Congestion Charges for KL

24 Mar 2007 | Current Affairs | by | 5 Komen

It was during my time in London that the authorities introduced Congestion Charges. It was successful, but its recent extension has caused some controversies. In fact, the paradox was that it was so successful that the revenues obtained from congestion charges fell short of its initial projection.

I don’t think anyone opposes any move to reduce traffic jams in KL. But I don’t think it should start next year, as proposed by DBKL. Malaysian motorists already have to bear with high car prices, a recent increase in petrol prices and tolls on many roads. At the same time, our public transportation still falls short: Putra LRT is quite efficient – but it’s already facing overcapacity. KTM Komuter is inefficient. Integration between the different systems is still far from satisfactory. Other cities that have some form of road pricing or another such as London and Singapore has a more extensive public transport than Malaysia.

There is no denying that there has been some improvements. RapidKL has led to better integration between Putra, Star and the bus system. RapidKL has also improved the bus services. Furthermore, the government is planning an extension on the current system, to be completed in 2010.

I would suggest that any congestion charges to be introduced following 2010 with better integration and a more efficient KTM Komuter to boot. Otherwise Malaysian motorists would suffer yet again. Hopefully, the congestion charges should be administered by RapidKL (and not another private concessionaire!) to be channeled towards more investment in the public transportation system.

  • 153

    Good point. Before the government introduces any kind of taxes that claims to reduce negative externalities—in this case, road congestion—it needs to make sure that there is a strong case for it to work.

    As you’ve argued, motorist often have no choice but to use the roads in KL.

    But petrol subsidy is a different matter. A reduction in subsidy for petrol would almost surely make people consume less—and the government should publish this data—thus, making it a good move economically. (And lower subsidy x less petrol consumed = more savings for the Malaysian taxpayers!)

  • http://www.niknazmi.com Nik Nazmi

    153,

    I agree that over the long run, petrol subsidies should be removed. But this must be done gradually, by managing petrol revenues transparently and cushioning the impact on the poorest Malaysians through various means.

  • http://discussionbox.wordpress.com/ mich

    hmmm, how to do the “managing petrol revenues” transparently? Announcing the numbers?
    I hope by cushioning the impact on poorest Malaysians does not mean by that we heavily subsidize them (we are not turning into socialist country, are we?). IMHO I always think that by creating more jobs is the best way to help the poor…

  • rocky

    The public transport utilisation rate is also dismally low (about 15%) although this is difficult to believe when you’re routinely wedged under a bloke’s smelly underarm in a train during rush hour.

    Would the introduction of congestion charges put further strain on what is already a creaky public transport infrastructure?

  • http://niknazmi budak loreng

    nek2 gaji polis smpai jd kaya raya.gaji loreng ni ble lg.jnji jer lbih..PM jd mnteri pertahanan ckp bkn men lg.dh jd PM lupa daratan..

Beli Buku Saya

Mendepani Zaman Moving Forward
Beli Buku Saya: Mendepani Zaman - Melayu untuk Abad ke-21 RM24.90 dari Kinibooks
Buy My Book: Moving Forward - Malays for the 21st Century RM24.90 from Kinibooks

Blogroll

Main