Is Jakarta's new busway system bound for glory or failure

Is Jakarta's new busway system bound for glory or failure

M. Ali, Transportation Researcher, Cunningham Research Centre,
Manchester, United Kingdom

The statement: "Traffic problems have just got much worse in
Jakarta!" came from a person who has to travel from his home in
South Jakarta to his place of work in an office tower on Jl.
Thamrin in the center of the city.

Naturally you would question his use of the word "just". Most
people would agree that traffic problems have been growing
consistently for some years now throughout Jakarta. But his
opinion that traffic had worsened in the city stemmed from the
launch of the city's busway.

It is probably reasonable to expect people to look upon the
busway as an imposition and a potential negative influence on the
traffic in and around the city. The loss of one lane in a number
of the city's most significant arteries is, almost inevitably,
going to be looked upon with skepticism and misgivings but new
initiatives deserve to be given a chance. Both historical and
current city transportation precedents are worthy of
consideration.

For example, when the idea of creating an underground railway
transportation system for the city of London was first explored
in the 1840s and 1850s it met with considerable objections and
complaints.

Of course, it could hardly be said that the creation of
Jakarta's busway ranks alongside the London Underground in terms
of its construction and infrastructure challenges but,
nonetheless, it is interesting that the complaints that may be
heard now about the busway are very similar to those that greeted
the London Underground.

Londoners back then often claimed that the underground could
never work and nobody would use it. People, it was stated, would
prefer to struggle through the congested and dirty streets of
London on horses and in carriages rather than use an underground
train. Interestingly too, people feared that the tunnels for the
trains would lead to the collapse of the city as they would
undermine the foundations of the buildings.

Of course, the tunnels did not lead to the collapse of the
city and what is more people soon became very much at ease with
using the underground system and it created a model for many
other city's around the world to follow.

Similarly, people are now claiming that the busway in Jakarta
will paralyze the flow of traffic in the city and that people
simply will not use the busway. Both scenarios are possible but
seem unlikely if the city planners and residents are sufficiently
proactive and supportive of the system. This is where we may look
to current precedents to see good reasons why a scheme such as
the busway can and may well work.

In the United Kingdom two major cities have only relatively
recently developed new transportation networks that run through
existing infrastructure and road networks. Both Birmingham and
Manchester have developed surface-based tram networks that have
offered alternative transportation and helped to reduce traffic
jams.

Called the Metro Line and Metro Link, respectively, these tram
networks serve the suburbs of the cities and the neighboring
towns. Both systems have used existing roads and so have taken
away a lane of traffic from car users.

With this kind of planning, commuters have been able to
utilize a network of transport that is traffic jam free.
Commuting times are reduced and the transportation network is
even seen as a credit, a plus factor in the development of the
respective cities. They were well supported by public and private
funds and consequently have been viewed as success stories that
can be expanded.

This is a precedent that could be reflected in the development
of the busway. Nobody could question that public transportation
in the city has been terribly inadequate for a long time and so,
even with a number of skeptics dismissing this project, in the
light of the need for improvement in public transportation in the
city, it should be viewed as a potentially positive development.

It might also be stated that most of the skeptics would be
those who are least likely to use the busway as they are coasting
around in their chauffeur-driven cars. Inevitably such road-users
are unlikely to have much time for the busway because, after all,
it does give priority to public buses over private cars.

As the busway system was opened for its trial period there
seemed to almost be a celebratory atmosphere. Certainly glitches
were there in the system, such as automatic doors not quite
working properly, and of course the skeptics were quick to jump
on this as another reason to question the validity of the whole
scheme. But we should hope that the celebratory atmosphere that
greeted the scheme's opening can be maintained and extended.

The opening of Jakarta's busway was similar to the launch last
year of Singapore's extension to its Mass Rapid Transport
network. With the addition of its North East Line (NEL) there was
a similar celebratory atmosphere of expectation and interest. Of
course it helped that this extension had the added novelty of
being fully automated but still the manner in which people would
take the NEL just to see what it was like was a celebration of
the improvements to the transportation of that city.

Likewise, long before that, the London Underground enjoyed a
celebratory opening and then progressed to be an essential part
of the city's life. The opening of the London Underground was
described as a "vivacious" and "theatrical affair" in which
passengers would take off their hats and wave them in joy and
pleasure.

No one would really expect the busway to be met with such
exuberance but it can surely be seen in a positive light that
might allow it to flourish and so help prevent the city from
deteriorating into hours of gridlock.

If we can be positive now the chances of greater investment
and so improvements in public transport may accrue and this will
surely help to alleviate the city's traffic problems.
Prioritizing public over private transport is perhaps a painful
thing to do, but it is appropriate.