The recent announcement that Budget 2027 will provide funding for public transport is a good step forward. Hopefully, more funding will go beyond the Klang Valley, with Johor Bahru and other state capitals receiving their allocations by June next year.
Between now and June, there is still time to undertake a proper demand assessment, a fundamental component of transport planning. Without a proper understanding of travel patterns, passenger volumes, origins and destinations, even expensive infrastructure projects can fail to deliver their intended benefits.
Unfortunately, transport planning in Malaysia has so far been biased towards road transport, driven mainly by federal government decisions and funding, and often mired in political considerations rather than based on a comprehensive assessment of actual needs and demand.
The Johor Bahru-Singapore corridor is a classic example. For decades, demand for travel between the two cities has exceeded the capacity of the transport infrastructure and services available.
Hundreds of thousands of people cross the border daily for work, business, education and other activities. The pressure on the Causeway is known and well documented. Sketchy improvements in the form of costly new technology — such as QR codes for documentation processing — have not eased daily congestion, especially when systems break down as they often do.
Despite this longstanding demand, the question remains: have we made the best use of our existing infrastructure, especially the rail facilities, before committing ourselves to more expensive solutions?
The Tebrau shuttle service: a missed opportunity?
Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad’s (KTMB) rail lines across the causeway may be old tech by today's standard, but the Tebrau shuttle service between Johor Bahru and Woodlands has demonstrated the value of rail travel across the border. The actual train journey takes only five minutes, making it considerably faster than travelling by road during peak periods.
However, the service has historically been constrained by limited seating capacity and ticket availability, and the difficulty of accommodating the large number of commuters who wish to use it.
Between 5am and 7.30am, a train departs every 30 minutes. After 7.30am, passengers may face waits of up to 1½ hours for the next departure.
This raises an important question. If demand for cross-border travel is so substantial, why has the existing railway service not been upgraded more aggressively to accommodate the high passenger volume?
Why are the intervals between trains so long, resulting in lengthy waits? Why must every passenger buying a ticket be assigned a seat when the journey takes only five minutes each way, when some may be willing to stand?
The answer cannot simply be that its replacement — a new, modern and technologically more advanced railway system — is already under construction.
What if we first examined the operational and regulatory constraints, existing railway capacity, options for increasing service frequency, border immigration arrangements and the feasibility of expanding operations?
Railway infrastructure is expensive to build. Where tracks and stations already exist, improving the utilisation of those assets should be an obvious starting point, and could cost much less.
The RTS Link: necessary, but an incomplete solution
It has been said that the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link will transform cross-border commuting. With a journey time of about six minutes between Bukit Chagar and Woodlands North and planned intervals of around 10 minutes or less, the RTS Link will offer commuters an alternative to road travel across the Causeway.
Its importance should not be underestimated. However, the RTS should not be regarded as a stand-alone or final solution to Johor Bahru's transport problems. Its success will depend heavily on how passengers travel to and from Bukit Chagar station.
If commuters must depend on buses, private cars, taxis or ride-hailing services to reach the station, congestion could simply shift from the Causeway to the roads surrounding Bukit Chagar. The station's passenger-handling capacity, pedestrian access, bus connectivity, drop-off facilities and integration with other public transport services will need to be planned and integrated seamlessly.
More importantly, it has to be recognised that the RTS primarily serves a specific cross-border corridor link. It does not automatically solve the wider mobility problems faced by residents travelling between different parts of Johor Bahru, Permas Jaya, Iskandar Puteri and the surrounding Johor Bahru conurbations.
We must therefore distinguish between a project that improves a cross-border link and a transport system that improves mobility throughout the city. They are not the same thing.
How does KTMB fit into the bigger picture?
KTMB has more than one line in Johor Bahru. Apart from the new double-track intercity line linking central Johor Bahru with Gemas and Kuala Lumpur, there is also a branch line from Kempas Baru, north of Johor Bahru, to Pasir Gudang in the east.
Another branch line just south of Senai forms a triangular route with the main line, connecting Senai to Iskandar Puteri and Tanjung Pelepas in western Johor. It is also possible for a train from Tanjung Pelepas to travel to Senai, Sedenak, Kluang, Gemas and all the way to Kuala Lumpur.
Using the same line, a train can also provide services from Tanjung Pelepas directly to Senai, using the Kempas Baru junction to get to Pasir Gudang or go directly south to Johor Bahru and Woodlands.
Unfortunately, such services (or a configuration of my imagined passenger services) are currently not available, even though the tracks there are all in good order and condition, and obviously underutilised, reportedly because there are no suitable coaches and locomotives to run such services.
This is one of my concerns: has sufficient attention been given to the future role of KTMB’s existing railway infrastructure network. i.e. whether it can be turned into an effective passenger commuter service? Reports suggest that funding has instead been directed toward an elevated autonomous rapid transit system.
The Tebrau shuttle service should not be abandoned once the RTS Link is up and running. Instead, it should be combined into the wider KTMB network mentioned above to serve different travel demands and purposes.
Like the RTS Link, public transport in Johor Bahru should not be planned piecemeal or in isolation from other services. Integrated planning and demand management must be comprehensive, free from political influence, and considered within the broader framework of transport planning for greater Johor Bahru.
There is an opportunity to extend the Tebrau shuttle service to Senai town and eventually to Senai International Airport. From there, the service could branch towards Pasir Gudang via Kempas Baru.
While the RTS will provide a higher‑capacity link to Woodlands North, the KTMB network could serve as a feeder line, collecting passengers along existing routes that are not easily reached by other transport modes.
There is nothing wrong with providing two rail network options into Woodlands from more than one location in Johor Bahru.
The challenge is determining how these services can complement one another rather than leave gaps in growing transport demand. Johor Bahru’s public transport network should follow future demand, not politics.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.