A REFLECTION OF MOTORIZATION AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA

Y. O. SUSILO, T. B. JOEWONO, W. SANTOSA, D. PARIKESITA REFLECTION OF MOTORIZATION AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORT IN JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA
Yusak O. SUSILO

Tri Basuki JOEWONO

Researcher
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
Delft University of Technology
Delft, The Netherlands

Graduate School of Science & Engineering
Saitama University
Saitama, Japan

Wimpy SANTOSA

Danang PARIKESIT

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering, Parahyangan Catholic University
Bandung, Indonesia

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering, Gadjah Mada University
Yogyakarta, Indonesia(Received March 2, 2007)

This article provides an overview of the influences of motorization trends on urban residents’ travel patterns in the Jakarta
Metropolitan Area (JMA) in the last decade. The performance of the first year of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system implementation,
as a way to suppress motorization in JMA, is also described. It is found that the trend of motorization has already become a criticalissue and suppressing the rapid increase of private cars is imperative. However, the existing public transport facilities are not adequate
in fulfilling the demand, both in quality and quantity. The lesson learned from Jakarta Metropolitan Area’s context illustrates the need
to focus on a series of substantial actions as the future innovations. These suggested future innovations are believed to be beneficial
for application in the JMA area, and also other developing cities.
Key Words: Motorization, Urban transport, Developing countries, Sustainable urban-transport policy

1. INTRODUCTION
In the last three decades, motorization and urbanization have been the trend in many metropolitan areas indeveloping countries. Lack of job opportunities and public facilities outside major cities has initiated rapid urbanization in many metropolitan areas. In Indonesia, theurban population has significantly increased from 22.3%
in 1980 to 42% in 20001, and it is estimated that by year
2020 urban population will reach 50%-60% of the national
population2. In 2006, the population density in the capitalof Indonesia, Jakarta, is 13,526 inhabitants/km2, which iscomparable with several other major cities in the world,such as Tokyo and New York with 13,333 and 10,292
inhabitants/km2, respectively3,4.
In line with population and economic growth, thenumber of motor vehicles also shows a rapid growth.
For example, the motor vehicle per thousand people in
Surabaya, one of the main cities in Indonesia, has increased 455% from 70 in 1976 to 319 in 19985. Indeed, it
is evident that motorization is transforming cities andeven rural areas of many urban areas in the world and theeconomic and social benefits are enormous. It provides
individual flexible transportation in urban areas and reduced manual labor and improved market access in rural

areas, which is heavily needed by developing countries.
In the longer term, however, motorization may stifle local
development, increase pollution, and create unprecedented safety hazards6.
The influences of motorization and urbanization,
later followed by sub-urbanization in many metropolitan
areas, have been of interest to transportation and urban
researchers for the last few decades7,8. However, most of
the studies were based on evidence in developed countries. It is unclear whether the results were also valid indeveloping countries, since the transportation conditionsof both situations are different in many fundamental
ways.
Unlike developed countries, most developing countries do not have a proper mass transportation system tosuppress the increase of motorization in urban areas.
Moreover, the attitude of society in developing countries
is to use automobile ownership as one of the requirements for society acknowledgement. This has encouraged everyone to have their own private car and discouraged them to travel with public transport. Sprawlingurban growth with a poor public transport network has
also supported the trend of motorization among urban
residents in developing countries. With this background,the aim of this article is to describe the trends of motorIATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 200759

Motorization in Asia

ization and public transport performance in Jakarta Metropolitan Area (JMA) in the last decade. Lessons fromthe past and the possible future implications that can beapplied in Indonesia and also in other developing countries are also discussed.
The next section offers a brief description about thetrends of motorization in the JMA in the last 15 years.
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that has been recently implemented in the JMA, including its first year
performance, is described in section three. A comprehensive discussion about the present transportation conditions and problems in Indonesia and possible future
implications are provided in section four. In the last section, the article concludes with a summary section.

2. THE PROGRESS OF MOTORIZATION IN
JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREAS
Metropolitan Jakarta, the capital of the Republic ofIndonesia and the largest metropolis in Southeast Asia, isperhaps as diverse as the Indonesian archipelago itself.
Various people with different ethnic backgrounds, cultures, dialects, and religions reside in the city. They comefrom the thousand islands that comprise the archipelago,
all seeking and struggling for a better life and prosperityin the city.
Jakarta expanded from 180 square kilometers in1960 to a fully urbanized megapolis in the 2000s. Today,
as a mega-city, Jakarta’s nucleus area has spatially andeconomically expanded beyond its original fringes andhas been integrated with four other proximate cities, namely Tangerang (in the west), Bekasi (in the east), Bogor, andDepok (in the south). The metropolitan area has beencalled “Jabodetabek” since 1999 (in this paper, we refer
to it as the Jakarta Metropolitan Area, JMA). The JMA
area encompasses a total land area of 6,580 square kilometers, which has a flat configuration with an average
elevation of only 5 meters above sea level. The core areaof JMA (Jakarta city) itself covered 656 square kilometers and comprised 8.4 million people in 2000. The 5,924
square kilometers beyond Jakarta has an aggregate population of 13.1 million. The JMA accounts for 10% of Indonesia’s population and 20% of its GDP.
The urbanization beyond the core area has progressed very rapidly. The population growth in the surrounding areas between 1990 and 2000 was 3.7 percent
per annum while the growth in the core area was merely
0.2 percent per annum9. The map of JMA is presented in
Fig.1.
2.1

Car ownership
The number of registered vehicles within the Jakarta metropolitan area (JMA) can be seen in Fig.2. From1985 to 2002, car ownership increased approximately
three times and motorcycle ownership three and a halftimes. During the Asian Economic Crisis period the number of registrations, especially for motorcycles, suddenly
dropped. Presumably this is because during that period

Fig. 1 Road and railway network pattern in Jakarta Metropolitan Area960

IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

A REFLECTION OF MOTORIZATION AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA

3,000,000
Motorcycles
Cars

2,500,000

TrucksBuses

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

01985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1985 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fig. 2 Number of registered vehicles in Jakarta
Metropolitan Area11

many people could not afford to extend their annual car
registration and also many of them either sold their car
back to the seller or it was taken by the bank as a debt
guarantee. However, since 2001, with the recovery of
economic conditions, vehicle registration has resumed its
increasing trend.
The study by JICA and BAPPENAS9 shows that ata household level, the average number of cars owned per
100 households is 20.7 and the average number of cars
owned per car-owning household is 1.2, which is relatively the same with or even higher than developed countries. The results of the mini household visit survey by
JICA and BAPPENAS10 showed that household ownership of a car in Jakarta is inline with the increase of thehousehold monthly income.
2.2

Daily trips and trip length
From 1985 to 2000, the average number of daily
trips remained relatively stable. It was 1.69 trips per per-Y. O. SUSILO, T. B. JOEWONO, W. SANTOSA, D. PARIKESIT

son per day in 1985 and 1.70 in 2000. The results of themini household visit survey in the JMA showed that students and workers made more out-of-home visits thanothers (see Fig.3). They made 2.32 and 2.28 visits perperson per day, respectively; twice as many as a housewife
or retired person.
From 1985 to 2000, the average trip length for work,school, and shopping increased 43%, 104%, and 85% respectively (Fig. 4). Trips for work purposes increased
from 6.7 km in 1985 to 9.6 km in 2000, while the lengthfor school trips also increased from 2.7 km to 5.5 km.
The average length for shopping trips increased from 2.6
km to 4.8 km. Related to household income, a higher income group is associated with longer average trip lengthand a higher number of daily trips .
For private car trips, from 1985 to 2000, the number of trips by private car increased by 32%. The occupancy rate decreased from 1.96 to 1.75, which shows thatin 2000, people tended to make more solo trips than in
1985. The mode share of private car has decreased by
3.1%. However, this does not mean that people used the
car less in 2000, but was solely due to the significant increased number of motorcycle users since 1985.
2.3

Modal composition and choice captivity
The composition of travel mode choice in the JMA
region is presented in Table 1. Of all the person trips
made by motorized modes, buses made up more than 50
percent. Even though the number of buses has decreased
due to the economic crisis, the bus is still the most significant mode of transport used by the majority of citizens in the region. Private cars are used by 31 percent ofpeople and a motorcycle by 14 percent of people.

OthersJobless
RetiredHousewife
student
Worker

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Home to Work

Home to School

Home to Others
School to HomeWork to Home
Others to Home

NHBB

NHBO

2.50

Note: NHBB is non-home base business (work or school) trips. NHBO is non-home base other trips

Fig. 3 Trip production rate by social status and by trip purposes12
IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

61

Motorization in Asia

Table 1 Person trips by mode of transport9

12
1985
9.6

10

Travel Distance (Km)

2000

8.1

8

Composition

8.5

6.7

7.3

6.6 6.7
5.5

6

4.8

4.4

4
2.7

2.6

2
0
To work

To school

Shopping

Business

PrivateTo home

Trip Purpose

Fig. 4 Change in travel distance between 1985 and200010, 13

Description

All modes

Motorizedmodes

All modes of transport

100.0 %-

Non-motorized modes oftransport

28.8 %-

Motorized modes of transport

71.2 %

100.0 %

Motorcycle

10.1 %

14.2 %

Car

22.0 %

30.8 %Bus (including AC Express bus)

37.5 %

52.7%

Train

   1.4 %   2.0 %Above 7500

Monthly HH Income (Rp. thousand)5000 - 7499
4000 - 4999
3000 - 3999
2000 - 2999
1500 - 1999
1000 - 1499
600 - 900
Under 600
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%&

Private Car

Motorcycle

Patas AC
Express Train

Bus
Economy Train

Ojek/Others

NMT

100%

Fig. 5 Modal shares by household income10

Compared to the modal share in 1985, the share of
public transport has decreased slightly from 57 percent to52 percent. In contrast, the share of private cars has increased from 22.8 percent to 30.8 percent. The share of
motorcycle has decreased from 20.2 percent to 14.2 percent. A general trend of modal shift from public transport
to private has been observed over the last 15 years.
Grouping the mode choices based on income levelshows very clear evidence that in Indonesia private cars
are mostly used by higher income groups (Fig. 5). Interestingly, for the lowest income group the share of nonmotorized transport is as high as 60 percent. This mightalso imply that even use of public transport is economically difficult for the lowest income group. Thus they rely
heavily on non-motorized modes. Therefore, provision oftransport means for the poor is one of the important issues to tackle.

62

IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

2.4

The increasing trend of traffic flows
As the urbanized areas are continuously expanding,the traffic demand of the road network to and from the
JMA core area has been and will continue to grow. Fortunately, the incremental rate is decreasing. Comparing theprevious traffic survey study at the JMA’s cordon line1416, the traffic volume from 1988 to 1993 has increased by
12.6% per annum and from 1993 to 2000 has increased
by 6% per annum. However, it is a significant increase,which has significant potential in creating severe traffic
congestion in the JMA in the future.
Moreover, contributing to the existing congestionin the JMA area, JICA and BAPPENAS’s study9 estimatesthat the total number of commuters from surrounding cities to Jakarta will increase from 762 thousand persons
per day in 2000 to about 1.8 million in 2015. However,until now, the only connection available between the ar-

A REFLECTION OF MOTORIZATION AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA

Y. O. SUSILO, T. B. JOEWONO, W. SANTOSA, D. PARIKESIT

Table 2 Predicted pollution sources in JMA17
SourceIndustries

NOx

SOx

TSP

ton/year%

ton/year%

ton/year%

36,832

25.7

42,69776.3

13,581

57.1

Households

4,962

3.4

4,220

7.5

642

2.7

Automobiles

98,738

68.8

8,142

14.6

9,563

40.2

Ships

1,960

1.4

808

1.4

-

-

Aircraft

1,026

0.7

91

0.2

-

-

Total

143,518

100.0

55,958100.0

23,786100.0

eas is a road network that is already very congested withkilometers of private cars queuing in peak periods.
2.5

Uncontrolled motorization and degradation
quality of live
The discussions above have shown that the uncontrolled motorization in the JMA has significantly affected
the quality of urban resident’s lives in all aspects, not onlyin economic and travel aspects but also in social, psychological, and health aspects. Air pollution, which was anoccasional annoyance in the past, has become a criticalthreat to the JMA urban population’s health. The study
by JICA and BAPEDAL17 shows that automobiles (bothprivate vehicle and transit) have become the main sourceof air pollutant emissions for NOx and the second forSOx and TSP (Total Suspended Particulate) pollution(Table 2).

3. BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN JAKARTA
Suppressing the trend for motorization, especiallyuse of private cars, and providing a proper public transport service should become the main priority of the government to stop the degradation of the JMA residents’quality of life. However, in many cases, economic reasons and the political will of the government are major
obstacles to implementing a user and environmentallyfriendly transportation policy in Indonesia.
The most recent break-through policy that was
successfully implemented in Indonesia was a bus rapid
system (BRT) in the JMA. This policy was successfully
implemented due to an exceptional strong-will of thehead of Jakarta’s city government. Although it has only
been operating since 2004, it is already considered a success in the JMA and a good example for other cities inIndonesia as well as in other developing countries.
In order to suppress the rapid motorization as wellas to reduce severe traffic congestion and social and environmental impacts, several different policies have been

tried in the Jakarta metropolitan area, from traffic restraint policy (i.e. high occupation vehicle policy) to oneway traffic policy. However, since the refinement of the
public transport sector has never had enough attention
from the government, those policies did not provide any
significant positive outcomes. However, in the last four
years, there has been strong political support from thehead of Jakarta’s city government to create a proper anda cheap public transport system. In the end, they succeeded in implementing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system inthe core area of Jakarta city.
BRT is a form of customer-oriented transit (bus)combining stations, vehicles, planning, and intelligent
transport system elements into an integrated system with aunique identity18. BRT typically involves bus-way corridors in segregated lanes – either at-grade or grade separated – and modernized bus technology. There have beenvarious BRT systems operated throughout the world, e.g.
Bradford, Bogotá, Boston, Adelaide, etc. One of the biggest success examples of BRT system is Bogotá’s TransMilenio system, which went into operation in January
2001. By December 2001, the existing two lines alreadyserved over 600,000 passenger trips per day18. This system is considered a suitable system in developing countries, because it can be implemented at relatively lower
cost and with lower technology compared to other mass
rapid transit systems. Moreover, it can also be operated
without a massive construction since it can be operated
by using existing road corridors. However, as a consequence, it needs a dedicated line from the existing roadcorridors that will suddenly increase the traffic congestion (which is already present) and attract policy resistantfrom the road users. For further explanation about the advantages and disadvantages of the system see Wright19.
In Jakarta, the first BRT corridor was essentiallyplanned and implemented during the 9-month period
from May 2003 until January 200420. A 12.9 km initialclosed-system BRT corridor began operation on January
15, 2004, which started from Blok M bus terminal and
IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

63

Motorization in Asia

ended at Kota Station (from north to south on the mainroad corridors) was operated by TransJakarta company(Koridor I in Fig. 6). For detailed characteristics of theoperated bus see Ernst20.
In the first year of operation (2004), 15.9 million
passengers traveled by this system (approximately 44,000
passengers per day or 3,600 persons/hour/two directions).
The average busway load factor during the week was
91% and during the weekend was 75%, with the highest
load factor during the evening peak on weekdays, of up
to 143%21.
The Jakarta city government provided all the initialconstruction costs for the infrastructure and the buses. It
is considered a sunk cost because they want to support
this new public transport system. In the first year of thisbus-way operation, the comparison between operation maintenance cost and the revenue showed that at the end of
the first year revenue had increased more than the costs21.
Since the system was just initiated two years ago
and the Jakarta city government is still completing thewhole planned BRT routes, it might be too early to measure the impacts of the BRT system on the transport network performance and travel quality in Jakarta metropolitan area. However, some preliminary studies20, 22
reported that the initial performance of the system is very
promising. There has been a significant number of mode
shifts from private car to the BRT, while BRT enables thepassenger to travel 10–20 minutes faster than regular bus
users22. Due to the trend of passengers shifting from other modes to the BRT system, the NOx and PM10 emissions caused by automobiles has decreased by 202kg and
30kg per day respectively20.
Continuing the development of the BRT corridors
through 2004, the local government of Jakarta city constructed the next corridors of the BRT, namely the Pulo
Gadung-Harmoni and Kalideres-Harmoni corridors (corridor 2 and 3). These corridors allow movement fromwest to east and will be combined with the Blok M - Kota
corridor which serves the north and south movement, sothat a balance of four axes of movement will be reached.
Private companies, under supervision of the city government, have operated these corridors since January 2006.
Besides these corridors, there will be another 12 corridors and feeder lines that will be developed in the Jakarta
metropolitan area in the near future.
Another constructed mass transit system: Monorail
Simultaneously with the development of the BRT
system, a monorail system in JMA has started in the construction phase. The monorail route planned to be integrated with the BRT corridors in the future. This advance
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) concept was begun in the
1980s when the traffic congestion reached an unacceptable level; long before the BRT system was considered.
In 1996 the government of Indonesia wanted to begin thefirst stage of a subway system in Jakarta, however the
onset of Asian Economic Crisis in 1997 delayed the project. In 1999 this project was revived with the revised basic design study aimed to reduce the capital cost. This
project is expected to be the first modern public transportsystem in Jakarta, which will significantly increase thepatronage of public transport that in turn will reduce traffic congestion10. The newest projected monorail route in
JMA is projected, that in 2015, there will be more than
350,000 passengers using this monorail system per day16.
It was estimated that a three-car unit was the most suitable configuration with headway of 3.5-4.6 minutes inpeak period and 6.9-9.1 minutes in the off-peak period23.

4. DISCUSSION: PROGRESS SO FAR AND
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
4.1

Fig. 6 Map of Jakarta BRT line 42

64

IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

Reflection from existing conditions
It has been shown that motorization is progressing
rapidly in Indonesia and especially in the Jakarta metropolitan area. Between 1985 and 2000, car ownership, thenumber of private car trips as well as the travel distanceA REFLECTION OF MOTORIZATION AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA

all significantly increased. The poor quality of public
transport services has encouraged travelers to shift to private vehicles once they could afford a motorcycle or a
private car. It has been shown that the desire to own a car
is much higher in developing countries than in developed
countries. As a result, severe traffic congestion thatspreads over the city areas has become a daily event andthe public transport system is only used by captive users.
Automobiles also have become the main pollution sourcein the JMA.
If the government does not take any serious action,such as increasing the fuel cost by decreasing the fuelsubsidy, or introducing transportation demand management and traffic restraints such as road pricing and supporting the improvement of public transportation, theconditions will deteriorate even further. The impact of
this situation is not just the loss of time, but also the environmental and social impacts, as providing transportation
for the poor is also an important factor in developing
countries.
Fortunately, despite huge negative reactions fromcar users and skeptical politicians, the government of Jakarta city has taken the initiative to encourage and to fundthe first BRT system in Indonesia, followed by the development of a monorail project. Implementing BRT andmonorail projects in the JMA is considered a suitabletransportation policy to steer the JMA towards becoming
a sustainable city. Although it is still in an early stage, so
far the BRT system has given promising benefits in the
JMA and has encouraged the governments of other cities
to implement a similar BRT system in their cities. However, the monorail project is still struggling to get financial backing from local or central government.
4.2

Future implications
The main weakness of the present system in Indonesia is a lack of commitment and political-will in thegovernment to take on and implement a consistent urban
transport development policy in Indonesia, which in mostcases is an unpopular development policy among car
users. The Jakarta city government has succeeded in
implementing the BRT system mostly due to a strong andconsistent leadership from the local governor that has
overcome all the critics and public pressure. However,this is not the case with other cities. There have been
many studies for the improvement of transportation conditions in Indonesian main cities that have been fundedby the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB),
aids or grants from foreign nations or even from local
government funds (i.e. UPTP24, BMARTS25, SUTP26).

Y. O. SUSILO, T. B. JOEWONO, W. SANTOSA, D. PARIKESIT

However, unfortunately, only small numbers of themwere implemented.
Based on the data described above and several otherprevious studies, we try to address several future implications. Unfortunately, we are not aware of any sound studies that have been undertaken in the JMA which explore
the future of the JMA in the effort to suppress motorization and to promote public transportation as well. Thus,
all data and several previous studies provided above were
employed as the main source to understand the real condition and to reveal the root of the problems. With thiscondition in mind, we rigorously explored the literature
to find important factors, which we believe that the factors show the potential to solve the problem. The basic
motive in providing these future implications is to provide the developing cities with a series of substantial
actions. Banister27 argued that the challenge for sustainable urban development is the requirement of clear andsubstantial action, either to accommodate the scale ofexpected growth or to explore the means by which economic growth is not limited by substantial increases inenergy and transport consumption. In addition, Schipper
and Fulton28 argued that to develop sensible, sustainable
plans and policies in transport, it is first necessary to understand where one stands and where one is heading.
Thus, it can be argued that this suggestion regarding future implication is one way to know future progress.
The implications are as follow:
1. Greater commitments from the government in public
transport development

It is clear that the trend of motorization has alreadybecome a critical issue and suppression of the rapid increase of private cars is a must. However, people have tofulfill their daily mobility needs and the existing public
transport facilities are not adequate, both in quality andquantity, to fulfill the demand. This fact emphasizes theneed for greater attention from government to support apublic transportation friendly policy. Public transport
service is not a free good, which is not able to play in apure free market1, then the intervention of and taking
sides by the government is imperative. It is pointless restraining the use of the automobile while there is no acceptable alternative mode. That will only make drivers
find a way around the traffic restraint schemes rather thanconsider changing their mode. Moreover, greater commitment from the government is significant, as Dimitriou29 argued that a major root problem is that no effective
sustainable alternative to a motorized-dependent vision
has been realistically introduced by governments as a baIATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

65

Motorization in Asia

sis for future urban transport policy, despite severe resource
constraints.
2. Improvement of the existing public transport conditions
The real problem in developing countries is not thehigh use of automobiles, but the poor service quality ofthe public transit system30. However, as in most developing countries, Indonesia has only very limited resources
for developing an acceptable public transport system forthe whole community, especially the poor. To cope withthis problem, studies by GTZ26 and UPTP24,31,32 offer agood solution. These studies encourage local government
to improve their public transport system by empoweringand improving the existing system, which in the studies’
context it means empowering the bus and paratransit services. The basic idea of this suggestion is that the provision of existing public transport should be improved first,
rather than trying to implement a new system that mightneed higher costs. For example, because the root of the
public transport problems in Indonesia is in the management, regulation, supervision, and financial sectors, therefinement of the existing public transport management
policy has become a priority. Then, the parties involvedin the public transportation provision should show goodachievement in the existing service period as a passport
for further cooperation and further involvement in thismarket in the next service period (which will be done
under a contract based tendering system). It means that
there is some measure that will make the public transport
service providers work efficiently and effectively. In addition, public transport improvements must be part of alarger package in which one considers ways of financing
these improvements33.
3. Initiative from government to encourage Transit-oriented Development (TOD)
To create a sustainable transportation system, integrated land use and transportation planning is essential.
The question of how to develop these kinds of urban public transport systems should begin with the recognition
that an evolutionary relationship exists between urban
expansion and types of public transport34. To prioritize aTransit-oriented Development (TOD) plan is the only
way to suppress the rapid growth of motorization and tocreate the transit-friendly environment. Calthrope (inDittmar and Ohland 35) defined TOD as a combination ofregional planning, city revitalization, suburban renewal,
and walkable neighborhoods. The best practices in implementing this approach can also be found in Cervero7
and Newman and Kenworthy36. In Indonesia, it is only
Jakarta and Surabaya city governments who already show

66

IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

a commitment to implementing the transit-oriented development planning. Although the level of their successand the comprehensiveness of the planning are questionable, this positive step should be appreciated, encouraged, and supported.
4. Integrating and funding TOD development with the roadcharging schemes
Combining the implementation of TOD and the improvement of facilities and service of public transportwith the implementation of road-charging schemes would
enable the city’s government to cover the costs of externalities from use of the automobile, finance the public
transport service, and also, at the same time, restrain theuse of automobile. The best practices, such as in Singapore and London, for example, can be used as an exampleof how to design and implement successful measures inan urban context, although an in-depth study for implementing it in developing countries context is needed.
5. Maintain the consistency of commitments, cooperation,and coordination between stakeholders
Since the relationship amongst stakeholders in an
urban public transport system is very complicated andinter-dependent, the very basic requirement for all planning and implementation in urban public transport isregulation, to keep all the players on the right track.
Vuchic37 argues that an overall urban transportation system cannot be coordinated and upgraded until a regulation to coordinate it is introduced. However, the regulation
becomes just a document if it is not acknowledged by all
stakeholders and not accompanied by the appropriate law
enforcement. Thus, keeping the commitment and theconsistency of government and all stakeholders in implementing the policy and its law enforcement afterwards is
a must.
6. Supervise the government’s decision-making processes
The failure to abandon conventional-wisdom urban
transport planning practices is widespread, and thesepractices unquestionably accommodate motor vehicle
growth. This is associated with the root problem thatmany Asian governments perceive high rates of motorization as an indicator of economic virility29. Thus, supervising the government’s decision-making processes
will make sure that the consistency of the government’s
transit-oriented development policies is as important as
the policy itself. Jakarta city established such an urban
transportation board in 2004, which it called the City’s
Transportation Board (DTK, Dewan Transportasi Kota).
This board consists of 15 members including academics,
experts, businessmen, NGO activities, operators, thecommunity, the department of communication, and the

A REFLECTION OF MOTORIZATION AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA

police who are responsible for supervising the city government policy in transportation development. However,until now, the board has not worked properly in line withthe sustainable transportation visions. Recently, Kompas38 reported that this board agreed to build new six inner city toll roads, which does not seem in line with thespirit of TOD. Keeping the board consistently serving thecommunity rather than becoming the city government’s“approval board” is the major challenge.
7. Develop a unique approach for each developing country,
based on their own culture, society, and travel behavior,as well as resources
Although there have been many transportation policy studies carried out in Indonesia, only a small numberof them have incorporated individual travel behaviour
factors in their analysis of the proposed policy; a series
study like SITRAMP 9, 10, 12, 16 was an exception. Disregarding travel behaviour analyses in analyzing a feasibility of transport policy can produce a policy that is
unacceptable to the community and will face a possibilityof strong rejection when it is implemented. As an example, Susilo39 demonstrated that a similar road development in two similar rural areas on different islands withdifferent communities in Indonesia can give a very different impact to the local economic conditions. Moreover,there is an obvious gap between the have- and the poorcommunity in term of social and economic capability indeveloping cities, as well in Indonesian cities. Thus, more
attention on the equity of urban transport policy characteristic in developing countries becomes imperative, especially to the poor and minorities, since Deka40 argues
that while efficiency is certainly desirable, it does notguarantee a fair distribution. Surprisingly, as stated by
Beimborn et al.41, little is known in detail about how to
consider transit and automobile captive groups on thetransit modelling process.

5. SUMMARY
Motorization is progressing rapidly in the JMA andalso in other developing countries’ metropolitan areas.
Supported by poor quality of public transport services in
Jakarta, motorization has caused severe problems, notonly in transportation, but also in environmental, social,and economic aspects. If the stakeholders do not start tocooperate and take any serious action to suppress the motorization, the conditions will deteriorate even further
from the present situation. The lesson learned from JMA’scontext emphasizes the need for a clear vision, commitment, consistency, and leadership in creating a sustain-

Y. O. SUSILO, T. B. JOEWONO, W. SANTOSA, D. PARIKESIT

able city, which provides a means of mobility for all
including a guarantee of the city’s sustainability for the
future. The action should be based on and confirmed by
the community’s needs and expectations.

REFERENCES
1. Dikun, S. (ed.) Infrastruktur Indonesia: Sebelum, Selama, dan
Pasca crisis. Kementerian Negera Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional(BAPPENAS), Jakarta. (2003).
2. Kusbiantoro, B.S. Transportation problems in Jabotabek (TheGreater Jakarta Metropolitan Area). Proceeding of Conference on Transportation in Developing Countries, Universityof California, Berkeley, 17-18 April. (1998).
3. BPS Jakarta (Jakarta City Statistical Bureau) http://bps.
jakarta.go.id, Cited 27 August 2006. (2006).
4. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Cited July
2006. (2006).
5. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
GmbH. Perencanaan Transportasi dan Perbaikan Fisik,
Proyek Percontohan Perbaikan Angkutan Umum (Paket
Kerja 1), 10 Mei 2000, Surabaya. (2000).
6. Sperling, D., and Clausen, E. The developing world’s motorization challenge. “Issues on Science and Technology” Fall 2002.
(2002).
7. Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island
Press, Washington, D.C. (1998).
8. Kitamura, R., Susilo, Y.O., Fukui, K., Murakami, J., andKishino, K. The invariants of travel behavior: the case of
Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe metropolitan area of Japan, 1970-2000.
10th Conference of the International Association for Travel
Behaviour Research, Lucerne, August. (2003).
9. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) - Badan
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). The
Study on Integrated Transport Master Plan for JABOTABEK(Phase 1), Volume 1: Summary Report, Pacific Consultants
International and ALMEC Corporation, Jakarta. (2001).
10. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) - Badan
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). The
Study on Integrated Transport Master Plan for JABOTABEK(Phase 1), Household Visit Survey, Pacific Consultants International and ALMEC Corporation, Jakarta. (2000a).
11. Jakarta Metropolitan Area Police Office, Traffic Division Unit.
Number of registration vehicles in Jakarta Metropolitan Area,
undated. (2006).
12. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) - Badan
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). The
Study on Integrated Transport Master Plan for JABOTABEK(Phase 2), Interim Report 2: Technical Report Vol. 1, Pacific
Consultants International and ALMEC Corporation, Jakarta.
(2003).
13. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) - Ministry ofCommunication (Dephub). Arterial Road System Development Study in Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Jakarta. (1985).
14. Ministry of Public Works (DPU). Jakarta Outer Ring Road
Study, Jakarta. (1988).
15. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) - Ministry of
Public Works (DPU). Development of Urban Arterial Road
System in Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Jakarta. (1993).

IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 200767

Motorization in Asia

16. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) - Badan
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). The
Study on Integrated Transport Master Plan for JABOTABEK(Phase 1), Working Paper 2A – Transportation Survey, Pacific Consultants International and ALMEC Corporation, Jakarta. (2000b).
17. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) - Indonesia
Environmental Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL). The
Study on the Integrated Air Quality Management for Jakarta
Metropolitan Area, Jakarta. (1997).
18. Wright, L., and Fjellstrom, K. Mass Transit Options. Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing
Cities. Module 3a (revised July 2005), Division 44, Environment and Infrastructure, Deutsche Gesselschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Federal Ministry for
Economic Cooperation and Development, Eschborn. (2002).
19. Wright, L. Bus Rapid Transit. Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities. Module 3b (revised January 2004), Division 44, Environment andInfrastructure, Deutsche Gesselschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn. (2002).
20. Ernst, J. P. Initiating bus rapid transit in Jakarta, Indonesia.
“Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation
Research Board” No. 1903, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., pp.20-26. (2005).
21. BP Trans Jakarta Bus Way. Performance Evaluation Presentation, Jakarta, February. (2005).
22. Utama, D. The existing performance evaluation and future
development of Jakarta bus way system. 11th International
Symposium for Students and Young Researchers on Transportation and Infrastructure Planning, Chiba, Japan. (2005).
23. Anggrini, D., Santosa, W., and Basuki, T. The Study of Transit
Unit In Jakarta Mass Transit Project, Symposium VI FSTPT(Forum Studi Transportasi antar Perguruan Tinggi), Universitas Hasanuddin Makasar, 4-5 September. (2003).
24. Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (Menkimpraswil). UPTP, The Refinement and the Implementation of
Urban Public Transport Policies in Bandung: Final Report,
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. and Eskapindo Matra C.V.,
Bandung. (2002).
25. M+R International and Assoc. (MRI), PT Telaga Bakti Nusantara (TBN). Urban and Suburban Railway Transport System
for the Bandung Metropolitan Area (BMARTS), Phase I-Development Study, Draft Final Report, Bandung, Indonesia.
(1995).
26. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
GmbH. Trayek Percontohan Perbaikan Angkutan Umum di
Surabaya, Final Draft, GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport
Project (SUTP), Surabaya, July. (2001).
27. Banister, D. Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the
New Century. Routledge. London. (2005).
28. Schipper, L., and Fulton, L. Making Urban Transit Systems
Sustainable Around the World: Many Birds with One Bus.
“Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board” No.1791, Paper No. 02-3573, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp.44-50.
(2002).
29. Dimitriou, H.T. Towards a Generic Sustainable Urban Transport Strategy for Middle-sized Cities in Asia: Lessons from
Ningbo, Kanpur, and Solo. “Habitat International” 30: pp.10821099. (2006).
30. Senbil, M., Fujiwara, A., Zhang, J., and Asri, D. U. Develop-

68

IATSS Research Vol.31 No.1, 2007

ment of a choice model for evaluating sustainable urban form.
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Vol. 5, 2164–2178. (2005).
31. Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (Menkimpraswil) UPTP, The Refinement and the Implementation of
Urban Public Transport Policies in Bandung: The Regulatory
Changes to Support Bus Industry Development, The Louis
Berger Group, Inc. and Eskapindo Matra C.V., Bandung.
(2001a).
32. Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (Menkimpraswil) UPTP, The Refinement and the Implementation of
Urban Public Transport Policies in Bandung: Survey Report,
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. and Eskapindo Matra C.V.,
Bandung. (2001b).
33. Hensher, D.A. Sustainable Public Transport Systems: Moving
Towards a Value for Money and Network-Based Approachand Away from Blind Commitment. “Transport Policy” 14:
pp.98-102. (2007).
34. le Clercq, F., and de Vries, J.S. Public Transport and theCompact City. “Transportation Research Record, Journal of
the Transportation Research Board” No. 1735, Paper No. 000899, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
pp.3-9. (2000).
35. Dittmar, H., and Ohland, G. (ed.). The New Transit Town: Best
Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Island Press,
Washington, D.C. (2004).
36. Newman, P., and Kenworthy, J. Sustainability and Cities.
Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (1999).
37. Vuchic, V. R. Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and Economics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey. (2005).
38. Kompas. Hampir Setahun, Dewan Transportasi, 21 Oktober
2005, http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0510/21/metro/2144817.htm. Cited 29 August 2006. (2005).
39. Susilo, Y.O. Do adequate transportation facilities will guarantee better economic condition in low-technology society?
Case study in Yogyakarta and Bengkulu province, Indonesia.
8th International Symposium for Students and Young Researchers on Transportation and Infrastructure Planning,
Chiba, Japan. (2002).
40. Deka, D. Social and Environmental Justice Issues in Urban
Transportation. In Hanso, S., and Giuliano, G. (Ed.). The
Geography of Urban Transportation. Third Edition. The Guilford Press. New York. (2004).
41. Beimborn, E.A., Greenwald, M.J., and Jin, X. Accessibility,
Connectivity, and Captivity. “Transportation Research Record,
Journal of the Transportation Research Board” No. 1835,
Paper No. 03-2336, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp.1-9. (2003).
42. Wikipedia. TransJakarta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransJakarta. Cited April 28, 2007.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Most of the travel behavior data used in this paper are extracted from the series study of The Study on Integrated Transport
Master Plan for JABOTABEK (SITRAMP) in Jakarta Metropolitan Area. The authors would like to express their gratitude to allparties who kindly provided the data and the project reports. The
previous version of the paper has been submitted for a presentation at the EASTS Conference 2007, Dalian, China.