The Potential BRT in Asia TransJakarta System : Sustainability vs Subsidy Taufik Adiwianto

Present Public Transport Problems Lack of Integration between Land Use and Transport System Lack of Integration between Different Modes of Transport Increase in Private Car Use

Trend of Population Growth 2010

Average Speed in Morning Peak Hour

Daily Trip Forecast (Public Transport) – Greater Jakarta 9.445.808 7.384.939 5.302.194 847.750 545.310 1.078.663 693.099 1.465.912 940.834 620.702 791.295 1.148.528 Year 2002 , 2010 , 2020

TransJakarta System General Description: Route Length : 12,9 km Number of Station : 20 Station Spacing (avg) : 650 m Fleet Size : Initial 56 - 140 buses Headway : Peak Hour : 2 minutes Operation : 05:00 – 22:00 Fare : Rp. 1.500 from 05:00 - 07:000 Rp. 2.500 from 07:00 - 22:00 Integrated Fare : Rp. 3.800 AC - Rp. 2.900 Non-AC

TransJakarta System The aims of the busway system implementation are: To increase bus passenger existing trip; Lane separation from general traffic; Reliable time schedule; To improve comfort, security and safety for bus passengers; To improve public transport services coordination; To improve efficiency of bus operator; To implement an effective bus fare system; Public service standards suitable for the bus passenger in this system are: Accessibility; Security and safety; Comfortable waiting space; Minimum waiting time; High service quality; Availability of reliable information.

Organizational and Management of TransJakarta

Management Framework of Busway Operation

Organizational Position of TransJakarta BP Transjakarta manages the busway system under The Governor Authority, does its task, function, and responsible to The City Secretary. BP TransJakarta is dependent organization. BP Transjakarta is a transitional organization, based on Local Regulation of Public Transportation No. 12, 2003 (article 109). Transportation problems in Jakarta have a wider complexity which needs to be solved by an independent council.

Problems Encountered on Management Side Inadequate authority given to BP TransJakarta has led to lack of better performance in busway management. Most of physical and infrastructure maintenance activities are still under the authority of other local government agencies. Unavailability of formal regulations and tools that manage the coordination mechanisms between BP TransJakarta and other local government agencies involved in busway operation. The existing regulation gives less support to efficient operational process, thus the performance of service becomes less optimal.

Passenger Growth Month Monthly Passenger February 1.154.399 March 1.431.231 April 1.376.984 May 1.442.700 June 1.468.293 July 1.557.677 August 1.482.045 September 1.446.179 October 1.566.173

Load Factor - TransJakarta Period Weekday Load Factor Headway Number of Bus Time Operation Weekend Load Factor Weekend 5:00:00 52% 16 42% 6:00:00 79% 40 75% 7:00:00 101% 51 55% 30 8:00:00 86% 68% 9:00:00 103% 35 58% 45 10:00:00 69% 11:00:00 12:00:00 85% 13:00:00 92% 95% 14:00:00 91% 15:00:00 97% 90% 16:00:00 132% 17:00:00 143% 73% 18:00:00 87% 19:00:00 83% 66% 20:00:00 59% 76% 20 21:00:00 67%

Total Bus-Km Production Month Bus-km February 394.571 March 470.538 April 401.735 May 404.690 June 390.790 July 399.491 August 418.287 September 394.162 October 415.667

Passenger/Bus-Km

OM Cost vs Revenue (with Security Expenditure)

OM Cost vs Revenue (without Security Expenditure)

OM Cost Components Passenger/Round Trip OM Cost/Passenger

Public Opinion about The New System

Composition of Mode Used before Busway

Intensity of Busway Ridership along the Blok M – Kota Corridor

Public Perception of Busway Fare

Accesibility of Busway System

Conclusion Subsidy given by the local government for busway operation (O&M Cost) has decreased. Due to the service improvement, the number of passenger has also increased, specifically during peak hour. It has been relatively successful in recovering its costs, despite the relatively low fare Public behavior in utilizing mass transportation has been improved along the busway lane.