Scholarly article on topic 'Apreliminary Study of Sustainable Transport Indicators in Malaysia: The Case Study of Klang Valley Public Transportation'

Apreliminary Study of Sustainable Transport Indicators in Malaysia: The Case Study of Klang Valley Public Transportation Academic research paper on "Social and economic geography"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Procedia Environmental Sciences
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"sustainable public transport indicator" / "transport planning" / "public transport" / "sustainable transport."}

Abstract of research paper on Social and economic geography, author of scientific article — Syahriah Bachok, Zakiah Ponrahono, Mariana Mohamed Osman, Samsuddin Jaafar, Mansor Ibrahim, et al.

Abstract This research centersaroundthe exploration of the applicability and transferability of some international/global sustainable transport indicators in an important city region in Malaysia, namely Klang Valley. The literature review highlights several important measures to identify, determine and select the relevant sustainable transportation indicators. Around 30 out of 1000 indicators were chosen to be tested in the different scenarios of public transportation in Malaysia. The research applied the snowball internet survey method, in addition, face-to-face, snail-mail, and electronic questionnaire. Samples were selected from a list of various professionals relevant to the field of transportation. They include transport planners, traffic engineers, public transport operators and managers, transportation economists, environmentalists, academician and researchers, as well as urban and regional planners. It is found that a number of indicators such as the percentage of bus passengerissuitable and relevant to Klang Valley. However, several other indicators are deemed less suitable to represent the measurement of sustainability of transportation in Klang Valley. Hence, it is suggested by the research that future selection of indicators should have a greater sensitivity to be more realistic with the country current situations, circumstances and fortune. Preliminary findings of the research are intended to be disseminated through another set of focus group discussion.

Academic research paper on topic "Apreliminary Study of Sustainable Transport Indicators in Malaysia: The Case Study of Klang Valley Public Transportation"

CrossMark

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedía Environmental Sciences 28 (2015) 464 - 473

The 5th Sustainable Future for Human Security (SustaiN 2014)

A preliminary study of sustainable transport indicators in Malaysia: the case study of Klang valley public transportation

Syahriah Bachoka, Zakiah Ponrahono b, Mariana Mohamed Osmana, Samsuddin Jaafar, Mansor Ibrahima and Mohd Zin Mohameda *

aKulliyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia, Gombak, Malaysia bDept. of Environmental Management, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

Abstract

This research centers around the exploration of the applicability and transferability of some international/global sustainable transport indicators in an important city region in Malaysia, namely Klang Valley. The literature review highlights several important measures to identify, determine and select the relevant sustainable transportation indicators. Around 30 out of 1000 indicators were chosen to be tested in the different scenarios of public transportation in Malaysia. The research applied the snowball internet survey method, in addition, face-to-face, snail-mail, and electronic questionnaire. Samples were selected from a list of various professionals relevant to the field of transportation. They include transport planners, traffic engineers, public transport operators and managers, transportation economists, environmentalists, academician and researchers, as well as urban and regional planners. It is found that a number of indicators such as the percentage of bus passenger is suitable and relevant to Klang Valley. However, several other indicators are deemed less suitable to represent the measurement of sustainability of transportation in Klang Valley. Hence, it is suggested by the research that future selection of indicators should have a greater sensitivity to be more realistic with the country current situations, circumstances and fortune. Preliminary findings of the research are intended to be disseminated through another set of focus group discussion.

© 2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V Thisis an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of Sustain Society

Keywords:sustainable public transport indicator; transport planning; public transport; sustainable transport.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +603-6196-3148; fax: +603-6196 4864. E-mail address: syahriah@iium.edu.my

1878-0296 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of Sustain Society

doi : 10.1016/j .proenv.2015.07.056

1. Introduction

Sustainability awareness in the provision and operation of public transportation in the urban areas has been rising. In the developed countries like Japan and the four Asian tiger economies such as Seoul, South Korea (65.1% mode share of bus and rail in 2011 compared to 60.3% in 2010), Hong Kong (71.1% mode share of bus and rail in 2009 compared to 70.6% in 2008), Taipei, Taiwan (58% of public transport mode share in 2012 compared to 57.5% in 2011), and Singapore (public transport mode share increased from 59% in 2008 to 63% in 2012), public transport shares have increased over the last few decades22, 3 28, 15. Many of these public transportation operations have been consolidated under one single authority. That authority plans, develops, constructs, manages, and oversees the operations in order to be effectively and efficiently move people to their respective destinations with greater ease, seamless, and smoothness of journey makings 25.

Public transport as a competitive alternative to private mode of transport has several features such as: being timely, punctual, frequent and attractive. These features have also been coupled with modern design, advanced fleets and consumption of less or environmentally fuel, which are all the characteristics of a sustainable public transport. Whilst many studies and exposures have been made on the operation of the sustainable public transport in many cities of the world12, less literature has dedicated its exploration on the indicators to measure the levels of so-called sustainability, especially on those public transportation systems of South East Asia region, including Malaysia7.In effect, to date, there have been very limited reviews of the measures of sustainability of these public transport systems, let alone the determination of such sustainability indicators and levels21, 13.

Hence, this research focuses on the outlining the sustainable public transport indicators for Klang Valley, the most developed, prosperous and advanced city region in Malaysia.

1.1 Study Objectives

i. To characterise the current public transportation system and services provided in Klang Valley according to sustainability definitions

ii. To identify and select the most suited indicators of public transport sustainability in Klang Valley

2. Literature Review

2.1 Sustainable Transportation

Sustainability according to Tao and Hung26, can be defined as the achievement of continuous transportation activities supported by the environmental, economic and social objectives at various space-based scales of operation. The measures of sustainability have been adopted and implemented on various land uses or central of population's activity1, 26,4,31, however, assessment of movements' sustainability has been scarcely found in literature32, 17, 2. Various indicators have been developed and identified in light of the transportations systems evaluation. In countries such as the UK, modal shares, in particular, the number of public transport riderships has been used to assess the performance and impact of the public transport system towards the environment and community17. Other European nations like Germany, France, Austria, and Switzerland have accepted the Level of Service (LOS), travel demand, and numbers of ridership, as indicators of a sustainable transport system 5.

In the USA, indicators such as transit accessibility, and transport affordability have been adopted30.Japan has developed indicators in the transport policy framework to measure the performance of sustainable transport development under the administration of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) 9.Other Asian nations have subscribed to Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA)33 project where the assessment on several aspects such as access, safety, environment/clean air, economical and social, is developed as an indicators' theme to a sustainable system. In other words, more than 300 indicators have been developed, refined and agreed upon when assessing the levels of sustainability of a particular transport system. From initial of more than 100 indicators, only 75 indicators have been formally shortlisted to be adopted in Bangkok Declaration 2020.A person's access to transport modes may depend on the socio-demographic factors and preferential choices made by that particular person. Klang Valley, even though is more developed than many neighbouring city regions like Jakarta, Bangkok and Manila, has very limited choices of public transportation 18.

2.2 Sustainable Indicators

The more challenging issue in a sustainable transport planning is mostly the common goal of sustainable transportation, which is to develop appropriate indicators to measure the level of sustainability. Many of studies16, 17, 32 focus on establishing the indicators that are sometimes too technical or too general. Some indicators of the framework proposed lead to reliable and adaptable implementation issues. The suggested frameworks in summary, have classified the indicators based on the impacts of the transportation activities. In a further discussion , sustainable transportation indicators must take into account a wide range of economic, social and environmental impacts. The findings of the study 16suggest that the indicators should be comprehensive in all of these aspects as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1. Sustainable Transportation Indicators

Objectives Indicator

Economic

Commute access Average commute travel time

Accessibility - Land use mix Number of job opportunities and commercial services within 30-minute travel distance of residents

Accessibility - Smart Growth Implementation of policy and planning practices that lead to more accessible, clustered, mixed, multi-modal development

Transport diversity Mode split: portion of travel made by walking, cycling, rideshare, public transit and telework

Affordability Portion of household expenditures devoted to transport by 20% lowest-income households

Facility costs Per capita expenditures on roads, traffic services and parking facilities

Freight efficiency Speed and affordability of freight and commercial transport

Planning Degree to which transport institutions reflect least-cost planning and investment practices

Social

Safety Per capita crash disabilities and facilities

Health and fitness Portion of population that regularly walks and cycles

Community livability Degree to which transport activities increase community livability (local environment quality)

Equity - fairness Degree to which prices reflect full costs unless a subsidy is specifically justified

Equity - non-drivers Quality of accessibility and transport services for non-drivers

Equity - disabilities Quality of transport facilities and services per people with disabilities (e.g., wheelchair users, people with visual impairments)

Non-motorized transport planning Degree to which impacts on non-motorized transport are considered in transportation modeling and planning

Citizen involvement Public involvement in transport planning process

Environment

Climate change emissions Per capita fossil fuel consumption, and emissions of CO2 and other climate change emissions

Other air pollution Per capita emission of 'conventional' air pollutants (CO, VOC, NOx, particulates, etc)

Noise pollution Portion of population exposed to high levels of traffic noise

Water pollution Per capita vehicle fluid losses

Land use impacts Per capita land devoted to transportation facilities

Habitat protection Preservation of wildlife habitat (wetlands, forests, etc)

Resource efficiency Non-renewable resource consumption in the production and use of vehicles and transport facilities

In general, the key aspect of the sustainable transportation indicator framework is based on the key dimensions of sustainable development concept of economic, social and environment. To ensure that the indicators are reliable as a comprehensive measurement to assess the sustainability, it should practically measure the impact of transportation towards economic, social and environment. Even though indicators can have different functions with regard to different domain of use, in the aspect of sustainable transportation assessment, it should be reliable to measure the level of description, prediction of impacts, simplification and practicality. All aspects that are related and linked to the present and future impacts from the transportation activities must be considered in developing those indicators. Moreover, it is necessary to establish clear and comprehensive indicators in order to develop an assessment method to evaluate the sustainable transport as a whole system. The indicators should represent a clear description of the basis on which and how the level of sustainability can be measured. It is important to ensure that the implementation of the assessment system is practical and adaptable by all of the stakeholders, especially to the decision makers in transportation planning.

This research is propagating selected indicators to be adopted for the purpose of examining and assessing Malaysian public transport systems' sustainability. Sustainable transport indicator is a measurement in assessing how well the current system fulfills the needs and is continuously reliable and resourceful for future2, 6. The development and implementation of indicators as measurement of sustainability took various steps and process with the involvement of stakeholders in transport system such as government agencies and transport operators12, 13, 17.

Many organizations and agencies worldwide adopt the formation of independent body and focus group discussions to outline and formulate the indicators20, 22, 24, 2 . The selection has been based on indicators related to public transport measures and factors that influence the success of a sustainable public transport system including the number of ridership, infrastructure and mode share. However, from 300 over indicators listed from the literature29, 9 30, 5 17only 30 indicators (Table 2) are shortlisted to be examined and assessed in this study.

Even though the number of indicators is countless globally, the selection of 30 indicators from different literature as possible public transport sustainable indicators for Klang Valley was based on:

• Specification of an indicator to assess public transport (direct and indirect factor of public transport evaluation)

• That shortlisting was conducted through validation of four experts in the public transport study randomly

• As a preliminary study, whereby a list of indicators selected from the different literature has focused on Asian countries and cities as a case study, and from the successful sustainability indicators applied in the recent transportation study and the system.

Table 2. Shortlisted Indicators

No. Indicator No. Indicator No. Indicator

1 Percentage of bus passenger 11 CO2 emissions from road transport 21 Total expenditure on pollution

prevention and clean-up

2 Percentage of all trains 12 N2O emissions from road transport 22 R&D expenditure on "eco-

passenger vehicles"

3 Total percapita transport 13 Use of renewable energy sources in 23 R&D expenditure on clean

expenditure transport (1000 tons/GDP) transport fuels

4 Motor vehicle fuel prices 14 Average age of vehicle fleet (years) 24 Direct subsidies to transport

5 Excise duty on road transport 15 Average commute travel time 25 Relative taxation of vehicles and

fuel (petrol, diesel per 1000 vehicle use

litres)

6 Percentage of GDP contributed 16 Mode split: portion of travel made by 26 Annual transit ridership per

by transport walking, cycling, rideshare, public capita

transit and telework

7 Total length roads (railways, 17 Percentage of Single Occupancy 27 Miles of fixed-route bus service

motorways) (km of Vehicle (SOV) Entering City Centre

infrastructure per 1000 During Morning Peak Hour Period.

inhabitants)

8 Density of infrastructure (km of 18 Ratio of Road Accident Cases Per 28 Number of minutes between

infrastructure per 1000 km2 of 10,000 Populations. buses on scheduled routes

surface area)

9 Employment in road and rail 19 Capital expenditure by mode 29 Percentage who perceives public

transport sector transit unsafe

10 PM10 emissions from road 20 Rail network length and density 30 Cost per transit-rider trip,

transport inflation adjusted

3. Methodology

The research adopted the snowball sampling, internet, and pen-and-paper methods of questionnaire surveys, on some 100 samples of prominent and key players of transportation systems in Klang Valley. Primary data were collected from December 2013 to June 2014. During this duration, several issues regarding the methods have been encountered including limited references on Malaysia's sustainable indicators and feedback response. Hence, there existed a few limitations and qualifications of the generalization of findings afterwards. The list of the population has been derived from the authorities related to transportation operators, managers, economists, planners, engineers, academician and related professionals. Some 500 samples have been identified, but responses have been very poor, with only 20% rate of return. Nevertheless, this small number has been commensurate with the prominence, knowledge, experiences and expertise levels demonstrated by the respondents. The survey form contained three sections:

• Section A: respondents' background

• Section B: possible sustainable public transport indicators for Klang Valley

• Section C: factors of developing sustainable public transport indicators

Three types of survey approaches were deployed to overcome the issue of low response; face to face survey, snail-mail survey, and electronic survey as have been practiced elsewhere in other prominent research30, 31, 33. Qualification is adequately made on the generalized findings because of the size of the sample and the low responses.

4. Data Analysis and Discussion

4.1 Public Transportation System in Klang Valley

Public transportation development, operation, management and regulation in Malaysia Peninsular are currently under the purview of Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) or Land Public Transport Council. SPAD is a government agency directly under the Prime Minister's Department with the functions and responsibilities of monitoring and implementing all initiatives and program on public transport development. SPAD actually gained its full authority on January 31st, 2011 with the gazetting of the Land Public Transport Act 201023. Klang Valley has been chosen as a case study for this research for the following reasons:

i. Klang Valley is a region including several cities functioning as satellites to the capital of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Among the smaller cities are Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Rawang, Kajang, Bangi and Seremban (Figure 1). It has a population of approximately 6.3 million as of 201011.

Rawang

Teiramaj Putra Gombak

Ampajig

PortKiang

£L Internationa] Seremban Aiiport

Fig. 1. Klang Valley Region

Fig. 2. Kuala Lumpur Mass Transit rail-based network

ii. The choice of public transport in Klang Valley has been limited to road-based and rail-based (Figure 2) modes including heavy rail (KTM intercity, KTM Komuter), light rail (PUTRA, KLIA EKSPRES, KLIA TRANSIT) and monorail, as well as taxi and stage and intercity buses.

Selangor, a state in Peninsular with the majority of its districts falling under the realm of Klang Valley, has the following listed stage buses services (Table 3). The details regarding the operation and management are provided by the review of State Structure Plan, cited from the source of Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) (2014).

Table 3. Bus Operators and Respective Fleet (if applicable) in Selangor, 20122

C ompany/Op erator Fleet (Bus) Operating Status

Ambang Jernih Sdn. Bhd. 1 Ceased operation

Pinggir Bandar Bus Line (M) Sdn. Bhd. 1 Ceased operation

Abdullah bin Nadi dan Rakan T/A Syarikat Kenderaan Lima Sepakat 2 Ceased operation

Airport Coach Sdn. Bhd. 2 Active

Sri Indah Jaya Sdn. Bhd. 27 Active

Tg Karang Transportation Sdn. Bhd. - Consolidated under Kenderaan

Kelang Banting Berhad (KKBB)

Triton Commuter Sdn. Bhd. 40 Active

Permata Kiara Sdn.Bhd. 1 Ceased operation

The Kuala Selangor Omnibus Co Bhd - Consolidated under (KKBB)

Sri Theven Travel & Tours Sdn. Bhd. 6 Active

Bas Bakti Sdn. Bhd. 6 Operational as Syarikat Faro

Uptownace (M) Sdn.Bhd. 13 Active

GPB Corporation Sdn. Bhd. 20 Active

Gito Translink Travel Sdn. Bhd. 23 Active

Sepang Omnibus Co Sdn. Bhd. 7 Active

Syarikat Prasarana Negara Bhd. (RapidKL) 1632 Active

Seranas Sdn. Bhd. 30 Active

Wawasan Sutera Travel & Tours Sdn. Bhd. 32 Active

Kenderaan Klang Banting Berhad 176 Active

Metrobus Nationwide Sdn. Bhd. 327 Active

Total 2,346

In 2012, some 1880 buses operated in Selangor. Based on the above Table 3, there was an increase of about 20% fleet or about 466 buses in 2012.There were limited or almost non-existence services of paratransit apart from taxis. Unlike neighbouring capital cities such as Jakarta, Bangkok and Manila, Klang Valley do not have three-wheelers public transport including bajai, tuktuk, bemo, ojek, and those pedal powered public transport such as rickshaw and trishaws23.Hence, this study is rather limited in the sense that it may not be able to increase the sustainability of the public transport system based on the more environmentally modes such as three-wheelers and pedal powered modes. Nevertheless, examining and determining these indices by this research i among the first and pioneer steps towards achieving the government's target of a balanced, i.e. 50:50 modal split share by the year 2020 27,10,19

4.2 Analysis of Focus Group Survey

The majority of respondents (Table 4) are from town planning background majoring in transport planning, urban planning and environmental planning with a total of 54%. Another 19% is from an engineering background, 11% is from economic background, 8% is from intelligent transport system and 4% is from road safety and 4% is from public transport development. 84% of the respondents have 1-10 years experiences and 16% of the respondents have experienced more than 11 years in their field. From their field of expertise, the respondents are classified into five categories of profession; environmentalist (4%), economist (15%), socialist (7%), planner (43%) and engineer (31%).

Table 4. Socio Demographic Profile Distribution

Variables Frequency Percentage (%)

1 Field of Expertise

Economic 11 11

Road Engineering 7 7

Environmental Planning 4 4

Intelligent GIS/Transport System 8 8

Medical Fitness for Road Safety 4 4

Environmental Science and Natural Resource Planning 7 7

Public Transport 4 4

Railway Engineering 4 4

Town Planning 28 28

Traffic and Transport Engineering 8 8

Transport Planning 15 15

2 Years of Experience

1-10 years 84 84

11- 20 years 8 8

21-30 years 8 8

3 Profession

Environmentalist 4 4

Economist 15 15

Socialist 7 7

Planner 43 43

Engineer 31 31

Findings also higlight that from 30 indicators listed in the survey, respondents place the highest priority in the issue of mode share, ridership, cost of transport and travel time. This is shown in the mean value of rating given by the respondent as summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Mean Value of Rating on Sustainable Public Transport Indicator for Klang Valley_

Relevant as Sustainable Public Transport Indicator for Klang Valley (4.00 to Moderate as Sustainable Public Transport Indicator for Klang

4.99)_Valley (3.00 to 3.99)

No Indicator Mean Rank No Indicator Mean Rank

1 Mode split: portion of travel made by walking, 4.5700 1 18 Annual transit ridership per capita 3.9700 18

cycling, rideshare, public transit and telework

2 Percentage of bus passengers 4.5400 2 19 Rail network length and density 3.9600 19

3 Cost per transit-rider trip, inflation adjusted 4.4700 3 20 Density of infrastructure (km of 3.9400 20

infrastructure per 1000 km2 of surface

4 Percentage of all trains passenger 4.3600 4 21 Percentage GDP contributed by 3.9200 21

transport

5 Number of minutes between buses on scheduled 4.3200 5 22 PM10 emissions from road transport 3.9100 22

routes

6 Miles of fixed-route bus service 4.2800 6 23 R&D expenditure on "eco-vehicles" 3.8900 23

7 Motor vehicle fuel prices 4.2400 7 24 Direct subsidies to transport 3.8900 24

8 Percentage of Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) 4.2300 8 25 Total expenditure on pollution 3.8600 25

Entering City Centre During Morning Peak Hour prevention and clean-up

Period

9 Average age of vehicle fleet (years) 4.2100 9 26 Employment in road and rail transport 3.8200 26

sector

10 Total percapita transport expenditure 4.1500 10 27 Ratio of Road Accident Cases Per 3.6600 27

10,000 Populations.

11 Average commute travel time 4.1300 11 28 R&D expenditure on clean transport 3.5000 28

12 N2O emissions from road transport 4.1300 12 29 Relative taxation of vehicles and 3.4000 29

vehicle use

13 Total length of roads (railways, motorways) (km of 4.0900 13 30 Excise duty on road transport fuel 3.3400 30

infrastructure per 1000 inhabitants) (petrol, diesel per 1000 litres)

14 Use of renewable energy sources in transport 4.0700 14

(1000 tons/GDP)

15 Percentage of who perceives public transit unsafe 4.0600 15

16 CO2 emissions from road transport 4.0300 16

17 Capital expenditure by mode 4.0200 17

*Rating value given in the survey form is :

5 4 3 2 1

Most relevant Relevant Moderate Irrelevant Not Applicable

Several factors have been considered in the formulation and development of sustainable public transport indicators. Findings show that "health and safety", "travel demand and supply", and "finance and economy" have the highest mean of the rating from the respondents. This is followed by "environmental impact and pollution prevention", "physical development", "education and public participation", "new technology and R&D", and "stakeholder responsibility". The least mean value of rating for the factor is that of "land and resources" category.

Table 6. Factor Influencing in Formulation and Development of Sustainable Public Transport Indicator for Klang Valley

Factor Mean Value

1. Health and Safety 4.5700

2. Travel Demand and Supply 4.5700

3. Finance and Economy 4.4600

4. Environmental Impact andPollution Prevention 4.3800

5. Physical Development 4.3800

6. Education and Public Participation 4.3700

7. New Technology and R&D 4.3400

8. Stakeholder Responsibility 4.1100

9. Land and Resources Used 4.0600 *Rating value given in the survey form is:

5 4 3 2 1

Most relevant Relevant Moderate Irrelevant Not Applicable

It is found that the factors influence in determining the indicators in this research is agreeable with the other prominent research findings5, 6 16 in a sustainable transportation system. However, although the result of indicators rating shows a positive feedback, there are several issues during the selection of indicators list. Issues with selection of indicators are:

i. Some indicators are difficult to be measured in the implementation stage

ii. Some indicators are impractical in the implementation stage

iii. Some indicators require a longer timeframe of data collection in the implementation stage

iv. Some indicators require data obtained from more than one agency in the implementation stage

v. Indicators are deemed unsuitable and irrelevant to represent the measurement of sustainability of transportation in the country, generally, and Klang Valley, specifically

Since not all of these indicators from the finding are consistent with the other prominent research findings30, 31, 33,34, the suggested indicators from this study need to be verified and validated through ground pilot study before being accepted and adopted in Klang Valley public transport system.

The generalized findings are listed below:

i. The highest mean value for possible indicator is "Mode split: portion of travel made by walking, cycling, rideshare, public transit and telework"

ii. The lowest mean value for possible indicator is "Excise duty on road transport fuel (petrol, diesel per 1000 liters)"

iii. The highest mean value ofthe factor of formulation and development of indicator is "health and safety"

iv. The lowest mean value ofthe factor of formulation and development of indicator is "land and resources used"

v. Mean values for indicator selection is between 3.3400 to 4.5700 (moderate to relevant)

vi. Mean values for the factor of formulation and development of indicator is between 4.0600 to 4.5700 (relevant)

An ongoing analysis and modeling exercise are also undertaken to further implicate these results of the existing initiatives and programs of public transport system improvements. Possible in depth analyses such as spider modeling36 and multinomial logit regression35.

5. Conclusions

The research has determined that public transport in Klang Valley is far from being globally sustainable system assessment based on both the primary data and review of existing literature. Several issues pertinent to the selection of the appropriateness of the indicators have been presented. Based on the analyses, it is suggested that the preliminary findings of the research are disseminated through another set of focus group discussion among identified stakeholders and decision makers and a pilot study conducted for validation and verification.

In conclusion, the highest mean value for possible indicator is "Mode split: portion of travel made by walking, cycling, rideshare, public transit and telework" and the lowest mean value for possible indicator is "Excise duty on road transport fuel (petrol, diesel per 1000 liters". These findings are agreeable with previous prominent research findings29, 9 30, 5 17. The possible public transport indicators selected by stakeholders and decision makers in transportation system can be applied as a benchmark for Klang Valley to achieve a 50:50 modal split share that has been promoted by the Malaysian government. The city region public transportation operation, management and structure must be supported by mature and appropriate sustainable public transport guidelines and standards, indicators and systematic evaluation process. In essence, the sustainability of public transportation in Klang Valley can be achieved by implementing an assessment of the system through consistent and coherent sustainable public transport indicators. Further recommendations are to update the list of indicators suiting the current development of sustainable public transport system with other Asian countries and the evaluation of selected indicators should be continuously implemented. Focus group discussion and working group on establishing the indicators will provide many significant benefits.

References

1. A.Hull, 2005, Integrated Transport Planning in the UK: From Concept to Reality, Journal of Transport Geography 13, Page 318-328.

2. Castillo, H., & Pitfield, D.E., 2009, ELASTIC- A Methodological Framework for Identifying and Selecting Sustainable Transport Indicators, Journal of Transportation Research Part D, 15 (2010) Elsevier Ltd. Page: 179-188.

3. Census and Statistic Department, The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2013. Public Transport Patronage of Hong Kong, 1999 to 2009, Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics, Available at http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B71004FC2010XXXXB0100.pdf

4. Christy, M.J, and Adjo, A., 2005, Addressing Sustainability in Transportation Systems: Definitions, Indicators and Metrics, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Page 31-50.

5. Dobranskyte-Niskota, A., Perujo, A., & Pregl, M., 2007. Indicators to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities, European Commission , Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. EUR 23041 EN . ISBN 978-92-79-07802-6. ISSN 1018-5593. DOI 10.2788/54736

6. Dobranskyte-Niskota, A., Perujo, A., Jesinghaus, J. and Jensen, P., 2009. Indicators to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities: Part 2: Measurement and Evaluation of Transport Sustainability Performance in the EU27. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, ISSN 1018-5593. DOI 10.2788/46618. Available at http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/802/1/sust_transp_ind_report_final.pdf

7. Emberger, G., Arndt, W., Schaefer, T., Lah, O., and Tomaschek, J., 2010. Transport in Megacities -Development Of Sustainable Transportation Systems. 13th WCTR, July 15-18, 2010 - Rio, Brazil. Available at: http://conceptsandsolutions.ptvgroup.com/fileadmin/files_conceptsandsolutions/Downloads/4_References/CTR_2013_Transport_in_megacit ies_final_130517.pdf

8. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, 2010. Second National Physical Plan (NPP-2).

9. Gudmundsson, H., Fukuda, D. & Eng, D.r., 2013. Indicators in the governance of sustainable transport policies in Japan, Paper submitted for presentation at TRB 2013, Session 685.

10. Government Transformation Programs, 2012 available at http://www.pemandu.gov.my/gtp/upload/GTP2_ENG.pdf

11. Greater Kuala Lumpur / Klang Valley Land Public Transport Master Plan, N.D. Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD)

12. Haghshenas, H., Vaziri, M., and Gholamialam, A., 2013. Sustainable Urban Transport Assessment in Asian Cities. Current World Environment, Vol. 8(2), 221-230 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CWE.8.2.07

13. Hezri, A.A., 2004. Sustainability Indicator System and Policy Processes in Malaysia: A Framework for Utilisation and Learning. Journal of Environmental Management 73 (2004) 357-371. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.010

14. http://www.klsentral.com.my/

15. Land Transport and Authority, Singapore Government, 2013. Available at http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=1b6b1e1e-f727-43bb-8688-f589056ad1c4

16. Litman, T.A., 2007, Urban Transportation Management, Chapter 9 Handbook on Urban Sustainability, N.Munier (editor), Springer. Page 353-387.

17. Litman, T. & David Burwell, D., 2004, Issues in Sustainable Transportation, Int. J. Global Environmental Issues, Vol. 6, No. 4. Page: 331347.

18. Mohd Shariff, N., 2012. Private Vehicle Ownership and Transportation Planning in Malaysia. 2012 International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Engineering (ICTTE 2012), IPCSIT vol. 26 (2012) © (2012) IACSIT Press, Singapore.

19. National Key Results Area, 2011 available at http://www.pemandu.gov.my/gtp/Improving_Urban_Public_Transport-@-GTP_1@0_Improving_Urban_Public_Transport.aspx

20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1999. Indicators For The Integration Of Environmental Concerns Into Transport Policies, Available at http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=ENV/EPOC/SE(98)1/FINAL

21. Saadatian, O., Haw, L.C., Mat, S., and Sopian, K., 2012. Perspective of Sustainable Development in Malaysia. International Journal of Energy and Environment, Issue 2, Volume 6, 2012, Pg. 260-267.

22. Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2013. Seoul Public Transportation. Retrieved on 4th August 2014 and available at http://www.slideshare.net/simrc/seoul-public-transportation

23. SPAD, 2014. Retrieved on 4th August 2014 and available at http://www.spad.gov.my/about-us/profile

24. Sungwon Lee, 2013. Valuing Convenience in Public Transport in the Korean Context. Discussion Paper No. 2013-17. Prepared for the Roundtable on Valuing convenience in public transport (12-13 September 2013, Paris), The Korea Transport Institute, Goyang-si, Korea. — © OECD/ITF 2013. Available at http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201317.pdf

25. Stanley, J., 2011. A Public Transport Development Authority for Melbourne. Available at http://www.busvic.asn.au/images/uploads/public/A_Public_Transport_Development_Authority_for_Melbourne_Jan2011.pdf

26. Tao , C.C and Hung, C.C, 2003, A comparative Approach of the Quantitative Models for Sustainable Transportation, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 3329-3344 http://www.easts.info/2003journal/papers/3329.pdf

27. Tenth Malaysia Plan 2010-2015 available at http://www.epu.gov.my/epu-theme/RMKE10/rmke10_english.html

28. The Department of Transport (DOT), Taipei City Government, 2013. Taipei City has the Highest National Market Share in Green Transportation. Retrieved on 4th August 2014 and available at http://english.dot.taipei.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=55785361&ctNode=65619&mp=117002

29. United Nations Center for Regional Development (UNCRD) and Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center (CAI-Asia), 2011. "Data and Indicators for Sustainable Transport under the Bangkok 2020 Declaration". Pasig City, Philippines. Final Draft presented in Sixth Regional Environmentally Sustainable Transport (Est) Forum In Asia, 4-6 December 2011, New Delhi, India in conjunction with Urban Mobility India 2011 under the Conference cum Exhibition on Sustainable Mobility, 3-6 December 2011. Available at http://www.uncrd.or.jp/content/documents/6EST-1-BGP2.pdf

30. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011. Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures, EPA 231-K-10-004, August 2011, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth and available at http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/Sustainable_Transpo_Performance.pdf

31. Whitmarsh, L., Haxeltine, A., and Wietschel, M., 2007, Sustainable Transport Visions: Expert and Non-expert Stakeholder Perspectives on Sustainable Transport, International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment, M.Horner, C. Hardcastle, A. Price, J. Bebbington (Eds), Glasgow.

32. Zegras, C. 2006, Sustainable Transport Indicators and Assessment Methodologies, Background Paper for Plenary Session 4 at the Biannual Conference and Exhibit of the Clean Air Initiative for Latin American Cities: Sustainable Transport: Linkages to Mitigate Climate Change and Improve Air Quality, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 25-27 July 2006, Page 1-16.

33. The Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA). (2005). Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia Making the Vision A Reality.

34. Amiril, A., Nawawi, A. H., Takim, R., & Latif, S. N. F. A. (2014). Transportation Infrastructure Project Sustainability Factors and Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 90-98. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.044.

35. Abdullah, A. Z. (2006). Predicting the Impact of Demand- and Supply-Side Measures on Bus Ridership in Putrajaya, Malaysia. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(5), 57-70.

36. Nijkamp, P., Bal, F., & Medda, F. (1998). ' SERIE RESEARCH MEMORANDA A Survey of Methodes for Sustainable City Planning and Cultural Heritage Management.