Subway the best choice for Jakarta: Expert
Subway the best choice for Jakarta: Expert
JAKARTA JP): Despite its massive cost, building a subway transportation system is the most viable alternative for Jakarta to solve its ever growing traffic problems, leading urban planning expert Eko Budihardjo said.
Eko, a lecturer at the state-run Diponegoro University in Semarang, said that, in the long run, a subway has a lot of advantages compared to other alternative mass rapid transit systems, reported the Antara news agency.
The government appeared ready to endorse the plan to build a subway system in Jakarta, something which had been shunned in the past because of its enormous cost. It would also be a formidable and long undertaking, spanning more than the five years a governor of the city reigns. This means such a commitment could not be left entirely in the hands of the governor. The decision must be taken by the central administration.
The Agency for the Research and Application of Technology, which has taken on the job of looking into various alternative modes of public transportation for Jakarta, has given signals that a subway was preferable to an overhead light train.
The government will have to make its decision soon, as to which mode of public transportation is most appropriate for Jakarta, because the city's traffic congestion has become unbearable and unmanageable.
The inefficient public transport system has simply driven most of Jakarta's population of nine million to opt for their own cars and this in turn is adding to the congestion.
Eko, a member of the National Research Council, said he believed that an underground railway system is technologically feasible for Jakarta and that Indonesia has engineers who are qualified to design and build the system.
One of the chief attractions of a subway system, over its alternatives, is that it will do away with the need to acquire land for the tracks, he said, underlining that land is a very complex and sensitive issue in big cities, particularly Jakarta.
The biggest obstacle for the project would be in financing it, with estimates ranging from two-and-a-half to three times the cost of the other alternatives, he said.
But given its immense benefits, the actual cost becomes relatively small, especially given that the subway could become an efficient and comfortable means of transportation.
A subway system is also relatively easier and cheaper to maintain, hence its benefits are felt in the long term.
Many of the existing subway systems in the world were built after lengthy and extensive cost-benefit analysis that weighed the projects' long term benefits against costs, including the non-quantitative costs such as congestions and pollution. Initially, many underground railway projects were run at huge operational losses or were heavily subsidized.
Eko also argued that the actual cost of an underground railway project does not necessarily add up to three times the cost of an above ground system.
The price is still negotiable and the government could make significant cost cuts in some places.
Jakarta, for example, does not have to opt for the luxury coaches that Singapore uses in its underground railway, he pointed out.
Eko said the government should consider an underground railway system not only for Jakarta but also for other cities in Indonesia that have a population of more than three million. (emb)