Making TransJakarta a World Class BRT System - ITDP | Institute for ...

Lines Headway extension Travel time Boarding pax Max Volume Pax. paying
BM-KT 0.4 13.01 43.58 20435 13070 85338
KT-BM 0.4 13.02 43.61 16867 10070 51%
KL-H 0.8 15.24 50.99 11121 6651
H-KL 0.8 14.78 49.45 8450 6265
P-H 0.8 12.66 42.41 10874 6548
H-P 0.8 12.19 40.81 8864 5366
A 0.6 22 73.97 15950 8436
A 0.6 22 73.97 11034 3227
D 0.5 25.98 87.34 19885 10405
D 0.5 25.98 87.34 18089 10322
E 0.6 16.94 56.88 12020 8331
E 0.6 16.96 56.94 13897 8880
TOTAL 210.8 167486
As this alternative routing would more than double demand on the TransJakarta system,
we suggest that this alternative routing be strongly considered. Obviously, we have not
had time under the current project to determine the physical feasibility of these corridors
for BRT, and the prioritization of the next corridors should be conducted using a multicriteria
analysis.
I.8. Fare Structure and Appropriate Ticketing System
I.8.a. Demand Impact of Different Fare Structures
Before deciding on an appropriate ticketing system, an optimal fare structure needs to be
decided upon. The traffic modeling results show several unequivocal results regarding
the appropriate fare structure:
o Distance-based fares will significantly improve TransJakarta’s Profitability
o Distance-based fares are more important on Corridor I than on Corridors II and
III.
o Forcing passengers to pay twice to transfer between Corridor I and Corridors II
and III will lead to a 25% drop in passengers on TransJakarta and big loss of
revenue.
Morning peak hour
demand
(paying
pax)
max
frequency
bus/h
min. fare variable fare collected average running operating
Rp. Rp./km
fare USD distance km cost USD gain USD
2500 0 11523 3201 13.47 2732 1973 1228 40
1500 70 13653 3283 9.87 2668 1927 1356 46
1000 110 16374 3719 7.94 2844 2054 1666 53
1500 50 18270 4129 10.68 3491 2521 1607 62
Final Recommendations for TransJakarta, p. 17