1

DATA COLLECTION REPORT

Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI)

for Asian Cities

GREATER JAKARTA AREA (JABODETABEK)

INDONESIA

Dr. Muhammad Nanang Prayudyanto (Consultant)

Dr. Muiz Thohir (GJTA)

2017

2

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................................................. 2

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Current state of urban transport systems and service ...................................................................... 7

3. Data collection approach for SUTI ................................................................................................... 11

4. Data for SUTI (key data – detail in Excel sheet) ............................................................................... 12

a. Indicator 1 Extent to which transport plans cover facilities for active modes and public

transport ...................................................................................................................................... 12

b. Indicator 2. Modal Share of Active and Public Transport in Commuting .................................... 18

c. Indicator 3. Convenient Access to Public Transport Service........................................................ 20

d. Indicator 4. Public Transport Quality and Reliability ................................................................... 22

e. Indicator 5. Traffic fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. ................................................................ 24

f. Indicator 6. Travel Cost as a share of Income .............................................................................. 25

g. Indicator 7. Ratio of fare revenue to operating costs for public transport systems (‘Fare box

ratio’) ........................................................................................................................................... 25

h. Indicator 8. Investment in Public Transport System .................................................................... 26

i. Indicator 9. Air Quality (PM10) .................................................................................................... 26

j. Indicator 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. .................................................................................... 28

5. Analysis of data (input data in Excel sheet and results) .................................................................. 29

6. Perspective on SUTI pilot exercise ................................................................................................... 30

7. Useful references and persons, experts and officials met .............................................................. 31

8. Annexes; useful data and material such as city transport plan, photographs of urban transport

systems etc. ............................................................................................................................................. 31

3

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Area of Greater Jakarta 5

1.2 Land Use of Greater Jakarta 6

1.3 Urban Density in Greater Jakartra. 7

2.1 Traffic density during 2002, 2010 and 2020 clockwise 8

2.2 Person Trip Distribution 9

2.3 Road Network in Greater Jakarta 10

4.1 Four Component in the Indicator 1 13

4.2 The Greater Jakarta Public Transport Network Plan in 2019 16

4.3 Jakarta LRT Network Plan 16

4.4 Pedestrian Facilities Program in Central Jakarta 17

4.5 Campaign for Pedestrian “Right” to Educate Motor Cyclist Not Using the Facilities 17

4.6 Bicycle Facility in the campus area at University of Indonesia Depok 17

4.7 Public Bicycle at Tourist Area at Heritage “Old Town” Jakarta 18

4.8 Intermodal Facility at the Railway Station 18

4.9 Automatic Parking using E-Money at Railway station 18

4.10 Progress of MRT Construction in Jakarta 20

4.11 Progress of LRT Construction at Jakarta Toll Road to Bogor 20

4.12 Public Transport Service Area 22

4.13 Public Transport Quality and Realibility- 2012 23

4.14 Fatalities during Latest 5 Years in GJTA 25

4.15 Fatalities by Mode (2015) 25

5.1 Spider Diagram of Greater Jakarta 29

4

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Table Population of Greater Jakarta 7

2.1 Public Transport Service Financing 10

4.1 Indicator 1 for Greater Jakarta 14

4.2 Table Modal Share by Income Level 19

4.3 Average number of trips per person by main mode of transport 20

4.4 Public Transport Service Area 21

4.5 Public Buses Quality and Realibility- 2017 24

4.6 Traffic Accident 24

4.7 Vehicle Emission Standard for Jakarta 27

4.8 Air Quality 28

4.9 Traffic Volume in Jakarta 28

4.10 Estimated Emission from Traffic Volumes 28

4.11 Estimated Emission from Fuel Sales 28

7.1 List of Person Contacts 30

5

Annex 1: Greater Jakarta Collection Report

1. Introduction

Jakarta is the capital city of Republic Indonesia and the importance for the regional economy

activities. Along with rapid economic growth and urbanization, Jakarta has severed with traffic

and transportation problems in the last 20 years. The economic growth are double to the

national average growth as the results of rampant economic investment. Thus, the city attract

more people, and best national young talent to come. Inevitably, the city are sprawling, and it

creates a metro area that we called Greater Jakarta which comprises of 8 cities surrounded. The

total area of the Jakarta city only 9% of total the greater area, and the ratio of built up areas are

±20%.

Figure 1.1 Area of Greater Jakarta

6

Greater Jakarta is urban agglomeration which covers six cities and three regencies i,e. Jakarta,

Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi, Tangerang Selatan, Bekasi regency, Tangerang regency and

Bogor Regency. The population has reached ±30 million and density is 4,461 person/km2. The

population mostly distributed in the centre part, northern part, and also eastern part of the

metro area. The housing price in the centre has gentrified middle and lower income people to

live in urban fringe. Nevertheless, the centre part of areas are still populous. Particular lower

income worker could not afford the transport cost to travel from urban fringe to centre. Thus,

slums and squatters area are obviously seen in particular place in the city of Jakarta side by side

with luxury apartment.

Figure 1.2. Land Use of Greater Jakarta

7

Table 1.1 Table Population of Greater Jakarta

Name of The City Area (Km2) Population (in million)

Density (Pop/km2)

Projection of 20 years

Growth (%)

JAKARTA (CITY) 662,33 10,08 15231,9 0,86

BOGOR REGENCY 2997,13 5,1 1705,8 1,22

BEKASI REGENCY 1269,51 2,81 2219,8 1,22

BOGOR (CITY) 111,73 1,03 9269,9 1,49

BEKASI (CITY) 213,58 2,54 11914,3 1,49

DEPOK (CITY) 199,44 1,89 9500,5 1,49

TANGERANG REGENCY 1011,86 3,13 3101,4 1,59

TANGERANG (CITY) 153,93 2,02 13163,6 1,99

SOUTH TANGERANG SELATAN (CITY)

147,19 1,45 9876,0 1,99

TOTAL 6766,7 30,1

2. Current state of urban transport systems and service Private vehicles in urban growth has increased significantly, while the shares of public transport

capital from year to year tends to decrease. In the 2000 the use of public transport reached 58%

and significantly decreased in 2010 to 28%.

Figure 1.3 Urban Density in Greater Jakartra

8

The motorization dependency in Jakarta somehow occurs due to a prior policy fallacy.

Unreliable public transport has triggered a car explosion usage for daily commuting that is

driven by car industries promotion and affordable fuel price. The Central statistics data shows

that the private cars and motorcycle ownership grows 12% in average each year as a natural

effort by each individual to fulfill their mobility needs. The gentrification process creates more

travel-km that is produced by lower and middle income who mostly dwell in urban fringe and

work in the center. As the consequences, Jakarta now notoriously known as 7th worst traffic in

the world. Annually, Jakarta suffers from an economic loss of 46 trillion IDR, or equal to 3,8

billion EUR, due to transport congestion. Fig.2.1. Traffic density by JICA (Bappenas, 2004) shows

the location of traffic attraction during 2002, 2010 and 2020 (est.)- clockwise

Figure 2.1 Traffic density during 2002, 2010 and 2020 -clockwise

9

Jakarta government applies pro-poor policy through subsidized BRT ticket and Commuter rail

fare. The policy has been pleased by the Jakarta Government ordinance No. 5/2014, and also

National Act No. 22/2009. The fare discount is applied to encourage people shift from private

vehicle to public transport.

The table (x) shows the public transport option in Jakartra. The Transjakarta system applies flat

fare for any trips in inner Jakarta system network, but the commuter line uses distance-based

fare ticket. Both of them are subsidized in order to make it cheap. In addition, Jakarta

government also starts to establish ticket integration between Transjakarta and Commuter Line

using electronic transport card. However, commuters still must pay a penalty fare while they

transfer to intermediate bus network and angkot which is still unintegrated and unreliable.

Currently, Jakarta has two kinds of rapid transit system: Transjakarta BRT and Commuter Rail

(KRL). Both of the system only serve the trunk network. The Transjakarta has 13 trunk corridors

that use the articulated bus and the single bus. At the particular line corridor, the headway of

the bus reaches 5-10 minutes per bus. On the other hand, KRL has six loop lines that use the

electric train. The KRL train headway is less convenient than TransJakarta because its frequent

service is only every 5-20 minutes per train. Nevertheless, The Greater Jakarta still need more

improvement on public transport level of service. The reliability and the coverage are the main

issue, which have been taking count by the government. According to SITRAMP (2011), the

average of commuter travel time is 30.2 minutes, while the commuter who using public

transport are travel above 60 minutes in average. Even the BRT system has the exclusive bus

Figure 2.2 Person Trip Distribution

10

lane, the speed are just reach 13 km/hour due to obstacle flow in intersection with mix traffic.

On the other hand, other less-regulated bus often dwell for passenger at particular point.

The government, which is consisted national and local government are working together to

tackle the problem by implement several strategic infrastructure project. The North to South

corridor of MRT Jakarta now have been constructed for 16 km and 42 km of elevated LRT track.

More recently, the extensions of commuter rail to the east part of Bekasi and Newest 10 km of

Transjakart elevated bus lane just have been accomplished.

Table 2.1 Public Transport Service Financing

Transport Mode Service Area Route Network

Price Headway

KRL (Commuter Line)

Jabodetabek Six loop lines

Subsidized-distance based

fare

5- 15 min

Transjakarta (Bus Rapid Transit)

Inner Jakarta

14 trunk corridors

Subsidized-íntegrated price

and network

5- 20 min

APTB (Feeder Transjakarta)

Jabodetabek 24 main route

Highly regulated market price

15 min- 1 hour

Intermediate bus Inner More than Low regulated Random

Figure 2.3 Road Network in Greater Jakarta

11

Jakarta 20 market price

Angkot (mini bus) Jabodetabek More than 20

Low regulated market price

Random

Taxi Jabodtabek - Distance based fare

-

3. Data collection approach for SUTI

Meeting 1

Date: 06 July 2017

Moderation: Karlo Manik, Director of Traffic, GJTA

Topic: Traffic Impact on Bogor Road Network -GJTA Policy

Participants: GJTA Staffs, MNP and Consultant Team

Location GJTA Office

Meeting 2

Date: 18 July 2017

Moderation: Suharto, Director of Planning and Development, GJTA

Topic: Public Transport Subsidy- GJTA Policy

Participants: GJTA Staffs, MNP and Consultant Team

Location GJTA Office

Meeting 3

Date: 20 July 2017

Moderation: Tatan Rustandi, Director of PT.PPD (SOE of MoT)

Topic: Bus Operation in Jabodetabek

Operator Strategy for BRT and Non BRT

Participants: Dir.of PT.PPD, MNP, Izzul, Dharmaningtyas

Location PT.PPD Main Office Jakarta

Meeting 4

Date: 11 August 2017

Moderation: Dr.Muiz Thohir, Vice Director of Planning and Development,

GJTA

Topic: Public Transport Performance

Next Survey for Public Transport in GJTA

Participants: Muiz Thohir, MNP

Location GJTA Office

12

Meeting 5

Date: 18 September 2017

Moderation: Mr. Rizal Wasal, Director of GJTA

Topic: Sustainable Urban Transport Indez (SUTI) Pilot Project for

Greater Jakarta; Next Survey for Public Transport in GJTA

Participants: All cities Traffic & Transport Agencies under Greater Jakarta

Authority

Location GJTA Office

Meeting 6

Date: 24-26 September 2017

Moderation: Tonny Setiono from GJTA

Topic: Field Data from UN ESCAP

Participants: All cities Traffic & Transport Agencies under Greater Jakarta

Authority

Location GJTA Office and field trip to Elevated BRT from Blok M-

Ciledug, LRT Jabodetabek and MRT Office Project.

Main resources info

• Ministry of Transportation-JICA (2012) Project for the Study on Jabodetabek Public

Transportation Policy Implementation Study (JAPTraPIS). Final Report

• Prayudyanto, MN and Sunarya, AFS (2017). Survei IKU (Indeks Kinerja Utama). Greater

Jakarta Transportation Authority.

• Law No.22 of 2009 on Traffic and Transportation.

• Ministry Regulation No.32 of 2016 on the Provision of Transportation of Persons using

Motor Vehicles Not Based on Route.

4. Data for SUTI (key data – detail in Excel sheet)

a. Indicator 1 Extent to which transport plans cover facilities for active modes and public

transport

The assesment in Jakarta Metro Area scores 12/16 of transport plans quality for public transport

and non motorized transport. The scores mostly encourage by ambitious citywide development

of Mass Rapid Transit, Light Rapid Transit, and expansion of Bus Rapid Transit networks. The

Metro Area has integrated planning document for the city of Jakarta and other periphery

13

municipalities e,g. Depok, South Tanggerang, Bekasi, and Bogor. The transport plan of Greater

Jakarta has been integrated within other municipalities’ plan. The Greater Jakarta Land

Transport Authority (BPTJ) act as the main stakeholders to manage, regulate and endorse the

imprlementation of planned projects. Those planning documents are typically attached by the

budget allocation for at least 20 years planning phase.

Besides public transport development, JMA plans also indicates descent walking infrastructure

improvement and intermodal facility. The awareness of walkability issue has raised in the

government through intensive public campaign from several NGOs plus international

coorperation, and also academic debate. Thus, particular part of JMA i,e. City of Jakarta, and

City of Bogor performs positive growth of walking Infrastructure budget allocation. Most of the

detailed designed implements “pedestrian friendly” approach that indicated by continous flat

pathway, raissed crosswalk, and other traffic calming at crossing accross the city. Nevertheless,

most of planning improvement are seen at around transit station or commercial street, but yet

the plan do not have clear project for residential area.

The intermodal issue is not really emphasized in the planning document. Typically, the content

are still segregated between one type of modes with another. The authorities still faces

‘sectoral- ego’ while negotiate the planning content. For instance, currently, the integration

between BRT and commuter rail access, and also shcedule have not occured at most of the

station.

Figure 4.1. Four Component in the Indicator 1

Indicator 1 has 4 components i.e. Walking networks, Cycling networks, Intermodal transfer facilities

and Public transport. As we see in figure … then the criteria for every component need to be defined..

WALKING NETWORK

CYCLINGNETWORK

INTERMODAL TRANSFER FACILITIES

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

1

2

3

4

14

Table 4.1 Indicator 1 for Greater Jakarta

Score

Aspects 0

No coverage 1

Limited 2

Middle 3

Extensive 4

Leading

I) walking networks

No goals

No designation No budget

Vague goal Little designation

seen in plans Small or unclear

budget

Qualitative goals Some designation

in 1-2 major areas/corridors Some budget

Quantitative goals

Much designation across city;

Increasing but realistic budget

Ambitious goals Full designation

across city Major secured new funding

II) cycling networks

No goals

No designation No budget

Vague goal Little designation

seen in plans Small or unclear

budget

Qualitative goals Some designation

in 1-2 major areas/corridors Some budget

Quantitative goals

Much designation across city:

Increasing but realistic budget

Ambitious goals Full designation

across city Major secured new funding

III) intermodal transfer facilities

No goals

No designation No budget

Vague goal Little designation

seen in plans Small or unclear

budget

Qualitative goals Some designation

in 1-2 major areas/corridors Some budget

Quantitative goals

Much designation across city;

Increasing but realistic budget

Ambitious goals Full designation

across city Major secured new funding

IV) public transport

No goals

No designation No budget

Vague goal Little designation

seen in plans Small or unclear

budget

Qualitative goals Some designation

in 1-2 major areas/corridors Some budget

Quantitative goals

Much designation across city;

Increasing but realistic budget

Ambitious goals Full designation

across city Major secured new funding

Below is the summary of programs and projects that cover all type of aspects for indicator 1 in

Greater Jakarta from many sources.

Walking Networks

1. Walking Networks: KPI pedestrian access

2. Much designation (Jakarta, Kota Bekasi, Kota Bogor, Kota Tangerang, etc)

3. Budget: increased realistic budget

4. 80 km pedestrian facilities in DKI Jakarta has been constructed in 2017. 24 km by Provincial and 56 km by

Cities (5 Sub Provinces). Total budget Rp. 412 bill. (US$ 40 mio)

5. Campaign to reduce and ban the use of pedestrian facilities for motor cycle traffic

Cycling Networks

1. Cycling Networks: MoT and MPW Regulations on Pedestrian Facilities

2. Some designation (Jakarta, Kota Bogor, Kota Tangerang, etc)

3. Budget: some budget

15

Intermodal Transfer

1. Intermodal Transfer: KPI Distance and location in station and terminals

2. Much designation (Commuter Railway Stations P&R, Electronic Payment, BRT shelters, etc)

3. Budget: increased realistic budget

Public Transport

1. Public Transport Development Regulation: Greater Jakarta Transportation Plan (RITJ), Minster Decree on Mass

Transit System Planning (PTM- Permenhub 54/2013)

2. Full designation across cities (Trans Jabodetabek BRT, JR Connection, JA Co, LRT, MRT, Commuter, Long

Distance Rail, Airport Bus, Sky Train)

3. Budget: major secured new funding

Mass Transit Development Plan:

2017 : Airport Railway

2017 : Elevated BRT 13rd Corridor in Jakarta (Tendean – Ciledug).

2018 : LRT Jabodetabek (Cawang – Cibubur) and LRT DKI Jakarta (Gading Nias – Velodrome).

2019 : LRT Jabodetabek (Cawang – Bekasi Timur and Cawang – Dukuh Atas).

2019 : MRT (Lebak Bulus – Bundaran HI).

For the public transport plan, Greater Jakarta Transport Authority has a master plan called RITJ

(Rencana Induk Transportasi Jabodetabek) or Greater Jakarta Transport Masterplan.

Figure 4.2 The Greater Jakarta Public Transport Network Plan in 2019 (Shortterm) Source: BPTJ, 2017

16

Figure 4.4 Pedestrian Facilities Program in Central Jakarta

Figure 4.3 Jakarta LRT Network Plan (Source: PT Adhi Karya)

17

Fig.ure 4.5 Campaign for Pedestrian “Right” to Educate Motor Cyclist Not Using the Facilities

Figure 4.6Bicycle Facility in the campus area at University of Indonesia Depok

Figure 4.7 Public Bicycle at Tourist Area at Heritage “Old Town” Jakarta

Figure 4.8 Intermodal Facility at the Railway Station

Vending Machine

at Railway

18

Figure 4.9 Automatic Parking using E-Money at Railway station

b. Indicator 2. Modal Share of Active and Public Transport in Commuting

The limited public transport service in the populous cities, such as Jakarta, create a heavy

burden on the traffic. Private cars and motorcycle ownership grows inevitably as a natural effort

by each individual to fulfill their mobility needs. The JICA (2012) reveals that median income

motorcyclists (34%) also dominate the share of daily trips of a JMA commuter. Then, in a second

row, it is followed by median income private car users (14%). The factors of low parking prices

and subsidized fuel costs have affected the people’s decision to choose a private vehicle. The

light cars that have 1200cc and below can use subsidized fuel costs. On the other hand, the

luxury cars that have more than 1200cc are obligated to use unsubsidized fuel prices

Using public transport in Jakarta is not as convenient as using private cars due to reliability and

limited. Currently, Jakarta has two kinds of rapid transit system: Transjakarta BRT and

Commuter Rail (KRL). Both of the system only serve the trunk network. The Transjakarta has 13

trunk corridors that use the articulated bus and the single bus. At the particular line corridor,

the headway of the bus reaches 5-10 minutes per bus. On the other hand, KRL has six loop lines

that use the electric train. The KRL train headway is less convenient than TransJakarta because

its frequent service is only every 5-20 minutes per train.

Table 4.2 Table Modal Share by Income Level

Mode Economic Status Daily Trips Share Mode Share

Motorcycle person

trips

Lower income 8.314.748 16% 53%

Medium Income 17.801.390 34%

High Income 2.007.651 4%

Car person Lower income 1.211.348 2% 20%

Parking at Railway Station

19

trips Medium Income 7.233.139 14%

High Income 2.056.607 4%

Public transport person

trips

Lower income 5.323.158 10% 27%

Medium Income 8.466.125 16%

High Income 637.535 1%

Total Trips 53.051.701 100% 100% Source: Japtrapis, JICA-MoT, 2012

Figure 4.10Progress of MRT Construction in Jakarta

Figure 4.11 Progress of LRT Construction at Jakarta Toll Road to Bogor

Tunnel of Jakarta MRT

LRT Jabodetabek

20

Table 4.3 Average number of trips per person by main mode of transport

PURPOSE COMMUTING

(WORK AND EDUCATION)

MODE # subtotals a. Scheduled bus and minibus

b. Train, metro, tram

c. Ferry

d. Other public

e. Public transport (a+b+c+d) 14,426,818

f. Walking

g. Bicycle

h. Active transport (f+g) 0

i. Passenger car 10,501,094

j. Taxi

k. Motorcycle 28,123,863

l. Scooter/moped

m. Para transit (unscheduled)

n. Other motorized (trucks,etc)

o. Individual motorized (i+j+k+l+m+n) 38,624,957

p. Total (e+h+o) 53,051,775

q. Public and active (e+h) 14,426,818

r. Modal share of active and public transport 27.19

c. Indicator 3. Convenient Access to Public Transport Service

The public transport service area of The Greater Jakarta has reached 50% in 2017. The

extensions of commuter rail of Bekasi lane, and other Transjakarta feeder route expansions e.g,

JR connexion, etc are able to add more catchment areas. The coverage analysis has been done

through overlay the catchment areas of public transport and population distribution.

The overlay analysis has been done by selected particular district that served by public

transport. Afterwards, the population in that selected sub-district are multiply by the assumed

ratio which is vary depend on how many areas that intersect public transport catchment areas.

The assumption of KRL (Commuter rail) station catchment area are using the approach that has

been applied by the Train company which radius 3 km. This figures assumes that commuter are

able to use their bike, motorbike, car, or other transport means to park and ride in the station.

On the other hand, tha catchment areas for BRT is a bit different, since most of the BRT station

is design to reach by walk. Hence, the analysis assumes radius 500 km is the convenient distance

to get to BRT station. The regular bus, and microbus (angkots) which do not rely on fixed stops is

21

uses 200 km convenient catchment areas along the lane, unless particular lane that surf the

expressway.

Table 4.4 Public Transport Service Area

Districts Total Serviced Area Assumed Serviced Population

Kota Jakarta Utara 95 1,221,704.77

Kota Jakarta Timur 156 2,456,764.88

Kota Jakarta Selatan 144 2,049,088.43

Kota Jakarta Barat 112 2,222,822.38

Kota Jakarta Pusat 51 948,160.34

Bogor 164 899,878.47

Kota Bogor 60 604,988.31

Kota Depok 93 1,062,996.60

Tangerang 105 206,458.31

Kota Tangerang 87 1,054,938.09

Kota Tangerang Selatan 80 840,183.19

Bekasi 82 559,526.51

Kota Bekasi 73 1,180,666.94

Total 15,308,177.23

Population in Greater Jakarta 31,000,000

Ratio to total Greater Jakarta population (%) 49.38%

Figure 4.12 Public Transport Service Area

22

d. Indicator 4. Public Transport Quality and Reliability

Public transport quality and reliability is the degree to which passengers of the public transport

system are satisfied with the quality of service while using the different modes of public

transport. Points of evaluation of each public transport service by assess mode to terminal is

studied by Japtrapis (2012) as shown in Fig 4.13. Evaluations of each service about busway and

taxi are high compared with other mode generally.

Focus on each service by each mode, BRT has high evaluation about cleanness in the vehicle and

safety in the vehicle, staff behavior. On the other hand it has low evaluation about crowdedness

in the vehicle. Patas has high evaluation about safety in the vehicle, and low evaluation about

bus stop facilities. Patas and regular bus has similar evaluation, the highest evaluation is cost /

fare, and the lowest evaluation is Air pollution in the vehicle. Medium bus and small bus has

also similar evaluation, the highest evaluation is accessibility, and the lowest evaluation is air

pollution in the vehicle. Taxi has high evaluation about ride comfort. On the other hand it has

low evaluation about cost / fare. Bajaj has high evaluation about accessibility and low evaluation

about noise in the vehicle.

Figure 4.13 Public Transport Quality and Realibility- 2012

23

Converting the qualitative index to numbering factors, so very good=100%, good=80% and fair

=60% therefore the average performance index is about 70% for all types of buses.

The survey from BPTJ conducted during August- September 2017 predicts the lower number of

public transport performance by deviation of minus 15-20%, in average the performance is 50-

55%.

The difference characteristics of data is:

• There are 7 types of buses in 2017 and 9 in 2012.

• There is no survey data of taxi, bajaj and ojek in 2017 but there are new services: Airport

bus, JR (residential to city center), and Jabotabek services (Trans Jabodetabek).

• There 6 catagories (from in 2017 but 5 in 2012.

The average performance for public transport services based on Japtrapis (JICA-MoT) is 66.89%.

In 2017 the primary survey lists 6 aspects and the performance in the average of 3.4275 of 6

scaling number. If we can assume with 100% maximum then the performance value is 57.13%.

hence there is reducing the performance factor of about 9-10% during 5 years period. The

average performance is average between 2 and the value is 62.01%.

PERFORMANCE ASPECT VARIABLE IMPORTANCE FACTOR

3.54

3.60

OPERATIONAL

Waiting Time 4.10

4.24

3.37 Travel Time 4.61

3.87 Tariff 3.97

3.20 Layover Time 4.06

3.25 Operational Hours 4.58

3.98 Ticketing System 4.11

3.38

3.46

CONVENIENT

No. of Standees 4.27

3.95

3.35 Clean 3.60

3.33 Cool 4.31

3.30 Crew 3.69

3.46 Ketertiban 3.85

3.212.91

SECURITYFacility for security 4.21

4.273.52 Sagn and marking 4.34

3.34

3.48

SAFETY

Safety 4.56

4.24

3.19 Facility for safety 3.92

3.42

3.57

DIASBLES & ELDERLY

Accessibility 4.60

4.193.41 Chairs 4.05

3.27 Info by audio 3.92

3.52

3.45WOMAN AND

PREGNAT

Special chairs 3.98

4.113.58 Information panels 4.24

Table 4.5 Public Buses Quality and Realibility- 2017

24

e. Indicator 5. Traffic fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants.

Based on accident data from Jakarta Metropolitan Police number of fatalities is getting

decreasing. Table .. Accident and Fatalities Data in Greater Jakarta

Table 4.6 Traffc Accident

Year No of Accidents Fatalities Seriously Injured

Injured Material Loss

(Rp. Mio)

2010 8,235 1,048 3,473 5,820 17,744

2011 8,079 1,008 2,820 6,312 18,102

2012 8,020 912 2,938 6,153 21,885

2013 6,498 676 2,925 4,711 23,794

2014 6,574 605 3,088 568 23,149 Source: Statistical Bureau from Jakarta Metro Police (2015)

Figure 4.14 Fatalities during Latest 5 Years in GJTA

Fatalities by Mode

Car Truck Bus Motorcycle

Figure 4.15 Fatalities by Mode (2015)

y = -49.279x + 100000R² = 0.6049

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

fata

litie

s

25

Note :No. of fatalities= 605 (2015). Population= 31,000,000. Traffic Fatalities per 100.000

inhabitants=605/(30.000.000/100.000)= 1.95.

f. Indicator 6. Travel Cost as a share of Income

The indicator is defined by the cost of a monthly network-wide public transport ticket covering

all main modes in the city, compared to personal monthly income (If a multi modal ticket is not

available then for bus network alone).

The data quite complicated. BPTJ data (2017) from the public transport daily expenditure shows

that:

• Bus : Rp. 30,271 (around $ 2.33)

• Private Car : Rp. 121,049 ($ 9.31)

• Taxi : Rp. 89,574 ($ 6.89)

• Railway : Rp. 30,712 ($ 2.36)

• Motor Cycle : Rp. 26,931 ($ 2.07)

• Average : Rp. 53,453 ($ 4.11)

Monthly transport expenditure is $4.11x25 days= $ 102.75

The average GRP Nominal (the regional or provincial counterpart of the national gross domestic

product, the most comprehensive measure of national economic activity) for Greater Jakarta is

estimated from 3 data:

• Jakarta : $ 14,727

• West Java : $ 2,538

• Banten : $ 3,115

• Average : $ 6,793

• Average monthly income: $ 566

Note: Statistic derives GRP for a province as the sum of the GRP Nominal originating in all the

industries in the province at current price market.

The transport cost from monthly income is= $ 102.75/ $ 566= 18.2%.

g. Indicator 7. Ratio of fare revenue to operating costs for public transport systems (‘Fare box

ratio’)

The study from BPTJ (2017) from 29 routes of large buses in Greater Jakarta shows that :

• 6 routes of Trans Jakarta are subsidised by Jakarta govt. the tariff of Rp. 3,500 is under the

operating cost of Rp. 11,000

• 9 routes operates by private that tariff is same as operation cost, mostly operate by PT.

Mayasari Bhakti. The tariff is around Rp. 10,00- 12,000.

26

• 9 routes operated under lower level price ceiling. The routes connect Jakarta and the

hinterlands but operated by private operators. The tariff is between Rp. 15,00-20,000 but

operating cost between Rp. 30,000-35,000.

From the calculation we find average fare box ratio is 55.44%.

h. Indicator 8. Investment in Public Transport System

Public transport investment in Grater Jakarta has been constructed very intensive. The

investment mostly spend on MRT lane construction which amount 22 Trillion IDR, and LRT 27

Trillion IDR. Besides that 2,3 Trillion IDR also pledged to build 10 km of elevated BRT lane, and

6,4Trillion IDR to build double- double track of Manggarai- Cikarang commuter railtrack. Those

total amount are equal to 4,1 billion EUR.

On the other hand, according to official data of Toll Road Authority, the government has

pledged 24.6 Trillion IDR to build Second Jakarta Outer Ring Road and construction of new

Semanggi interchange at cost of 0,22 Trillion IDR. Total private investment for road construction

is 24.82 Trilllion IDR.

The share of public transport investment is 67.39%. in the matrix we consider maximum value,

50%.

i. Indicator 9. Air Quality (PM10)

This indicator provide with the annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (PM10) in the air

(population weighted) compared to threshold.

Particulate (PM10) is fine particulare matter that less than 10 micron (micrometer). Permitable

number for PM10 in Greater Jakarta is 150 µgram/m3.

Table 4.7 Vehicle Emission Standard for Jakarta

27

The classification of PM10 is: Good (0-50) Medium (50-150) Unhealthy (150-250) Very unhealthy

(250-350) Dangerous (>350).

The average annual air quality in Jakarta from 5 location in sub-province in Jakarta as shown in

Table 4.8 identified that quality of air in Jakarta during 3 consecutive years (2014-2016) in the

condition of medium (fair).

Table 4.8.Air Quality

2016Location Good Medium Not Health Very

Unhealthy

Dangerous

DKI1 114 244 2 0 0

DKI2 75 240 49 1 0

DKI3 59 241 47 0 0

DKI4 69 282 14 0 0

DKI5 61 247 43 0 0

2015Location Good Medium Not Health Very

Unhealthy

Dangerous

DKI1 74 286 0 0 0

DKI2 85 259 15 0 0

DKI3 86 245 33 0 0

DKI4 62 258 25 0 0

DKI5 106 248 7 0 0

2014Location Good Medium Not Health Very

Unhealthy

Dangerous

DKI1 35 297 33 0 0

DKI2 94 250 21 0 0

DKI3 112 234 16 3 0

DKI4 35 270 55 5 0

DKI5 63 240 54 5 0

28

Based on website of Environmental Impact Control of Jakarta (llhd.jakarta.go.id) calculated from 5

area in Jakarta Province, the PM10: 68-79 or in average is 75.

j. Indicator 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

CO2 equivalent emissions from transport calculated by 2 methods, using traffic and fuel sales.

First, Traffic Volumes.

Table 4.9 Traffic Volume in Jakarta

Table 4.10 Estimated Emission from Traffic Volumes

Estimated emission factor is 7,064,665/10,000,000= 0.71.

Second, from fuel sales.

Statistic data quoted by detik.com on 7 December 2013 showed that fuel sales in Jakarta is

about 6,000,000 liter/day and diesel 3,000,000 liter/day.

Table 4.11 Estimated Emission from Fuel sales

Litres sold CO2-factor Emissions Population Emission/capita

kg/l tons/year

GASOLINE/PETROL 2,190,000,000.00 2.272 4,974,585.00

DIESEL 1,095,000,000.00 2.676 2,930,220.00

Traffic Km/year

Km road Vehicle ADT Truck % Bus % MC % Pass cars

Toll Road 124 120,000 18 20 0 3,367,344,000

National Roads 153 80,000 5 10 50 1,563,660,000

Provincial Roads 1,562 40,000 4 12 55 6,613,508,000

City/Local Roads 5,117 10,000 3 7 60 5,603,115,000

TOTAL TRAFFIC 6,956 17,147,627,000

Emission factors Total emissions

Fuels and emissions % GARAM CO2/km CO2 Ton/year

Passenger cars Petrol 70 160 1,920,534

Diesel 30 120 617,315

Bus Petrol 50 170 474,046

Diesel 50 130 362,506

Trucks Diesel 100 700 1,871,461

MCs Petrol 100 70 1,818,802

TOTAL CO2 7,064,665

29

TOTAL 7,904,805.00 10,000,000.00 0.79

The latest produces 0.79 higher than 0.71 from traffic volumes, so we use 0.79.

5. Analysis of data (input data in Excel sheet and results)

30

6. Perspective on SUTI pilot exercise

In Indonesia there has been competition among cities on the public transport and traffic

program since 10 years ago with similar data but then stops abiut 2 years ago after there is no

Urban Transport Directorate exist.

For SUTI data model the methodology is quite comprehensive, but for using this It’s a good

start, but many obstacles to which data are collected. Many officials are reluctant to collect the

data. In details some effort should be needed for:

• Fatalities: many accidents are not reported, and data verification from other sources is

also inconsistent.

• Accessibilities: pax in urban here are no longer than 300 meters to walk.

• Modal share: many passenger using ojek (motor cycle taxi) but in the calculation there is

not included, in this case the role of public motor cycle should be clear

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Extent to whichtransport plans cover

facilities for active…

Modal share of activeand public transport

in commuting

Convenient access topublic transport

service

User satisfaction withpublic transport

service

Traffic fatalities per100.000 inhabitants

Affordability – travel costs as part of

income

Operational costs ofthe public transport

system

Investment in publictransportation

systems

Air quality (pm10)

Greenhouse gasemissions from

transport

Greater Jakarta Normalized Performance

Jabodetabek

Figure 5.1 Spider Diagram of Greater Jakarta

31

• Data base is not available in cities.

7. Useful references and persons, experts and officials met

Table 7.1 List of Person Contacts

8. Annexes; useful data and material such as city transport plan, photographs of

urban transport systems etc.

No Instansi Prop/Kota/Kab Wilayah Alamat Telp/Fax email Kepala

1 Dishub Kota Tangerang Jl. Sintanala No.1, 1, Mekarsari,

Neglasari, Kota Tangerang, Indonesia

15121

T.021-55794856

/ F. 021-55733672

dishub@tangerangkota.go.id H. Saeful Rahman,

MSi.

2 Dishub Propinsi DKI Jakarta Jl. Taman Jatibaru No. 1 Jakarta Pusat

10150

T. 021-3501349/

F. 021-3455264

Andri Yansyah/

081293668450

3 Dishub Kota Bekasi Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No.302 Bekasi T . 021 88345368 info@dishub.bekasi.go.id Yayan Yuliana

4 Dishub Kabupaten Bekasi Jalan Industri No.5, Cikarang T. 021-86030823339/

021-86030827744

Drs. Suhup

5 Dishubkominfo Kabupaten Bogor Jalan Raya Tegar Beriman No. 1,

Pakansari, Cibinong, Pakansari,

Cibinong, Bogor

T. 021-8758605/

F. 021-8758605

diskominfo@bogorkab.go.id Drs.H.Wawan

Munawar Sidik, MM

6 DLLAJ Kota Bogor Jl. Raya Tajur 54, Tajur, Bogor T. 021-8333511 dllaj@kotabogor.go.id Dra. Rakhmawati, MSi

7 Dishub Kabupaten Tangerang

Kantor Pemerintah Kabupaten

Tangerang, Balaraja T. 021-29608253

H.Bambang Mardi

Sentosa,MM

8 Dishub Kota Depok Terminal Terpadu Depok Lt.2, Jl.

Margonda Raya, Depok, Pancoran

Mas, Kota Depok

T. 021- 29230770 depokdishub@gmail Gandara Budiana

9 Dishubkominfo Kota Tangerang

Selatan

Jl. Serpong Batas- Bogor KM 0+400

Serpong

T. 021-7565366-67/

F. 021-7565368

Drs. H. Sukanta

32