Kl S Congestion Crisis Do We Have The Political Will To Fix It

---

 
Kuala Lumpur, a city with ambitions of becoming a world-class metropolis, faces two major challenges: endless traffic congestion and a reluctance to implement congestion charges.
In fact, the construction of numerous highways and flyovers with the intention of easing congestion has had the opposite effect—KL continues to suffer from massive gridlocks. More highways have only led to more vehicles, making the city centre even more crowded.
To tackle this, continuous efforts have been made to expand the public transport network, providing alternatives for commuters who wish to avoid being stuck in traffic.
First LRT line
I remember the first LRT line well, connecting Jalan Sultan Ismail to Ampang.
Opened in 1996 as part of the STAR system, this first line was built in two phases.
Phase 1 ran from Ampang to Jalan Sultan Ismail and housed 14 stations.
Phase 2, launched in 1998, added 11 stations between Chan Sow Lin and Sri Petaling, as well as Jalan Sultan Ismail and Sentul Timur.
This was later followed by a larger capacity and driverless LRT1, linking Kelana Jaya to Gombak.
In August 2003, the city centre monorail line, meant to meet inner city mobility needs, was introduced.
The elevated system spanning 8.6 km with 11 stations between the Jalan Tun Razak/Jalan Pahang junction and KL Sentral, provide useful, quick and easy access deep into the city centre.
Initially, these three public transit lines, serving both the long haul and inner city journeys, offered some relief for commuters. At the time, there was already talk on imposing congestion charges.
However, the car lobbyists were too strong, and the city centre’s lucrative car parking business was too profitable to disrupt.
Adding to the problem has been the uncontrolled rise in private vehicles, including those passing through KL, from North to south and east to west, necessitating the building of more elevated highways in and around KL.
Equally lucrative has been the award of government contracts for expanding the public transport system, with projects such as MRT1, MRT2, LRT2, KTM Komuter and LRT3.
The government has spent billions on these facilities, yet discussions on building more elevated highways and another line—MRT3—have continued, supposedly to “connect the missing dots”.
My estimate is that KL’s public transport system now has the capacity to handle over one million passengers daily. This should be sufficient to accommodate drivers who would otherwise be affected by congestion charges—if they were ever implemented.
So why the reluctance?
The idea of a congestion charge is not new, but there are many vested interests that are opposed to it. The government appears hesitant and uncertain about its implementation.
In my view, this translates to a lack of political will.
The hesitation is a serious issue for KL and has resulted in traffic problem worsening every year, causing unnecessary delays and economic losses.
The common excuse given is that the public transport system’s capacity is still insufficient. However, that argument doesn’t hold up when actual ridership data is looked at.
MRT1 and MRT2, for instance, are operating far below their full capacity. LRT3, which will add further capacity, is in the final stage of construction.
Authorities are reluctant to enforce congestion charges for fear of a public backlash. There is concern that frustrated drivers may turn their anger into protest votes in the next election.
Leadership and decisiveness
This fear is unfounded. In fact, by avoiding the issue, the government only weakens its credibility and authority. Leaders who refuse to take decisive action risk being perceived as weak and ineffective.
For how much longer must KL endure daily its traffic gridlock?
Further expansions to the public transport system alone will not solve the problem unless private vehicle use is also restricted. At the same time, public transport ridership won’t increase if people can still drive into the city without consequences.
The congestion charge must be implemented immediately to control traffic flow before the situation worsens further.
However, this measure must be accompanied by:
reducing parking spaces in the city centreeliminating street parkingraising parking fees significantly to discourage driving into the city.Without these complementary measures, the traffic system will not function effectively.
High cost of congestion
Authorities must stop favouring private vehicle owners and car park operators. There are more important considerations—the economic and social costs of daily congestion.
Traffic congestion doesn’t just inconvenience drivers; it affects workers, businesses, and city residents who waste hours stuck in traffic, especially during peak hours.
I predict that a congestion charge would reduce the number of vehicles on the road and push more people toward using public transport, which is already available, affordable, and has enough capacity.
Cities like London and New York have successfully demonstrated that a well-developed public transport system, combined with congestion charges, can reduce urban traffic.
Wasting time, money, and energy in traffic gridlock is counterproductive.
Without a congestion charge, KL’s traffic nightmare will persist. If so, even the best public transport system will not eliminate gridlock to achieve its full potential. - FMT
The author can be reached at: [email protected]
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---