I went to California in June to attend my son\’s college graduation and therefore missed PJ\’s City Day. But, I did learn about one set of criterion that makes good cities: a very good public transportation system.

On the way to San Francisco, I took occasion to visit an American Seminary in Los Angeles to explore the courses and research opportunities they offered for post-doctoral work. This article will explore my hands-on experience of the what and why of the good public transportation

I experienced in the Los Angeles area and then reflect a little on what it will take for the capitals of Malaysia to offer similar and equally good public transportation. A developed country or a modern city must have first world quality of public transportation systems.

First, let me relate my actual experience of travels using the public transport system within the LA area. Having arrived at the LA Airport about 7.00pm, I did not want to take too much time to get to my living quarters. Neither, did I want to be forced into the only option of taking a cab or limousine to the Pasadena area which is at least a 30 minutes drive away from the airport, along the Highway 210.

I therefore had basically two other options: the train system or the Shuttle Van system.

The train system would have only cost me US$3.00 for an all day one-way unlimited travel and it would have got me to my ultimate location, within an hour and half or so. But then, I did not want to risk traveling to an unknown and yet unfamiliar terrain merely via the trains with having to change trains at least at three different stations.

\"\"

So, I opted for what is called their \”Super Shuttle\”. Two such group travel services are offered and operated by two different companies. The two companies offer almost similar services and I am not sure if one is better than the other but my host had recommended this particular one from the airport.

Basically they have pick-up points at each of the LA Airport\’s about five different arrival/departure terminals. They are conspicuously marked by different colors (all the different types of public services are all color-coded) and are always ready to receive passengers.

Once there at the terminal, simply go to the outside lane (not the inner most lanes as in KLIA for taxis and limousines) you meet their representative who asks where you are headed. Once he knows and records your request, you simply wait.

He radios the drivers and informs the particular ones about waiting passengers for different locations. Their system operates with single van drivers going to different pre-determined localities. Each van can accommodate about 7-8 passengers and their luggage. I am not sure if they have more than one operating to each locality; but probably so, as it takes at least one hour for the same driver to make one full circle.

A reliable system

After waiting about 25-30 minutes, the Pasadena Shuttle arrived. We had three passengers at this MAS flight exit terminal. We then circled at least one more round and picked up an additional passenger and were off to Pasadena. All passengers were dropped off, based on the drop-off locations that he keyed into the computer with a GPS system and a map of the area, and the distance we were going away from the airport.

The software practically defined his route based on the different coordinates and by the driver\’s own admission, \”they never fail you when you learn to blindly follow the route mapped\”. Sure enough we reached each destination, even when there was a road closure at the first drop off.

The driver stubbornly followed his map directions even when the local passenger couple tried to offer to show him a different route but shorter route to their own home!

Talk about how much we can learn to trust a truly reliable system. The driver should know; it is his livelihood. It cost US$28.00 without the voluntary tip.

\"\"

The next day I decided to take the metro bus to go from my location to the William Carrey University, also in Pasadena. Again I had two options of the bus or the train/metro. I chose the bus, as the terminal for travel was much closer by walk.

All the information I needed was available at the hotel I was staying at. Again for a base fare of US$1.25, I was able to reach my destination (including having to walk seven blocks). But the bus ride was very comfortable and the bus system is also connected to the metro/rail system for the same base fare.

The bus also had a pre-taped announcement of the streets before they were reached each destination. It was therefore simple and efficient for a visitor to know where to get off.

Finally, for my flight out of LA to the SF area, again I chose to ride the metro rail system. For another US$1.25, I was able to get to Union station in LA, and then had a choice to continue by train but with changes at two more locations; all at the same price, or to take a \”fly away\” bus to the LA airport for an additional US$3.00. I chose the latter.

Again after a 20- 25 minute wait, the next bus was there and we were on route to LAX, as they call it.

Lessons to learn

Now what did I learn from all of this local travel with good public transportation in the LA area? First, if we are serious about developing a first class culture of public services in Malaysia, at least for city and urban transportation, we have develop both; a comprehensive planning framework and we need to rely on the market-driven model to provide the service.

For instance, it does not take too much brilliance to see the lack of comprehensive planning and the dismal failure to deliver a good LRT system in KL, based on the older and inefficient \”privatization model\”.

\"\"

Currently none of the systems are electronically interconnected; let alone have ticketing systems that are inter-operable. Instead, for all public travelers, there are significant points of disconnect, which clearly spells bad, poor or incompetent planning.

There were obvious failures in both planning (at the level of intentions) and implementation (at the level of execution). One wonders if the primary objective of the \”project operators\” was only the commission for the securing of the purchase of the heavy expense items. Like a large number of \”privatized projects\”, the real agenda was \”piratized\” by wheelers and dealers for their own purposes and agendas.

Thus, much like the MATRADE building of infamy, (now quoted as a classic bad example by even the Auditor General) these projects too had to be \”bailed out\” by the Government after they were \”privatized\”.

I hope that both MOF and Khazanah teams learn from these bad cases and lessons and never repeat the mistakes. Maybe it is also time for the PAC to audit performance of public sector-owned private companies and bring them under the \”public audit responsibility\”.

Privatization was in theory designed to deliver better and cheaper services; not simply to enrich the contractors who then \”sell the contracts\”, or \”milk the cow\” for profits without any entrepreneurial or risk investments of their own.

Or alternatively, these risks are mitigated by the Government bailing these projects out, as has become the pattern in the past. Therefore, to study and learn from a more sophisticated transportation system, we only simply need to take the MAS flight to LA or go to San Francisco and learn to benchmark their public transportation system and slowly but surely implement them with excellence in Malaysia.

I believe that the new \”public transport infrastructure company\” is moving in the right direction, but surely there is much we can learn if we keep our eyes and ears open. While the services providers in each case can and should be privatized, the management and upkeep of the basic infrastructure should remain with the public sector, even if via public sector-owned companies to continue to subsidize the heavy investments.

We must improve our public delivery of transportation services especially with increasing costs of fuel and all the new promises made under the 9th Malaysia Plan.

Market competition

The second lesson is the obvious need for some modicum of market competition. If, entirely public sector driven transportation systems are poor because of monopolistic conditions, then surely even if the system is privatized, it is not going to improve without the impetus of market-driven competition.

Simply \”controlling the supply\” through licensing is not a good model; because there is no real price and services quality competition. As a result, for example, when you land in KLIA, you are immediately reminded that you are in a typical third world country, because \”touts\” come and whisper if you need a ride for a special price.

That is never an option in a developed market. This does not happen in LA or even in Singapore. Even at our own Low Cost Carrier terminal, my experience was that there was better market competition than that at the KLIA. Right there on the Air Asia flight in the home trip, they were willing to sell you their RM9.00 tickets and within 15 minutes of landing you are on the way to KL Sentral by their own \”fly-away\” red buses.

Within one hour you are at KL Sentral to take the LRT to near your home. For those who want taxi or limousine services, there are ample taxis waiting in line to service you, without any need for touts. Presumably these services are based on a free market system and at least there is an element of market choice for the consumers.

My question then is how is it that at the LCC, the operators can afford to only charge RM9.00 or even cheaper now for a ride into KL when services suppliers at the KLIA are protected but still do not appear to make enough profits at the more than RM70.00 rates?

Why such an inefficiency of operations or do we really need freer market operations?

\"\"

The third lesson from my LA learning is that as long as people are given \”choices\” they do feel they can make the right decision, based on their own constraints and limitations. That is what makes America great, I suppose.

There is almost unhindered free choice, although not always very good in other dimensions for the consumers. But, it is when we do not have such a choice that citizens do feel that public good is not being delivered at an expected quality or service level. Therefore, is it monopolistic conditions that make such public services delivery of poor quality, or can we better manage expectations if we allow for real competition?

The challenge to improve services is often lost witout competition and instead the focus is too much on making \”subsidized profits\” related to \”market connections\” rather than market competition.

Freer enterprise model

That somehow seems to be the story of much of our many \”failed\” Malaysian privatized services of yesteryears. And, in the transportation industry, until market competition of the Westport or PTP or Air Asia came along with their alternative business model for their services delivery, even MAS or the other government-linked companies were really complacent and equally inefficient!

Today, truly everyone can afford to fly and take vacations with Air Asia. And even when you choose to take the one hour bus ride to KL Sentral; there is an element of personal satisfaction for budget travelers, because the choice is theirs and not forced upon them. To me, that is one true mark of a developed nation.

Therefore back to the challenge of improving public transportation services in the Klang Valley which has now been assumed under the Pak Lah government, I wonder what has happened to the Klang Valley Authority and what is her new role today?

Public transportation must always remain a public good as it is in most cities of the world. That is as it should be, but we should also seriously consider alternative subsidized but competing models for services delivery?

What do I mean? For instance, take the feeder bus services for the LRT system in Klang Valley. Why not allow the buses to be owned by the government holding company but allow drivers to operate them for a rental fee?

One caveat though; two sets of competing services providers should be allowed on each route, but with smaller buses. Let them each plan and market their routes and provide the services.

Then the real competition will not be on market prices but rather on the quality of services provided. Coupled with creativity and imagination, these \”entrepreneur operators\” will succeed with better and improved services, hopefully. The market will drive out complacency, but only with real competition.

This journey on the LA public transportation system also taught me that the freer enterprise model has its merits and especially where the public good delivery depends on the heavy investments and subsidies from the government.

The relatively more competitive free market model may work better than a patronage system driven under a monopolistic model, as currently practiced in Malaysia. For that matter both sets of suppliers of public good services can even be bumiputra companies! But, good operational monitoring and strict market rules must be observed for the success of this modified market model.

The visit to LA was short but good; and for me personally the icing on the cake was the generous hospitality of my host, who apart from taking care of my intellectual interests also went the extra mile and took care of my lodging bills. I call that true and real organizational grace. Thank you Dr Richard Mouw for the kind courtesy that can only be repaid in heaven.

And Johann, we really enjoyed your graduation ceremony; especially to witness the informality of the \”whacky walk\” and to hear Tom Brokaw give the inspiring commencement address. Go for it Johann and please work faithfully to change the world! God Bless.