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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

companies is not transparent. Other groups such as Organda, (the bus operators union), the police, and sometimes criminal gangs, also extracted informal payments from the bus operators. The bus operators face daily extortions of up to Rp.30,000 just to be allowed to operate a particular bus on a particular corridor. (Pambagio, 2000) As a result, bus drivers work long hours, have minimal benefits, and are subjected to various formal and informal fees from both public and private agencies. Most bus drivers are therefore ready for a new system. Customer satisfaction with the old bus system was also low because: ? Buses do not follow a predictable schedule, ? Buses do not stop at bus stops, ? Buses do not stop at all once the bus is full. ? Buses sit waiting to collect more passengers, delaying those already on the bus. ? Buses compete for passengers at curbside in a dangerous way ? The buses are quite deteriorated and polluting ? There is petty criminality on the buses Within the TransJakarta system, most of these problems have been solved. While buses do not yet follow a predictable schedule, the lead times averaging 2 minutes are sufficiently short to not cause passenger inconvenience. Buses stop at all stops and only at designated stops, they do not wait to collect more passengers, they do not compete for passengers at curbside, the buses are modern, and criminality on the bus has been substantially reduced. These problems were resolved by a combination of the physical design of the system, and because the operators are paid by the bus kilometer and not by the passenger. However, the system could be made into a World Class system with a few modest improvements. The new system has several problems resulting from unresolved institutional issues. The net result of the problems listed below is that the TransJakarta system is costing the Jakarta taxpayers much more money than it need to, and is congesting the mixed traffic lanes more than necessary. ? Some design decisions on Corridors I, II, and III, were sub-optimal, giving TransJakarta low capacity and low speeds by international standards, and higher infrastructure maintenance costs. ? A routing decision on Corridor II was sub-optimal, reducing TransJakarta demand and revenue. ? Fewer than anticipated parallel bus lines were converted into feeder buses, giving TransJakarta low demand and low revenue, and increasing congestion in the mixed traffic lanes. ? The Department of Transport (DisHub) selected sub-optimal buses, increasing operating costs, and paid more for them than they should have. ? TransJakarta is overpaying the bus operators PT JET ? TransJakarta buses are not being well maintained Final Recommendations for TransJakarta, p. 24
? DisHub procured a sub-optimal ticketing system, undermining the effectiveness, security and transparency of the ticketing system. For TransJakarta to become a World Class BRT system, all of these problems, and their underlying causes, need to be addressed. II.1. Decision Making on Planning and Infrastructure Design Currently, the budget for the planning of TransJakarta, including the prioritization of future corridors, is the responsibility of the Department of Planning of the Department of Transportation (DisHub). The Department of Infrastructure at DisHub is responsible for the physical design and engineering of TransJakarta infrastructure, and for contracting the actual construction. Dishub in turn contracted out the initial planning and design work to PT. Pamintori Cipta, a private consulting firm. In theory, the planning and the physical design decisions were to be made in a consultative process coordinated by the Busway Coordination Team (Tim Coordinasi) which reported directly to the City Secretary, the senior bureaucrat inside the DKI Jakarta government. ITDP and other experts BRT: Overtaking x demand and advisors had simple regular access to double bus lane : overtaking this coordination team. Jakarta Cor 2 & 3 Curitiba Bogotá (simple bus stop) While the Tim Coordinasi did provide a forum 0 for discussion, in 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 practice, DisHub demand (1000 pas/h/dir) made most of the physical design and routing decisions unilaterally, without the full agreement of the Tim Coordinasi. As a result, several fairly serious design mistakes were made which significantly limited the capacity of the TransJakarta busway. Currently, TransJakarta’s capacity is only about 2700 passengers per direction at the peak hour (pphpd), while Curitiba and Quito are managing 12,000 pphpd, and Bogoga 36,000 pphpd. These mistakes are again being made on Corridor II and III, currently under construction. While the routing of the first TransJakarta corridor is quite a reasonable one, Corridor II currently does not pass the nearby Senen Bus Station nor the Senen Railway Station. While it was politically difficult to provide this link, and political decisions must be factored into the decision-making process, the cost to the system of this decision will be some 20,000 passengers per day. Final Recommendations for TransJakarta, p. 25
Page 1 and 2: Making TransJakarta a World Class B
Page 3 and 4: V. INCREASING THE BUSWAY’S CAPACI
Page 5 and 6: The main reason the capacity on Tra
Page 7 and 8: The Harmoni Station is a special pr
Page 9 and 10: demand. If the single door bus and
Page 11 and 12: The difference in terms of daily ri
Page 13 and 14: This operational change would incre
Page 15 and 16: I.7. Priorities for Next TransJakar
Page 17 and 18: Lines Headway extension Travel time
Page 19 and 20: While various BOT options are avail
Page 21 and 22: That being said, pedestrian safety
Page 23: II. INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS G
Page 27 and 28: had also visited BRT systems in Bra
Page 29 and 30: encumber the TransJakarta BRT syste
Page 31 and 32: An additional 34 buses were procure
Page 33 and 34: Proposal to the City Maximum Points
Page 35 and 36: indefinite period of time. In these
Page 37 and 38: o 25 kilometers for stopping the bu
Page 39 and 40: the greatest flexibility in terms o
Page 41 and 42: prefer a ‘single-seat’ trip whe
Page 43 and 44: principal contract. The software to
Page 45 and 46: capability to do it, but they are n
Page 47 and 48: operation would be public. In Bosto
Page 49 and 50: TransJakarta’s ticketing departme
Page 51 and 52: The verification of the tickets sol
Page 53 and 54: trips, not a dollar amount. Each ti
Page 55 and 56: add value to cards should be stored
Page 57 and 58: IV.1. Projected Demand on Current C
Page 59 and 60: and Kota, and Kalideras and Kota),
Page 61 and 62: 14 3 7 8 9 6.5 3 6 Shops stairs inv
Page 63 and 64: Base scenario Lines Headway extensi
Page 65 and 66: IV. 3. Demand Impact of Different F
Page 67 and 68: Morning peak hour demand (paying pa
Page 69 and 70: If both the Blue and Green Lines ar
Page 71 and 72: The proposed fare was defined at Rp
Page 73 and 74: Jakarta - Desire Lines The current
Page 75 and 76:
Passengers at Morning peak hour Lin
Page 77 and 78:
Most urgently, TransJakarta should
Page 79 and 80:
significant reduction of efficiency
Page 81 and 82:
V.3.b. Mitigating Congestion Along
Page 83 and 84:
V.3.e. Congestion Along Hayam Wuruk
Page 85 and 86:
Existing Proposed 1 st S T A G E 2
Page 87 and 88:
That being said, even after reconst
Page 89 and 90:
VI. PHYSICAL DESIGN ISSUES ON CORRI
Page 91 and 92:
For some high demand stations (such
Page 93 and 94:
Corridor 2-3 Examples of minimum wi
Page 95 and 96:
Bus Bus The offset of the pedestria
Page 97 and 98:
Photo 2: Pulogadung - Flamboyan (Me
Page 99 and 100:
VI.4.a.iii. ITDP and DisHub Suggest
Page 101 and 102:
3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30
Page 103 and 104:
The typical cross section correspon
Page 105 and 106:
Photo 6: Buses parking on express a
Page 107 and 108:
traffic. This practice should not b
Page 109 and 110:
ITDP recommendation (after the BRT
Page 111 and 112:
Our proposal would be a simpler 2-p
Page 113 and 114:
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 5 10 15 2
Page 115 and 116:
No suggestions, as right turns on c
Page 117 and 118:
Photo 11: Roxy Mas trade center Rai
Page 119 and 120:
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 5 10 15 2
Page 121 and 122:
3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 3 2 1 0 3.5 3 2.5 2
Page 123 and 124:
3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 3 2 1 0 Type Sidewa
Page 125 and 126:
U- turn capacity(fig 2 lay-out) Cap
Page 127 and 128:
. . 1 2 Off course the present U-tu
Page 129 and 130:
period, and the expansion of the da
Page 131 and 132:
Globally, the calibration is very s
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?