Route Network DevelopmentRod Stickland

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]

3

Growth in Passenger Movement(Greater Jakarta - 2002-2012)

4

The Scale of the Transport Problem

5

NB: Excludes cross-border trips to/from JABODETABEK area

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

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

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

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

Public Transport Fleet Size

Jakarta DKI area (2013)

Routes Vehicles Buses/Route

Large Buses 142 1,570 11.1BRT Buses 19 630 33.2Medium Buses 90 2,170 24.1Small 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

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

12

Angkots at Kampung Melayu

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

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

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

16

BRT Busway Development

• BRT provides core/trunk services

• High capacity, frequent & high speed

17

BRT Busway + Direct Services

• Direct Services connect between Corridors

• Add capacity on main corridors

18

BRT Busway + APTB Direct/Feeders

• APTB Services provide links to outer areas

• Benefit from busways in inner areas

19

BRT Busway + Feeder Services

• Feeder Services connect to local communities

• Extend ‘reach’ (catchment) of BRT

20

BRT Busway + Associated Services

• Combined routes provide basic framework of PT services for city

• Supplemented by local routes

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

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

23

Existing Network:•Regular & AC Buses

142 Routes served by 1,570 large buses

24

Existing Network•Medium Buses

90 Routes served by 2,170 medium buses

25

Existing Network•Regular, AC & Medium Buses

232 Routes served by 3,740 large & medium buses

26

Existing Network•Angkot & Mikrolet Services

159 Routes served by 14,000 small buses[Coverage not complete in SW sector]

27

Existing Network•All Bus Routes (Large, Medium & Small)

410 Routes served by 18,370 buses of all sizes

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

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 banished to the local routes

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

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

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

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

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

JAPTraPIS Proposal (2012):■■Conceptual Network Hierarchy by Service Conceptual Network Hierarchy by Service Type Type

Area LicenseA

Area LicenseB

Area LicenseC

Area-wide

Inte

rme

dia

te

AREA-WIDE BUSROUTE LICENSEConnecting to BRT Bus Shelters, Public Facilities and Interest Points andCrossing Area-License Borders

NEIGHBORHOOD BUSAREA LICENSEBus Operators are given Area License. The Operators determines routes and service level based on Customer Demands and Minimum Service Standards

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

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

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

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 neighbourhoods & improve accessibility