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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VI.3. Pedestrian Access ITDP did not have time to evaluate in any great depth the pedestrian access issues in Corridor II and III. However, some cursory observations indicate that surface crossing should be viable in many parts of Corridor III with proper design. In Corridor II, in some locations where the bus stop corresponds to a major intersection (like at Senen) at-grade crossing should be possible, but in other locations at grade crossing will require more improvements than the simple addition of a pedestrian crossing light and a zebra crossing. Without further modifications, these at-grade crossings could be quite dangerous. Walking around the city center, along the route of Corridor II, many sidewalks are in reasonable condition, but the lack of traffic lights or pedestrian refuge islands and numerous intersections with almost no break in the traffic makes these intersections extremely difficult to cross. At station stops like Isquital (in front of Pertamina), Juanda, and Pecenongan, where there is no significant intersection with crossing traffic, pedestrian crossing lights have been installed, but vehicles do not tend to stop. The stop at the Juanda railway station has been constructed in such a location that the current surface pelican cross is not usable and a new one some 50 meters to the west will have to be created. While it is not clear if the current signal phasing is intended to be permanent, the current signal phasing is extremely long, forcing pedestrians to wait extended periods of time. At-grade pedestrian crossing areas are not effective if the waiting time is longer than 2 minutes, and if motor vehicles do not respect the light. As such, the pedestrian crosswalk will need to be accompanied by additional measures, such as: o additional pedestrian refuge islands either by widening the divider between the busway and the mixed traffic lanes to serve as a median, or creating new medians between main road and service roads, or by creating toll-plaza like stand alone pedestrian refuges. o overhead lighting for the night time, o elevating the crosswalk. o Restricting free left turns (where applicable) o Changing the streets from one way to two way and signalizing more of the intersections. Without these measures, many of the Corridor II BRT stops would be safer with a pedestrian overpass. For these exclusive pedestrian signals, we recommend: If the total cross exceeds 25 meters the crossing should be divided in two steps, with separate and shorter green times and cycles, and an offset between them: Final Recommendations for TransJakarta, p. 94
Bus Bus The offset of the pedestrian crossing is to alert pedestrians that green times are not the same at each side. VI.4 Specific Recommendations for Segments in Corridor II. At the time when this evaluation was done, the routing for the TransJakarta Corridor I was completed from Pulo Gadung through Senen, but the routing was not clear from Senen to Harmony. Now that this routing is clear, there are several additional intersections which are not further discussed which require further analysis to avoid significant bottlenecks for both mixed traffic and the TransJakarta system. These locations include the following intersections: o Senen Raya and Kwini 1 Currently, a lot of left turning traffic is going to obstruct the busway unless the current gap is closed prohibiting this left turn. o Left turn onto Kwini 2. The busway crosses two lanes of traffic and there is no signal. It may need to be signalized. o Right turn off of Pejambon onto Medan Merdeka Timur. They will probably have to signalize this, and there is already a long cue. There are four lanes with a median between two and two, and the busway is turning right from the leftmost lane across a very congested lane of traffic. This is really a bottleneck and it may be possible to move the busway to the other side of the median earlier in the route since there aren’t any stops. Final Recommendations for TransJakarta, p. 95
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 and 24:
II. INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS G
Page 25 and 26:
? DisHub procured a sub-optimal tic
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: Corridor 2-3 Examples of minimum wi
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?