Panduan utama dan kawalan tersedia dalam Bahasa Melayu. Sumber, butiran teknikal dan sebahagian nota kes dikekalkan dalam bahasa asal (Inggeris).
Ride the network. Meet the gaps. See what BRT could change.
Enter a home address, workplace, building or street in Klang Valley. Search, then select the correct match. You can also paste latitude, longitude or pick directly on the map.
Search sends only the entered query to Photon / Komoot. This page keeps locations in memory for this tab only; it does not save them or make bookings. A nearby landmark is fine if you prefer not to enter your house address. Map pinning and coordinates do not use address search.
Choose both locations to begin.
Five sample pairs, playable both ways. Choose “Use my own addresses” for a custom corridor simulation.
A B
Choose a journey to begin.
Purple = historical BRT what-if. Switch it on, then replay.
The journey text also works without 3D.
Other than Sunway, route geometry is schematic. Access and service times need checking.
Illustrative counts. Travel times, fares and street access are not verified.
The showcase uses Prasarana’s official GTFS feed, retrieved 10 September 2026: route B1000, direction shapes B100001 and B100002, seven station coordinates. Each stop is matched to its nearest shape vertex (8–40 m offset); these are operator-supplied coordinates, not a surveyed reconstruction. Separate shapes are used for each direction.
Route data is embedded in this file. Its geometry establishes the illustrated corridor, not walkability, current departures or precise elevated guideway height. The character and vehicle are stylised 3D markers anchored to the route and enlarged for legibility. Buildings depend on available map data. Station pauses and playback speed are illustrative.
The feed’s two shapes measure approximately 5.17 km and 5.36 km; the published line length is 5.4 km. Those are different measurements. Endpoint connections follow Rapid KL’s BRT guidance; walking paths and transfer times are not verified.
The Sunway showcase uses the embedded official GTFS route shapes. The other sample scenarios and custom address journeys use approximate corridor coordinates and the historical BRT diagram in the full network explorer. Custom locations can be searched through Photon, entered as coordinates, or pinned on the map. The page builds a schematic connection between nearby corridor points, with an explicit penalty for access and transfers. This is not a verified journey planner: it does not optimise real travel time, check schedules, route along streets or include the ordinary bus network. If no connected chain is found within 5 km of the selected endpoints, it says so rather than inventing transit. LRT3 is excluded from custom routing because its operating status was unverified in this model. Proposed BRT transfers inferred from proximity remain labelled unverified. Connection-gap choices illustrate access decisions; they do not determine whether a street is walkable, a bus is available or Grab can accept a booking.
BRT replays are hypothetical except Sunway, which is already operating. KL–Klang BRT was cancelled in 2017. Proposed stops, timetables and service plans are not assumed. The comparisons are not investment appraisals.
The camera uses MapLibre and the streets/building data come from OpenFreeMap, OpenMapTiles and OpenStreetMap. Building heights appear only where the source supplies them; this is not a photographic reconstruction. The character rides stylised, cutaway 3D buses, trains and a ride-hail car, and steps out for walking or unmodelled access legs. Vehicle shapes and colours are illustrative, not exact operator fleet models. The avatar is rendered with Three.js. These tools require no paid map-engine key. Internet and WebGL are needed for the 3D view; the journey text and comparison remain usable if it fails.
Use Pause to read a step, Next step to move ahead, or change playback speed. These controls change animation pacing, not journey time. Skipped access legs remain unresolved in the result. Use Skip animation or turn Motion off to read the comparison directly. Motion is checked by default. Turn it off or use Skip animation whenever you prefer a static comparison. Starting another trip or changing the BRT switch resets playback.
Six selected services, 2025. Usage alone cannot tell us how a journey feels.
408,152,192 trips, not unique passengers. These six categories do not represent the whole network.
Data, scope and source →Rapid KL is covered. KTM Komuter and ERL are not.
Sunway operates. KL–Klang was cancelled in 2017. Explore the connections envisioned.
A historical tender presentation listed 12 corridors; this is not proof that every corridor was funded or cancelled.
History and sources →Use the network map to compare corridors and transfers. Then scroll through the case studies and the history behind the BRT overlay.
Select routes in the sidebar. Planned MRT3 is off by default. A crossing does not necessarily mean a passenger interchange. Report a base-map issue
Explore 14 supplied case studies. Each separates the claim, evidence status and proposed action. Priority labels are provisional editorial assessments.
Historical proposal · Delivery comparison
Klang Valley once had a proposal for 12 Bus Rapid Transit corridors. Sunway BRT opened; the KL–Klang project was cancelled in 2017. The wider connected network in this diagram did not materialise. This history helps frame a question for today: which planned connections still need better public transport?
BRT uses buses with rapid-transit infrastructure and service design. SPAD envisaged exclusive busways, payment before boarding, frequent services and integration with rail. The bus network would have its own main corridors as well as feed passengers into rail stations. [1] [2]
The diagram combines routes into central KL, local links and outer suburban connections. Its layout suggests journeys between suburbs could avoid a detour through central KL. That is a reading of the network design, not a measured journey-time saving.
Corridor names follow SPAD’s planning documents; endpoints and station names vary between versions. On a narrow screen, scroll the table sideways.
| Proposed corridor | Outcome / evidence status | Connection and context |
|---|---|---|
| Kuala Lumpur–Klang | Cancelled in 2017 | Proposed Federal Highway spine via PJ and Shah Alam. Reached procurement; government cited overlap with LRT3. [3] [4] |
| Bandar Sunway–USJ | The corresponding Sunway–Setia Jaya to USJ 7 line opened in June 2015: 5.4 km, seven stations. Historical stop names differ. [5] [6] | |
| Kuala Lumpur–Taman Melawati | Not delivered as shown | Radial connection through Chow Kit, Titiwangsa and Setapak. |
| Kuala Lumpur–Ampang | Not delivered as shown | Radial connection through the city centre and the Jalan Ampang corridor. |
| Kuala Lumpur–Puchong | Not delivered as shown | Radial connection through Old Klang Road towards Puchong Jaya. |
| Damansara–Kinrara | Not delivered as shown | Cross-suburban connection from Bandar Utama through PJ towards Bandar Kinrara. |
| Ampang–Kepong | Not delivered as shown | Northern and eastern arc through Melawati, Gombak and Batu Caves. |
| Kota Damansara–Shah Alam | Not delivered as shown | Western connection through Subang and Bukit Jelutong. |
| Shah Alam–Putra Heights | Not delivered as shown | Southward connection through Seri Muda and Kota Kemuning. |
| Putra Heights–Putrajaya | Not delivered as shown | Southern connection through Saujana Putra and Cyberjaya. |
| Putrajaya–Kajang | Not delivered as shown | Southern/eastern corridor; the supplied diagram also extends towards Semenyih. |
| Kerinchi–Alam Damai | Not delivered as shown | Southeastern corridor; drawn from the Mid Valley area towards Cheras and Alam Damai. |
“Not delivered as shown” does not mean formally cancelled or entirely unserved. Separate cancellation decisions for those ten corridors have not been established in this review. Ordinary buses or rail may serve parts of them. The historical map is not a current route commitment or a statement that every proposed stop remains feasible. Corridor list: [1] [2].
Use this proposal alongside the network map and improvement hotspots to ask where passengers still face long waits, difficult transfers or poor access.
The diagram cannot prove that all 12 routes were viable, quantify savings, or rank BRT against rail. Those conclusions need demand, travel-time, accessibility, engineering and whole-life cost evidence.
Historical documents and reporting reviewed 8 September 2026. Archived presentation copies are hosted by third parties. The supplied image has no visible title or date; matching corridors support its identification, not an exact edition date.
Ridership measures usage. It does not, by itself, establish service coverage, reliability or the difficulty of a transfer. Read the scope alongside each claim.
Calculated from official daily records, 1 Jan–31 Dec 2025. Percentages cover only the six listed services, not the full Prasarana or Klang Valley network.
The six entries total 408,152,192 trips (408.2M when rounded). BRT, KTM, ERL and other unlisted services have no separate slices.
Source: data.gov.my / Prasarana / MOT — audited daily ridershipDownload the 365 daily records used in this chart (CSV)
Official data counts trips, not unique people; line attribution at interchanges needs care. All 365 dates and values were present for each selected service. Totals were summed before rounding; retrieved 8 Sep 2026. Reuse under CC BY 4.0.
Created by
Turn complex information into maps, journeys and explanations people can explore.
Discuss a project