From Boo Jia Cher

A few days ago, I stood at a pedestrian crossing in Bukit Bintang alongside office workers, tourists and shoppers. The signal took a long time to change. As the wait dragged on, people began edging forward, scanning for a gap in traffic.

The waiting time appears to have increased, likely to allow more vehicles to pass through the junction, especially during peak hours. The assumption seems to be that giving cars longer green lights will improve traffic flow.

But even with the extra time, traffic remained slow. Mostly it was just one person in the car — the driver.

When ‘free flow’ means no crossing

DBKL has also introduced flashing amber lights at certain junctions during peak hours. In practice, this removes the normal red–green signal cycle for vehicles to improve traffic flow.

Technically, drivers are supposed to slow down and give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings.

In reality, that assumption doesn’t hold. Drivers in KL rarely stop at zebra crossings even under normal conditions.

With flashing amber lights, pedestrians are left negotiating in a constant stream of traffic, without a clear right of way, a protected crossing phase, or any real sense of safety.

It effectively prioritises uninterrupted vehicle movement while shifting the burden and risk onto pedestrians.

Another attempt to “improve traffic flow” ends up doing so only for drivers, while making the city harder to navigate for everyone else.

The limits of increasing road capacity

The core issue of the two examples described above is that we are treating the city centre primarily as a space for moving vehicles quickly.

Expanding roads, extending green lights or even vanquishing green lights altogether does not reduce congestion. Instead, it encourages more people to drive.

At the same time, conditions for walking deteriorate, leaving us stuck with longer waits at crossings, limited shade and generally uncomfortable streets. As walking becomes less practical, more people choose to drive, even for short distances.

Fear of ‘losing face’

This also reinforces social perceptions around transport. Public transport, especially buses, can carry a poor reputation in general, leading some people to avoid it even when it can be convenient.

Concerns about “losing face” influence commuting choices, adding more cars to the road unnecessarily.

Transportation modes are tied to class politics. When buses are seen as “low class”, people with means stick to private cars, often carrying just one person.

The role of the level of service

Much of the logic of letting traffic flow non-stop is shaped by how traffic is measured. Our roads are designed by traffic engineers who rely on level of service (LOS), which grades roads based on how freely vehicles move.

LOS focuses largely on minimising delays for drivers only. This leads to decisions such as extending green lights for cars, increasing road capacity, and reducing interruptions to vehicle flow.

Non-drivers are completely forgotten within this framework. Optimising for vehicle flow can result in longer waiting times for pedestrians and hostile street conditions.

Pedestrian behaviour and safety

When people are required to wait several minutes for a short crossing window, or are not given a proper crossing at all, they will cross during gaps in traffic rather than wait.

This also increases safety risks. When pedestrian needs are not properly accommodated, people lose faith in the system and begin to act on their own accord, and understandably so.

The space efficiency issue

Different modes of transport use road space very differently. Private cars, especially with single occupants, are the least efficient and contribute most to congestion.

Prioritising the least efficient mode of transport means fewer people can move through the same area.

A properly enforced bus lane and a safe, shaded sidewalk to an LRT station, for example, can move far more people per hour than several lanes of private cars.

Rethinking priorities

Reducing congestion requires making alternatives to driving viable. This includes:

• Shorter waiting times and protected phases at pedestrian crossings
• Continuous, shaded walkways
• Properly enforced bus lanes that allow public transport to move reliably
• Safe cycling infrastructure and last-mile options like bike-share

Over time, this could extend to reconfiguring wide but congested roads: reducing space for cars while adding bus lanes and protected cycling paths.

Congestion pricing should also eventually be on the table, not just to discourage excessive car use, but to generate funding for more efficient and equitable transport alternatives.

And when alternatives become more efficient and convenient, more people will choose them.

An alternative future

While many major cities globally are actively reducing car use in their centres, KL continues to double down on it, even experimenting with “free flow” systems that effectively sideline non-drivers.

It’s time for a 21st-century shift.

DBKL needs to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport, instead of designing a city that makes it easier for cars to dominate and clog our streets.

Boo Jia Cher is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.