LETTER | At a recent forum, I asked the audience: “How many of you would not buy a car in the future, even if you could afford one?”

Half the room raised their hands. I looked at them and said, “You must be from Klang Valley.”

Because in Klang Valley, people have options. There are three LRT lines, two MRT lines, a BRT service, KTM Komuter, the KLIA Express, a monorail, Rapid buses, and DRT vans.

About 20 percent of the population already relies on these systems.

But in towns like Nibong Tebal, Jitra, or Kampar, life is very different. Without a car, or at least a motorcycle, daily routines such as commuting to work, buying groceries, or going to school are almost impossible.

It’s easy to say the government has failed to invest enough in public transport outside major cities. But that explanation is too simplistic.

Public transport investment is not uniform but depends on seven factors.

1. Population density

In dense areas, a train can carry thousands of passengers within minutes. In small or scattered towns, the same train may run half-empty.

This is why the type of public transport system must match the density of the area.

2. Ridership

Public transport infrastructure is useless if people don’t use it. Living near a station doesn’t matter if most people still prefer to drive.

Policymakers must study both current and projected demand.

3. Population growth

If an area is growing, expanding the public transport system makes sense.

If people are leaving, then expansion is wasteful.

4. Population policy

Density is not natural but shaped by planning. If governments build high-density housing, offices, schools, and malls near LRT stations, more people will use the system.

This is the idea of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). But if highways and low-density suburbs are prioritised, ridership will decline.

5. Development cost

Heavy rail projects like LRT or MRT cost billions.

They are justified only in large, high-demand cities that are designed to be high-density and growing.

In smaller towns, buses or vans are more realistic, though most people still prefer private vehicles.

6. Time efficiency

Good public transport systems must move people quickly.

In dense cities, an MRT line can serve thousands in a short time.

In rural areas, buses take longer and carry fewer passengers. Slow or fragmented journeys discourage usage.

7. Private vehicle affordability

If cars and motorcycles are cheap and convenient, public transport will always struggle to attract riders.

But when fuel, tolls, or parking become more expensive, more people turn to public transport.

What kind of city do we want?

When we put these factors together, the picture becomes clearer.

Dense, growing cities with pro-density policies and high private vehicle costs require segregated systems such as MRT and LRT.

By contrast, smaller, low-density, car-dependent regions that rely only on flexible systems like buses or vans risk remaining trapped in commuting inefficiency.

Ultimately, government and citizens must decide what kind of city we want to build.

Do we pursue a transit-city model like Singapore or Hong Kong, where pro-density policies and high vehicle costs sustain high-efficiency, high-ridership systems?

Or a low-to-medium density model with cheap vehicle ownership, where even efficient transit achieves only moderate ridership?

Or perhaps a high-density model with cheap vehicle ownership like Kuala Lumpur, where efficient transit systems exist but still struggle to reach high ridership?

Simply put, do we want to be stuck in traffic jams or crowded MRT?

Public transport efficiency is not about the system itself. It’s about fitting the right system to the right place, at the right time, supported by the right policies.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.