Bus Rapid Transit in Jakarta: evaluating the factors that impede or facilitate

1
Bus Rapid Transit in Jakartaevaluating the
factors that impede or facilitate

• Dr. Heru Sutomo
• Centre for Transportation and Logistics Studies
  (PUSTRAL)
• Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
• www.pustral-ugm.org

2
Introduction

• Jakarta capital of Indonesia, consists of 5
  cities Central, North, West, South East
• Pop 7.5 mio, surrounded by towns Bogor,
  Tangerang, Bekasi, Depok pop 15.4 mio
• Total Jabodetabek approx 22.7 mio.
• Population density 11,300/km2
• Share borders with West Java Banten
  Province

3
Greater Jakarta - Jabodetabek
4
Jakarta Transport Profile

• Shifting from public transport dominated 57
  (85) to private transport 55 (00)
• Motorcycles share keeps increasing (70)
• In the peak of motorization
• National sales peak in 2004 0.5 mio cars, 4.5
  mio motorcycles sold
• Deteriorating traffic conditions, severe and
  unpredictable congestion, serious pollution
• Economic Costs associated with PM10, NO2 and SO2
  181.4 Million USD (1998) would increase to
  402.64 Million USD (2015)

5
Types of Public Transport

• Ojek motorcycle bicycle taxis (informal)
• Bajaj-3wheeler 2stroke, approx 13,000
• Taxis approx 22,000
• Minibuses (8-12 pax) route basis approx 13,000
• Metromini-Midibuses (30pax) route basis,
  approx 6,000
• Buses (55pax) AC, economy, limited stop aprox
  5,000
• New BRT (85 pax) 3 lines approx 200
• Heavy rail basis, 1067mm gauge, some elevated
• Acting more as commuter train, connecting
  neighboring towns of Bekasi, Bogor, Depok,
  Tangerang, Serpong
• Frequency 10-20 minutes
• Heavily used, 67 illegal passengers, heavily
  subsidized
• Old poorly maintained cars, poor service,

6
Problems of Urban Bus
Problems and Development of Bus System

• Fully private government set fares, private take
  all the risk
• License based on vehicle oversupply, corrupt
• Severe competition within a route, between
  route, route violation
• Low fares unable to renew fleet
• Poorer service decreasing patronage

• On board cash payment revenue losses
• No ticketing system no revenue, patronage data
• Weak supervision, no monitoring and control
• Problem on security on bus and in the terminal
• No service integration at all.

7

• Congestion, even in the toll road

• Pollution, private transport

• Old, poorly maintained bus

• Also smaller public transport

Source Swisscontact
8
Urban Bus Development

• Started in mid 1970s following tram closure
• Gen 1 fierce competition, small companies
• Gen 2 1985 Merging by government into 5
  companies, 1 new public company
• Gen 3 Using bigger buses double decker and
  articulated, but sustainability?
• Gen 4 Priority- bus lanes many violation
• Gen 5 BRT new era, government take the risk-
  major change- risk of (same) failure

9
Planning Stage

• Crisis in 1998 badly hit public transport/bus
• Fleet availability down to 60, no renewal
• Business declining some gone bankrupt
• Urgent need to save urban buses in 2000
• The wave of reforms in all sectors
• Masterplan study SITRAMP started in 2001
• Decision to make new bus system cannot wait he
  study

10
BRT Planning Process
Development of BRT
Bogota

• Commissioned new bus system mid 2001
• Governor accept the scheme Dec, 2001
• Approved by parliament funded Feb,2002
• 6 months discussions deciding central lane
• International support came ITDP, New York
• Feb, 2003 visit training to Bogota (ITDP)
• 2003 built infrastructure 74 buses (gov)
• 15 January 2004 Route 1 (13km) launched

BRT Jakarta Inspired by Bogota
From idea to reality in just 2.5 years!
11
Route 1 13 km, 15 January 2004
Route 2 3 33.8 km, 15 January 2004
Fleet no. 124 Mercedez Benz and Hino
Fleet no. 72 Daewoo, CNG
12
Features

• New image, suitable for everybody
• Fast, strong image of being given priority
• Cut the travel time to nearly half 90 to 45 m
• Route serves CBD and major employment
• Attract workers and commuters
• 15 shifts from car users
• Reasonable fare Rp 3,500 (US 39cents)
• Long service hours 5am-10pm, 3-5m h/way

7 Routes planned for 2007
13
Impeding factors

• Many parties enjoying money in licensing issuance
  show reluctance
• Old operators reluctant to follow the change,
  still feel have the right over route
• Still use vehicle basis rather than route basis
• Reveal the current poor management and
  maintenance system- a lot to be done
• No competition for old operators
• Feeder system is not planned accordingly

14
Facilitating Factors

• Technologically appropriate
• Using existing pedestrian bridges
• Tested in a prestigious route risky but
  widespread when successful
• Good public communication
• Blended with median greenery
• Bus fleet made available by government
• Assistance from Bogota via ITDP

• Secure planning process by vice Governor
• Multi-stakeholder meeting each 2 weeks
• Firm acceptance decision by Governor and then
  parliament the rest follow easily
• Strong financial capacity (US 1.3 billion)
• Timely in the effort to save public transport
• Support from international community
• Backed by evening restriction (3-in-1)

15
Closing Remarks

• Economic crisis have given room for the adoption
  of a new bus system.
• The idea of BRT in 2002 is very timely
• Governors strong commitment has paved the way in
  developing new public support
• Strong financial capacity of Provincial
  Government of Jakarta has made the speedy
  implementation possible.
• Substantial role of international community such
  as ITDP in giving access to BRT knowledge from
  Bogota.
• The participative panning process created a
  strong ownership among government offices and the
  public of Jakarta.
• Still focussed more on physical infrastructures.
• Longer perspective should be formulated for the
  sustainability of providing the service in
  conjunction with other modes of public transport
  may be impaired.