DOCSLIB.ORG

UNEP Mid-Term Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNEP Mid-Term Evaluation Final Mid-term Evaluation Report on UNEP/GEF project GF/4010-07-01 (4960) Bus Rapid Transit and Pedestrian Improvements in Jakarta Typical TransJakarta Halte Evaluation Team David Antell, Transport Expert and Lead Consultant Owen Podger, Institutional Expert Evaluation Office August 2010 Page i Acknowledgments The evaluation team conducted many interviews, attended meetings, and met many employees of the busway. The main interviewees are recorded in Annex 8, but the names of many supporting staff and employees are not given. To all those who provided inputs to us in an atmosphere of genuine cooperation, we extend our sincere gratitude. Without them all it would have been impossible to present this report based on rich and detailed information. Page ii Contents Acronyms v 1 Executive Summary 1 1.1 The Project ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Mid-term Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 2 2 Introduction and Background 6 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Project Design ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Project Partners .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.5 Project History .................................................................................................................................... 8 3 Scope, Objective and Methods of this Evaluation 9 3.1 Objective and Scope of the MTE ......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Methods and Limitations .................................................................................................................... 9 4 Project Performance and Impact 10 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Attainment of Objectives and Planned Results ................................................................................. 10 4.2.1 Overall ............................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 11 4.2.3 Relevance .......................................................................................................................................... 12 4.2.4 Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Sustainability .................................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.1 Financial Sustainability...................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.2 Socio-political Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 15 4.3.3 Institutional and Governance Sustainability ..................................................................................... 16 4.3.4 Environmental Sustainability ............................................................................................................ 18 4.4 Catalytic Role .................................................................................................................................... 18 4.5 Achievement of Outputs and Activities ............................................................................................. 18 4.5.1 Develop BRT Corridors 4-14 (Component 1) .................................................................................... 19 4.5.2 Optimize Fare System for Corridors 1-14 (Component 2) ................................................................ 20 4.5.3 Improve Intersection Performance for BRT (Component 3) ............................................................. 22 4.5.4 Optimize Busway Operation (Component 4) .................................................................................... 23 4.5.5 Improve Public Information on BRT & Public Transport (Component 5).......................................... 35 4.5.6 Rationalize Non-BRT Bus Routes (Component 6) ............................................................................. 37 4.5.7 Evaluate and Implement Transport Demand Management Measures to Reduce Private Motor Vehicle Use (Component 7) .......................................................................................................... 38 4.5.8 Improve Pedestrian and NMT Facilities in Centre and Along Corridors (Component 8) .................. 39 4.5.9 Dissemination and Outreach to Other Cities (Component 9) ........................................................... 40 4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 41 4.7 Processes that affected Attainment of Project Results ..................................................................... 43 4.7.1 Preparation and Readiness ............................................................................................................... 43 4.7.2 Country Ownership / Drivenness ...................................................................................................... 43 4.7.3 Stakeholder Participation and Public Awareness ............................................................................. 44 4.7.4 Financial Planning ............................................................................................................................. 44 4.7.5 UNEP Supervision and Backstopping ................................................................................................ 45 4.7.6 Co-financing and Project Outcomes & Sustainability ....................................................................... 45 4.7.7 Delays and Project Outcomes & Sustainability ................................................................................. 46 5 Conclusions 46 5.1 Overall Rating ................................................................................................................................... 46 5.2 General Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 49 Page iii 6 Lessons to be Learned 52 7 Recommendations 53 7.1 Project Extension .............................................................................................................................. 53 7.2 Key recommendations for the immediate future .............................................................................. 53 7.3 Recommendations on each evaluation parameter ........................................................................... 53 Annexes 59 Annex 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE 60 Annex 2 Original Project Logical Framework 78 Annex 3 Progress Against KPIs from 2009 PIR with Brief Comment on Suitability of Each KPI 82 Annex 4 Co-financing and Leveraged Resources, as Provided by DGEF Fund Management Officer 86 Annex 5 2009 Co-financing Data, as Supplied by ITDP Jakarta 87 Annex 6 Project Expenditure Summary, as Provided by UNEP 88 Annex 7 ITDP Project Milestones with Evaluator’s Comments 90 Annex 8 Interviewees 91 Annex 9 List of Documents Reviewed 93 Annex 10 Expertise of Evaluation Team – Brief CVs 97 Annex 11 Risk Factor Table 99 Annex 12 Best Value Principles and Key Success Factors for Change Management 106 Annex 13 Example of Vehicle Operational Plan of Jakarta BRT 108 Annex 14 Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held on 24 June 2010 109 Page iv Acronyms BLU Badan Pelayanan Umum, public service entity BRT Bus Rapid Transport BUMD Badan Usaha Milik Dearah, regional government company CEO Chief Executive Officer CNG Compressed Natural Gas CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DGEF Division of GEF Coordination (in UNEP) DisHub Dinas Perhubungan, DKI transportation agency DisPU Dinas Pekerjaan Umum, DKI public works agency DKI Daerah Khusus Ibukota, special capital region, referring either to Jakarta or to its provincial government DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah, regional parliament, referring to the DKI parliament FY Financial Year GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) GoI Government of Indonesia Halte Bus Stop ITDP Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Kemenhub Kementrian Perhubungan, Ministry of Transportation KPI Key Performance Indicator M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoF Ministry of Finance MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs MSS Minimum
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Service Failure in Jakarta Public Bus Transport
    Faculty of Economic Sciences, Communication and IT Doddy Hendra Wijaya SERVICE FAILURE IN JAKARTA PUBLIC BUS TRANSPORT Service Science Project Report Date/Term: Spring 2009 Supervisors: Bo Enquist Samuel Petros Sebhatu Karlstads Universitets 651 88 Karlstad Tfn 054-700 10 00 Fax 054-700 14 60 [email protected] www.kau.se 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background Populations in most developing countries are increasing much faster than car ownership levels and therefore an increasing proportion of the population is dependent on public transport except for very short journeys. In most countries, walking is the most common mode of travel for distances of up to one or two kilometers in urban areas and much further in rural areas. Those who own bicycles tend to use them for journeys of up to about eight kilometers, beyond which public transport is preferred mode. Public transport also provides an alternative to those who have private transport, but are sometimes deterred from using it by traffic congestion, parking difficulties or problems in accessing certain streets, although in practice it is relatively unusual, particularly in developing countries, for car owners to use public transport to any significant extent. However, in many developing countries families tend to be large, so that even if these is a car belonging to a household, most members of the family are still likely to use public transport for at least some of their travel (Iles 2005) Public transport is therefore vital for the vast majority without access to private transport. There is need for personal mobility, in particular for access to employment opportunities, but with low income levels affordability is a common problem, while the services provided are often regarded as inadequate.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Online Motorcycle Taxi Performance in Surabaya And
    Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS) Evaluation of Online Motorcycle Taxi Performance in Surabaya and Sidoarjo Area, Indonesia Wicaksono, Achmad 1,a, Harnen Sulistio 1, b, Alan Wahyudi Wardani 1 and Dwa Aulia Bramiana 1 1Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, 65145, Indonesia a<[email protected]>, b<[email protected]> Keywords:Online motorcycle taxi, GO-JEK, Importance Performance Analysis, Stated Preference Analysis, Indonesia Abstract. Surabaya is the second biggest city in Indonesia, and Sidoarjo is a regency close to Surabaya, where many people live in but they work in Surabaya. More and more citizen of Surabaya and Sidoarjo use motorcycle taxi, either conventional service or online service so call as “ojek”, operated by the company called as GO-JEK. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the performance of GO-JEK in Surabaya and Sidoarjo based on user point-of-view and to observe what factors that influence the users in selecting either conventional or on-line ojek. The methods used are the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) and the Stated Preference Technique. The IPA shows that there are 3 factors that have to be improved: firstly, driving manner, secondly, attention to maximum capacity and thirdly, helmet for the passenger. The Stated Preference Analysis shows that there are two major factors affecting the choice whether GO-JEK or conventional ojek, these are trip cost and waiting time to pick up by the ojek. 1. Introduction Surabaya is the second biggest City in Indonesia, with the population of 2.5 million. Sidoarjo is a regency that has a borderline with Surabaya, where many people live in but they work in Surabaya.
    [Show full text]
  • Jakarta's Bus Rapid Transit System Indonesia
    Jakarta’s Bus Rapid Transit System CASE STUDY Indonesia | March 2016 "Transport in Asia and the Pacific faces a web of issues that need a strategic solution... Countries across the region have to contend with road safety, air pollution, social sustainability, climate change impacts, lack of public financing, decrepit infrastructure, and even cross-border bottlenecks, among others.” - James Leather, Co-Chair, ADB Transport Community of Practice Hoping to improve the worsening traffic situation in Jakarta, Sutiyoso—then Governor of Jakarta—bit the bullet and pushed for the construction of the Jakarta Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in 2001. With worsening traffic congestion and growing population of 8 million in 2000, BRT was thought as the ultimate solution to the traffic woes of people in the capital of Indonesia. The BRT masterplan is projected to have a busway network consisting of eleven corridors. The system is a closed trunk system without a functioning feeder system. The first corridor of Jakarta’s BRT of around 12.9 km, essentially consisting of a dedicated lane and loading platforms for large buses in the inner side of city streets, began operations in early 2004. Initially, the system ran well and showed good results—patrons’ travel time was reduced by an average of 20 minutes through a clean and convenient transport system that had longer operating hours. Pre-launch objections from affected bus operators and the driving public had disappeared. However, problems on the operational and managerial aspects of the project began to crop up a few months after the BRT was launched. Months after the BRT launch, Governor Sutiyoso—then governor of Jakarta—listened intently at the problems presented by the various stakeholders of Jakarta’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Jakarta Area (Jabodetabek) Indonesia
    DATA COLLECTION REPORT Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) for Asian Cities GREATER JAKARTA AREA (JABODETABEK) INDONESIA Dr. Muhammad Nanang Prayudyanto (Consultant) Dr. Muiz Thohir (GJTA) 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Current state of urban transport systems and service ...................................................................... 7 3. Data collection approach for SUTI ................................................................................................... 11 4. Data for SUTI (key data – detail in Excel sheet) ............................................................................... 12 a. Indicator 1 Extent to which transport plans cover facilities for active modes and public transport ...................................................................................................................................... 12 b. Indicator 2. Modal Share of Active and Public Transport in Commuting ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Low Carbon Public Transport Carbon Public
    Implementing Low Carbon Public Transport in Jakarta Project RblE&ERenewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Project (REEEP) Project ID 108010494 Report 1 Technical Specification on Cleaner Fuel Buses for Direct Service March 2012 Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND: DIRECT SERVICE CONCEPT 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Direct Service Concept 1.3 Fleet Type and Capacity 2. DEFINING SUITABLE FLEET FOR DIRECT SERVICE 2.1 Desired Vehicle Performance for Direct Service 222.2 Level of Emissions to be expected 3. FUEL TYPE : DIESEL or CNG? 3.1 The Benefit of Diesel 3.2 The Benefit of CNG 333.3 CbiiCombining the Two: CtiCreating A Sus ta ina ble Sys tem with Differen t Flee t AtArrangement 4. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION DESIGN FOR DIRECT SERVICE BUSES 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Condition of Existing buses 4.3 Chassis and Engine Technical Specification 4.4 Body and Interior Specification and Design 4.5 Equipment and Supporting Tools Specification 5. PROVIDING RELIABILITY IN RUNNING THE DIRECT SERVICE 5.1 The Need for Maintenance Contract: How the Contract Should be Arranged 5.2 Quality Control: How to supervise the Maintenance and Quality Checking 5.3 Monitoring and Evaluation as Part of Quality Control 6. FLEET RECOMMENDATION Implementing Low Carbon Public Transport in Jakarta Project 2 Chapter 1 Background : Direct Service Concept Implementing Low Carbon Public Transport in Jakarta Project 3 CHAPTER 1 1.1 Introduction Transjakarta, the first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in REEEP Project “Implementing Low Carbon Public Indonesia, started in 2004. As of February 2012 11 Transport in Jakarta” will outline plans and measures to Corridors, with 180 km long are in operation and served by be taken to implement the tranforming medium buses to 206 stations and 560 buses, 480 of which run on become Transjakarta Direct Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practice BRT for Increase Transjakarta Modal Share
    Regional Conference in Civil Engineering RCCE) 211 The Third International Conference on Civil Engineering Research (ICCER) August 1st-2nd 2017, Surabaya – Indonesia Best Practice BRT for Increase TransJakarta Modal Share Adhi Muhtadi1,*, Indrasurya B. Mochtar2, Hera Widyastuti2 1 Doctoral Student, Department Civil Engineering and Planning, Institut Teknnologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia 2Department Civil Engineering and Planning, Institut Teknnologi Sepuluh Nopember,, Indonesia *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract TransJakarta since 2004 was expected as the backbone of the public transportation in Jakarta as well as TransMilenio in Bogota. However, the role of TransJakarta only approximately 1, 95% of the overall number of trips has reached 19 million/day. The analysis technique on this paper is descriptive analysis. TransJakarta operational perceived is still not effective, so that the necessary efforts to increase modal share sourced from BRT management best practice in other countries. Efforts could be made to increase modal share, among others, the elimination of thousands of parking and replaced by pedestrian friendly also develop a separate bike lane along 303 km in Bogota (Colombia). TransJakarta operational is still considered less in some aspects that are: total of fTransJakarta fleet, total of feeder route, Transjakarta speed and headway still need improved, overtaking lanes are built along the TransJakarta route, Integration with all public transport is absolutely necessary, integration with pedestrians and bicycle users TransJakarta ticket fares should be integrated with feeder and other public transportation such as KRL, city buses and paratransit and using smartcards. In terms of restrictions on the use of private vehicles can be done in the following ways implement a bike-sharing program, implement program of not using motor vehicles during weekdays for 1 day in a week, providing park and ride, implement fuel restriction program for gasoline purchases, implement car sharing program.
    [Show full text]
  • PRAKARSA Issue 6 / April 2011
    Journal of the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative PRAKARSA Issue 6 / April 2011 Urban Mobility • A Mobility Overview • Freeing Jakarta from Gridlock • Solutions in Surabaya • Strategies for Bogor’s Angkot ! "-,1&,10! !!(D!'DK,E./0K1ED!KE!2,87D!5E8161K7! !"H"9G&5FCIB,&H-9&.CF/,&0519&G"2"/5F&GHFI33/9G&."H-&HF500"1&1CB39GH"CB&5B,&49-"1I/5F&5C//IH"CBR&.5GH& 5HH925HG&HC&GC/49&H-9&5FC8/92&-549&CB/9&25,9&"H&.CFG9P&8IH&B9.9F&555FC51-9G&C009F&",95G&H-5H&259&-549& F9/945B19&HC&'B,CB9G"5R&-"%$%a& % !!8,991D:!(7A7,K7!=,EC!%,1.6E0A! %F95H9F&(5?5FH5SG&HF5BG5CFH5H"CB&G9GH92&-5G&899B&GI8@91H&HC&25B9&0CF19G&C49F&H-9&/5GH&,915,9R&0HFCB3& 5C/"H"15/&1C22"H29BH&"G&B99,9,&0CF&H-9&3C49FB29BH&HC&299H&H-9&,925B,&0CF&IF85B&2C8"/"H9R&-"%$%g& & !!1@9!0/,78777!0KE,7A!.,E869CC!7D.!0E6/K1EDC!=E,!'CD,EE1D:!2,87D!5E8161K7! B519,&."H-&H-9&G529&5FC8/92G&5/53I"B3&25B9&'B,CB9G"5B&1"H"9GP&0IF58595&G-C.G&5CH9BH"5/&HC&51-"949& 3F95H9F&IF85B&2C8"/"H9&5B,&EI5/"H9&C0&/"09R&-"%$%_e& & !!0E6E1D:! E:E,GC!H(D:AEK!.,E869CI! DB&C49FGI55/9&C0&5B3?CH&-5G&1F95H9,&1CB39GH"CB&5B,&G509H9&5FC8/92G&"B& C3CFP&8IH&90091H"49&GC/IH"CBG&5F9& 89"B3&5,C5H9,R&-"%$%*_& ! !!&.1KE,GC!59CC7:9A%E,-.%*! !!'D=,7CK,/0K/,9!87!K@9!,/C89,CA%E,-.%*! !!J9KK9,C!KE!'9)2)9:)A%E,-.%*e! !!1@9!&OD9,K!319NA%E,-.%*f! !!-/K0EC9CA%E,-.%a0! !!'D!-/,!,9OK!'CC/9A%E,-.%a0! ! 1@1C!N/7,K9,67!OE/,D76!1C!D/861C@9.!87!K@9!'D.ED9C17!'D=,7CK,/0K/,9!'D1K17K1E9P!7D!(/CK,7617D!%EE9,DC9DK!=/D.9.!D,EO90K!.9C1:D9.!KE! D,ECEK9!90EDEC10!:,ENK@!1D!'D.ED9C17!87!9D@7D01D:!K@9!,969E7D09P!N/761K7!7D.!N/7DK/C!E=!1D=,7CK,/0K/,9!1DE9CKC9DKX!1@9!E19NC!
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Carbon Management Into Development Strategies of Cities
    Asia‐Pacific Network for Global Change Research IInntteeggrraattiinngg ccaarrbboonn mmaannaaggeemmeenntt iinnttoo ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ssttrraatteeggiieess ooff cciittiieess –– eessttaabblliisshhiinngg aa nneettwwoorrkk ooff ccaassee ssttuuddiieess ooff uurrbbaanniissaattiioonn iinn tthhee AAssiiaa--PPaacciiffiicc Final report for APN project 2004-07-CMY-Lasco The following collaborators worked on this project: Rodel Lasco (PI), CIFOR, Philippines, [email protected] Louis Lebel (co-PI), USER, Thailand, [email protected] Agus Sari, PELANGI, Indonesia, [email protected] A.P. Mitra, National Physical Laboratory, India,[email protected] Nguyen Hoang Tri, CERE, Vietnam, [email protected] Ooi Giok Ling, National Institute of Education, Singapore,[email protected] Antonio Contreras, De La Salle University,Philippines, [email protected] Integrating carbon management into development Integrating carbon management into the development strategies of cities – establishing a network of case studies of urbanisation in the Asia-Pacific 2004-07-CMY-Lasco Final Report submitted to APN ©Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research 2 Integrating carbon management into the development strategies of cities Overview of project work and outcomes Non-technical summary The way urbanization unfolds will have a profound implication for future growth in energy use and emissions, and consequently, global environmental change. Cities offer many potential environmental protection benefits, arising from efficiencies in transport, energy used in cooling and heating, as well as opportunities to sequester additional carbon on land release from use by denser human settlements. On the other hand, cities have often been centres of wasteful consumption and serious air pollution problems. This project drew on past and on-going research efforts on emissions and urban management in Asia to establish a new set of coordinated case studies of New Delhi, Jakarta, Manila, Ho Chi Minh City and Chiang Mai.
    [Show full text]
  • Motorcycle Taxis in Jakarta, Indonesia
    PENN IUR SERIES ON INFORMALITY Motorcycle Taxis in Jakarta, Indonesia The Case for Recognition and Integration of Motorcyle Taxis in Jabodetabek’s Transportation System BENJAMIN PALEVSKY Contact Information: [email protected] NOVEMBER 2019 Photo by M.R. Hasan 2 Penn IUR Series on Informality | Motorcycle Taxis in Jakarta, Indonesia INFORMALITY IN URBAN PLANNING In the current era of global urbanization, urban life is impacted by “informality” in the areas of housing and development, social networks and support systems, economics, public health, transportation, and infrastructure. Throughout the emergence of the professional field of urban planning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, informality was addressed with the general attitude of “other.” In many places in the world, there persists to this day an astounding lack of recognition for the vernacular characteristics and systems of the vulnerable and marginalized communities being planned for across the world. In 1975, the United Nations took an important step in addressing the challenges posed by informality in the developing world by establishing the United Nations Habitat and Human Settlements Foundation (UNHHSF), the first official UN body dedicated to urbanization. In the proceeding decades, the organization of the Habitat conferences elevated alternative viewpoints and brought these issues to mainstream. The New Urban Agenda (NUA) was adopted at Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador in 2016, and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. The NUA complements the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a collection of 17 goals set by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 to achieve by 2030. In many nations, cities are leading the effort to work towards the NUA and SDGs.
    [Show full text]
  • INTEGRATED TICKETING SYSTEM of PUBLIC TRANSPORT in JAKARTA VS VÄRMLAND, SWEDEN Teguh Himawan Ronggosusanto ABSTRACT
    Civil Engineering Forum Volume XXII/1 - January 2013 INTEGRATED TICKETING SYSTEM OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN JAKARTA VS VÄRMLAND, SWEDEN Teguh Himawan Ronggosusanto Ministry of Transportation, INDONESIA Email:[email protected] ABSTRACT The heightened mobility of people in the DKI Jakarta province and surrounding area requires balance of the development public transport services. One of service attributes in public transportation is ticketing system. Currently, the ticketing system in Jakarta needs to be improved and still not integrated. Therefore, the importance to develop and implement a new integrated ticketing system to increase the competitiveness and attractiveness of public transports. It also gives an opportunity to the operators in order to implement several of ticket prices. There are some of barriers that faced by operators in development a new integrated ticketing system such as; institutional issue, resources integration, and financial problems. In order to describe and analyze the development of a new integrated ticketing system, this thesis uses a qualitative research approach and five sources of evidence i.e. documentation, archival records, an interview, direct and participant observations through a survey using the form of questionnaires that distributed to the public transport users. Further, this study also uses the case of Värmlandstrafik AB as the comparative study and the theoretical basis of the new services development as an approach to assess the possibility of implement a new integrated ticketing system. It aims to investigate the ticketing system phenomenon using information and data observations as materials to analyze, explore, and provide depth explanation. By analyzing data from a survey of passengers, this study gave a description and explanation related the characteristic and the travel behavior of passenger, also an assessment of ticketing system that underlies the development a new integrated ticketing system.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues to Improve the Urban Transport Problems in Jakarta
    Mem. Fac. Eng., Osaka City Univ., Vol. 47, pp. 31-38 (2006) Principal Issues to Improve the Urban Transport Problems in Jakarta Muhammad Zulkifli MOCHTAR* and Yasuo HINO** ( Received September 29,2006 ) Synopsis Transportation issues are very complex because various social, economic and cultural aspects are involved. In big cities in developing countries such as Jakarta, also have many problems in transport sector. The populations will reach 17 million persons in 2015, vehicle growth 10 % and only less than 1% infrastructure growth. This situation creates traffic congestion, air pollution, traffic accident, decreases performance of public transport system. Eventually the public transport is steadily losing passengers. Other impact of bad transport management system are difficulties for walking or cycling as sidewalks are scarce, badly designed, and frequently obstructed. This study will try to investigate some principal issues of transportation system problems in Jakarta. The concept of NMT (Non Motorized Transport) also will be put as one of main issue to be deli vered in the study. This concept refers to the one where transportation system is directed toward any means of non motorized system like walking and using bicycle. Key Words: Jakarta Transportation System, Urban Transport Problems, Non Motorized Transport. 1. Introduction of Jakarta 1.1. Background of Demographic Characteristic Jakarta is the most populous urban centre in Indonesia. Home to approximately 3.9 million people in 1970, Jakarta's population had increased to 7.6 million in 1990, and is projected to grow to 17.2 million by the year 2015, making it one of the most populous cities in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Mobilities in Asian Cities Yves Boquet
    Changing mobilities in Asian cities Yves Boquet To cite this version: Yves Boquet. Changing mobilities in Asian cities. The 2010 Southeast Asian Geography Confer- ence (SEAGA), Nov 2010, Hanoi, Vietnam. http://seaga.webnode.com/proceedings/seaga-conference- 2010/. hal-00908986 HAL Id: hal-00908986 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00908986 Submitted on 25 Nov 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Paper presented for SEAGA 2010, Hanoi 23 – 26 Nov 2010. Online Proceedings Changing mobilities in Asian cities Yves BOQUET Professor of Geography, Université de Bourgogne 2 boulevard Gabriel, 21000 Dijon, France [email protected] Abstract Asian countries have experienced tremendous changes in their mobility patterns in recent years. As economic development has allowed a rise in the standards of living of a god part of the population, the rate of motorzation has increased very quickly. At the sametime, cities populations continue to grow at a fast pace, and the spread of the urbanized area requires more and more to be able to travel on distances too long for walking or even bicycling. Given the high density of many central cities, and the concentration of economic activity, this had led to major problems of urban congestion and pollution.
    [Show full text]