TransJakarta System : Sustainability vs Subsidy

The Potential BRT in Asia

Taufik Adiwianto

Present Public Transport Problems

• Lack of Integration between Land Use and Transport System

• Lack of Integration between Different Modes of Transport

• Increase in Private Car Use

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

11,000,000

12,000,000

2000 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020Tahun

Po

pu

lasi

Pe

nd

ud

uk

Trend of Population Growth

2010

Average Speed in Morning Peak Hour

5.302.194

7.384.939

9.445.808

545.310693.099940.834

847.7501.078.663

1.465.912

620.702791.2951.148.528

Year 2002 , 2010 , 2020

Daily Trip Forecast (Public Transport) – Greater Jakarta

TransJakarta SystemGeneral Description:Route Length : 12,9 kmNumber of Station : 20Station Spacing (avg) :

650 mFleet Size : Initial 56 - 140 busesHeadway : Peak Hour : 2 minutesOperation : 05:00 – 22:00Fare : Rp. 1.500 from 05:00 -

07:000 Rp. 2.500 from 07:00 - 22:00

Integrated Fare : Rp. 3.800 AC - Rp. 2.900 Non-AC

TransJakarta System

•The aims of the busway system implementation are:- To increase bus passenger existing trip;- Lane separation from general traffic; - Reliable time schedule;- To improve comfort, security and safety for bus passengers;- To improve public transport services coordination;- To improve efficiency of bus operator;- To implement an effective bus fare system;

•Public service standards suitable for the bus passenger in this system are:- Accessibility;- Security and safety;- Comfortable waiting space;- Minimum waiting time;- High service quality;- Availability of reliable information.

Organizational and Management of TransJakarta

Head

Finance Division

Ticketing Division

Infrastructures and Facilities

Division

Control of Operation Division

Operational Management

Division

Secretariat

Is a management agency of busway

Established by a governor decree no: 110/2003 (dated 31 December 2003)

Is a transitional agency, based on Local Regulation on Public Transportation No. 12/2003 (Article 109)

An independent transport authority to be established by local regulation (article 109 – 1)

Management Framework of Busway Operation

TRANSJAKARTA

Planning, Programing, Controlling

BuswayOperator

Ticketing Revenue Collector

Feeder Bus Operator

Trustee

PT. JET(Jakarta Expres Trans)

PT. Lestari Abadi

More Than 5 Bus Operators

Bank DKI

Organizational Position of TransJakarta

• BP Transjakarta manages the busway system under The Governor Authority, does its task, function, and responsible to The City Secretary. BP TransJakarta is dependent organization.

• BP Transjakarta is a transitional organization, based on Local Regulation of Public Transportation No. 12, 2003 (article 109).

• Transportation problems in Jakarta have a wider complexity which needs to be solved by an independent council.

Problems Encountered on Management Side

• Inadequate authority given to BP TransJakarta has led to lack of better performance in busway management.

• Most of physical and infrastructure maintenance activities are still under the authority of other local government agencies.

• Unavailability of formal regulations and tools that manage the coordination mechanisms between BP TransJakarta and other local government agencies involved in busway operation.

• The existing regulation gives less support to efficient operational process, thus the performance of service becomes less optimal.

Passenger Growth

Month Monthly Passenger

February 1.154.399

March 1.431.231

April 1.376.984

May 1.442.700

June 1.468.293

July 1.557.677

August 1.482.045

September

1.446.179

October 1.566.173

Passenger Trips Carried - February - October 2004

1,468,293

1,557,677

1,482,045

1,446,179

1,566,173

1,442,700

1,376,984

1,431,231

1,154,399

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

1,700,000

February March April May June July August September October

Load Factor - TransJakartaPeriod Weekday Load Factor

HeadwayNumber of BusTime Operation

Weekend Load FactorHeadway

Number of BusWeekend

5:00:00 52% 16 42% 16

6:00:00 79% 40 75% 16

7:00:00 101% 51 55% 30

8:00:00 86% 51 68% 30

9:00:00 103% 35 58% 45

10:00:00 101% 35 69% 45

11:00:00 79% 51 75% 45

12:00:00 85% 51 85% 45

13:00:00 92% 51 95% 45

14:00:00 91% 51 95% 45

15:00:00 97% 51 90% 45

16:00:00 132% 51 91% 45

17:00:00 143% 51 73% 45

18:00:00 91% 51 87% 30

19:00:00 83% 35 66% 30

20:00:00 59% 30 76% 20

21:00:00 67% 16 68% 16

Total Bus-Km Production

Month Bus-km

February 394.571

March 470.538

April 401.735

May 404.690

June 390.790

July 399.491

August 418.287

September 394.162

October 415.667

J umlah Produksi Bus-km Februari s/d Oktober 2004

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

400.000

450.000

500.000

Pebruari Maret April Mei Juni Juli Agustus September Oktober

Passenger/Bus-KmJ umlah Penumpang per Bus-km

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

Pebruari Maret April Mei Juni Juli Agustus September Oktober

Penum

pang

OM Cost vs Revenue (with Security Expenditure)

O & M Cost vs. Revenue dengan Biaya Operasional Satgas

3.807.678.896 3.819.994.617

3.623.017.051

3.791.371.616

2.845.030.125

3.508.426.350

3.373.482.500

3.533.738.100

3.597.666.400

3.821.281.400

3.624.258.700

3.535.936.500

3.830.482.1003.702.304.028

3.762.556.4273.784.964.734

3.466.530.822

4.424.190.733

2.700.000.000

2.900.000.000

3.100.000.000

3.300.000.000

3.500.000.000

3.700.000.000

3.900.000.000

4.100.000.000

4.300.000.000

4.500.000.000

Pebruari Maret April Mei Juni Juli Agustus September Oktober

O & M COST REVENUE

OM Cost vs Revenue (without Security Expenditure)

O & M Cost vs. Revenue Tanpa Biaya Operasional Satgas

3.541.841.3963.513.678.617

3.372.921.051

3.469.221.116

2.845.030.125

3.508.426.350

3.373.482.500

3.533.738.100

3.597.666.400

3.821.281.400

3.624.258.700

3.535.936.500

3.830.482.100

3.870.982.733

3.358.530.802

3.515.866.8343.540.909.727

3.481.209.478

2.700.000.000

2.900.000.000

3.100.000.000

3.300.000.000

3.500.000.000

3.700.000.000

3.900.000.000

4.100.000.000

Pebruari Maret April Mei Juni Juli Agustus September Oktober

O & M COST REVENUE

OM Cost Components

Bus Operator70%

Tiketing Operator16%

BP Transjakarta14%

O & M Cost per Passenger (Rupiah per Penumpang)

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

Pebruari Maret April Mei Juni Juli Agustus September Oktober

Cos

t -

Rup

iah

OM Cost/Passenger

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

February March April May June July August September October

Passengers per Round TripFebruary - October 2004

Passenger/Round Trip

Public Opinion about The New System

Schedule Adherence, 8%

Frequency, 1%

Comfort, 11%

Traffic Safety, 5%

Security, 12%

Total Travel Time, 42%

Traffic Congestion, 13%

Total Travel Cost, 5%

Accesibility, 1%Cleanliness, 1%

Composition of Mode Used before Busway

AC Bus, 35%

Non-AC Bus, 32%

Private Cars, 14%

Motorcycles, 6%

Walking, 6%

Taxi, 5%

Trains, 1%

Bajaj (Three w heeled, 2- passenger vehicle) 1%

Intensity of Busway Ridership along the Blok M – Kota Corridor

Sometimes59%

Never14%

Often17%

No Reponse10%

Public Perception of Busway Fare

Very Expensive8%

Expensive6%

Reasonable57%

Cheap21%

Very Cheap8%

Accesibility of Busway System

BLOK M BUSWAY ACCESS MODE

74%

Walking; 5%

Taxi; 1%Omprengan;

0%Private Cars;

3%

Motorcycles; 6%

Trains; 3%

AC Bus; 5%

Feeder Bus; 3%

Others; 0%

KOTA BUSWAY ACCESS MODE

Non-AC Bus; 49%

Others; 0%

Feeder Bus; 0%

AC Bus; 0%

Trains; 15%

Motorcycles; 0%

Private Cars; 2%

Omprengan; 12%

Taxi; 0%

Walking; 22%

REST-OF-STATIONS BUSWAY ACCESS MODE

Non-AC Bus; 49%

Others; 3%Feeder Bus;

1%

AC Bus; 10%

Trains; 0%

Motorcycles; 6% Private Cars;

13%

Omprengan; 3%

Taxi; 4%

Walking; 32%

Conclusion

• Subsidy given by the local government for busway operation (O&M Cost) has decreased.

• Due to the service improvement, the number of passenger has also increased, specifically during peak hour.

• It has been relatively successful in recovering its costs, despite the relatively low fare

• Public behavior in utilizing mass transportation has been improved along the busway lane.