[sustran] Jakarta area pricing - equitable or not?

[Paul Barter]

Dear sustran-discussers,

As some of you may know, Jakarta currently has a traffic restraint scheme
that has been in place since April 1992.  From 6.30 am until 10 am,  the
city's most heavily trafficked corridor is out of bounds to cars with fewer
than three occupants. It is known as the 'three in one' policy. Early
results 3 months after the policy was imposed showed a decrease of 24
percent in the number of private cars entering the zone, and dramatic
increases (over 150 percent) in average travel speed by private cars.
However, in the popular mind at least, the scheme has not been considered a
success. Traffic growth between 1992 and 1997 was very high so much of the
benefit was probably overwhelmed by increasing traffic. In addition, a
practice emerged of youths offering to ride as passengers for a small fee
("jockeys) to allow drivers to meet the occupancy requirement. This also
undermined the image of the scheme (although it demonstrated some
willingness to pay on the part of drivers).

Recently the City Administration has proposed to replace the 3-in-1 policy
with an area pricing scheme (or "sticker" scheme) taking in a similar area.
The scheme sounds much like the Singapore Area Licensing Scheme.  Cars will
need to buy and display stickers to enter the area in peak hours (7.30 -
9.30 am and 5 - 7 pm). I am not sure if motorcycles will be charged or not.
Trials are proposed for August to November this year. This proposal has
generated controversy according to the Jakarta Post of April 14, 1998, p.
3.

Opposition politians (Hamzah Haz of the United Development Party - PPP) and
a major consumers organisation (the Indonesian Consumers Foundation -YLKI)
have come out against the scheme. They say, among other things, that the
system would discriminate against the poor. On the other hand, Jakarta's
Governor Sutiyoso argues that the scheme would hurt only the rich who are
the ones who drive cars. But Hamzah Haz also argued that public transport
was insufficient, saying that more buses should be put onto the road before
the scheme is implemented.

This kind of debate will be very familiar anywhere that traffic restraint
has ever been suggested.    What are the right kinds of questions to be
asking?  Many cities have considered such plans but they are often rejected
on equity grounds. All proposals to raise private-vehicle related prices
also face similar equity arguments. I am concerned that many of these
equity arguments may be spurious. Which are spurious and which are valid?

Is it true that such a scheme is inequitable? For example, the poorer half
(roughly) might be better off because buses may be able to move faster
through the restricted zone?  Is anyone aware of any careful studies of the
actual equity impacts of traffic restraint schemes in low-income or
middle-income cities?

Who is actually hurt by such a scheme?  Perhaps those who currently drive
but can only just afford to drive?  They are probably the ones whose
behaviour would actually be changed by the scheme. In Jakarta these might
be lower-middle-income people who can no longer afford to enter the zone in
peak hours.

But do they have viable alternative options?  For example, they might shift
their travel time if they can. They might switch to riding the bus
(probably the air-conditioned "PATAS" buses rather than the very crowded,
cheap, non-aircon ones). They might try to "car-pool" even more, to share
the cost around. They might use an alternative route around the restricted
area and maybe walk a bit further to their final destination. Or they might
just continue driving at an increased cost.

Would the increase in bus speeds have the effect of increasing overall bus
system capacity enough to cope with any additional riders generated by the
scheme?  Otherwise, greater bus overcrowding might hurt bus riders.

Is what is done with the revenue relevant to whether it is equitable or
not?  For example, if revenues go explicitly towards improving access
options for the lower income groups then this might make a big difference
(and also make it more politically acceptable).


******** PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS ********

A. Rahman Paul BARTER,
SUSTRAN Resource Centre
A0602 Palm Court, Brickfields, 50470 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Phone: +603 274 2590, E-mail: <tkpb at barter.pc.my>

The SUSTRAN Resource Centre hosts the Secretariat of SUSTRAN (the
Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific).
SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments
which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability;
health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life.