COSTLIER fuel prices should not deprive Sarawak of a good public transport system.

After all, the state is served by a vast network of roads, especially in major centres such as Kuching, Miri and Sibu and the other larger towns.

Talks of further development for the state sound rather inadequate if dinosaur buses still ply our city streets or pop up at bus stops every now and then.

Indeed, the fuel price increase has compelled many people to think of leaving their car keys at home and going for public transport. While this appears the logical thing to do to save on gas, it might not catch on as anticipated because the present public transport system offers little viability to support a serious private-to-public-transport switch.

In the state capital alone, it is an open secret that the people have long wished for a complete overhaul for the existing public transport system. Year in and year out, the same first generation ol’ faithfuls still totter alongside the latest vehicular models. Allowing this to continue only shows the importance of a good public transport and the impact it will have on urbanisation development are still being taken for granted.

The urgent need for a good public transport was amply exemplied on the night of June 10 when rumours of petrol stations nationwide planning a three-day strike to protest a reduced payment of commissions (to them by oil companies), spanked frenzied buying by private car owners at the pump.

Although it was just rumours, the panic they created should serve as a wakeup call. If the strike had taken place, public transport could have helped save the day in at least enabling commuters to still move around.

Public transport is more than just saving money on petrol — it also mirrors the identity of our society. The people of Kuching could only hang their heads in shame when visitors were forced to wait an hour at the bus stop … for a bumpy ride at that.

Frustration also arises when seemingly endless waiting for a bus to turn up leaves people with no choice but to cramp into a van sapu to get home after a long day at the office.

Astonishingly at present, Kuching city does not have a public transport system to speak about. That’s largely because the city buses do not conform to the basic criteria of a public transport.

By right, a public transport should adhere to fixed routes and run at regular intervals based on a set of published fares. This requisite also covers LRTs, trains or even ships and ferries but not taxis or kereta sewas which are essentially private transport used by the public. It is important to remember that public transport should serve the public interest by providing dependable service, also taking comfort into account.

Dr Andrew Aeria from the faculty of social sciences at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) describes the city’s public transport system in one word — jurassic.

“You might as well ride on a dinosaur. I’m talking about physical appearance of the buses rather than the whole system itself. The buses are old, in bad shape and the same goes for their schedules,” he said.

He also recalled an incident couple of years ago when a friend and some passengers had to jump out of a bus because the engine caught fire.

In Kuching and the other towns, he noted, bus routes appeared to be designated only on paper because most were never properly served.

The buses also seemed to operate at irregular intervals and therefore could not be classified as a bona fide public transport system, he stressed.

He felt it was high time the authorities do something about starting a proper bus service.

“With the increase in fuel prices, everybody is starting to talk about public transport. The call for a better public transport will get louder if it continues to be ignored.”

Aeria observed that not only the public transport system in Kuching needed a thorough revamp but also those in places like Tawau, Sandakan, Kota Kinabalu, Bintulu, Sibu all the way to peninsular Malaysia.

“Just look at Penang. The people there are screaming for buses. You go to Alor Setar, Kuantan, and you have a terrible bus system. It’s a national problem that has become even a more acute problem with the fuel price hike. We are making a big mistake if we do nothing about it,” he suggested.

With mega projects such as corridors of development, he felt the government could certainly support a good public bus service.

“There’s no such thing as no money in a budget. It’s a question of how you allocate. Now you have removed the fuel subsidy, so you can use the savings to invest in a good public transport system,” he said.

This calls to attention a recent report in a national paper about Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop announcing that a more efficient public transport system would be among the main thrusts of Budget 2009 with the government providing new incentives, allocations and assistance to the sector.

“Malaysians can certainly look forward to a better public transport. This will be a major focus of next year’s budget we are currently preparing,” the minister told reporters after attending a closed-door 2009 Budget Consultation Dialogue with backbenchers.

“We will be improving public transport not only in Kuala Lumpur but also other areas. We will look into how we can encourage more people to use public transport by offering them incentives.”

Nor Mohamed noted that public transport users in the country were a relatively low 20 per cent.

In developed countries, it was between 50 and 70 per cent, he said, adding that the government hoped to double the figure to 40 per cent in the next five years but not before coming up with a plan to encourage more people to use public transport.

For Kuching, some may argue there is insufficient passenger volume to justify a good public transport system. But could they be also people who have their own transport and can afford to pay like a duke at the pump?

Aeria describes this as a chicken and egg situation. Is our present hapzard public transport system due to very low passenger volume or are people forced, in the first place, to have their own transport (at least a motorcycle) in the absence of a dependable public transport system?

For Aeria, there is sufficient passenger volume not only among ruralites but also urbanites who’d enjoy reading the morning paper in a comfortable bus on their way to work.

He said to ascertain this, all one had to do was stand at a certain point linking the suburbs to the city centre and observe the traffic.

“Just count the number of motorcycles coming from Batu Kawa each morning … or even from Mile 4 and BDC. So are you saying no volume? The reason you say so is that you do not put the buses on the road.”

He felt the city buses should be publicly financed while inter-city buses privately owned.

Meanwhile, Kuching City Bus Services (KCBS) Sdn Bhd chief administrative officer, William Chan, conceded that the existing city bus system was not viable at all.

He said the system introduced 55 years ago had not been properly planned — no integration and ad hoc.

“Too many agencies were involved from the start and each had a different approach, resulting in chaos and no integration.

“You see, the old school of thought focused on widening roads to accommodate traffic but that has all changed because the whole world now is looking at traffic demand management.”

According to Chan, the traffic demand management allows commuters to decide the mode of transport they prefer instead of building more roads … and this helps reduce traffic on the road.

For Kuching, the present system is more inclined towards convergence with all heading towards the city centre — so the more the vehicles, the heavier the congestion.

Chan said the present system was also not convenient because it did not cater to the newly-established business centres. “All the while, it mainly transports people from housing areas to the city centre.”

In September 2006, five bus companies jointly formed the KCBS to create a new integrated public transport system for the city.

The government welcomed the formation of the consortium and 100 permits were approved for new buses in Sept 2007 by the Commercial Vehicle and Licensing Board (CVLB).

Subsequently, Chief Minister Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud also unveiled the model of ASSAR-owned RM60 million Kuching Sentral project, developed by Assar Services Sdn Bhd and Inner City Development Sdn Bhd (ICD).

It is said to be the city’s only regional transportation terminal-cum-shopping complex and expected ready at the end of 2009.

The three-storey terminal is situated strategically at the Mile 61/2 gateway to Kota Sentosa — two minutes’ drive from Kuching International Airport and 20 minutes’ drive from the city centre.

The project is part of the state government’s vision and effort to improve bus services and ease traffic congestion in the city. It will streamline the city’s bus transport system by bringing together the regional and city buses.

Kuching Sentral will also be a focal or meeting point for travellers because it integrates different modes of transportation — buses, taxis, chartered vans as well as sea and river transports apart from being a shopping hub.

With 11 car rental bays, 42 bays for regional buses and an additional 67 bays for city buses, Kuching Sentral will be able to support a high flow of passengers at any given time.

But the future of this much-anticipated project could be in doubt if the new buses did not arrive soon.

Chan said presently, KCBS was facing difficulties getting a bank loan to buy new 35-seaters expected to cost over RM200,000 each.

Still in negotiation, KCBS feels the requirements from the bank are too stringent … like having to fork out RM3.5million upfront and asking for personal guarantees from directors.

“If we had RM3.5million in the first place, would there be a need for a loan?” he asked.

A 2007 Road Transport Department (JPJ) survey showed an alarming rise of vehicles in the city with motorcars and motorcycles topping the list at 219,255 and 195,076 respectively. These were followed by taxis and rental cars, buses and goods vehicles.

It is learnt before 1995, there was a doubling of vehicles every five years but after that, it became every three years.

Chan said as a result, the turnover of all the five bus companies was reduced from RM13 million in 2004 to less than RM9 million in 2006.

“Roughly, we are looking at a financial loss of around RM1 million per year and the accumulated loss has reached over RM23 million.”

With the RM9 million turnover at this point, even if the five bus companies were to make a 100 percent profit — which Chan feels is not possible — it would take at least three years to recover.

“So that’s why we are in a difficult financial situation. It’s not that we don’t want to do anything about improving public transport,” he said.

A new transport system also needs to re-evaluate the existing routes and put in place most probably lanes for buses only and terminals among other relevant infrastructure.

This is proving an uphill task for the consortium because it has to go through many red tapes. It’s even harder without a special single body to manage the public transport system and coordinate among stakeholders. As it is, just getting on the road involves more than 10 different agencies.

Some of the stakeholders from the federal agencies are the Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development Ministry through CVLB, the Home Affairs Ministry through the police department, Natural Resources and Environment Ministry through the Department of Environment, the Transport Ministry through the Road Transport Department and the Works Ministry through the Public Works Department.

From the state, the stakeholders are the Environment and Public Health Ministry through the local authorities and the Urban Development and Tourism Ministry, supposedly responsible for coordination.

However, Chan is hopeful a central agency will be formed to control the entire public transport system. A proposal was recently made to set up a public transport commission aimed at making the public transport system more efficient and connected.

The need for such a commission was acknowledged by Transport Minister Datuk Ong Tee Keat who said presently, there was confusion over who had jurisdiction over public transport projects.

He also said at the moment, public transport did not come under one ministry but 13 different agencies, including the Transport Ministry.

“To create a sustainable public system, we have to look into rebranding and restructuring the entire traffic system,” Chan added.

Meanwhile, Aeria said it was not wise to take public transport for granted as ‘it reflects the kind of society we are’.

“If you have a poor transport system, then you are saying you have a disdainful opinion of people who cannot afford private transport and that is a very selfish attitude.”

He said buses created a kind of social phenomenon because with many people getting into a bus, a different type of society was promoted.

He pointed out that a car promoted a very aggressive, individual inward-looking society while the bus promoted a very altruistic, outward-looking and helpful society.

Aeria said with an efficient and systematic public transport system, the government would certainly have fewer traffic headaches.

“It will save on health costs with fewer accidents, less environmental pollution, less stress in society and less cost for road works.

“We’ll have less need to build roads, then upgrade them … or flyovers and underpasses which may not be enough as traffic keeps increasing and increasing.

“Mind you, this (road upgrading) does not mean the population is exploding — it’s actually the car population that’s exploding because there isn’t a good public transport system in place.”

With the fuel price increase, there had been lots of talks about the need to change lifestyles but how could poor people do this when they had already reached rock bottom, he asked.

“Take the example of people earning RM600 per month, living in a rumah papan (wooden-plank house), miles from town, having to ride a motorcycle to work and children to feed. How do they change their lifestyles?

“I’m afraid people talking about changing lifestyles do not understand the meaning of it. Where is the public transport to change my lifestyle? Even if I want to, I have no option unless I walk or cycle, and even if I cycle, where are the bicycle paths,” he asked.

Aeria said the standard joke was that visitors often asked why were there no buses in the capital city of Kuching.

“It’s time to walk the talk and get new buses on the road.”

With fuel prices on the rise, people will definitely want to leave their cars at home and take public transport. The ‘change in lifestyle’ will then be possible but certainly not likely before that.