1. The Potential BRT in Asia
TransJakarta System : Sustainability vs Subsidy
Taufik Adiwianto

2. Present Public Transport Problems
Lack of Integration between Land Use and Transport System
Lack of Integration between Different Modes of Transport
Increase in Private Car Use

3. Trend of Population Growth
2010

5. Average Speed in Morning Peak Hour

8. Daily Trip Forecast (Public Transport) – Greater Jakarta
Year 2002
, 2010
, 2020

11. TransJakarta System General Description: Route Length : 12,9 km
Number of Station : 20
Station Spacing (avg) : 650 m
Fleet Size : Initial buses
Headway : Peak Hour : 2 minutes
Operation : 05:00 – 22:00
Fare : Rp from 05: :000
Rp from 07: :00
Integrated Fare : Rp AC - Rp Non-AC

12. TransJakarta System The aims of the busway system implementation are:
To increase bus passenger existing trip;
Lane separation from general traffic;
Reliable time schedule;
To improve comfort, security and safety for bus passengers;
To improve public transport services coordination;
To improve efficiency of bus operator;
To implement an effective bus fare system;
Public service standards suitable for the bus passenger in this system are:
Accessibility;
Security and safety;
Comfortable waiting space;
Minimum waiting time;
High service quality;
Availability of reliable information.

13. Organizational and Management of TransJakarta

14. Management Framework of Busway Operation

15. Organizational Position of TransJakarta
BP Transjakarta manages the busway system under The Governor Authority, does its task, function, and responsible to The City Secretary. BP TransJakarta is dependent organization.
BP Transjakarta is a transitional organization, based on Local Regulation of Public Transportation No. 12, 2003 (article 109).
Transportation problems in Jakarta have a wider complexity which needs to be solved by an independent council.

16. Problems Encountered on Management Side
Inadequate authority given to BP TransJakarta has led to lack of better performance in busway management.
Most of physical and infrastructure maintenance activities are still under the authority of other local government agencies.
Unavailability of formal regulations and tools that manage the coordination mechanisms between BP TransJakarta and other local government agencies involved in busway operation.
The existing regulation gives less support to efficient operational process, thus the performance of service becomes less optimal.

17. Passenger Growth Month Monthly Passenger February 1.154.399 March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October

18. Load Factor - TransJakarta
Period
Weekday Load Factor
Headway
Number of Bus
Time Operation
Weekend Load Factor
Weekend
5:00:00
52% 16
42%
6:00:00
79% 40
75%
7:00:00
101% 51
55% 30
8:00:00
86%
68%
9:00:00
103% 35
58% 45
10:00:00
69%
11:00:00
12:00:00
85%
13:00:00
92%
95%
14:00:00
91%
15:00:00
97%
90%
16:00:00
132%
17:00:00
143%
73%
18:00:00
87%
19:00:00
83%
66%
20:00:00
59%
76% 20
21:00:00
67%

19. Total Bus-Km Production
Month
Bus-km
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October

20. Passenger/Bus-Km

21. OM Cost vs Revenue (with Security Expenditure)

22. OM Cost vs Revenue (without Security Expenditure)

23. OM Cost Components
Passenger/Round Trip
OM Cost/Passenger

24. Public Opinion about The New System

25. Composition of Mode Used before Busway

26. Intensity of Busway Ridership along the Blok M – Kota Corridor

27. Public Perception of Busway Fare

28. Accesibility of Busway System

30. Conclusion
Subsidy given by the local government for busway operation (O&M Cost) has decreased.
Due to the service improvement, the number of passenger has also increased, specifically during peak hour.
It has been relatively successful in recovering its costs, despite the relatively low fare
Public behavior in utilizing mass transportation has been improved along the busway lane.