Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

The Star recently published an article on the Kinrara Damansara Expressway (Kidex), with residents voicing their support for the highway while quoting an unnamed spokesperson from Kidex Sdn Bhd on the need for Kidex to alleviate traffic congestion. The report is flawed and not objective to the true picture of the damage Kidex will do to the city of Petaling Jaya.

The Say No to Kidex (SNTK) group would like to present the following facts based on our analysis of the Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIA), Additional Traffic Impact Assessment Report and the Environment Impact Report (EIA) for Kidex.

Firstly, the Preliminary EIA report states the need for the highway as follows: “The main intention of implementing KIDEX is to provide relief to the existing traffic congestion at LDP and Sprint...” - Item III, Statement of Need.

To demonstrate the easing of traffic congestion, the Additional TIA Report (Table 5.1 and 5.3) shows data that compares operational performance of existing roads (known as level of service or LOS) with and without Kidex for existing roads by the year 2028.

Although the data shows a reduction in the number of cars using these roads, the LOS for existing roads do not change, with some roads showing worse performance. In layman’s terms, LOS F means traffic is slowed down to a crawl and at a standstill at most times. Is there a benefit in building Kidex with this Class F - Standstill.

For LDP, the LOS remains at F with or without Kidex. No doubt Kidex would argue that the study shows fewer cars using the LDP, but fewer cars travelling on the road that still contributes to a LOS F is still standstill traffic.

LOS for other existing main highways linked by Kidex, namely Kesas, NPE and Federal Highway, are all projected to have a LOS of F by 2028 with or without Kidex. How would Kidex feeding into an already saturated highway help reduce congestion?

It does not, because Table 5.7 of the Additional TIA report shows the summary of year 2028 for Kidex mid-block highway performance and the majority of the LOS on Kidex itself is projected to be at F - standstill.

Please allow SNTK to put this information into perspective - KidexX is a RM2.42 billion solution that is projected to work for 10 years only, assuming Kidex is completed and operational by 2018.

Highways without end?

Is the subsequent solution to this traffic congestion another highway 10 years later? And will that highway last another 10 years so we need many more highways without end? Where are the alternative solutions?

Transit, a reputable non-governmental organisation on urban transportation in Klang Valley, has provided a breakdown on Kidex’s cost and compared it to other public transportation options.

The projected cost of the Kidex Skyway is RM2.42 billion for 14.9km. That is more than RM162 million per km, well over the cost of rapid transit options which would move between three to six times as many people as the proposed skyway, occupy less space and produce far less visual and air pollution.

For reference and comparison:

Bus Rapid Transit (Fully Elevated) Line - RM75 million to RM100 million per km. Capacity: 4,000 to 6,000 passengers per hour in each direction (based on 65 passengers per bus).

Monorail Line - RM75million to RM85 million per km. Capacity: 5,000 to 10,000 passengers per hour in each direction (based on 200 passengers per train).

LRT/MRT Line - RM175 million to RM200 million per km. Capacity: 20,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour in each direction (based on 200 passengers per train).

Compare that to the average highway lane, which can move approximately 900 to 1,200 cars per hour. If we generously assume the Kidex highway’s two lanes can move 2,000 cars per hour in each direction (though it really cannot) and the average car has 1.5 persons in it (though most do not), we see that the highway can barely move around 3,000 people per hour in each direction. Not much value for money at a cost of RM162 million per km.

And there is certainly a case to implement one of the public transport models advocated by Transit as our own government agency Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (Spad) has laid out policies on the need to increase our public transport ridership levels versus private vehicle demand. This reduces the number of cars on our roads and reduces even the need for highways. Kidex goes against the federal government policy.

Not only does Kidex go against the public transport initiative by taking up precious space that could be a corridor for public transport infrastructure, Kidex will render many of the properties situated along its corridor unliveable with noise and dust pollution.

Existing noise levels are the same

Table 6.11 and 6.12 of the Preliminary EIA report shows that the noise pollution generated by vehicles using Kidex would be slightly above the permissible level at 15 metres away. This is apparently acceptable because existing noise pollution levels without Kidex are the same. Kidex goes against the acceptable Department of Environment requirements on noise and pollution.

However, the highway alignment is between five to 10 metres away from numerous religious buildings, residential units, apartment blocks, hospitals and commercial properties. That means the noise pollution is much higher than what the data shows.

In summary, SNTK would like to point out that Kidex is not a well-thought-out solution for traffic congestion as shown by their reports and studies. Kidex has failed to be convincing in their own reports, is that transparency in the reverse.

These reports were handed to SNTK on the instructions of Works Minister, YB Datuk Fadillah Yusof by Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia. SNTK has in turn made these reports available for public scrutiny and we invite the public to download these documents here .


SELVE SUGUMARAN is vice-chairperson, Say No To Kidex.

ADS