It goes without saying that a city should be designed around the people who live in it.

However, we have moved away from that principle – or perhaps, we never truly adhered to it – towards a car-centric urban design, resulting in the pervasive issue of traffic congestion.

Traffic congestion is ubiquitous in major cities, especially during peak hours, and even more so during festive seasons when people are driving from the cities to their hometowns or favourite holiday destinations.

The congestion is so severe that a report from February 2024 stated motorists in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor alone have spent roughly RM6.8 billion per year on fuel while stuck in traffic jams (Malay Mail, 2024).

Furthermore, the report mentioned a DBKL study which found that motorists spend an average of 580 hours in traffic jams per year.

Unfortunately for many people, this is the only mode of transportation available, given that our city was designed with cars in mind, rendering all other modes of transportation less accessible or outright obsolete.

Combined with the ease of obtaining a vehicle, more and more people are opting for private transport, which further exacerbates the problem of traffic congestion.

The massive amount of vehicle volume also leads to more accidents. In 2023, 598,635 traffic accidents was recorded, and at least RM25 billion in economic value was lost (The Star, 2024).

It is a problem in need of resolution, and the government has been trying to address it.

However, the method we have consistently defaulted to revolves around two solutions: “one more lane”, or “one more road”.

These are the most intuitive and easiest answers one can devise.

With a large number of cars using the same road, it seems logical to just add more lanes so as to accommodate more vehicles, or to divert traffic by constructing new roads or highways.

Yet, after years of building new roads and expanding them, it is clear that adding more lanes and highways doesn’t work, because we are still attempting the same approach to solve the issue.

All it does is temporarily alleviate the problem, and once the traffic volume caught up, we find ourselves back at square one, adding even more lanes and highways.

Furthermore, the constant need for widening roads and building highways opens up opportunities for corruption, with the most recent example being the highway project scandal in Klang Valley worth over RM1 billion (Malay Mail, 2024a).

The focus on solving traffic congestion was, and still is, misplace.

Instead of focusing on how to accommodate more private vehicles, we should focus on how to reduce our dependency on them. Only then would the severity of traffic congestion be reduced.

Instead of continuing to widen roads or build more highways, what we might need is to reduce the number of lanes on roads.

This is counterintuitive, but the concept of a road diet has been proven to be effective not only in managing the flow of traffic but also in improving the general road safety of users.

It is commonly done by reducing the number of lanes each road has.

In places that have implemented a road diet, most have gone from a two-way, four-lane road to a two-way three-lane road, with the middle-lane designated for making turns and shared by both directions of traffic.

Doing so would open up free spaces on both sides of the road, which could be used as designated bike lane, parking spaces, or even better, a special lane for micromobility vehicles.

Micromobility vehicles were banned on public roads back in 2021 due to concerns over the safety of road users, and more restrictions on vehicle types followed in 2022 (Malay Mail, 2022).

The ban was justifiable. As accessible as they are, micromobility vehicles posed significant risk of injuries on public roads given their smaller size and lack of protective requirements such as helmets.

However, such issues can be resolved by simply providing a special lane for micromobility vehicles.

The report from the International Transport Forum (2024) found that sidewalks and traffic lanes were the least safe locations for riding micromobility vehicles, while separated bike lanes proved to be the safer option, with a lower risk of injuries.

We must begin focusing on how to efficiently move people to their destinations, rather than concentrating on moving more cars from one place to another.

A summary of case studies in Virginia, United States, published in 2020, found a general positive impact in locations that had implemented road diets (Ohlms et al., 2020).

Although the impact on traffic volume remained unclear, there was a clear reduction in vehicular accidents, while bicyclist and pedestrian usage notable increased.

On top of that, spillover effects such as increased retail sales and improved housing market performance were observed in locations that went through a road diet.

Most importantly, peak travel times were slightly improved, and travel speeds remained steady.

An earlier study in San Jose, California, found a noticeable reduction in traffic volume and a significant reduction in traffic speed after a road diet (Nixon et al., 2017).

Furthermore, they claimed that the reduced volume was not due to traffic being diverted to another part of the neighbourhood, as the traffic volume in other streets also experienced a fall or remained flat.

Notably, the United States is also one of the most car-dependent countries.

While road diets are not particularly great for locations with extremely high traffic volumes such as highways, they do wonders in improving another aspect that would eventually have an impact on the traffic volumes of highways: public transport.

One common criticism of our public transport has been the first- and last-mile problem, meaning how do people get to the transport hub from where they are, and how do they get to their destination from the transport hub.

By having a special lane for micromobility vehicles, we would promote the use of such vehicles and provide the much-needed transportation over the first and last mile.

Micromobility vehicles are not the only solution for first- and last-mile issues regarding our public transportation.

The Selangor government is experimenting with Demand Responsive Transit (DRT). Rapid Bus Sdn Bhd is partnering with DBKL to expand bus lane trials in Kuala Lumpur and has recently tried to launch trials in Penang Island.

If both projects are successful in achieving their objectives, they could do wonders in solving the issue.

Only then could we persuade people to ditch private vehicles and start using public transport without worrying about being unable to reach where they need to be after getting off the train or bus.

Furthermore, our public transportation needs to branch out to city outskirts and suburbs, so there is some form of connectivity between suburbs and the city centre without the need for private vehicles.

The disconnection between inner city and the outskirts due to a lack of public transportation is one of the many reasons why highways are always congested.

Other than providing alternative modes of transportation, another way of reducing traffic volume would be reducing the need for private vehicles, which could be achieved by ensuring proper infrastructure is provided in these suburbs.

Basically, it is making sure all areas are equally developed with necessary facilities such as schools and healthcare instead of hyper-fixating on locations that are already over-developed.

Together with promoting remote work or flexible working arrangements, this would effectively reduce the need for driving, as well as helping people reduce their cost of living.

After years of repeating the same ineffective strategies, it is time for us to move forward and fundamentally change our approach to solving traffic congestion.

We must begin focusing on how to efficiently move people to their destinations, rather than concentrating on moving more cars from one place to another.

(Chia Chu Hang is a Research Assistant at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.)