2. 2
Context
•Earlier presentations have highlighted the
massive increase in travel within the Jakarta
Region over the past decade … and the relative
stagnation of public transport demand
•Within DKI Jakarta there are now around 26
million person trips per day – with 6.5 million
(25%) by public transport
– [NB Includes cross-border trips from Jabodetabek
area]
6. 6
Network Development
•This presentation is concerned with the
development of the BUS network within DKI
Jakarta
•There are FOUR main classes of bus:
BRT, APTB, BKTB & Executive Mini - which all operate on
the busways
Large/Regular Buses – both AC and non-AC and some
Express Services
Medium Buses – approx 25 seats
Small Buses – Angkots & Mikrolets
•The main focus of this presentation is on the
non-BRT network and services
7. 7
Role of BRT in Jakarta
•The BRT plays a fundamental key role in
the overall PT network in Jakarta
•It provides a core or ‘spine’ to the network
and serves trunk longer-distance trips –
especially to/from the inner areas
•The network is extensive and most main
corridors are covered
•However not all areas are served and
many trips will NOT use the BRT
8. 8
Area of influence/service of BRT
•Total area of DKI Jakarta is 653km2
•Length of busway = 175km
•Catchment area of BRT = 500m on each
side – or a 1km ‘band’
•Total ‘area served’ by BRT = 175km2
•Equivalent to 27% of city area
•Remaining 73% NOT served by BRT
9. 9
Public Transport Fleet Size
•There are over 18,000 buses operating in
the Jakarta DKI area
•14,000 of these are Mikrolets/Angkots
Jakarta DKI area (2013)
Vehicles Percent
Large Buses 1,570 8%
BRT Buses 630 3%
Medium Buses 2,170 12%
Small Buses 14,000 76%
Total 18,370 100%
10. 10
Public Transport Fleet Size
Jakarta DKI area (2013)
Routes Vehicles Buses/Route
Large Buses 142 1,570 11.1
BRT Buses 19 630 33.2
Medium Buses 90 2,170 24.1
Small Buses 159 14,000 88.1
Overall 410 18,370 44.8
•These buses operate on 410 routes, with
an average of up to 88 buses per route for
the Mikrolets & Angkots
11. 11
Public Transport Fleet Size
•It is evident that there is an oversupply
of vehicles on a number of routes
•This is most obvious in regard to the
Angkots/Mikrolets and Medium Buses
•Large numbers of vehicles can be
observed waiting at terminals
throughout the day
•This represents a waste of resources
and leads to (financial) inefficiency
13. 13
The limitations of BRT
•BRT is the ‘flag-ship’ for PT in Jakarta
and the corner-stone of the network …
BUT ..
The BRT network comprises a 4km
grid on major roads and serves only
a quarter of the city
BRT buses comprise only 3% of the
total fleet
BRT carries <10% of PT passengers
14. 14
Network Development
•The main focus of this project is on the
development and upgrading of the non-
BRT bus services – big buses, medium
buses and small buses
•These services need to be integrated with
the BRT … but also serve a significant
demand for travel independent of the BRT
15. 15
Services directly related to BRT
•A number of services that are physically
integrated with the BRT have recently
been introduced
•The function of these services is to expand
the ‘footprint’ of the BRT and to feed more
passengers onto the network
•There are however a number of significant
issues in regard to full integration – bus
types, floor height, fares, etc – as well as
potential congestion on the busway
17. 17
BRT Busway + Direct Services
• Direct Services
connect between
Corridors
• Add capacity on
main corridors
18. 18
BRT Busway + APTB Direct/Feeders
• APTB Services
provide links to
outer areas
• Benefit from
busways in inner
areas
19. 19
BRT Busway + Feeder Services
• Feeder Services
connect to local
communities
• Extend ‘reach’
(catchment) of
BRT
20. 20
BRT Busway + Associated Services
• Combined routes
provide basic
framework of PT
services for city
• Supplemented
by local routes
21. 21
Local Network Development
•This (expanded BRT) network forms the
framework for the development of the
local area networks
•These networks will comprise basically
shorter distance routes providing local
connectivity and access to housing areas,
employment and commercial, social and
leisure facilities
22. 22
Existing Networks
•A comprehensive network of routes for all
types of buses exists throughout Jakarta
•This has evolved over the years in
response to passenger demand .. and is
well understood and appreciated by users
•It is neither practical nor appropriate to
make comprehensive changes – any
change should be EVOLUTIONARY
•This does NOT mean however that some
change is not required
28. 28
Network Development
•The resultant network clearly provides
comprehensive coverage of the developed
areas
•There have been additions and extensions to
the network over the years – including the
‘overlaying’ of the BRT and associated services
– but (probably) far fewer route deletions
•Future developments include the introduction
of MRT and Monorail
•The changing scale and pattern of demand
suggests a review of the network is needed
29. 29
Network Development
•A number of factors have affected the
scale and pattern of demand over the past
10 years:
a. Introduction of BRT – has taken a
substantial part of longer distance (trunk)
demand and has ‘displaced’ existing
operators
b. Growth in motor-cycle and car ownership
and use has resulted in stagnation of overall
demand for public transport
c. Most new services are using large buses and
large numbers of smaller vehicles are being
30. 30
Network Development
•As a result many of the existing routes will
have experienced a reduction in passenger
demand .. and
•The result is that there are an excessive
number of mostly small buses chasing a
declining (or at best stagnating) number of
passengers
31. 31
What to do?
•Routes that compete with – or link with –
the BRT should be reviewed as part of an
integrated strategy for Feeder Routes
•There would appear to be NO LOGIC for
smaller vehicles to operate on the
busways
•‘Other’ routes should be reviewed (either
singly or jointly within a corridor) to
determine the most appropriate vehicle
size and number of vehicles required to
meet the demand (and required level of
service)
32. 32
What to do?
•Generally the longer routes (linking
adjoining neighbourhoods/centres) should
benefit from larger vehicles – with the
smaller vehicles used for shorter local
collector services within a specific locality
•Most routes currently operated by
‘medium’ buses would be suited for
conversion to larger capacity vehicles
•Most Angkot/Mikrolet services could (at
least in the short term) be operated by the
existing medium buses
33. 33
What to do?
•This will likely result in a significant
reduction in the numbers of vehicles
required to operate the services – with
fewer large buses being more effectively
deployed on a new ‘hierarchy’ of routes
•The JAPTraPIS (2012) proposed a hierarchy
of bus services which is broadly similar and
is considered appropriate: the focus is on
the services highlighted
34. 34
Median BRT - Full BRT along exclusive bus lanes along
the road median
Modified BRT - Full BRT along service roads or kerbside
lanes, where a median design is not possible
Intermediate bus priority routes - integrated with full
BRT and operate on standard roadways. They act as
feeders to the BRT and also provide cross suburb
services. (fare integrated with Full BRT)
Area-wide bus route - Line-haul routes run parallel with
BRT but offer different service (non-fare integrated)
Neighbourhood area service - Short distance feeder
services operating smaller buses to either the BRT or to
the Intermediate bus routes (not fare integrated)
Paratransit services - as part of the local neighbourhood
services to offer feeder services to the trunk route under a
local area arrangement
Network and Service TypeNetwork and Service Type
Source: JAPTraPIS (2012)
35. 35
JAPTraPIS Proposal (2012):
■■Conceptual Network Hierarchy by Service TypeConceptual Network Hierarchy by Service Type
Area License
A
Area License
B
Area License
C
Area-wide
Intermediate
AREA-WIDE BUS
ROUTE LICENSE
Connecting to BRT Bus
Shelters, Public Facilities
and Interest Points and
Crossing Area-License
Borders
NEIGHBORHOOD BUS
AREA LICENSE
Bus Operators are given
Area License. The
Operators determines routes
and service level based on
Customer Demands and
Minimum Service Standards
36. 36
Physical Integration with BRT
•Physical integration (or ‘through running’) of
services on the BRT raises a number of issues
and must be carefully considered
•Vehicle type: requires high-floor and off-side door ..
preferable that all vehicles operating on BRT are of
similar size, configuration and performance
•Fares: integrated fares required together with revenue
sharing – ideally smartcards
•Capacity: too many services will seriously compromise
operating conditions in inner area
•Improved interchange facilities with feeder
routes offers preferable solution
37. 37
Effect of Network Development (1)
•The overall effect will be the consolidation
and extension of the BRT services as the
core/trunk network
– (with the necessary capacity enhancements in the inner areas)
•The development of a complementary
network of secondary routes operated by
large buses connecting suburban centres and
linking between the BRT corridors
•The introduction of local BRT “feeder”
services which ‘feed’ the BRT stations but do
NOT enter the busways
38. 38
Effect of Network Development (2)
•The rationalisation of inter-district routes
operating primarily on the secondary road
network, using vehicles consistent with the
passenger demand and desired frequency
•Local Neighbourhood Services operating
within a specific (defined) zone and linking
with adjacent BRT and secondary services:
– could be medium buses or para-transit (non-
fixed route)
39. 39
Impact of Network Development
•BRT remains the central core element of
the PT/bus network – high capacity, high
frequency corridors – with some through-
running of outer area services
•Development of local feeder services
•Improved INTERCHANGE with BRT
•Secondary regular bus services
rationalised linking suburban centres and
BRT corridors
•Local area networks/services to penetrate
![2
Context
•Earlier presentations have highlighted the
massive increase in travel within the Jakarta
Region over the past decade … and the relative
stagnation of public transport demand
•Within DKI Jakarta there are now around 26
million person trips per day – with 6.5 million
(25%) by public transport
– [NB Includes cross-border trips from Jabodetabek
area]]()