[sustran] Jakarta area pricing - equitable or not?

[Eric Bruun]

I find it interesting that we hear the same arguments in a rich
country like the US that we hear in much less developed countries.
I am also under the impression that the US actually does have
issues closer to the poorer countries than Japan or western
Europe, as frankly, we generally have much less developed options
for persons at the bottom of society.  I have a few specific
comments below.



On Mon, 11 May 1998, Paul Barter wrote:

> 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.

  Not only would there be an increase in ridership as people get priced
  off of the alternative, namely cars, but there would be increase in
  ridership due to faster service, as well. How much capacity increase
  there is, depends on existing headways and cycle times. Every reduction
  in cycle time equal to a headway, saves one vehicle; for example, if
  buses run every two minutes, every two minute reduction in time required
  to make a round trip saves one vehicle.  This savings can be reinvested
  in the line to decrease headways and increase capacity, or it can
  be used elsehwere in the system.  Whether the increase is sufficient
  or not requires more detailed analysis than the info. you have given.
> 
> 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).
> 
  The political acceptability is a key issue. A few years ago, the US's 
  Transportation Research Board put together a team of persons to 
  look at congestion pricing and other means of better matching
  transportation supply and demand. Their official report, a book
  called "Curbing Gridlock" lamented the political impossibility
  of congestion pricing because of the complaints by those likely 
  to be tolled off of the roads. At the same time, they did not
  recommend any investments in parallel public transportation that
  might provide an alternative, indeed, they seem to consider 
  spending money on rail transit a waste. I don't think the
  idea of speeding up buses was even mentioned.  There isn't
  much difference between what you are talking about in Indonesia 
  and in the US, in that the poor are mostly a non-issue and ignored
  in both countries, while the upper middle class is feared. The
  US is actually quite similar too in that there really would be no
  public alternatives for those priced off of roads in all but a
  handful of cities. 
> 

> ******** 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.
> 
>