Download 4.4 Integrated Public Transportation

Circle of Dreams :
Making Public Transportation for Urban Economic Patterns
Deni Danial Kesa*
PhD Student in Business Program
CYCU Chung Li Taiwan
[email protected],[email protected], [email protected]
Abstract:
The main distinctive feature of this paper, is to increase public awareness of issues
relating to public transport associated with socioeconomic vulnerability and capacity.
Growth and the concentration of economic activity in a big city is not matched by
adequate infrastructure. It refers to the close links between policy implementation and
development of equitable development of mass transportation. Growth in the deployment
process, such as major cities in any country will go according to plan, it is due to
government regulation that urban planning is well designed. Major cities like Jakarta,
Indonesia should immediately change the city with good transportation management, in
order not to lose the sources of economic potential activity. The urban economic
structure developed in the long transformation process, which was marked by the
integration of some satellite cities in Jakarta. Nowadays, as the result of that historical
process and the massive expansion of the capitalist market economy, the big cities in the
central area and these areas have big role become the center of the urban development
process.
Key word : Public Transportation, Urban Economic Structure, Satellite Cities, Jakarta.
1. INTRODUCTION
Megacity has been growing faster recently, the contemporary world has been
dramatically built and transferring to a new gigantic system of urban development
(Yeung, 2009 p.1). In this new world of today, socioeconomic, and urban planning has
been redefined in terms of global understandings and explanations. The modern city of
Jakarta was initiated by former Indonesian founding fathers who has a strong vision to
build Jakarta in the greatest city possible (Cybriwsky and Ford, 2001). Perspective and
analysis are being developed into a typical example of the simple modern major country,
this implies the massive involvement of Indonesia in international trade, investment, and
production. It is obvious that the political and economic structure of Indonesia has been
affected by global economic. Indonesia facing urban social disparities with economy,
urban system produces more crucial processes going on massive urban economic pattern.
The argument here is that Indonesia’s population is mostly made up by rural-urban
migrants who live in the vast low income neighbourhood (Abeyaskere, 1989).
2
The urban economic structure is mostly absorbed into the informal sectors of the
economy and the marginal part of the formal sector. They are geographically mobile
within the city following their initial rural to urban areas with commuting. Urban
economic structure in Indonesia can be seen as an economic process functioning as a
major force behind the social changes taking place in Indonesia. Comparative studies
between rural and urban development presented.
Figure 1: Urban and rural populations of the world, 1950 to 2030
Source: Urban and Rural Populations of the World United Nations 2004, p. 4
In this context, we see that Indonesia commuters, are the major actors and reactors
in the city’s transformation. The paper answering the city is made up by the people who
live and work there and through urban economic structure they are transforming the city.
related to public transportation. To answer these questions a sample survey was carried
out in Indonesia, comprise 317 respondents. The paper is divided into four main parts:
the first defining Jakarta spatially demographic, geographical, and economic structure.
The second describing the impact and implications of public transportation. Third,
Integrated public transportation in Jakarta the role of government to embody dream of
Jakarta as Mega city as the fourth.
.
2. METHODOLOGY
The fact that our research questions are formulated in a way that further research
can be conducted also indicates an exploratory approach in our study. Since the purpose
of our study is to provide a better understanding of the topic in order to get insight about
3
it. In general, this paper is primarily descriptive involved an analysis of data obtained
from 317 individual interviewees in Indonesia and all speaking in Indonesian languages .
Aged from 20 to 40, and were commuted . Each interview was conducted for around 3
simple questions. Beginning with easy questions, then moving on to more complicated
and concluding the interview again with comfortable questions, and the request for a
possible follow-up. Study participants were asked a variety of questions related to
commuting purposes, what kind transportation they preferred, and perception on
contributing build economic structure. The interviews consisted of structured questions
as well as ad hoc follow up questions. To encourage the interviewees to freely express
themselves (Neuman, 1997), interviews were conducted in Indonesian languages.
3. FINDINGS
3.1. Demographic Situation
Based on the results of our study, it can be shown that many lower-class
Indonesians have carried out several moves within the city. Seventy-four percent of the
respondents have changed residence more than once. In this context, respondents who
migrated within Indonesia, twice, three and four times constitute twenty-nine, twentyfour and eight percent respectively. Thirteen percent has moved more than four times. In
contrast, respondents who have carried out an Urban economic structure only once are
comparatively few. This category is represented by twenty-six percent of the total
respondents.
Figure 2: Population of Jakarta
3000000
2693896
2500000
2281945
2062232
2000000
1645659
1500000
1000000
899515
Population 2010
on national
survey
500000
Source: DKI Jakarta Province Central Bureau of Statistic, 2010
A
U
RT
A
JA
KA
JA
KA
RT
A
BA
TA
R
RA
T
T
PU
SA
JA
KA
RT
A
TI
RT
A
JA
KA
SE
RT
A
M
LA
TA
N
U
RI
B
SE
JA
KA
AN
KE
PU
LA
U
UR
21082
0
4
Based on this data, we conclude that the majority of respondents are geographically
mobile. Almost 9.604.329 people based on 2010 national survey data, In the end 2012
the population in Jakarta increase and reach 10.187.595
This is understandable in
relation to Jakarta urban reality, which is characterized by the presence of dramatic
numbers of recent commuter in the urban labor force, country people moved into the city
as labor migrants attracted by the economic growth of Indonesia . A large number with
commuter in Jakarta in 2011 was approximately 5.6 million people every day. (BPS,
2012). Commuting from Jakarta buffer areas, namely Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and
Bekasi (Bodetabek) experiencing significant population growth. Based on population
statistics, the addition Bodetabek buffer zone residents in about 1.5 million people or
increase more than five times (three hundreds fifty percent) the addition of Jakarta
residents since 2009-2010.
Table.1: Greater Jakarta population
Administrative division
(With province)
DKI Jakarta
Bogor Municipality
(West Java)
Bekasi Municipality
(West Java)
Tangerang Municipality
(Banten)
South Tangerang
Municipality
(Banten)
Bogor Regency
(West Java)
Tangerang Regency
(Banten)
Bekasi Regency
(West Java)
Depok Municipality
(West Java)
Jabodetabek Region
Area
(km²)
Population
Population
density
(/km²)
664
10.187.498
15.343
109
109
952.406
952.406
8.737
8.737
210
210
2.378.211
2.378.211
9.905
9.905
164
164
1.797.715
1.797.715
9.342
9.342
151
151
1.303.569
1.303.569
8.646
8.646
2.664
2.664
4.779.578
4.779.578
1.791
1.791
960
960
2.838.621
2.838.621
2.958
2.958
1.270
1.270
2.629.551
2.629.551
2.071
2.071
200
200
6.392
1.751.696
1.751.696
28.618.845
7.053
7.053
4.477
Source: DKI Jakarta Province Central Bureau of Statistic, 2010
This concept has been used to identify the migrant urban labor force, which is
integrated into the urban economy through their carrying out of informal economic
activities. The commuter of Jakarta is highly mobile, according figure 2 with regard to
5
places of work and residence, and also concerning their different kinds of occupations in
large scale of the population. The rapid economic growth of the Jakarta region feared
the increasing number of migrant population. The industrial sector, which is one a
driving factor in economic growth, a pull factor for migrants hoping for a better job
opportunity.
3.2
Geographical scope and direction of urban economic structure
DKI (Daerah Khusus Ibukota) Jakarta, or Jakarta city, is the capital city of
Indonesia. Jakarta consists of five municipalities and lies in the lowland on the north
coast of the western part of Java Island (Fig. 2). The city occupies an area of 640 km2, or
0.03% of the national land area. Jakarta has a flat terrain, and the land gradually rises
from 5 to 50 m above mean sea level.
Figure 3: Map of Jakarta
DKI Jakarta Province
M o n as
B ot a d e b e k r e g io n
Source : Adapted from Jakarta in Figures 2012. DKI Jakarta Province Central Bureau of Statistic, 2012
The social geographical scope and direction of urban economic structure is seen in three
indicators. The first is the geographical distance between former neighbourhoods and
place where they are working. The second is the comparative geographical distance from
the Monas square to the old and new residential localities. This is based on the argument
that almost every commuter knows the square. For many people, the square is considered
as the center point of the city because of the national unity monument (150 meters high)
located there. Around the monument are located the presidential palace, central railway
station, offices of ministries, the central Indonesia mosque, and shopping centers etc. The
third is the comparative social and physical conditions of the modern and old
6
communities based on subjective measurements as well as evaluations by individual
actors.
According to the data collected, a large number of respondents carried out
comparatively short-distance commuter (fifty-nine percent), i.e. They commuted from
satellite cities all around Jakarta approximately 5,000 meters away. Included in this
category are some respondents who moved less than 500 meters. Forty one percent of
respondents are made up by the category who migrated distances within Jakarta of more
than 5,000 meters. When we interpret the data in a more inclusive way, included in this
category are about twenty-five percent of the respondents who have commuted more than
10,000 meters.
Figure 4: Distance between place of origin and destination
Distance
More than 10000
meters
5001-10000 meters
2001-5000 meters
500-2000 meters
Less then 500
meters
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Frequency
Source : Authors data collection
This finding leads us to the conclusion that, for many people, short distance
residential movement can be considered as a commuter (the local term for temporary
migration to urban area). Although they move an insignificant degree in distance,
socially they enter a new local environment. In many cases, adjacent communities
separated by busy streets, a large-river or railway-tracks can be considered as different
localities. This is interesting in connection with the findings of previous migration
studies in Jakarta. These studies consider migration to be a comparatively long distance
phenomenon.
7
3.3 Public transportation in Jakarta
Situation of public transportation in Jakarta related to significant economic and
cultural differences generated by their daily life in certain urban spatial niches or
localities. Similarly, working and living conditions are different in so far as they relate to
the established patterns of daily life in certain areas. For instance, they use transportation
and facing conditions in the high congestion of traffic jam . The people have specific
socioeconomic ties with their working places, family, friends, etc. The traffic congestion
in Jakarta related to a high growth rate of vehicle ownership, nine to eleven percent per
year. This situation which is not supported by the growth of road development showing
only less than one percent per year. The development of new roads will never meet the
high growth rate of vehicle ownership. A new highway or a widened road only alleviates
traffic congestion for a short period of time. After a few years, any new highway fills
with traffic that would not have existed if the highway had not been built. Similarly, any
widened road fills with more traffic in just a few months. Such a phenomenon is called
infrastructure impede economic growth. Because of this impede economic growth,
neither building new roads nor widening roads are viable long term solutions to traffic
congestion, and new pattern of the urban economy.
Table 2.
Region
Day trip to Jakarta based on origin
2011
2012
Tangerang
847.750
1.578.663
Bekasi
545.310
1.193.099
Bogor and Depok
620.702
1.191.295
5.302.194
8.384.949
20.137.620
23.700.000
DKI Jakarta
Total
Source : Traffic management control, Jakarta metro police department, 2012
Jakarta residents to implement as many ways as possible to alleviate traffic
congestion including mass rapid transportation strategy and building economic
infrastructure . Mass rapid Transportation as the commuting public vehicle system is
another way to reduce commuting by using technologies.
Development of an area, accompanied by the ongoing social and economic level of
the area, directly will lead to very high mobility for meeting the increasing complexity of
their needs. Development of an area will be largely determined by the availability of
existing transportation, because transport plays a role in support of mobility activities
8
communities in the area. The condition requires the availability of better facilities,
particularly with regard to transport infrastructure can support the growth in demand.
Efforts to realize the infrastructure to support increased traffic movements as a result of
the growth of an area should be coupled with careful planning which refers to the
geographical conditions and local topography, traffic conditions, the availability of cost,
and resource potential of existing areas, urban economic infrastructure will be built to
maximize technology and developing transportation system properly.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Demographic Situation
State of the world’s cities 2012-2013 mention the capital of the Indonesia, Jakarta is
one of the Cities with solid prosperity factors second category. With approximately 10
million inhabitants (UN-Habitat report, 2012). Furthermore, over 28 million people, or
10 per cent of the population of Indonesia, currently live in the wider metropolitan region
of Greater Jakarta, frequently referred to as Jabotabek, which is composed of 6
independent municipalities; Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi, Depok and South
Tangerang (Turner, 2012). This means, that as the patron city; Jakarta will contend a lot
of potential and management challenges.
4.2
Geographical scope and direction of urban economic structure
The urban structure developed in the long transformation process, which was
marked by the integration of some satellite cities. Nowadays, as the result of that
historical process and the massive expansion of the growth economy, up to this point,
this research analyzes the regional division of labor in the commuter context. Urban
planning treats Jakarta’s urban system as being divided into three areas according to a
spatial division of infrastructure core areas, the semi periphery, and the periphery. In this
connection, the main urban center (central areas) is seen as the core, the secondary urban
centers are considered as semi-periphery regions, and the tertiary urban centers as well as
the rural areas are seen as peripheral regions. The central areas of Jakarta became the
centers of development and place of capital circulation. The core of Jakarta, as the center
of urban economic development, is made up by very modern structures. These areas are
surrounded by the vast area of low and middle class neighbourhoods.
The discussion of the geographical distance and what kind transportation can
influence urban economic structure, using public transportation as the orientation point,
9
suggests the question of what is the general direction of urban economic structure from
rural to urban. Some respondents said that the distance of their workplace is more
convenient if they using public transportation with private vehicle as a variation
(seventeen percent). However, the percentage of respondents reckoning using their
private vehicle to their work place almost in big number (thirty seven percent). Above all,
a majority of respondents considered the public transportation as their new model of
commuting system (forty five percent). These data demonstrate the fact that in most
cases of urban economic structure using public transportation, transportation variety is
the directional pattern characterized by commuters.
Figure .6: Comparative system of transportation used by commuter
Both on occasion
Public transportation
17%
37%
Private vehicle
45%
Source: author’s data collection
Jakarta development
represents both a socially traditional and physically
deteriorated feature of the city’s urban sprawl and historically it does not seem to be
disappearing as part of the modernization process. These areas have become slum behind
the skyscrapers of Jakarta which are one of the clearest symbols of Indonesia’s
involvement in the scaffolding of the world economy.
The economic growth of Jakarta in 2008 was 6.23 percent slower than 2007, when
government raising fuel in 2008 with sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. The impact
still remained in 2009 the economic growth of Jakarta only 5.02 percentage It was the
lowest in last five years. Middle class workers make up a major segment of the urban
commuter labor force to handle the crisis. They usually integrate themselves into the
larger communities and maintain socioeconomic relations.
10
Figure .7: The economic growth rate Jakarta and Indonesia
Percentage
The economic growth rate of DKI Jakarta and National
2007-2012
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.7
5
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.2
4.5
2007
2008
2009
DKI Jakarta
National
2010
2011
2012
year
Source: DKI Jakarta Province Central Bureau of Statistic, 2012
Investment and economic development in greater Jakarta areas characterized with
local economic potential has not been well emerging. Lack of support for the investment
climate in favor of satellite cities, and low capacity of municipal government officials in
the development and management of the urban economy. Data on GDP at current prices
in 2008-2012 shows that most of the GDP growth was still present in cities of
metropolitan.
Jakarta's GDRP compared to Indonesia's GDP in 2012 was 6.53 percent and it was
a decrease of 0.03 percent from 2010 and 0.20 percent from 2011. Jakarta's contribution
to Indonesia's economy was primarily caused by the dominance of Jakarta in the
financial and business sector as capital of Indonesia. Indonesia's GDP of the financial and
business sector in 2012 was 261,8 trillion rupiahs and Jakarta's GDRP become one of the
largest contributors as 6.53 percent of total Indonesian GDP. Transportation and
communication rank first from overall reach 11,79 percent. Services come as second
sector with 7,58 percent, trade, hotel and restaurant 7,21 percent, Construction 6.85
percent. Most rural characteristic such agriculture and mining sectors of Jakarta only
contributed as low as 0.83 percent % to Indonesia's economy in 2012. These figures
indicate that Jakarta strongly dominates urban sectors in Indonesia's economy. It is also
important to note that there were finance and services of Jakarta's economy that increased
their contributions to Indonesia's economy during period 2010-2012. Manufacturing and
construction of Jakarta decreased their contributions to Indonesian GDP. These situations
show that Jakarta began changing from industry city to services megacity. A number of
11
manufacturing plants in Jakarta have been relocated but most of them were just relocated
to Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi as peripheral areas.
Table 3. Jakarta growth rate of economic sector in 2010-2012 (percent)
DKI
Jakarta
2010
Indonesia’s
GDP
DKI
Jakarta
Agriculture
0.84
15,29
0.78
14,70
0.83
14,44
Mining and quarrying
1.47
11,16
4.35
11,85
-0.89
11,78
Manufacturing
3.61
24,80
2.55
24,33
2.42
23,94
Electricity, Gas and water
4.33
0,76
4,70
0,77
4,50
0,79
Construction
7.08
10,25
7,20
10,16
6.85
10,45
Trade, hotel and restaurants
Transportation and
Communication
Financial, Real estate and business
services
7.27
13,69
7,40
13,80
7.21
13,90
14.73
6,57
13,80
6,62
11.79
6,66
Industrial origin
2011
Indonesia’s
GDP
DKI
Jakarta
2012
Indonesia’s
GDP
4.24
7,24
5.28
7,21
5.35
7,26
Services
6.58
10,24
7.05
10,56
7.58
10,78
Gross domestic regional product
Gross domestic regional product
without oil and gas
6,50
100,00
6.73
100,0
6.53
100,0
6.51
92,17
6.73
91,58
6.55
92,27
Source: DKI Jakarta Province Central Bureau of Statistic, 2012
The rapid growth is due to the increased revenue of the country as a result of the
successful implementation of development programs in various fields, particularly the
manufacturing sector in the form of large-scale manufacturing and export-oriented, the
tourism industry and export crops. Growth in the services sector, trade and nonmanufacturing industries has also increased dramatically following the growth of the
industrial base. Migration to large cities and production centers, it is unavoidable, it has
also increased to meet the demand for labor supply.
This urban economic structure provides a logical consequence of the increasing
demand for the development of physical infrastructure, facilities which in turn has led to
increased demand for a new model of an integrated public transportation system. We
argue, developing integrated public transportation as part of the ideology, It is inevitable
that the developments will carried out, in addition to further spur further growth in the
country's economy and increase the employment. It has also put pressure significantly on
transportation infrastructure and facilities which in most cases, not yet designed properly
or to serve and accommodate the burdens of the additional traffic generated by the
presence of previous implication concept.
Although these issues are growing in most urban center in the region, of course, the
problem is particularly being felt also in the national capital, create a center of business
12
near transportation facilities can be solved, both congestion or employment. The
construction of underground stations and elevated station. Main development often also
refers to business center around the public transportation system facility, although
basically no doubt be able to increase revenue, increased employment, and even
increased opportunities for foreign investment, but it is build an integrated system
proved that such developments will provide significant additional pressure on
environmental carrying capacity, utility and public services also need security for those
implications. Government needs intend to espouse the business and commercial
enthusiasm that basically will no doubt be able to increase revenue, increased
employment, and even increased opportunities for foreign investment, but is a clear proof
that the capacity physical carrying capacity, in particular the existing highway
infrastructure will be unable to meet the level of demand in the private vehicle traffic
generated by future due to new developments.
4.3 Public transportation in Jakarta
Jakarta until 2010 only built 6.866.04 km which includes national roads and
provincial roads. To reach the provincial road length of 6599.91 km while the length of
national roads reached 266.128 km (123, 48 miles are highway and 142.647 km are state
roads). The extensive existing road in Jakarta about 47 million square meters or 0.28
percent of the total area of Jakarta.
Figure .8: The number of trips to Jakarta
The number of trips To jakarta
6633581
7000000
6271556
trips person/day
6000000
5000000
3657138
4000000
3000000
2000000
2381637
1672600
1000000
0
Business
Private
workplace
shopping
school
Destination
Source: DKI Jakarta Province Central Bureau of Statistic, 2012
The fact that the majority of respondents has used
laterally within a public
transportation system. In figure 8 show almost 20, 7 million trips per/day , the highest
13
number are those who trips to workplaces. It is also understandable in relation to our
previous analysis of geographical distances of urban economic structure. The majority of
commuter continues to use public transportation system to build a center of business
around the core and the important central places of greater Jakarta. It is clear that they
tend to move to new areas close to the facility of the megacity. This is closely connected
to their needs as commuter involved in urban economic activities. Thus, the patterns of
their moves relative to a certain point in the central area of the city reveal a common
tendency. They have daily activity from one place to another in the center related to their
job and economic activity, education, leisure.
A commuter who dwelled in the various satellite city of Jakarta tend to use public
transportation in a circular pattern related to the facility and conveniences. This supports
the argument that, seeing Jakarta as the central part of the humane mega city is
strikingly important. This area is the core of the urban reality of Indonesia, whereas the
other areas support the systems with peripheral zone function
The other aspect of the direction of urban economic structure in Indonesia can be
drawn from subjective comparisons of the economic and physical conditions of public
transportation. The majority of respondents stated that the physical environmental
conditions (quality, safety , affordable etc.) Indicate not satisfied (fifty one percent). It
was also found that thirty five percent of the respondents consider both which means
moderate option. Whereas, the percentage of respondents who say they satisfied using
public transportation according pricing and economic status.
Figure.9: The satisfaction level using public transportation
Not Satisfied
51%
Satisfied
14%
Moderate
35%
Source: author’s data collection
14
The data presented can be compared with the respondents' subjective evaluation of
preference choosing public transportation. According to the data collected, it can be
clearly observed that only small numbers of respondents say that they will choose using
their private vehicle, using public transportation becoming one alternative vehicles that
could be used to the workplace (seven percent). The data show that forty four percent of
the respondents will choose a bus as vehicle choice. However, the majority of
respondents prefer to use trains as their transportation (forty-nine percent). All those
preferences will choose by the respondent if public transportation ensure ensure that such
transport systems promote social economic sustainability (Turner, 2012).
Figure .10:Public transportation preference
Private vehicle
Train
7%
49%
Bus
44%
Source: author’s data collection
Based on these data, we conclude that respondents generally willing to use good
public transportation. This reflects the subjective evaluation of respondents of actual
conditions in their common experience. This paper observed the benevolent results of
the urban transformation process, which is characterized by the emergence of many
economic opportunities leading to socioeconomic mobility for creating business center.
4.4
Integrated Public Transportation
According to the data presented in Table 4, we find that the majority of the
respondents have commuting mainly in connection with seeking a better public
transportation with good facility (twenty seven point four percent respectively). The
respondents in this category do consider better public transportation in terms of its
15
physical and environmental conditions as well as a business location. And create a station
as an enjoyable place while they are waiting for commuting activity. The percentage of
respondents who have based their transportation needs for public transportation in their
life cycle, daily work place, are comparatively almost needing various public
transportation (nineteen percent respectively).
The fact shows that many respondents who use public transport, expecting free
from flooding, which will interfere with daily activities.. (Twenty two point four percent).
Security to be one factor that is needed by the users of public transport services, the data
indicated about eight point two percent. The lowest ticket price of an option and hope for
the users of public transport, and expect any better service with maximum attention to the
public interest. Expected by the users who most of the workers, there is a good spatial
arrangement that can organize the city and transportation services that can support
economic growth and more equitable (sixth point thirteen percent respectively)
Table 4: Respondents’ expectation of public transportation as part of the urban economic structure
Expectation
Population
Percent
Various Public transportation
62
19.6
Security
26
8.2
Flooding free
71
22.4
Lower Price
28
8.8
Urban spatial
43
13.6
Facility
87
27.4
Total
317
100.0
Source: author’s data collection.
Discussing the various public transportation , we can refer to the urban economic
structure of workers around the greater Jakarta. In recent years, Government as the main
stakeholders take on the role try to implied regulation to reduce congestion with macro
transportation pattern, which is more integrated and efficient. Three macro transportation
pattern including infrastructure development, create more mass rapid transportation and
equipped with regulation.
As a common feature of the old established megacity in the central part of Jakarta,
the physical environments of infrastructures are characterised by severely deteriorated
conditions and improved should be implies. According to master plan Jakarta province.
First, maximize traffic rhythm arrangement with government implementation on
16
technological area traffic control system (ATCS) . All traffic intersections in the city
could coordinated signalized traffic control set includes one centralized area. Second ,
The structures add new 11 connected roads, two non-toll highways along the 7.66 km,
Antasari-Blok M and Kampung Melayu-Tanah abang. Third, Supported by city toll road
along the 69.77 km, from Semanan to Pulo Gebang and Sunter until Pasar Minggu.
Fourth, providing pedestrian areas which can be safety area to waiting vehicles to come..
Government after a certain period of time, they become more acceptable to new
idea, of integrating public transportation. Jakarta , already has pioneering urban migrants
transportation even develop a wider system of social relations besides existing
transportation such Busway or bus rapid transit (BRT) or a mass transit system built by
Jakarta Provincial Government. Construction of the busway is one of the strategies of the
macro transportation pattern to improve services and provision of transport services that
are safe, integrated, orderly, smooth, comfortable, economical, effective, efficient and
affordable by the community. Busway is in the facilitation of special bus lanes and
infrastructure. Until 2010 the hall has been constructed with the number 10 corridor, bus
fleet reached 545 and 215 stops.
Table 5: Number of buses , passenger and revenue trans Jakarta/Busway
Year
Passengers
2006
38 811 133
Number of
busses
159
2007
61 446 336
339
205 779 784 000
2008
74 619 995
426
248 339 552 000
2009
82 377 690
456
275 317 832 000
2010
86 937 487
404
288 757 425
2011
114 769 431
545
379 138 678 500
Revenues (in rupiah)
130 783 673 000
Source: Jakarta in figure, 2012
Commuter train, carrying capacity for daily activity still insufficient for migrants
workers or commuter and Jakarta citizen, this situation can lead to their wish to start an
autonomous preference using more bus-way and commuter line train, water-way implied
monorail, MRT dan Sub-way.
17
Table 6: Number of railway passengers in 2010
No
Destination
1
Inter province
2
Jabodetabek
3
Inside Jakarta
2008
2009
2010
2011
8.447.704
9.115.987
9.136.030
8.325.805
126.699.747
130.632.466
124.231.056
110.751.052
16.356.631
17.318.336
24.424.870
17.407447
Source: Jakarta in figure, 2012
Land transport modes that can also be relied upon in Jakarta is the train, it is seen
from the number of passengers has increased each year. Even in 2011 decrease caused at
that time Indonesian train company (PT.KAI) increase the ticket price and doing the
improvement, the transportation system has been released in several routes. There is now
a KRL Jabodetabek commuter route serving the area in Jakarta, Bogor, Depok,
Tangerang, and Bekasi. There are two classes that serve this pathway are economy class
and class Commuter Line. This Jabodetabek commuter line passes several major stations
such as Jakarta Kota, Gambir, Gondangdia, Jatinegara, Tanah Abang, Pasar Senen, and
Manggarai. In addition, there is also a train Jabodetabek train with a destination outside
the city, which departed from Gambir Station or Station Pasar Senen. Furthermore, the
development of transport systems and networks modern a rail-based mass transit:
Table 7: Jakarta map scheme of railway
Planning Item
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Network
Networking light rail transit (LRT)
Loop line and feeder network in the City
Network Rail Commuter Jabodetabek
Railway network traffic towards Airport
Railway network supporting the Port
Improvement of level crossings between railway and Busway corridor
Handling of illegal settlements on railway lines
Development of the existing railway line into multitrack
Source: Jakarta, Macro Transportation strategy
To explain the data that many respondents will use alternatives public
transportation, we can refer to the dramatic process of urban transformation going on in
Jakarta during the recent years. The influx of capital, from multi policies into implication
of restructuring and development during the transition between Fauzi Bowo era to Joko
Widodo, has been accompanied by the remarkable increase in demand from the business
sectors, as well as from the state, for urban land, also was a crucial need to appropriate
city land in the central zone of Jakarta to construct office complexes, infrastructure,
18
Electronic road pricing (ERP), parking and vehicle use limitation, park and ride,
developing integrated zone commercial for business and housing focused on transit
section such station and bus stop.
Figure .11. Urban economic infrastructure pattern
Runway :
- Clearing illegal
settlements
- Development
cheaper public
housing
Adding more vehicle
Urban public transportation
station :
- Business center
- Transit oriented
development
- Spatial development
Source: Adaptation from Jakarta, Macro Transportation strategy , Jakarta
Acceleration of infrastructure development has four elements integrated policy that
the national logistics system, the national transportation system, regional development
and information and communication system with integrated vision locally integrated,
connect entirely. National connectivity linking economic centers of local, national and
world (global) effective, efficient and integrated. Therefore, the acceleration of
infrastructure development plays an important role in improve the competitiveness of the
domestic economy, especially with the national economy. The fourth factor is a series of
system elements that have an integrated policy in order to increase the competitiveness of
the domestic economy based on public transportation.
4.5
Government roles
The state wanted to develop and modernize Jakarta, these efforts were intended to
make the city the locus of the modernization process for Indonesia as a whole as well as
to design Jakarta to be the main window for Indonesian international trade and economic
19
processes. It is obvious that the private sector often functions as the ‘counterpart’ of the
state in building economic structure. In this context, both the state and private business
need urban zones for business near integrated transportation system to realize their
programs of urban development for business. Both the state and private sectors must first
carry out initial scheme and land appropriations and acquisitions in proposed
development project locations. This process is commonly associated with the eviction of
the commuter.
Infrastructure is the wheel of economic growth. sector activities, transportation is
the backbone of the distribution patterns of both goods and passengers. Other
infrastructure such as electricity and urban spatial planning related to the modernization
efforts of the nation and its provision is one of the most important aspects to improve the
productivity of the production sector. Availability of housing and settlement, among
others, water and sanitation, are widely and evenly, and the management of sustainable
technology resources to determine the level of social welfare.
This process also results in the development of local strategies and patterns of
resistance, by consistency from stakeholders, in this step to build regulation process.
Lower income groups of Indonesians in greater Jakarta are forced to pay part of the cost
of the development with their loss of local networks of social relations, economic life,
daily routine. In short, build integrated transportation system, will disrupted of greater
Jakarta social life and survival patterns, associated with the public transportation
management, is an example of the effects of this new implication. Integrated public
transportation system and create new concept of economic development distribution , in
this context, is seen as a localized manifestation of the dramatic urbanization process of
Jakarta.. However, resistance to regulation from government to commuter or Jakarta
citizen also reflects local political processes based in Indonesia’s urban communities.
An explanation may be that, although we see a certain degree of relevance of the
definition of urbanization as the economic urban pattern of spatial forms, we must also
consider the specific patterns of local spatial forms. Economic processes through
transportation in Jakarta, like the urban popular development in response to commuter
and citizen Jakarta behaviour, seem to be based mainly on the poor classes’ economic
conditions and on individualistic survival situation which government should give them
transportation subvention. In this sense, we see that every public transportation users
resist and carry out collective actions which are mainly based on hopes of gaining more
20
compensation with services, rather than organising to achieve institutional changes and
goals which would guarantee and provide them with long term socio-economic access
and gathered benefit as communities. Theories of planning are said occasionally to be
irrelevant to planning practice. Furthermore, diversity of practices in planning and
different types of stakeholders in different contexts complicate the relevance of theories
of planning as common practice.
Table 8: Citizen of Jakarta opinion to government ability
No
1
2
3
4
5
Government ability
Government will provide
good transportation system
Government will muddle
through flooding problem
Government will create jobs
and diminish social problem
Government will overcome
security problem
People believe government
caused by leader profile
Yes
(percentage)
200
(63%)
150
(47,3%)
210
(66,2%)
300
(94,6%)
307
(96,8%)
No
(percentage)
69
(22%)
157
(49,2%)
80
(25,2%)
10
(3,2%)
10
(3,2%)
Undecided
(percentage)
38
(15%)
10
(3,5%)
27
(8,6%)
7
(2,2%)
-
Number of
Respondents
317
317
317
317
317
Source: Author data collection
The concept of making new Jakarta in Joko widodo and Basuki Tjahya Purnama
era, is not totally new. But the most interesting to be analyze more people of Jakarta
beliefs in their ability to cover every problem in greater Jakarta. Urban development
described through table 8 make plans and implementation of economic development
associated with the transport, would not be separated from the role of government.
In the first place control policies towns and large metropolitan with a focus on the
implementation of urban management include optimization and control land use and
security zones buffer around the downtown core, the city's economic developmentfriendly activities environment, as well as the revitalization of the city which includes the
refund function of the area, improving the quality of the physical environment, social,
cultural and realignment of services public facilities, in this term respondent beliefs
government will provide good transportation system (sixty three percent).
Second, development of medium and small cities, the approach needs basic urban
services in accordance with their respective city typology including eradicating flood
(forty seven point three percent) , create jobs and cover social problem (sixty sixth point
two percent) and third, development of urban-rural economic linkages within the urban
economic pattern development that requires the expansion and diversification of
21
activities economic and trade related to Jakarta satellite cities, influenced by security
problem.
Ninety four point sixth percent respondent belief government could handle this
matter. Urban development policy develop the city as a unified region / area, city as a
driver of national growth and regional as well as the city as a place stay oriented to the
needs of city residents and depending on the consistency of leaders in Jakarta. Fourth,
urban development is to realize the principle of city comfortable, cities that can satisfy
the needs of its citizens will comforts of life, physical, cultural and social environment, a
sustainable city, the city that can address climate change and natural disasters as well as
meet the needs of human life now without ignoring the needs of life human future, fair
city.
According to the data collection almost ninety sixth point eight percent , people of
Jakarta needs leaders profile which can provides space and business life for all segments
of society, and the city as a driver growth that can compete in the global economy with
exploit the potential of the local socio, economy, cultural and creativity created hierarchy
of the market for urban economic pattern. Making plans is quite simple for anybody, but
implementing and maintain consistency to make changes for the better in Jakarta is that
not everyone can do. Require a lot of smart and humane cooperation from all
stakeholders, with new government leading the efforts to implement and execute the
plans and support solution for new Jakarta, all the people of Jakarta and all parties can
support a variety of solutions, with all the existing efforts to realize the dream of mega
city Jakarta.
5. CONCLUSION
This paper research findings challenge the adequacy of the common view that
ignores a significant contribution of the integrated public transportation to urban
economic structure transformation. In this context, we would argue that people in Jakarta
and greater Jakarta share making the city as a result of their high level of mobility within
City bottleneck. First, In this context rapid urbanization in Jakarta must be slowed, one
possible way to reduce urbanization in Jakarta is to redistribute the central functions of
Jakarta to other parts of the areas, and to strengthen other urban agglomerations around
greater Jakarta or even in Indonesia to pull urban growth away from the capital.
Congestion problem in the capital is a major issue that must be resolved Jakarta
Provincial Government together with the central government. One of the important
22
agenda in an effort to overcome the congestion, to suppress and control the number of
private vehicles and to create integrated public transportation. The second understanding
of the phrase used above is associated with the building of integrated public
transportation as part of strategy by commuter in their choices to using public
transportation. The urban economic structure has as one consequence, the loss of the
former daily system of economic relations in their former urban localities. Hence,
commuters have to develop new social relations, networks, and integrate themselves into
the new behavior. This process is partly associated with the plan of development Jakarta
and relation within greater Jakarta socio economic strategies.
Good urban economic structure will be created and run well when there is
revamping the layout of the city and noticed many public transportation options. Having
regard to the area of the region, because we could not banning people come to Jakarta.
the transport characteristics and users in Jakarta is expected to implement a new
economic development centers spread across the buffer zone Jakarta will be one of
appropriate solution. Integrated solution based on user expectation such various public
transportation, with good facilities and safe from disaster should be a consideration in
building public transport infrastructure.
Potential factor by the influence of the government's ability to understand the
aspirations and incorporate to ideal plans in realizing the dream of public transport is an
important element in the creation of the user community economic scheme. Citizen as
user has expectances to government realizing good transportation system. They give their
credence to the management of the public transportation would create more jobs, reduce
social problems existence .
Although various existing policies relative to continue the previous policy. With a
more humane approach and have a fairly high electability, public participation in the
success of various development programs of transportation, will be assist properly.
Government that is trusted by the community and the people who care about the
surrounding circumstances will be able to realize the dream of Jakarta, a reliable form of
public transport and make it as a tool for better society.
Acknowledgement: The author thank Professor Cheng - Wen Lee (CYCU) for her
suggestion and comments in on earlier paper writing process.
* Lecturer at Vocational Department, finance and banking program, University of
Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia and PhD Student at International Business program CYCU
Taiwan .
23
References
Abeyasekere, Susan (1989) Indonesia: A History (revised edition). Oxford University
Press, Singapore.
Central Board of Statistics (2010) Population of Jakarta: results of 2010 national
population survey. Jakarta
Central Board of Statistics DKI Jakarta province (2012) Jakarta in figure 2012.BPS
propinsi Jakarta
Cybriwsky, Roman and Ford, Larry R. (2001). City profile: Jakarta. Cities, Vol. 18, No.
3, pp. 199–210
Firman, Tommy. (2004). New town development in Jakarta Metropolitan Region: A
perspective of spatial segregation. Habitat International 28(3): 349-368.
G.Y.Liu, Z.F.Yang, M.R. Su, B. Chen .(2012)The structure, evolution and sustainability
of urban socio-economic system.ecological informatis, volume 10, july 2012,
pages 2-9
Jeff Turner.(2012)Urban mass transit, gender planning protocols and social sustainability:
The case of Jakarta.Research in Transportation Economics 34 (2012) 48-53
Murakami, Akinobu, Zain, Alinda Medrial, Takeuchi, Kazuhiko, Tsunekawa, Atsushi,
and Yokota, Shigehiro. (2005). Trends in urbanization and patterns of land use in
the Asian mega cities Jakarta, Bangkok, and Metro Manila. Landscape and Urban
Planning 70: 251-259.
Neuman, W. Lawrence (1997). Social research methods, qualitative and quantitative
approaches (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Province of Jakarta. 2012. Macro transportation strategy. File presentation. Pemda
Jakarta. Strategi mengurai kemacetan Jakarta.
Tang, Wing-Shing, 2000, "Chinese Urban Planning at Fifty: An Assessment of the
Planning Theory Literature," Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
347–366.
UN-Habitat report. (2012). State of the World’s Cities Report 2012/2013: Prosperity of
Cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) P.O. Box
30030, Nairobi, Kenya
Wheeler, Stephen (2004). "Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities", Routledge; 3rd
edition.
Y.-M.Yeung.(2009). Megacities. International encyclopedia of human geography
pages.40-47.
Website:
Urban
and Rural Populations of the World United Nations 2004,
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/2005WUP_FS1.pdf
p.
4
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. http://www.un.org
www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/Disparities/disparities.pdf.
Jakarta Metro Police Department website. http://www.tmcmetro.com/