[sustran] Re: Jakarta busway twists and turns?
Chris Cherry
cherry at utk.edu
Wed Dec 5 06:56:05 JST 2007
There has been some research coming out of the transportation engineering
(Michael Cassidy and Carlos Daganzo) group looking at trying to maximize the
use of these "empty" BRT lanes (or any limited access lane for that matter).
Essentially, if planned right, one could allow vehicles to enter the
restricted lane only at bottlenecks in the system and thus vastly increase
the throughput of cars with minimal disruption to buses. They have been
looking at this from the context of HOV lanes in the USA, but have recently
been trying to apply the theory to busways in China. This would ultimately
improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce congestion and
potentially allow the drivers to perceive the BRT system in a better light.
Of course there are a lot of policy issues around letting cars in some
strategic areas of the BRT system and convincing them that it is not
beneficial to let them in the entire system. Here are a couple of paper out
of the UC-Berkeley Volvo Center
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2007/VWP/UCB-ITS-VWP-2007-1.pdf
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/ucb/2005/vwp/ucb-its-vwp-2005-2.pdf
Chris Cherry
Assistant Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Tennessee-Knoxville
223 Perkins Hall
Knoxville, TN 37996-2010
phone: 865-974-7710
mobile: 865-684-8106
fax: 865-974-2669
http://web.utk.edu/~cherry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:13:00 -0700
From: John Ernst <itdpasia at comcast.net>
Subject: [sustran] Re: Jakarta busway twists and turns?
To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Message-ID: <20071202181335.859F92DB9C at mx-list.jca.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
If I can pick up this now dated thread on the Jakarta busway (with
apologies, I was on vacation)...
I agree with the assessment that the Jakarta busway is in serious
trouble. It is also true that former Governor Sutiyoso forced the
busway through. (I still complement him for it because my guess is
that going slow would have meant not going at all.)
I believe Jakarta holds the record as the shortest design and build
time of any full BRT in the world. (I would welcome hearing of other
systems that might be contenders.) Jakarta officially started
planning in May of 2003. By early 2008 it will have about 200km of
corridors, or an average of 40km per year from conception to
operation. By 'full BRT', I basically mean segregated lanes, raised
platforms and pre-board fare collection, but we could niggle on mixed
traffic sections of segregated corridors, etc. (Keep in mind that I
am definitely talking about quantity here, not quality.)
One of the main consequences of Sutiyoso's rapid implementation is
that there was little legal work completed. There is no provision in
law or regulation for the busway itself, it is actually a
manipulation of normal bus route licenses. The appropriation of road
space for the busway is also a gray area. My understanding is that
because the busway does not have clear legal basis, the police
consider it up to their discretion whether or not they enforce the
corridors.
This year, one of the new corridors under construction is in a very
wealthy area. So, there have been a lot of complaints about losing
road space for cars. A lot of this is misunderstanding -- in that
area the city will widen the road to preserve the same number of
mixed traffic lanes, although narrower ones. In the meantime, the
police have reacted by opening more and more sections of bus lanes to
mixed traffic.
ITDP is one group working to keep BRT on course in Jakarta. We have
this year begun working more with the police (city police in
Indonesia are not under city government, but under a national police
agency). For example, we took a key member of the police to Bogota
for the transit fair last month.
I agree fully with Carlos Pardo's comments (Nov 23) about the
difficulty of convincing the public about BRT lanes. Overall, this
is an interesting problem in implementing BRT systems: the lanes
often look empty. When we see a photo of a BRT, it always has a bus
or two in the lane, but between buses you see only 2-5 minutes of
empty lane -- at least in closed systems without overlapping
routes. On the other hand, if the mixed traffic lanes are not
congested, there is no reason to build segregated BRT lanes.
In a city like Jakarta, where for 20 years streets have been
generally filled curb-to-curb, it is very hard to accept that a lane
that looks empty could be carrying 10 or 20 times as many passengers
as the ones that look chock-full. You can imagine the pressure on
the police officer on the street.
A lot needs to be done to improve the capacity and performance of the
Jakarta busway. Hopefully that will soon include returning to full
enforcement of all busway corridors. While several scenarios are
possible, it's unlikely to fully happen until the 3 corridors now
under construction start operating at full service. If history is
any guide, that could be around next June.
I hope this information is useful. Sorry to be slow to pitch in.
Best,
John
At 11:09 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote:
>Evidence on the ground in Jakarta suggest that there is indeed cause for
>serious concern over the continued viability of Bus Rapid Transit in
>Jakarta. The history of excellent measures being scrapped due to problems
of
>implementation is crowded enough to give one pause.
>
>The whole endeavor was basically forced through on the force of personality
>by Governor Sutiyoso loosely based on Transmilenio, Bogota. His gamble
>seemed a good one at the time: We can endure the hardship of construction
>and the initial decrease in the flow of traffic confident that in the
>medium-term, more people will take to the buses, even those with cars, and
>overall mobility as quantified and perceived will increase. The problem is
>that even Jakartans that one would expect to support the busway are now
>incensed at the dramatically worsening of conditions. They eagerly await
>what they perceive as the all but inevitable rolling back of the program
and
>a return to the ever expanding asphalt approach to mobility.
>
>I am not aware of serious endeavors towards course correction but I will
>inquire a bit.
>
>Robert Cowherd, PhD, Associate Professor of Architecture
>Wentworth Institute of Technology 550 Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02115 USA
>cowherdr at wit.edu; +1 617 989-4453
>
>
>On 11/21/07 8:43 AM, "Walter Hook" <whook at itdp.org> wrote:
>
> > John ernst tells me that several of the corridors have been open for
some
> > time now during the construction, but that it is temporary.
> >
> > w
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
> > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf
> > Of Paul Barter
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:49 AM
> > To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
> > Subject: [sustran] Jakarta busway twists and turns?
> >
> > The Jakarta busways appear to be facing some curious decisions according
> > to this Jakarta Post article below.
> >
> > See near the end where it says:
> > "On Nov. 5 the administration announced motorists would be permitted to
> > use certain sections of other busway corridors in the city for a month.
> > The decision was made to ease traffic congestion caused by the ongoing
> > construction of the three new corridors."
> >
> > This means mixed traffic is being allowed into operational busways?
> > Can anyone fill in the background on what is going on in Jakarta? Should
> > we be worried about the future of BRT there or is this a minor hiccup?
> >
> > Paul
> > -------------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John Ernst - Senior Program Director
ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
127 W 26th St. Suite 1002, New York, NY 10001
Tel +1 (212) 629-8001 Direct Tel +1 (347) 694-4771 Direct Fax
+1 (801) 365-5914
Skype: john.ernst
Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide
Visit http://www.itdp.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:42:19 -0800
From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Event: Getting the climate right for
transport
To: "Paul Barter" <peebeebarter at gmail.com>,
sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20071203123020.03a7e830 at mail.islandnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Last week I attended the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) Energy Analysis Forum in
Golden, Colorado
(http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/news.html ), where
leading North American energy analysts shared the
latest thinking concerning greenhouse gas
emission reduction strategies and legislation,
much of which involves emission cap and trade
programs
(http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Releases/2007Releases/loader.cfm?url=/commonspo
t/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=31222
). Similarly, a recent report by McKinsey,
"Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much
At What Cost"
(http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp
) estimates the economic costs of achieving emission reduction targets.
Virtually all these analyses are biased against
mobility management (various strategies that
increase transport system efficiency by improving
mobility options, encouraging use of more
efficient modes, and reducing the need to travel), for the following
reasons:
* Co-benefits are ignored. Current analysis gives
virtually no consideration to benefits such as
reduced traffic congestion, road and parking cost
savings, consumer savings, reduced traffic risk,
improved mobility for non-drivers, and improved
public health, although these benefits are often
larger in total value than emission reduction
benefits (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm and
www.ap-net.org/docs/16th_seminar/huizenga_caiasia_special.pdf ).
* Current analysis generally ignores the
additional external costs that result when
increased vehicle fuel efficiency and subsidized
alternative fuels stimulates additional vehicle
travel, called a "rebound effect" (see
http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf and
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-04-53.pdf ).
* Mobility management emission reductions are
considered difficult to predict. Although case
studies and models are available for many of
these strategies (see for example, case studies
in http://www.vtpi.org/tdm and the TRIMMS Model
at http://www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77704.htm
), such models are not widely available or designed for energy planning.
* Mobility management programs are considered
difficult to implement. Such programs often
involve multiple stakeholders, such as regional
and local governments, employers and developers,
and various special interest groups. Even PAYD, a
relatively simple strategy, requires cooperation
of insurance regulators, insurance companies, and
various special interest groups. As a result,
they tend to seem difficult and risky compared
with other emission reduction strategies that
only require changes to utility operations, fuel production or vehicle
designs.
* Analysis often assume that current transport
patterns are economically optimal and any
reduction in vehicle travel harms consumers and
the economy. This ignores various market
distortions that stimulate motor vehicle travel,
and the benefits to consumers and the economy of
many mobility management strategies
(<http://www.vtpi.org/distortions_BPJ.pdf>www.vtpi.org/distortions_BPJ.pdf
). With improved travel options and efficient
incentives travel reductions reflect low-value
vehicle-miles that consumers willingly forego in
exchange for cost savings. In a more optimal
market, with efficient road, parking and vehicle
insurance pricing, and more optimal planning
practices, motorists would drive significantly
less and be better off overall (http://www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ).
Described differently, there are two general
approaches to reducing transportation emissions:
reduce emission rates per vehicle-kilometer or
reduce total vehicle-travel. The first generally
seems easier, because it simply requires changing
fuels or vehicle design, but, if done correctly,
the second provides far more total benefits. As a
result, significant emission reductions can be
achieved with negative costs (they provide net economic benefits).
Due to these factors, currently proposed emission
reduction programs will not implement mobility
management as much as optimal and so will fail to
achieve other important benefits such as
congestion reductions, crash reductions, consumer
savings and equity objectives
(http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf ). A truly
sustainable transportation system requires more
than simply reducing consumption of fossil fuels,
it requires creating a more efficient
transportation system. It will be up to those of
us who understand the wider value of mobility
management to educate decision makers about their
full benefits and overcome barriers, so they can
be implemented as much as justified.
Please let me know if you have comments or questions.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 11:06 PM 12/1/2007, Paul Barter wrote:
>Trying to forward this message which the list blocked for some reason.
>Paul
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Carlosfelipe Pardo <carlosfpardo at gmail.com>
>To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:05:30 -0500
>Subject: Event: Getting the climate right for transport
> Transport side event at COP 13, Bali Indonesia
>Organized by TRL/GTZ, UITP, UIC, ITPS
>
>The German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) will host a side event titled
"Getting
>the climate right for transport" at the United Nations Climate Change
>Conference (COP 13) in Bali. The event will be in cooperation with the
>Transport Research Laboratory (UK), UITP, UIC and Institution for Transport
>Policy Studies (Japan).
>
>The event will discuss future pathways to a more sustainable transport
>system along with options for decision-makers to integrate climate change
>mitigation measures into the transport sector.
>
>The event will take place on 7th and 8th December, 2007 from 1 to 3 pm in
>the Tidal Room at the Grand Hyatt Hotel.
>
>The event will combine practical as well as methodological approaches with
>actual experience on sustainable transportation. The draft program is on
our
>SUTP website at www.sutp.org .
>
>At this event Mr. Manfred Breithaupt (GTZ) and Mr. Holger Dalkmann (TRL)
>will present the new sourcebook module titled "Transport and Climate
>Change", which is the latest publication in the GTZ Sustainable Urban
>Transport series, and discuss available instruments to reduce carbon
dioxide
>emissions in the transport sector.
>
>The module summarises the challenges that climate change mitigation has to
>face in the transport sector and presents the major options and instruments
>available to deal with them. The module also explains the various
>sustainable transport policy and planning options and sketches out their
>potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
>With the new module, the GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Sourcebook now has
>26 modules focussing on various issues of transportation. All the modules
>are available to download from the SUTP websites at no cost (
>http://www.sutp.org and http://www.sutp.cn for Chinese users).
>
>--
>Carlosfelipe Pardo
>Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator
>GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
>Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708
>Bogot? D.C., Colombia
>Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
>carlos.pardo at sutp.org www.sutp.org
>--------------------------------------------------------
>IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
YAHOOGROUPS.
>
>Please go to
>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
>to join the real sustran-discuss and get full
>membership rights. The yahoogroups version is
>only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to
>the real sustran-discuss (even if the
>yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can).
>Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
------------------------------
================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').
End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2
**********************************************
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list