Transport planning process

This section highlights the respondents' feedback about the changes to the transport planning process prior to and since the creation of SPAD. Table 6.3 presents a summary of the changes that have occurred.

Table 6.3: Transport planning roles before and after the creation of

SPAD fills the gap in transport planning:

- Prepared transport plans – for Greater KL, MRT, HSR, tool kit for the states. However, most of these plans were prepared in silos, involving minimum consultation with the stakeholders - SPAD acts as checkpoint for EPU

- SPAD needs to ensure land use transport integration planning

- SPAD has powers to plan but does not have the powers for delivering the plans:

 Lacks financial autonomy to provide incentives to implementers

 Uses the licensing mechanism to implement the plans (authority)

 Uses the national physical planning council as the medium for implementation at the local level

Since its creation, SPAD has had a big focus on its planning role, which, according to a respondent from SPAD, has been given priority over its other two roles – regulation and enforcement. These two roles were put on hold for six months until the CVLB and the DOR were officially dissolved and their powers transferred to SPAD in January 2011. This respondent highlighted some of the initial planning work that was undertaken, such as the Value Management Report for the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project, the Greater Klang Valley Master Plan, the Railway Development Plan and the Feasibility

Study for High Speed Rail. Although SPAD is empowered to plan, this respondent pointed out that the Act does not empower SPAD to implement the plans or require the delivery of the plans. Therefore, it has to work with project implementation agencies (such as local authorities and ministries) to get the plans implemented.

During the data collection period of this research, SPAD was heavily engaged in developing a toolkit to form the guidelines for local authorities in preparing their own master plans. Respondents from the operators group acknowledged that SPAD had occasionally engaged with them and presumed that they would have consulted other agencies as well. However, all the respondents from the government side said that SPAD did not consult them or inform them about the study. A respondent form a local authority (G2) noted that such a toolkit has been prepared before, and that SPAD should have taken stock of existing plans and consulted stakeholders before embarking on a brand new plan. This respondent stressed that if the local authorities are the target users of the toolkit, they should have been involved from the beginning in order for the toolkit to be developed to their requirements so that it could be smoothly implemented.

A respondent from TCPD (G17) pointed out that SPAD should familiarise itself with existing plans and ensure that land use and transport are integrated. The National Physical Plan developed by TCPD has set some broad policies and guidelines that could form the basis for transport plans for states and cities. However, according to this respondent, the local authorities do not have a dedicated transport plan for their areas, and lack capacity as well as an understanding of how the entire transport network functions. This respondent, assuming that SPAD was well versed with transport planning, proposed a close collaboration between the local authorities and SPAD to ensure that planning and development of transport facilities in the local areas would best meet local needs. Respondent G1, on the other hand, raised what he believed to be serious inadequacies in SPAD. This respondent was very concerned that senior managers in SPAD did not understand how SPAD’s transport plans fit with the current planning framework, and hence thought that they would not be able to pool the appropriate resources to exercise their planning role effectively.

Interestingly, the respondents from SPAD seemed to hold a different understanding about their role in ensuring land use and transport integration than that suggested by respondent G17. They felt that it was not SPAD’s responsibility to integrate transport with land use, but that of the National

Physical Planning Council (NPPC), and held that a consultation should be undertaken with stakeholders on this point.

The presence of SPAD seems to benefit the EPU as SPAD acts as a filter for new proposals to be cross-examined against their plans and evaluated prior to their submission to the EPU for approval. Respondents from the EPU pointed out that SPAD’s endorsement does not necessarily mean that the EPU will approve proposals because the EPU has to assess the project budget and its financial feasibility prior to any decisions. It was also pointed out that all new proposals on public transport projects that go directly to the EPU are channelled to SPAD for initial evaluation. In addition, SPAD is tasked with the preparation of feasibility studies for mega-projects that were previously under the purview of the EPU. One example is the high-speed rail feasibility study, which is now conducted by SPAD but commissioned by the EPU.

Seven respondents cited funding capacity as the main element that SPAD required to implement its plans and make up for its lack of power over local authorities. SPAD does not currently have enough funding for physical projects, and is dependent on government grants to run its operations, although several SPAD respondents noted that it does have sufficient funding to support preparation of studies and master plans. However, respondent G17 said that it does not matter that SPAD does not have control over the local authorities, but that financial muscle is crucial and could be used as an effective tool to encourage local authorities to implement their plans. This respondent added that although SPAD does not have the capacity to provide funding for projects themselves, a mechanism through which money is disbursed through SPAD is sufficient for stakeholders to appreciate SPAD’s value and its role in planning.

Their planning role requires SPAD to be a good coordinator and an authority.

The coordinating role comes in during the preparation phase, which requires extensive engagement with the various stakeholders. This is important for ensuring that different perspectives are captured and that plans are well integrated both among different modes and between land use and transport.

Respondent G3 asserted that SPAD cannot work alone because they do not have sole authority for land transport, which still lies with a variety of different agencies. Respondent G4 highlighted that SPAD must plan for freight and public transport simultaneously to achieve the national target for shifting freight transport from road to rail, and a lot of coordination is required here.

The ‘authority role’ mainly involves taking ownership of the plans and driving them forward by playing a leading role. Several SPAD respondents discussed how they have devised other mechanisms to use as push their plans through without having funding muscle, such as through licensing and the NPPC. SPAD is empowered to issue operating licenses for both transport operations and terminals, and in cases where the local authorities are reluctant to adhere to SPAD’s transport plans in terms of locations or specifications, SPAD could have their applications for operating licences rejected. Moreover, SPAD can use the NPPC chaired by the Prime Minister as a medium for cascading plans to the state and the local levels. The chief minister of each state is a member of this council and responsible for communicating the plans that are to be implemented to the relevant agencies in his state.