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.