Cities need complementary public transport system
Planning public transportation for a city with population of 10 million, the government of Jakarta knew that they needed more than the TransJakarta Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). That's why they are currently building Light-Rail Transit (LRT) and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).
The advocates for buses such as the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) disagreed with rail-based system. They preferred to have the BRT system be expanded with more buses and routes with better services.
Jakarta's deputy governor in-charge of transportation, Sutanto Soehodho (former professor of transport modelling at University of Indonesia with doctorate from University of Tokyo) thought that the city required a complementary network of bus-based and rail-based system.
On ITDP, Sutanto said, "They have been monitoring our Transjakarta buses for 10 years and they are not getting better. The number of passengers is even declining."
Each public transport system has merits and weaknesses. One weakness of BRT is that it is accident-prone. TransJakarta, even with its dedicated lanes, has seen increasing road accidents. Here are the data from 2015 to 2018:
TransJakarta-related Incidents
|
2015
|
2017
|
||
Accidents
|
23
|
96
|
43
|
54
|
Deaths
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
10
|
In four years, there were 134% and 233% increase of BRT-related accidents and deaths respectively. It is therefore not wrong for Jakarta to build other system as safer alternative for the public, instead of expanding the BRT.
Think tanks such as ITDP has exclusive preference for bus-based transit, and this is rather unusual. The
organisation's self-description states that their "primary programs
include the development of bus rapid transit (BRT)".
Urban planning expert, Diego Silva Ardila has observed that these think tanks "have focused on BRT systems as the only plausible solution for urban transport in the developing world, and have not seriously and rigorously analyzed the possibilities that rail-based systems have in high-demand corridors in the intervened urban agglomerations."
This has led Diego to note that "the think tanks and their claims have been deemed biased by the fact that they represented the interests of funding sources and donors of these think tanks, mostly foundations of companies related to certain level with the automobile and oil industry."
Development studies expert, Matteo Rizzo in his research on BRT has made similar observation, that "the narrative of BRT, as a ‘win–win’ intervention to solve the public transport crisis in developing countries, obscures the many tensions associated with their implementation. Such a narrative stems from research sponsored by international finance, its NGO brokers, and BRT vehicle manufacturers, and is functional to their interests in opening up public transport markets in developing countries." (Matteo Rizzo, Taken For A Ride, Oxford University Press, 170)
Development studies expert, Matteo Rizzo in his research on BRT has made similar observation, that "the narrative of BRT, as a ‘win–win’ intervention to solve the public transport crisis in developing countries, obscures the many tensions associated with their implementation. Such a narrative stems from research sponsored by international finance, its NGO brokers, and BRT vehicle manufacturers, and is functional to their interests in opening up public transport markets in developing countries." (Matteo Rizzo, Taken For A Ride, Oxford University Press, 170)
A city's public transport should be a network of several systems complementing each other to leverage on different merits and closes the gap of weaknesses. That is the approach adopted by Penang Transport Master Plan with various types of systems working together.
As to why there are think tanks that advocate only one type of system is anyone's guess.
