BRT's Influence on Public Transport Improvements in Indonesian Cities

Author(s): JOHN P. ERNST and HERU SUTOMO

Source: Built Environment (1978-), Vol. 36, No. 3, Bus Rapid Transit: A Public Transport
Renaissance (2010), pp. 344-352
Published by: Alexandrine Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23289723
Accessed: 10-07-2017 04:38 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Alexandrine Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Built
Environment (1978-)

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRT's Influence on Public Transport
Improvements in Indonesian Cities
JOHN P. ERNST and HERU SUTOMO

The introduction of the Jakarta Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, Transjakarta,
in 2004, set a new precedent for public transport services in Indonesia. To date,
though, the promise of BRT remains below that achieved in other countries. Along
with Trans]akarta's rapid expansion to eight corridors, institutional shortcuts
taken have resulted in basic operational problems that cause severe overcrowding.
Beginning in 2005, the national government has worked to develop bus-based
projects in other Indonesian cities that have adopted some elements of the BRT
model. As of 2010, projects are underway in Batam, Bogor, Yogyakarta, Pekanbaru,
Manado, Bandung, Palembang, and Gorontalo. These systems lack crucial BRT
components, such as dedicated median busways and easy boarding. While the
attention to public transport is welcome, these systems would benefit from a more
passenger-based approach to service, a sustainable financial model, and priority in
congested areas.

Public transport is an essential component Table 1. Features of Bus Rapid Transit Systems.
of a sustainable transportation system. Not Dedicated segregated busways
all trips can be made by bicycle or walking, Integrated network of routes and corridors
and an uncompetitive public transport Rapid boarding and alighting
system pushes more people to use cars and Clean, secure and comfortable stations and
terminals
motorcycles. Road building cannot solve the
problem as congestion, accidents and other Efficient pre-board fare collection
negative impacts assault the city. Legible signage and real-time information
displays
The concept of bus rapid transit (BRT) Prioritization at intersections
has spread throughout the world as a way Excellence in customer service
for cities to improve public transit systems Effective licensing and regulatory regimes
at reasonable cost. With the opening of the Modal integration at stations and terminals
Transjakarta busway in 2004, Indonesia Universal design attributes providing access for
all
implemented the first BRT in Southeast Asia,
and arguably the first full-featured BRT Clean vehicle technologies
system (see table 1) in all of Asia. Within Distinctive marketing identity
Indonesia, the Transjakarta busway has Source: Wright and Hook, 2007.
inspired other cities to attempt to improve
their public transit. planning and/or construction stage. None of
In the six-years following the opening of the cities, however, has attempted to imple
Transjakarta, at least eight Indonesian cities ment a full-featured BRT system. This article
have implemented improvements influenced describes the changes implemented in these
by BRT (see figure 1). Additional cities are in cities, and provides some initial assessment

344 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRT'S INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN INDONESIAN CITIES

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 1. Timeline of
implementation of BRT
influenced bus systems in
Indonesia.

of their effectiveness in im
2004 with an initial 13 km corridor featuring
transit in those cities. segregated right-of-way, median lanes with
median stations, pre-board fare collection,
and at-level boarding from raised platforms
Public Transport in Indonesia
(Ernst, 2005). Since opening, the system has
Cities in Indonesia have been faced with expanded to eight corridors with a total
downward trends in public transport of 143.35 km in operation. Two additional
rider
ship. Yogyakarta, for example, has corridorsexperi have been constructed and are
enced a 16 per cent annual decrease in expected to begin service in late 2010 or ear
ridership on urban buses. This trend has 2011. Four additional corridors are plann
been exacerbated in recent years by a rapid for completion by 2015.
growth in motorcycle use, spurred by re While the system has been successful a
ductions in trade barriers and aggressive significantly reducing travel times on mos
financing. corridors, overall performance has been
In response to these trends, the 2009 hindered by mixed-traffic incursion on
Indonesian Transportation Act includes a some sections of the BRT lanes, inadequa
provision that 'All major
cities (a total of 450) over
0.5 million population are
required to develop mass
TO I yL^-^ ^ .1 1
transport systems, run
ning on dedicated lanes, gja, semua bisa diubah menjadi cicilar
which would include high
capacity buses (arts 139)
(158)' (Meakin, 200%).
Even prior to that legisla
tion, the Indonesian De
partment of Transporta
tion worked actively to
promote some aspects of
BRT to cities outside of
Jakarta.

Jakarta BRT

BRT in Jakarta was con

structed in 2003 and open Figure 2. Transjakarta established the precedent of BRT in Indonesia
ed for service in January with the opening of operations in 2004. (Photo: Lloyd Wright)

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3 345

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BUS RAPID TRANSIT: A PUBLIC TRANSPORT RENAISSANCE

equipped with doors only

on the kerb-side (Jakarta's
buses have doors on both
sides). None of the cities
apply a physically segre
gated right-of-way for the
buses. All systems used a
fixed flat fare regardless
of distance, which varies
from 2000 rp to 4000 rp
(US$ 0.22 to US$ 0.44).
The Jakarta BRT uses a
flat fare, initially set at
2500 rp (US$ 0.28), but
increased once to 3500
rp (US$ 0.39). Unlike
Jakarta, most of the other
cities implemented a re
duced fare for students,
Figure 3. Operational difficulties causing overcrowding at stations and
within vehicles has dampened the perception of Jakarta'sfollowing
BRT system.common prac
(Photo: Lloyd Wright) tice for normal buses.
The following sections
give at
supply of CNG fuel for the buses, delays a brief overview of the size of the
systems in each of these cites, plus some of
key intersections, as well as overcrowding
resulting from a low fare structure and
their unique characteristics.
under-sizing of the infrastructure.

Batam: Bus Pilot Project

Influence on Other Indonesian Cities
Batam is located in a special development
zone immediately south of Singapore that has
Soon after the opening of the Jakarta BRT, the
concept of BRT began spreading throughout been developed for industry and international
Indonesian cities. This was encouraged trade. The city's population is approximately
by efforts to promote public transit one million over an area of 415 square km.
improvements by the Indonesian Department Within 7 months of the opening of the
of Transportation, Directorate General of Transjakarta BRT, the Ministry of Trans
Land Transportation through the Directorate portation received authorization from Parlia
of Urban Transport Systems. Helped by the ment to establish a pilot project in Batam.
physical example of BRT in Jakarta, the idea They implemented a 'Bus Pilot Project'
spread rapidly. Within six years, eight cities using six buses provided by the national
have implemented changes clearly inspired government. During the following two years,
by the Jakarta BRT. the city purchased an additional sixteen
The changes have many common chara buses. The first corridor began operation
cteristics. Following the example of BRT in on 18 July 2005, with a second added on
Jakarta, the cities all used high-floor boarding 1 February 2007. Each corridor is about 18
platforms for access to high-floor buses. km long linking Batam Centre and the two
Unlike Jakarta's median-stations, however, ferry ports of Sekupang and Batuaji. A total
the boarding platforms are located on the of twenty stations are located along the two
kerb in all of these cities. Buses used are corridors. Buses are operated by DAMRI,
346 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRT'S INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN INDONESIAN CITIES

Indonesia's government
owned bus company. Per
haps due to the very high
level of private vehicle
use in Batam, the new bus
system with no priority
scheme has not attracted
significant numbers of
passengers.

Pekanbaru: TransMetro
Pekanbaru

Pekanbaru, located in cen

tral Sumatra, has a popu
lation of 785,000. Twenty
12-metre buses were
provided by the national
government. In addition,
Figure 4. Batam is an example of the limited investment and basic
the national government
design used in Indonesian cities that does not attract a significant
provided assistanceridership
for away from private motor vehicles. (Photo: John Ernst)
constructing the stations,
This has been changed to a single-level on
paying for nineteen of the total fifty-eight
stations. The city government alsosubsequent
attainedcorridors.
private financing to pay for the construction
of some stations.
Manado: Trans Kawanua
Two corridors, 32 km and 42 km long,
began operation on 18 June 2009. A smart card Manado, in northern Sulawesi, has a popu
based ticketing system was provided by the lation of almost a million in an area of
national government and
implemented in March
2010, but was soon discon
tinued due to operational
problems. Pekanbaru's sta
tions have boarding plat
forms split into two levels
for the first two corridors.

Figure 5. Pekanbaru's
unusual split-loading
platform provides flexibility
for loading with different
vehicle heights, but the
design creates a hazard for
passengers and slows the
boarding process.
(Photo: Y. Adiwanarto)

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3 347

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BUS RAPID TRANSIT: A PUBLIC TRANSPORT RENAISSANCE

157 square km. Twenty-seven buses The wereIndonesian government provided ten
provided by the Indonesian government. medium buses. Fifteen temporary shelters
Similar to Pekanbaru, assistance was also were constructed while thirty permanent
provided by the national government to shelters are planned using a public-private
construct ten of the total thirty-nine stations, partnership effort. Buses began operation
with additional support from a third party on one corridor on 4 September 2009. The
The Manado buses are operated directly corridor runs approximately 16 km, but
by the city transportation agency. Of threehalf-circling the city. Because of this, it is not
corridors planned, operation on two corrireadily noticeable to the general public or
dors, 25 km and 26 km long, began in Augustvisitors. The buses are operated by DAMRI.
2009. Due to the limited financial capacity of
the municipality, the buses have a headway
of around 20-30 minutes. This reduces the
Yogyakarta: Trans Jogja

attractiveness of the buses compared toYogyakarta, in central Java, has a popu

lation of approximately a million, (534,000 in
existing minibus services running at higher
frequency. the city proper) in an area of 33.0 square km.
The Transjogja system operates with forty
buses from the Indonesian government and
Semarang: Trans Semarang
thirty buses purchased by the Yogyakarta
Semarang, on the north coast of the island
Provincial government.
of Java, has a population of 1.3 million in
The Yogyakarta system represents unique
an area of 374 square km. The Indonesianfeatures in that the institutional aspects of
government provided twenty 12 metre
the system are more involved, with a co
operation defined between the provincial
buses. Fifty-three stations were constructed.
A smart card ticketing system was providedand city governments. This extends even
by government funds. The Technical Unit to sharing financial outlays as, for example,
for operating the system has not yet been the cost of constructing shelters. In Yog
established, although operations startedyakarta
on the Provincial government paid for
20 September 2009. Semarang has one 30 forty-two
km shelters, while the city paid for
corridor. The service runs on an east-west thirty-four.
axis of the city crossing the city centre, but Yogyakarta
as features the only bus smart
card system in Indonesia (including Jakarta's
in all the systems there is no priority scheme
to protect the buses from being caught BRT)inthat successfully uses the multiple
congestion. The buses are operated by feature.
trip a The system offers discounted
specially created consortium of existing fares for refill trips on a multiple trip card.
operators. The first three corridors (six routes due to
One expert reviewing the system noted the extensive one-way street network) began
that 'Factors that have influenced route operation on 18 February 2008. The average
design include, as in the other cities, con length is 30 km (Meakin, 2009a). An
corridor
straints on siting platform stations due additional
to corridor (two additional routes)
objections from angkot and bus operators is planned
and to begin operation in 2011 with
twenty buses from the national government
from frontage businesses (Meakin, 2009a).
and thirty-six additional bus shelters.
Yogyakarta is probably the most studied
Bandung: Trans Metro Bandung
of the systems presented here. A significant
Bandung, in west-central Java, has (as of is the level of cost recovery. Fares
problem
2004) a population of 2.5 million in recover
168 is only 31 per cent of operating
square km. costs. This is primarily due to a high cost
348 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRT'S INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN INDONESIAN CITIES

per km paid to the operator (9,000 IDR/km

system is planned to have 5 minute headways
or US$ 1/km) and the low productivity(Meakin,
of2009b). Fare verification will be on
the buses. Buses average 168 passengers per
board the vehicles (Wright, 2009).
Palembang has also made extensive ef
day (Meakin, 200%). There also may simply
be too few stations in key demandforts
areas:
to restore and improve pedestrian
'Transjogja buses operate on the busiest
ways, including a bike and pedestrian area
north-south urban street, but no passengers
along the river. Unfortunately, the kerb-side
are carried as there are no stations' (Meakin,
stations completely block the sidewalk in
2009a). many locations.

Bogor: Trans Pakuan Gorontalo: Trans Hulonthalangi

Bogor, in western Java within commuting Gorontalo, located in northern Sulawesi,

distance of Jakarta, has a population of has a population of 165,000 in an area of
950,000 in an area of 112 square km. Thirty 65 square km. The Indonesian government
buses provided by the Indonesian govern provided fifteen medium buses. Stations are
ment have operated on two corridors, being prepared with some units supported by
beginning in December 2007. the private sector. The transportation agency
These routes run through the city, but began operating the service themselves, on
extend into low-density areas. Two additional three corridors on 19 March 2010.
planned routes are circular, along a ring-road
still under construction on the outskirts of
Surakarta: Batik Solo Trans
the city. 'There is no plan to serve the Bogor
railway station, which has 80,000 daily Surakarta, or Solo, in central Java, has a
commuters to Jakarta' (Ibid.). population of 530,000 in an area of 44.0
The Bogor buses use a turnstile in thesquare km. The Indonesian government pro
doorway of the bus to collect tickets, instead
vided fifteen buses. Stations are now being
constructed by the city government. The
of placing the turnstile in the station. This
method is also used in Pekanbaru. The system opened an initial corridor in August
turnstile can make it more complicated
2010. to
negotiate the gap between the station and
bus door (Ibid.). Bus drivers are forced to Common Features
leave a wider gap at the transfer terminal
for the two corridors, as the station design All the post-Transjakarta systems imple
does not provide enough room for the buses' mented to date share several common
mirrors (Ibid.). features:

♦ All buses are of a higher standard of

Palembang: Trans Musi
comfort than previously used for city bus
Palembang, in south Sumatra, has a services, and include air-conditioning.
population of 1.4 million in an area of 374
square km. The Indonesian government pro ♦ All stations are on the kerb-side, most are
vided five 12 metre buses and ten smaller, 2 m wide or less.
7.5 metre buses. The city government spent
its own funds to procure an additional ten ♦ No priority measures or segregated lanes
buses. Service began on 22 February 2010 have been implemented.
along two corridors. An extensive network
is planned covering most of the city. The ♦ A flat-fare system with free transfers

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3 349

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BUS RAPID TRANSIT: A PUBLIC TRANSPORT RENAISSANCE

Table 2. Average daily passengers for full months

provides a lower priced service for passengers
going longer distances. operated in 2009.
Bandung 589

♦ Fares are collected prior to boarding

Batam 1,472
the bus (though the turnstiles in Bogor and
Bogor 2,978
Pekanbaru are on the bus in the doorway).
Manado 108
Pekanbaru 5,691
♦ Buses are permitted to stop only at Yogyakarta 12,702
designated, high-platform, stations. Source: DOT, 2010.

♦ Buses have been provided at no cost

by the national government (in two cases about 30 kilometres in length (Meakin,
supplemented by additional buses purchased 2009a).
by local government).
Benefits
♦ A gross-cost model of payment is imple
mented, also known as a 'Buy the Service' The Indonesian Department of Transportation
approach, where bus operators are paid cites several benefits to the systems imple
per km, with no incentive for carrying more mented:

passengers.
1. reduced cost to the passengers because
Most of the systems developed also featurethey no longer have to pay for transfers;
a similar structure for the operator. They use
2. faster travel times because buses stop less
a single-operator consortium formed by
frequently;
existing operators. The consortium frequently
includes the Indonesian government owned 3. safer driving habits of drivers who are no
bus company, DAMRI. In some cases DAMRI longer competing for fares;
operates the bus directly. In two cities, the
4. air-conditioned comfort;
transportation agency operates the bus, but
only as a temporary measure. 5. regularly scheduled service;
Buses are either 7.5 metre vehicles with
6. better traffic flow because of reduced
twenty-two seats and total capacity of forty
public transport stopping behaviour;
one passengers, or 12 metre vehicles with
a total capacity of eighty-five passengers.
7. reduced air pollution from fewer stops
(DOT, 2010)
Service frequency varies, but is typically
six buses per hour or a ten-minute headway
(Meakin, 2009a). Passengers in Pekanbaru strongly sup
ported the new service, and told an inter
Performance viewer they would hold protests if the service
was stopped (ITDP, 2010).
The number of passengers carried by these A key benefit of the system may come from
systems is generally low (see table 2), for a the efforts to formalize the bus sector (Meakin
variety of reasons. Meakin (2009a) noted that 2009a). Most of these cities are dominated
in these cities the typical demand pattern isby small-scale paratransit services that are
radial, with commute trips going from the poorly controlled. The 'buy the service'
suburbs to the centre. Some of the routes are scheme implemented creates operating
radial, but many circle the city instead. Manyconsortia from the existing operators, but
routes are longer than needed, averagingthen contracts them to provide a service. It
350 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRT'S INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN INDONESIAN CITIES

opens the door for further improvements and

quality control in providing this service.

Challenges
The system's advantage for general traffic
flow, limiting the number of stops made by
public transport, creates some disadvantage
for passengers. The fewer stops means there
is a longer walking component for their trip.
Existing paratransit services stop on demand
and usually have higher frequency, reducing
the walking distance and waiting time of
their passengers (Meakin, 2009/)).
Kerb-side stations can block the sidewalk,
forcing pedestrians into the street. The
kerb-side design means there can be more
hindrances to bus flow, such as vendors,
loading vehicles, taxis stopping for pas
sengers, etc. The requirement for the buses to
get next to the platform can slow down their
average speed while they wait for obstacles
to clear. Competing buses and paratransit
Figure 6. The station design in Palembang suffers
vehicles stop away from the kerb when they from multiple problems, including: 1. inward
need to avoid those obstacles. swinging station doors that slow boarding and
The platform boarding can also presentalighting; 2. station location blocks footpaths for
a delay and hazard to passengers. This ispedestrians; and 3. stepped-entry into stations
makes the service less accessible. (Photo: John
perhaps most evident in Pekanbaru where Ernst)
the city uses an on-board turnstile in the
doorway of the bus, combined with a station
platform that is at two different levels. The Meakin (2009b) observed that the placement
of stations was affected by objections from
split platforms were designed in anticipation
of using both 7.5 metre and 12 metre buses, local businesses. In Surakarta (also known
with two different floor heights. The designas Solo), a shopping mall objected to having
results in slow and hazardous boarding fora station located in front of it. Existing
passengers. The duration of one major stopparatransit operators have also pressured
was measured by the author to require 61 to keep the new routes away from profitable
seconds for the boarding and alighting of
areas.

twenty-one passengers, which is quite slow None of the systems provide clea
by international standards. for the buses, meaning that as
Another example of difficulty faced byincreases in these cities, public
passengers is Palembang's stations with will have no advantage over priv
hinged glass doors that must be opened vehicles.

inward by passengers to board the bus.

Since the station is relatively narrow, this
Conclusion
both slows boarding and presents a hazard
to passengers in the station who must moveThese projects have focused government
out of the way to allow the door to open. attention on a public transport situation that

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3 351

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BUS RAPID TRANSIT: A PUBLIC TRANSPORT RENAISSANCE

Ernst, J.P. (2005) Initiating Bus Rapid Transit in

has been neglected and declining for decades.
The new buses in themselves show public Jakarta, Indonesia. Transportation Research
Record, No. 1903, pp. 20-26.
transport passengers that they are receiving
higher priority. ITDP (2010) Unpublished Mission Report,
Pekanbaru, March 2010. Institute for Trans
The systems do not, however, capture many
portation and Development Policy, New York.
of the key benefits of BRT for the passenger,
Meakin, R. (2009a) Indonesia - GTZ Mission
government or the operator. The needtofor Four Pilot BRT Cities in April 2009. Un
operating subsidies limits the expansionpublished
and Report Draft 16 May 2009, Em
missions Minderungen im Stadtischen
long-term viability of the concept. Passenger
Verkehr, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische
safety during boarding is compromised by
too little attention to the infrastructure and Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn,
Germany.
to driver training. Perhaps most importantly,
Meakin, R. (2009b) Report of the Second Public
the systems make no attempt to address Transport Mission to Indonesia. Unpublished
the issue of public transport being caught Report, 8-26 June 2009, Emmissions
in congestion. This aspect of BRT holds the Minderungen im Stadtischen Verkehr, Deutsche
Gesellschaft fiir Technische Zusammenarbeit
most promise for reducing operational cost
and increasing appeal to new passengers. (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany.
While Indonesians currently refer to theseWright, L. (2009) 'Bus Rapid Transit in Indonesian
Cities'. Unpublished report.
systems as BRT, it is perhaps a question of
semantics. It is not unusual for Indonesians Wright, L. and Hook, W. (2007) Bus Rapid Transit
Planning Guide, 3rd ed. New York: ITDP.
to quickly adapt terms from English. 'Focus
Yogyakarta Traffic and Transport Agency (2007)
Group Discussions' and 'Car Free Day' events
Trans Jogja: Public Transport Reform. Un
happen regularly, though a person familiar published report.
with these terms in other contexts may notice
little similarity. Similarly, the term BRT is
clearly being used as a way to urge cities to
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
take action. It would be premature to hold
The authors wish to thank the Indonesian Depa
these efforts up to the international standard
ment of Transportation, Directorate General
of BRT. The more important question is Land Transportation, Directorate of Urban Tra
whether the opportunity can be used to port Systems for providing basic data on the b
systems. GTZ provided access to their expe
bring concepts of public transport service
reports covering some of the cities.
from a passenger perspective, and other key
elements of sustainable transport, into the
discussion.

REFERENCES

DOT (2010) Personal communication, April 2010.

Indonesian Department of Transportation,
Directorate General of Land Transportation,
Directorate of Urban Transport Systems.

352 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 3

This content downloaded from 103.229.202.173 on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:38:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms