first, they were thought they were going to live in hell, but in the end, they found heaven. It turns out that ktn has night life too, but not just necessary at discos or star buck. It offers more than that, and u even doesn’t hv to pay for having fun. Most of the Kuantanites hang out during the night in its beach, teluk chempedak or around the riverside. It is more vibrant than PD night life, and you can find more mat salleh on the beach as well. Their local cafes are crowded past midnite, and Ktn is the only place you can find beachside McD that’s open till midnite. Frankly speaking, only serious businessmen know what smaller towns like Kuantan can offers. It is the mindset of Malaysians because we never bother to know better of these lesser known towns. We ought to turn it down quickly before we know the truth. And it same goes to KB n miri.

If you say smaller town does not hv the mass of residential for rental, would curtin and petronas invest in the existing towns? It would be uncommon to find a university that doesn’t provide adequate campus housing for first year students. It is a necessary basic component a uni must provide. Education centers can be a booming business for a particular place. Properties around will rise, new housing ll emerged, local businesses ll increase, bigger local community. All these contribute to the development of the town. It gives a quick boost. None can deny as happen to Kampar, which is definitely smaller than state capitals.

We tend to believe smaller towns are always ll be small town. There are many opportunity to develop some of these towns into the main satellite cities to kl, regardless of its population. If u hv develop a place n it becomes an attractive place, would people move in to work n live? Main cities like Penang, Melaka, JB and Ipoh had been long time benefited from years of development because of our past history, mining, and close proximity to kl. Because of the availability of better opportunities, people keep going into the cities and of course, y shld govt. stops this? But, the current situation we have now is imbalance. Australia, with its similar small population like us can have equal developments, regardless of its geographical location of the cities. Sydney, perth, melbourne, brisbane, adelaide n gold coast are all dotted around the nation. In Malaysia, big cities are all located on the one sided peninsular. As these main cities continue to grow, east coast cities are losing its competitiveness edge. Is there a balance?

The forumers here do not mean they want govt. to develop all the towns, kampung with billions of ringgit. What they are trying to ask is to provide more urgency to places that really need political power to push for higher developments, and present sustainable developments for the benefit of all. The European cities you referred are not fair to here. These nations are developed nations. Their locals’ demographic are self sufficient to let itself sustain n grow. :)

szehoong

September 22nd, 2005, 12:16 PM

From monorail to putrajaya - petronas - state fund - and now education, what's next?? :D This thread is getting expanding out of title scope, but its fun! Btw, I like your explanation because its leave a lot of thoughts n informative too. :)

Yea....hehehe.....we're really getting out of topic here but it is fun and informative. :okay:

From my personal gathering of feedbacks, most do really love to study at somewhere out of kl. Kl is more suits for law and business school and more likely it suit for pampered children n wealthy children as well, because everything they want can be found there. The issue of socializing n hv fun makes not much difference in which town u r in, except those in isolated place. Main town like Kuantan is not really a dull town. It is a relatively hectic town. Excitement is your own preferences, and hence not everyone has the same preferences. While kl is the centre of entertainment and shopping, Kuantan does have, but at a lesser scale. What kl doesn’t have is conductive study life as in Kuantan. My friends whose had been studied there had expressed their likeness toward Kuantan not because of the sweet memory, but because it is a place that make you feel fascinating in a learning environment. At first, they were thought they were going to live in hell, but in the end, they found heaven. It turns out that ktn has night life too, but not just necessary at discos or star buck. It offers more than that, and u even doesn’t hv to pay for having fun. Most of the Kuantanites hang out during the night in its beach, teluk chempedak or around the riverside. It is more vibrant than PD night life, and you can find more mat salleh on the beach as well. Their local cafes are crowded past midnite, and Ktn is the only place you can find beachside McD that’s open till midnite. Frankly speaking, only serious businessmen know what smaller towns like Kuantan can offers. It is the mindset of Malaysians because we never bother to know better of these lesser known towns. We ought to turn it down quickly before we know the truth. And it same goes to KB n miri.

Yes.....studying in smaller towns do have its good points and I have to admit that because that is the reason why some people choose universities in smaller towns to study anyway. But that is not always the case as urban areas are still the preference of the majority.

I am not saying that being 'excited' over things in urban areas would be good for studies but it is the urban environment that sometimes teaches us things that no university could have taught us. Things like how to interact with anything in the urban context as well as how to come with city stress. Such experience is crucial especially for rural kids......actually sometimes even for urban folks ( you know ....those USJ kids these day whom had never ventured out into the unknown world of KL :D ). Urban institutions prepare our young so as not to be so 'suaku' when out into the working world. Preparation for culture shock is part and parcel of tertiary education ;)

I must say that I am not the 'disco type' of guy and I am the type whom like a quiet environment. Yes.....I do fall right into your 'friends' type whom like the tranquil and serenity of Kuantan. In fact I am quite envious of my friends at University Sabah Malaysia because the uni boast a beautiful beach! :D

But what I am trying to say is actually not only from the students point of view but also these institutions. Smaller towns simply are expensive for most of these private institutions to set up (of course Curtin and Petronas have deep pockets!). Logistics is also a nightmare. Large urban area have everything an education institution needs thus lessen the operating cost. So from the viewpoint of the institutions, urban area make more sense. Then there is the problem of industrial training where students need to exposed themselves to the working world and what better place to be other than big urban centres where there are many industrial choices?

The feedback that I've got from friends and relatives whom had studied in 'rural universities' is that while the learning environment is condusive, problems occured when one needs to get out of the uni once in a while. Then there are also problems of finding a suitable industry training which in most case are located in larger cities. Sometimes reference materials are not always available and that they are expensive in most cases because of the logistics involved in transportation. ;)

If you say smaller town does not hv the mass of residential for rental, would curtin and petronas invest in the existing towns? It would be uncommon to find a university that doesn’t provide adequate campus housing for first year students. It is a necessary basic component a uni must provide. Education centers can be a booming business for a particular place. Properties around will rise, new housing ll emerged, local businesses ll increase, bigger local community. All these contribute to the development of the town. It gives a quick boost. None can deny as happen to Kampar, which is definitely smaller than state capitals.

yes. a private institution does bring prosperity to a small town and I am sure Kampar would benefit from UTAR. But how many UTARs or UTP or Curtin could there be? Not all institutions could afford what Curtin, MCA and Petronas fork out for their Universities ya know? :D It would be good that a university (like I said in my previous posts) could be located out of town as what the govt did. But some university which offer certain courses like law, economics, architecture and arts students would benefit more if it is located in larger urban areas. I think it wouldn't matter if you're into medicine or engineering as the university is self-sufficient thus the need for a supporting cummunity isn't that great.

Yes....all unis provide 1st year accomodation (like I've said in my previous post) but what about 2nd year or 3rd year students? Acommodation is a nightmare for education institutions and only those with deep pockets such as Petronas could solved such problem despite having their campus at Tronoh. Miri had the benefit of a larger town area thus are sufficient to housed the students. Kampar....well.....we have to see if the residentials are gonna be completed in time for the uni or not :D

For most parents, they would certainly wanna exposed their children to urban environment esp the out-of-towners. When I was in college, my class which consist of 60% rural folks, faced immense culture shock despite them being Malaysians. The KL folks take it easy and cool about it and seriously.....it takes time for those with such sulture shock to adjust to city life and it could very well affect their studies. On the other hand, urban folks do not have to adjust much when studying in a out-of-town university but of course there would be complains every now and then :D

We tend to believe smaller towns are always ll be small town. There are many opportunity to develop some of these towns into the main satellite cities to kl, regardless of its population. If u hv develop a place n it becomes an attractive place, would people move in to work n live? Main cities like Penang, Melaka, JB and Ipoh had been long time benefited from years of development because of our past history, mining, and close proximity to kl. Because of the availability of better opportunities, people keep going into the cities and of course, y shld govt. stops this? But, the current situation we have now is imbalance. Australia, with its similar small population like us can have equal developments, regardless of its geographical location of the cities. Sydney, perth, melbourne, brisbane, adelaide n gold coast are all dotted around the nation. In Malaysia, big cities are all located on the one sided peninsular. As these main cities continue to grow, east coast cities are losing its competitiveness edge. Is there a balance?

Well....the govt isn't stopping smaller towns to grow. ONe can't simply pour millions of fed govt funds into a town infra and expect it to grow. The people and the attraction factor had to be there. If you remember history well, the British we're poring insane amount of money in developing cities like Taiping, George Town, Klang and Kuala Kangsar which are the earlier cities which had prospered. Upstart towns like Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh are ignored until it had gained prominence thru tin prosperity only then the authority noticed. Thus, KL lacked the early town planning that most metropolitan has and that very well explained the chaotic layout of the city today. Now can anyone see that even without the benefit of govt help that a city could developed?

Okay....now let us all look at a city that the govt poured money in and that doesn't quite made it: Shah Alam :D

Only in recent years that Shah Alam had 'made it' because it is now part of the urban sprawl that KL spawned. Had Shah Alam be any further, it would be a dead town as well. ;) So now we all could see that money is not the factor but the economics that generate the towns and cities that played an inportant role in the lifeline of a city. Seriously.....there is no point poring in lots of money into smaller towns that have seen better days. The young are simply not interested in these towns anymore and there is nothing there as a pull factor. Our govt is trying very hard to revive some of these towns but one just can't have the govt doing everything as there are too many towns around. Even in many developed countries, ghost towns are everywhere.

The forumers here do not mean they want govt. to develop all the towns, kampung with billions of ringgit. What they are trying to ask is to provide more urgency to places that really need political power to push for higher developments, and present sustainable developments for the benefit of all. The European cities you referred are not fair to here. These nations are developed nations. Their locals’ demographic are self sufficient to let itself sustain n grow. :)

Yes......some towns are benefitting from all these others are simply surviving on their own pretty well even without the fed govt's help. The state govt had an important role to play. Kuala Perlis for example is pale in comparison to Lumut and Sitiawan as a gateway town for their respective island resorts. So is this the fed govt's fault? I would blame it on local authorities.

I am not too sure why it isn't fair to mention these developed nations here as even as developed as they are, so called 'balanced development' couldn't be carried out. I was hoping that you bring Australia into the picture :D

Australia despite the population size, is a huge country. Urban centres are important in every corner of the country. Even then, the 'heaviest' development are concentrated on the southeast of the island continent where Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are. To the north we have Darvin and Brisbane which is very far from each other. The most remote city had to be Perth which is the only city in the Western Australia Territory that is very much larger than our country. That means if it we're to be in the Malaysian context, Sabah and Sarawak should only be having one city! :D Then only we could have that 'balanced development' since we do not have that many towns and cities to look after :D Just as what Brisbane is to Queensland, we could also merged all our east coast cities into one. Then KL would have a formidable rival or satellite cities like in Australia. :D

Seriously lah......Australia is a very bad example as it had a totally different geographic feature if compared to Malaysia although it might have a similar population. There are many dead towns in Australia but in Malaysia, you hardly heard of one (there are but very very few). The Australian govt had been pouring money into creating Canberra since a century ago and it is still not a thriving community yet. Perhaps Malaysians should start to learn that fed govt money isn't everything when comes to urban development. It is the people factor that makes a town a success.

If you would like to know the many examples closer to home, here goes:

Thailand = Bangkok
Philippines = Metro Manila
Indonesia = Java (particularly Jakarta)
Vietnam = Ho Chi Minh City (despite the amount of promo the govt did for Hanoi)
Bangladesh = Dhaka
Pakistan = Karachi (despite the amt of attention given to Islamabad)

Even in richer countries like S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan, developments are mainly concentrated in areas like Seoul & Busan, Taipei & Taichung and the Tokyo & Osaka corridor respectively. See....there are no such thing as a balanced development all around the world. ;)

Frankly speaking, I could see how the Malaysian govt thru its GLCs are pushing these towns on. Proton had chosen Tg. Malim while Petronas did its fair share in Bintulu, Miri, Kemaman and Tronoh. Bentong is benefitting from Bukit Tinggi and a new access road to Camerons. Kulim is benefitting from its high-tech industry. Frankly, not many govts in the world are doing this. Of course they can't just be developing the rural areas and leave Klang Valley to rot. They have to be objective and since a quarter of the population and it is the 'showcase' to the world, Klang Valley had to be on par with many urban centres around the world. Yea......such investments seems not balanced but if you're in the govt's shoes, it is money well spent ;)

James Foong

September 22nd, 2005, 07:20 PM

Well....the govt isn't stopping smaller towns to grow. ONe can't simply pour millions of fed govt funds into a town infra and expect it to grow. The people and the attraction factor had to be there. If you remember history well, the British we're poring insane amount of money in developing cities like Taiping, George Town, Klang and Kuala Kangsar which are the earlier cities which had prospered. Upstart towns like Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh are ignored until it had gained prominence thru tin prosperity only then the authority noticed. Thus, KL lacked the early town planning that most metropolitan has and that very well explained the chaotic layout of the city today. Now can anyone see that even without the benefit of govt help that a city could develop?

I understand your points here as you have keep reminding us in other posting. I appreciate your efforts to explain to many forumers here, as well to me. What I would like to c here is a more proactive efforts from the central govt. toward poorer states or towns that are losing its competitiveness. Yes, I can presumably think that local govt. shld take the blames because they failed in many tests. But, we got to c in broader context. These poor states are depriving for developments for a very long time. Be it their own fault or not, we cannot leave them behind too far away. They are part of this nation building. And hence fed govt. must be able to generate more economy to these states, while reducing attention to rich states that are self sufficient like penang, johor, n perak. What we need now is a ‘temporary’ transition of development from rich into the poor areas. This is to ensure a more sustainable grow for the whole nation. That’s what I meant as balanced development. :)

The poor states like east coast have a dilemma. Like somebody commented on net, ‘its people are too entrenching in their traditional ways of life, its beaches, its rivers and its jungle.’ Not that these in themselves are bad but when all factors combined it seems to pull development (both material wise as well as spiritual wise) away from there. It is therefore, the central govt. must step into and fix the gap here. They need to change the way the state govts handle the state resources and know-how to exploit it to the fullest. And, without central gov full support, development ll be just promise developments.

Yes......some towns are benefitting from all these others are simply surviving on their own pretty well even without the fed govt's help. The state govt had an important role to play. Kuala Perlis for example is pale in comparison to Lumut and Sitiawan as a gateway town for their respective island resorts. So is this the fed govt's fault? I would blame it on local authorities.

I would agree on that. While it is easier to say perlis underdevelop because it is a tiny state with small population n resources, it does not make any different being a large state either too. Pahang n sabah are rich in natural resources (logging, mining, tourism, agricultural), but the two are regarded as poor states. The key problem here is distribution of wealth, or should I say misuse of state wealth? If perlis has a responsible and far forward govt, it can be develop far more superior than larger states. What they shld concentrate is to go into the niche market, a specialized industry like in fishing, farming, biomedical, and education. Boost tourism is a short term measure, and if it is a success, can you sustain its tourism success for a long time? Specializing in certain industry will give perlis a better edge over the rest. It is the matter of time when to start. Mr. Shahidan is seemed to be more concern towards smaller unrelated issue than meddle with its own state issues. With his past brilliant thoughts, I wont be surprised if he may even propose to merge perlis and kedah to compete with penang! ................juz kiddin. :)

Just like you said it’s the people factor that makes a town a success, I believe perlis too has the ingredients to do it. ;)

globocentric

September 24th, 2005, 01:21 PM

You are right size doesnt really matter. Huge African Countries such as Sieera Leone has a huge diamond reserve. However, it is the poorest country in the world. Reason?Different part of the country is runned by different warlords and the revenues from the resources dont go to the governemnt. The underground economy in that country is very large and it only benefits several individuals. Small places have it's advantages too. It is easier to manage and you dont have to invest a lot in infrastructure compared to larger states.Singapore took full advantage of that and i hope Perlis can find a way to emulate that. A country that is entirely dependent on natural resources nowadays is doomed for failure. Just look at what will happen to Brunei in 30 or 50 years time.

James Foong

September 24th, 2005, 02:27 PM

Mayb brunei is start thinkin of building 'dubai' asian version.

szehoong

September 27th, 2005, 05:04 AM

I understand your points here as you have keep reminding us in other posting. I appreciate your efforts to explain to many forumers here, as well to me. What I would like to c here is a more proactive efforts from the central govt. toward poorer states or towns that are losing its competitiveness. Yes, I can presumably think that local govt. shld take the blames because they failed in many tests. But, we got to c in broader context. These poor states are depriving for developments for a very long time. Be it their own fault or not, we cannot leave them behind too far away. They are part of this nation building. And hence fed govt. must be able to generate more economy to these states, while reducing attention to rich states that are self sufficient like penang, johor, n perak. What we need now is a ‘temporary’ transition of development from rich into the poor areas. This is to ensure a more sustainable grow for the whole nation. That’s what I meant as balanced development. :)

The poor states like east coast have a dilemma. Like somebody commented on net, ‘its people are too entrenching in their traditional ways of life, its beaches, its rivers and its jungle.’ Not that these in themselves are bad but when all factors combined it seems to pull development (both material wise as well as spiritual wise) away from there. It is therefore, the central govt. must step into and fix the gap here. They need to change the way the state govts handle the state resources and know-how to exploit it to the fullest. And, without central gov full support, development ll be just promise developments.

Actually the fed govt can't be the SuperHero all the time - fixing gaps here and there. When the money or aid that comes from the fed govt, the state govt had to prioritised on how to spend it. Our current govt is very pro-active in rural dev but I do not see much change from the state side as far as development is concerned. Even if the state are well-governed, the district govt sometimes are to be blamed for too.

When it comes to the distribution of wealth and development, the fed govt could only assist to a certain extent. This is because of the politics involved. Every state govt wants to do things its own ways so there is no stopping em unless there is a particular sector where the policy are directly under the perogrative of the fed govt.

I would agree on that. While it is easier to say perlis underdevelop because it is a tiny state with small population n resources, it does not make any different being a large state either too. Pahang n sabah are rich in natural resources (logging, mining, tourism, agricultural), but the two are regarded as poor states. The key problem here is distribution of wealth, or should I say misuse of state wealth? If perlis has a responsible and far forward govt, it can be develop far more superior than larger states. What they shld concentrate is to go into the niche market, a specialized industry like in fishing, farming, biomedical, and education. Boost tourism is a short term measure, and if it is a success, can you sustain its tourism success for a long time? Specializing in certain industry will give perlis a better edge over the rest. It is the matter of time when to start. Mr. Shahidan is seemed to be more concern towards smaller unrelated issue than meddle with its own state issues. With his past brilliant thoughts, I wont be surprised if he may even propose to merge perlis and kedah to compete with penang! ................juz kiddin. :)

Just like you said it’s the people factor that makes a town a success, I believe perlis too has the ingredients to do it. ;)

Yes......every state and town had the ingredients to do so! :okay: But the local authorities and the state govt had an important role to play. Every development had to have a ful endorsement and support of the local govt/council. Red tapes and silly regulations should be eliminated. Hence....there should even be a state initiative to spurhead certain development. ;)

We often see Sabahan complains but look at the Sarawakians! They are actually DOING SOMETHING about it. Look at how Miri and Kuching prosper! State initiative like boostin tourism and attracting foreign and local unis there are bearing fruits. :happy: