i
INTERMODALITY AND BRT RIDERSHIP : MAKING THE LINK WITH CO-BENEFITS January 15th, 2018
SEMARANG TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT POLICY Budi Prakosa Development Planning Agency of Semarang (BAPPEDA)
STRATEGIC POSITION OF SEMARANG Jepara
Laut Jawa Pekalongan
Tegal
Pati
SEMARANG
Pemalang
Brebes
Rembang
Kudus
Kendal
Blora
Batang
Purwodadi
Cepu
Ungaran Temanggung Purwokerto
Salatiga
Wonosobo
Purbalingga
Sragen
Banjarnegara Boyolali Magelang
Cilacap
Surakarta Karanganyar
Kebumen Purworejo
Sleman
Sukoharjo Klaten
YOGYAKARTA
Samudera Indonesia
1. 2.
Wonogiri
Wates Wonosari
International Port , Airport, Railway System, and National Road make Semarang as a national center of trade and services in Central Java. Semarang as Central Java Capital..
SEMARANG CITY PROFILE • Semarang consist of 16 districts and 177 sub districts • Semarang City area approx 373.7 km2 • Total population is 1,604,419 on 2016 • Population growth 0,6% per year (0,4% migration, and 0,2% natural)
Sea
Coastal
Land
Hilly
Coastline Evolution Semarang 9 to 19 Century
LAND USE GROWTH
Land Use
Area (Ha)
%
Settlement
12,355.96
33.06
Dry land/ idle land
12,024.56
32.18
4,360.88
11.67
Plantation
873.48
2.34
Mining
137.31
0.37
1,023.03
2.74
483.14
1.29
1,377.21
3.69
413.80
1.11
Fish pond
1,775.00
4.75
Others
2,545.63
6.81
37,370.00
100.00
Paddy field
Industrial Transportation Forest Public space
Total
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Trading sector is the biggest sector in Semarang, followed by industry and services.
SEMARANG TRADING POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Trading is more than 30 % from total GDP Total commodity export reach almost $ 500 million More than 44 thousand trading companies More than 150 modern market More than 80 hotels More than 150 restaurants and 50 cafes More than 300 SMEs
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Transportation become the biggest sector that contribute to the carbon emision.
CLASSICAL URBAN PROBLEMS TRAFFIC CONGESTION
WASTE
SANITATION
SLUM AREA
AIR POLLUTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
WATER POLLUTION
ACCESS TO SERVICES
URBAN POVERTY
Traffic congestion is become one of urban’s problem
NATIONAL POLICIES ON TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
Semarang as one of National Center of Activity (PKN) with national policy on transportationdevelepment for : 1. National Road Network 2. Railway 3. International Airport 4. International Sea Port
Strategic Plan of Ministry of Transportation Year 2015-2019 for Metropolitan Railway Projects
National Urban Transportation Projects in Semarang • • • • • •
Semarang-Batang Toll Road Semarang-Demak Toll Road and Upgrading of Ahmad Yani Airport Terminal Upgrading of Tanjung Emas Sea Port Railway Overpass from Mangkang to Alastuwo Station Upgrading for Mangkang Bus Terminal
Trans Java Toll Roads Trans Java Rail Ways
Structure and Spatial Pattern Plan : 1. Semarang as part of Kedung Sepur Metropolitan Area 2. Semarang-Bawen Arterial Road upgrading 3. Semarang-Demak Toll Road 4. Semarang-Batang Toll Road 5. Bus Terminal Upgrading 6. Upgrading on Northern Railway (Jkt-Smg-Sby), Middle (Smg-Solo), and South (Smg-Solo-Sby) 7. Commuter Railway : Demak, Tegal, Rembang, Cepu 8. Tawang and Poncol Station Upgrading 9. Tanjung Emas Sea Port Upgrading 10. Ahmad Yani International Airport Upgrading
Regional Transportaion Projects in Semarang • Kedungsepur Commuter Railway • Kedungsepur Bus Rapid Transit 1st corridor : Semarang-Bawen
VISION AND MISSION OF SEMARANG
VISION
• Realizing cultured and qualified community.
“ Semarang as a great trade and service city towards more prosperous society “
MISSION
• Realizing reliable governance to enhanching public services. • Realizing a sustainable and dynamic metropolitan city. • Enhanching local potential-based economic and building conducive business climate.
17
MID TERM PLAN VS RESILIENT SEMARANG MID TERM PLAN MISSION
• • • •
Healthy and smart Service oriented Resilient Competitive
RESILIENT SEMARANG PILLARS
• Sustainable water and energy • New economic opportunites • Transparent public information and governance • Competitive human resources • Integrated mobility • Preparedness for disaster and disease oubreaks
EMISSION REDUCTION POLICY ON MID TERM PLANNING (RPJMD) • Derivative from 3rd mission • Reduce 4 % from business as usual emission scenario 3,489,503 ton in 2021
TRANS SEMARANG
Trans Semarang : 1. Have 6 corridors ďƒ 8 corridors and 4 feeders in 2021 2.Manage by goverment and consortium 3.Expectedly: safe, comfortable, fix schedule, affordable
LRT DEVELOPMENT • Spatial planning (RTRW) mandate • As a Mayor priority in Mid Term Planning • 2017 : Feasibility Study in Transportation Agency • Potential route : connecting CBD with transportation and activity nodes
BRT Corridor Inner Ring Road
Outer Ring Road Middle Ring Road
BRT Corridor BRT Corridor
: Industrial : University
BRT Corridor
: Center of Activity : CBD
BRT Corridor
THANK YOU
INCREASING RIDERSHIP IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SEMARANG, INDONESIA Semarang, 15 January 2018
Introduction May, 23rd 2016
– Launched the Semarang City Resilience Strategy
Oct 2017 Dec 2017
Implementation Phase
Pillar : Integrated Mobility Initiative: Encouraging a change in behavior from using private vehicles to public transport
– Study and Reseach Related to BRT and Angkot: IGES, UNDIP, ITDP Using BRT : reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2)
– Increasing Ridership in Public Transport in Semarang • Piloting in 3 junior high school students (SMPN 1 Semarang, SMPN 31 Semarang, & SMPN 7 Semarang) • Switch from walking/motor biking to BRT
Activities
Kick Off Program 19 October 2017
- Training of Trainers (ToT): Road Safety and Promote BRT (7&8 November 2017) - Education to the students on Road Safety and Promote BRT (23 & 24 November 2017) - Socialization & Campaign on Road Safety and Promote BRT for students to the school’s parents (13 December 2017) - Campaign on Road Safety & Promote BRT by Students for students (SMPN 31 : 18 Dec 2017) (SMPN 7 : 19 Dec 2017) (SMPN 1 : 22 Dec 2017)
- Drawing Competition for students (about BRT) - Development of campaign media (information board, blocknote, modules, poster)
Kick Off Meeting ■ Participants: Representative of SMPN 1, 31 and 7 Semarang ■ Speakers : BLU Trans Semarang, Education Agency of Semarang, Satlantas Polrestabes Semarang, IUCCE, IGES, Yayasan Sayangi Tunas Cilik Save the Children
Training of Trainers (ToT): Road Safety and Promote BRT Participants: Teachers and School’s Committee
Education to the students on Road Safety and Promote BRT Students will lead campaign on road safety & promote BRT to other students in their school
Campaign on Road Safety & Promote BRT by Students for students
Socialization & Campaign on Road Safety and Promote BRT for students to the school’s parents
Development of Campaign Media
Information Board
Modules (for Student, Parent, & Teacher)
Flyer & Poster Blocknote
BRT Drawing Competition â– Supported by IGES
SMPN 1 Semarang
SMPN 31 Semarang
Result ■
Respondent
55 students who joined the training 59 students who didn’t join to the training
■
Almost all of respondents know about BRT from social media & daily observation
■
Transportation mode for students: ➢ Going to school : with their parents and other family, only some students using BRT and online transportation mode ➢ Back from school : mostly using public transportatin especially BRT
■
Knowledge on the existence of BRT shelter near their school : ➢ for SMPN 1 and 7 Semarang the access to the BRT shelter is quite near ➢ BRT shelter is quite far from SMPN 31 Semarang
■
Benefits of BRT for students: Cheap and convenience facilities
■
Knowledge about road safety and BRT: ➢ The trained students have better understanding on road safety especially if there is no sidewalks/ pedestrian ways students should walk in opposite directions with the direction of traffic flow. ➢ Related to the BRT, they know there are two ways in payment method of BRT ticket: cash and e money
■
Willingness to use BRT as transportation mode for student is increase
Terima Kasih
DR.dr.Brian Sriprahastuti,MPH Closing Meeting of RSS for Semarang 100RC Program Semarang 15 January 2018
AREA STRATEGY PLAN 2017 - 2020 SURVIVE: No Child Dies Before their 5th of birthday Will reach
Current areas intervention
Areas of intervention 2017-2020
West Java
West Java: Expand to west bandung, Taskmalaya (city and district), Sukabumi (city/district)
Bandung (city and district)
118,355
112,999
Central Java: Semarang (city and district) Brebes
Will contribut to the SDG’s : East Java Malang dan Sidoarjo districts
East Java: Expand to Bojonegoro and Surabaya
1
Program SELAMAT (Socialization and Education on Road Side Safety)
The OBJECTIVE
to increase the safety of students through improved infrastructure, road safety knowledge, and practices
2
There are behaviors that put children close to injury and death
Background Data Kepolisian RI (2011): 31.185 meninggal dan 150.000 luka akibat KLL 70% adalah pengendara dan penumpang sepeda motor 29% usia dibawah 15 tahun. 10.000 anak-anak meninggal akibat kecelakaan lalu lintas.
Riset Kesehatan Dasar (2013): Kejadian Kecelakaan cenderung meningkat menjadi 48% dari 26% di tahun 2007 39.1% cedera karena kendaraan bermotor; laki laki lebih berisiko 12.6% kematian pada kelompok usia 5-14 tahun adalah akibat KLL 66.7% cedera pada kelompok usia 15-24 tahun terjadi di jalan raya Save the Children internal assessment (2014):
75% anak sekolah usia 10-14 tahun mendapatkan ijin orang tua untuk mengendari motor 63% anak mengatakan tidak menggunakan helm jika mengendarai/membonceng motor untuk jarak dekat atau di jalan perkampungan
4
Case Study of Bandung 2011-2013 Injury
Fatality
51.92% aged 16-30 years 4.71% aged 10-15 years
48.72% aged 16-30 years 6.73% aged 10-15 years
447 252
354 0 - 9 Tahun
184
0 - 9 Tahun
10 - 15 Tahun
159
249
16 - 30 Tahun
75 25
16 - 30 Tahun
180
31 - 40 Tahun
96 48 41
80 60
12
0
1
Tahun 2011
Tahun 2012
0
31 - 40 Tahun 132
41 - 50 Tahun 46
28
17
Tahun 2013
10 - 15 Tahun
68
> 51 Tahun 36
22 5
Tahun 2011
112 74 67
86 98
85 31
Tahun 2012
22
Tahun 2013
41 - 50 Tahun > 51 Tahun
What is Road Side Safety Project?
Target: Children live in urban areas
Goal: Reduce mortality caused by roadside accident
6
Why and How the project is implemented? There are 4 intermediate objectives that have to be achieved by this project: 1. Increased knowledge of school based road safety 2. Improved physical road safety infrastructure near schools 3. Improved knowledge and practices among teachers and students ďƒ Developed in SEMARANG City 4. Increased public and local government awareness of road safety
Did you know?
75%
10,000 Nearly 10,000 children died from traffic accidents (Indonesia Traffic Corps, 2011).
63%
63% of respondent did not use helmet when driving/riding motorcycle to the place that close or surounding residential area
75% respondent was allowed by parents for their 1st driving when at the age of 10-14 years
Communication Campaign and Advocacy
For Semarang RSS Program Resilient City
Save the Children
9
Why YSTC expands road side safety intervention through collaboration with goverment of Semarang? We have strong commitment to contribute the reduction of fatalities and injuries caused by road accident among children and youth, particularly in our projected areas (country/area strategy plans)
Why YSTC expands road side safety intervention through collaboration with goverment of Semarang? As one sub-pilar of intergrated mobility strategy of Semarang resilient City
Colaboration Work with IGES in Semarang Yayasan Sayangi Tunas Cilik provides technical assistance for implementating road side safety program activities for IUCCE : 1) Plan 2) Implementation 3) Evaluation
Intervention ✓ piloted in 3 secondary schools (SMPN 1, SMPN 7 and SMPN 31)
✓ Activities are including Training
of
facilitator for teacher and parents; student’s training; dissemination information to parent and student at school ✓ Emphasize student to use BRT (Bus Rapid Transport) instead of the use of 2 wheelmotorize
The Result of Intervention ➢ Trained student has knowledge better than student who are not yet trained.
➢ There is increased number of student who used BRT among trained students (prepost test)
Table 1 The use of BRT Frequency among trained student pra-post training Frequency of using BRT
Very frequent Seldom
rare Very rare Never
Perbedaan Rutinitas Menggunakan BRT Sebelum Pelatihan
Setelah Pelatihan
5
7
12
24
26
11
6 2
No change Missing
3
3
9
Lesson Learnt Cooperation work with DEO has facilitated in reaching out school member: teachers; parents and students Police and DTMO are the best partners for disseminating road side safety messages (the use of BRT, the traffic regulation etc) BRT is not easily accessed by students of piloted schools. Supportive infrastructure, such as Bus Stop are not available arround it Cascade activities, such as dissemination activities for parent and student required longer time for accomplishment. The main challenge is time-constrains (closed to semester test/examination period) Delivering messages to others students by their peer (trained student) is more meaningfull.
Recommendation â–Ş There are still many students use motorcycle came to school, thus the promotion of safety-riding (use helmet etc) and safety pedestrian for student is considerable â–Ş Road side safety message must be delivered widely to all secondary schools through training and dissemination information â–Ş For sustainability, it is recommended to integrate the road side safety topic into both curricullum and relevant school activities (e.g integrated into subject civil education, or insert into new student orientation activities/school regulation)
Recommendation ▪ The provision of road side safety infrastructures nearby the schools is critical when skills are trained to the school’s member; as well as others safety public transportation including paratransportation/feeder; and improvement of quality services of BRT that more friendly for children/youths. ▪ For greater impact, RSS key intervention must be replicated to all schools and supported/funded not only by the government but also non goverment organisation/agency and private sectors in Semarang city
Save the Children
18
Matur Nuwun We save children's lives. We fight for their rights. We help them fulfill their potential.
MANAGING PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SEMARANG THROUGH FULL CORRIDOR BRT Semarang, 15 January 2018
OUTLINE 1. Urban Transportation Management Principles
2. General Condition of Public Transport in Semarang
3. Performance of Trans Semarang
4. Public Transport Improvement Through BRT
5. Conceptual Design of Full BRT System in Semarang
Urban Transport Management Principles
Key Components on Mobility Improvement in Semarang
1 Continuous walkways and bike lane
Providing pedestrian
4 connectivity to mass transit corridor
2 Improvement of Public Transportation Management
Encouraging density within
5 the city to support mass transit system
3 Infrastructure development and BRT & feeder system
Mass Transport System Challenges for Cities of Indonesia • Urban sprawl & low density along transit corridor • Limited fiscal capacity
• Commitment to provide operational subsidies • The First mile and last mile issue
Priority Concept on Managing Street Space The Past Condition: Street Priority design for Private Vehicle
1
1
2
2
3
3
4 Priority Order: 1.Private Vehicle 2.Freight Transport 3.Public Transport and Bicycle 4.Pedestrian
Current State: Priority for People
4 Priority Order: 1.Pedestrian 2.Public Transport and Bicycle 3.Freight Transport 4.Private Vehicle
Give priority for people rather than for motor vehicles, by prioritizing the provision of space for pedestrians and cyclists as well as providing open space for public.
Best Practice of Road Designs that Give Prioritize to Pedestrians
General Conditions of Public Transport in Semarang (Angkot, Regular Bus & Trans Semarang)
Mode Share in Semarang • •
Based on the survey, around 80% of the population in Semarang are private vehicle user. The majority of Trans Semarang users (51%) were formerly regular Angkot and Bus users.
Transportation Mode Before Trans Semarang 29%
Angkot
26%
Sepeda Motor
22%
Bus
7%
Diantar
6%
Jalan Kaki
3%
Ojek
2%
Mobil
2%
Lainnya
1%
Sepeda Taksi
1%
Becak
1% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
The majority of the people in Semarang (80%) are private vehicle users.
35%
Comparison of Public Transport Mode System in Semarang Comparison Routes Number of Fleet (Dishub) Service Coverage
Shelter (Halte) Fleet Fare Operational Hour
Angkot and Reguler Bus 88 routes (Disbub, 2016) 83 regular Bus 1766 Angkot
Trans Semarang 6 routes 116 buses
Some routes overlap with Trans Semarang routes
133 km of service route
Depending on boarding and alighting location of passenger
Shelter
With out AC
AC (Air Conditioner)
Angkot: Rp.1000 - Rp.5.000 Regular Bus: up to Rp. 15.000 05:00 - 21:00
Flat fare: Rp. 3500 05:30 - 18:30
Public Transport Routes in Semarang Terminal Terboyo
Angkot C, Angkot R, Bus
Terminal Mangkang
Simpang Lima
Terminal Penggaron
Mode
Cangkiran
Average Distance (km)
Bus
23.7
Rute C
12.0
Rute R
10.2
Bus Routes Angkot R Routes Angkot C Routes
Survey Location
Street Name
FVO 12 FVO 4 FVO 9 FVO 1 FVO 6 FVO 2 FVO 8 FVO 7 FVO 3 FVO 10 FVO 11 FVO 5
Jln. Urip Sumoharjo Jln. Jend Sudirman Jln. Majapahit Jln. Brigjen Sudiarto Jln. Mataram Jln. Dr. Cipto Jln. Mataram Jln. Pemuda Jln. Dr. Sutomo Jln. Pamularsih Jln. Citarum Jln. Diponegoro
Frequency
Volume
(Bus/hour/dir)
(Pass/hour/dir)
110 198 99 113 130 134 76 55 38 72 27 7
2677 2085 1184 1006 1005 886 781 649 609 496 275 213
Frequency of Public Transportation Distribution
Jl. Jend Sudirman
• •
Frequency of public transportation: Angkot, Regular Bus or Trans Semarang, are still high mainly at city-center and most of major roads in Semarang. Based on the survey, the highest frequency of public transport in Semarang is overlapped with corridor Trans Semarang Route 1 Mangkang – Penggaron
Passenger Volume of BRT Around the World • The highest passenger volume of Semarang is around 2,677 passengers per hour per direction.
• Compared to passenger volume data of the BRT system around the world, passenger volume in Corridor 1 Semarang is almost the same with passenger volume in Beijing and Islamabad.
SEMARANG 2,677
• Therefore, corridor 1 of Semarang has great potential to become a mass transit with dedicated lane.
Semarang Angkot Conditions • Without route arrangement, a lot of angkot and regular buses which overlap with Trans Semarang loose their passengers.
Percentage of Overlap Public Transport Routes with Route 1
Percentage of Overlap Public Transport Routes with Trans Semarang 1 Route
• There are around 15 public transport routes that overlap more than 20% with Trans Semarang route 1.
• Competing with Trans Semarang becomes one of the factors that several public transport routes are no longer in operation.
• Data from the Department of Transportation Semarang in 2016, the number of registered fleet of regular buses are 83 fleets and angkot are of 1766 fleets.
• But there is no information on how many fleets are still operating from the total registered fleet.
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Frequency (Bus/hour)
Deposits and Revenues of Angkot and Bus Driver DRIVER DAILY DEPOSITS 45%
Rp 200,000 - 300,000.
40%
40%
34%
35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
13%
Before Trans-Semarang:
0%
56%
60%
Rp. 100,000 - 200,000.
After Trans-Semarang:
50%
After Trans-Semarang:
Rp. 60,000 – 150,000.
40%
Rp. 60,000 – 100,000.
-58%
11%
30%
2% 0 - Rp 50,000.00 Rp 60,000.00 - Rp Rp 110,000.00 - Rp Rp 160,000.00 - Rp Rp 200,000.00 - Rp 100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00
-46.6%
22%
20%
10% 5%
Before TransSemarang:
DAILY AVERAGE NETT REVENUE OF DRIVER
10% 0%
9%
0 - Rp 50,000.00 Rp 60,000.00 - Rp Rp 110,000.00 100,000.00 Rp 150,000.00
6%
7%
Rp 160,000.00 - Rp 210,000.00 Rp 200,000.00 Rp. 250.000.00
Trans Semarang Performance
Corridor
Length (km)
Corridor 1
27.1
Corridor 2
30.1
Corridor 3A
28.4
Corridor 3B
29.3
Corridor 4
31.2
Corridor 5
27.8
Corridor 6
22.4
Average Speed of Trans Semarang : 15.8 km/jam
Average Speed of Cars: 18.5 km/jam 18
Frequency of Trans Semarang Compared to Frequency of Angkot and Regular Bus 70
Angkot The highest public transport frequency recorded at peak hours is 62 vehicles/hour/direction (ie on route C10)
60
Average frequency of public transport at peak hours is 19 vehicles/hour/direction, or 1 vehicle passing every 3 minutes
40
Trans Semarang The highest frequency is 15 Bus/hour/direction on corridor VI. The average Bus frequency is 10 Bus/hour/ direction, or 1 Bus pass every 6 minutes at peak hour.
30
Average : 19
20
As a Standard, the Bus arrival schedule at peak hours in urban areas should be less than 10 minutes.
Average : 10
10
Average : 4
Regular Bus
B21
B42
B52
B31
B25
B35
B28
Trans Jateng
B16
B34
V
III
IV
I
VI
R11H
R3b
C1A
R6
R11F
R11B
R12C
R11G
R4C
II
Trans Semarang
JOHAR - WELERI
Angkot
R3D
R11E
R3C
R3A
C3
C4
C6
C5
C7
C9
C8
C2
0 C10
Frequency (Bus/hour)
50
Comparison of Occupancy Public Transport Ratio 90%
The average angkot occupancy at the busiest segment are higher than Trans Semarang. This is because angkot has smaller capacity and tend to wait for the passengers to be able to carry as many passengers as possible. However, it can be seen that Angkot and regular bus was still carry a lot of passengers.
80%
70%
50%
Average : 52%
40%
Average : 38%
30%
Average : 27%
20%
10%
Regular Bus
B52
B16
Trans Jateng
B21
B34
B35
B25
B28
B42
B31
III
V
IV
I
II
R4C
C1A
R6
C5
C3
C9
R11B
C8
C6
VI
Trans Semarang
JOHAR - WELERI
Angkot
R3A
R12C
C4
C10
C2
R3C
R11E
R3D
R11G
R11F
C7
R11H
0% R3b
Rasio Okupansi
60%
Trans Semarang Headway INTER-BUS ARRIVAL TIME (MINUTES)
16,0
AM
14,0
Headway (minutes)
12,0
10,0
10,0 8,0
6,7
6,0 4,0
15,0
PM
4,6
3,5
7,5
4,3
4,6
3,5
2,5
5,0
4,0
2,0 0,0
1
• Headway: Morning : 4.8 minutes
Evening : 6.8 minutes
3 Corridor
2
• User perception in waiting Trans Semarang : 5-10 minutes.
4
5
6
PERCEPTION OF PASSENGER WAITING (MINUTES) 80%
73%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
18%
20% 10% 0%
4% <5
5 - 10
10 - 15
2%
3%
15 - 20
>20
21
Distribution of Boarding and Alighting Trans Semarang Passengers
Pemuda Simpang Lima Elizabeth
Naik Turun (Boarding Alighting) Trans Semarang Sore Hari
Based on the survey of passengers on 6 Trans Semarang routes, boarding and alighting passengers are concentrated at Pemuda, Simpang Lima, and Elizabeth Shelter which are also passengerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transfer shelters.
22
Terminal Terboyo
Imam Bonjol Karangayu
Pemuda Simpang Lima
Elizabeth
Trans Semarang Passenger Volume The highest passenger movement is from East and West area of Semarang and concentrated in city center area.
Terminal Terboyo
Mangkang
Pemuda
Penggaron
Cangkiran Sisemut
Volume Penumpang Trans Semarang Sore Hari
Large passenger movement can also be found at some areas in the South of Cangkiran and Sisemut, and also Terminal Terboyo.
Trans Semarang Passenger Origin and Destination
From the survey, there are still many origin and destination places of passengers who have not served yet by Trans Semarang directly, ie. around Soekarno Hatta area Passengers need to make transfers at transfer stations such as Pemuda and Elizabeth Stops.
To accommodate transfers, Bus routes have to make a detour (looping) to be able to serve passengerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transfer.
Trans Semarang Passenger Transfer Pattern Based on the survey, 25% of total passengers needs to make the transfer. 7% of transfer passengers transfers up to two times.
The majority of transfers are from Route II to I (15%), Route IV to I (11%) and Route I to II (10%). To have more effective and efficient services, public transport should be able to provide direct service, so passengers do not need to transfer.
Transfers between service routes lead to increased waiting time and travel time, as well as longer travel times. Passenger Transfer Percentage Route
Route 1 Trans Semarang to Accommodate Transfer
Imam Bonjol Shelter Pemuda Shelter
Route 1 Trans Semarang from both Mangkang and Penggaron have to make a detour to be able to serve Imam Bonjol and Pemuda shelter to accommodate the passengers who need to transfer from these shelters.
Route 6 Trans Semarang to Accommodate Transfer Elizabeth Shelter
To carry passengers from other routes, Route 6 Trans Semarang needs to stop at Elizabeth Shelter
Because of that reason, Route 6 needs to extend Km traveled so that passenger travel time becomes less efficient.
Trans Semarang Service Standards
There are still Buses that board and alight passengers outside the Bus Shelter
Elizabeth Bus Shelter During the Peak Hour
Overcrowded Passenger at Elizabeth Bus Shelter
Trans Semarang Shelter Conditions
Semarang, 2017
Shelter Platform Conditions
Simpang Lima Semarang Shelter
Yichang, China
User Opinion on Trans Semarang Service REASONS TO CHOOSE TRANS SEMARANG
9% 2% 11%
33%
Lebih Murah Lebih Nyaman Lebih Cepat
12%
Lebih Aman
Based on a survey conducted on 600 Trans Semarang users: • •
Lebih Pasti Lainnya
33%
•
RELATED FACTORS TO TRANS SEMARANG SERVICE
13%
25%
Performa Layanan Kemudahan Mengakses Layanan
16%
Kualitas Infrastruktur dan Pemeliharaan Fasilitas dan Layanan Pelanggan
21%
25%
Integrasi dengan Moda Lain
Interview Survey of Trans Semarang User by IGES dan ITDP
Affordable price (Cheap) and convenience are the 2 main reasons users choose Trans Semarang. According to users, service performance, accessibility and infrastructure quality are aspects that still need to be improved from Trans Semarang. Detailed aspects of improvement that need to be concerned: Access Service
• Information Service • Distance of access to Bus Shelter
Service Performance
Infrastructure Quality
• Waiting Time • Direct Routes
• Fleet Quality • Access and Shelter Quality
Summary of Public Transport Performance in Semarang City Issues • There are still a lot of angkot routes which overlapped with Trans Semarang.
• Limited coverage of Trans Semarang • Poor shelter condition
• Long waiting time mainly at transfer station. • Most of passenger needs to transfer to get to their destination
• No integration and route overlapped between Trans Semarang and Trans Jateng
• Speed of Trans Semarang is still relatively low
Objectives
Target
Increase mobility of people in Semarang with better quality of public transport
• Route optimization, therefore, requires efficient operations to increase the number of passengers • Reduce transfers
• Increase bus frequency and reduce waiting time • Increase travel time through the construction dedicated lane
• Improve public transport infrastructure including wayfinding, signage and bus station. • Electronic ticket system
Public Transport Improvement with Full Corridor BRT and Direct Service System
Why BRT?
• Passenger time savings
• Mitigate congestion for car users
• Offers flexibility and easy system expansion • Low cost of investment
• Wider range than LRT or MRT
• Pedestrian and cyclist facilities improvements
Public Transport in Semarang Public Transport Asset in Semarang : • • • • •
Improved Public Transport
6 Trans Semarang routes in operation
Already has a Public Service Agency (BLU Trans Semarang) managing Trans Semarang operations
Operators in some routes of Trans Semarang is a consortium of existing operators
There is a strong commitment from the government to provide better public transport with subsidy
People still have trust on public transportation system, as seen by the number of angkot, bus and Trans Semarang passengers.
Semarang has a good public transport system of Trans Semarang. It is a valuable asset that can be upgraded to be more reliable that meets international standard of mass transport.
Good Transportation Service
Purpose of BRT
Public Transport Reform
Creating efficiency in mobility
Urban Development of BRT Construction (faรงade to faรงade construction)
The Economic of Mass Transit Cost/km
BRT: $1-10 million/km
Metros: $40-220 million/km
Planning and construction time
BRT: 18 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 24 months
Metros: 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 30 years
Comparison of Investment Costs/km and Load capacity of BRT, LRT and Metro Systems
With a smaller carrying capacity, LRT costs more than BRT
Direct Service Model
BRT STATION
Direct Service Concept
Fist mile and Last mile • BRT system is more flexible and has wider service coverage.
• With direct service system where buses can operate on and off-corridor, passengers can be served as close as possible from origin to destination.
• Compared with other mass transit (LRT and Metro) where the average distance between their stations is every 1 km, the average BRT station is only 500-600 meters, so the longest distance to access BRT station is 300 meters.
Lesson Learned from Trans Jakarta : With 13 corridors, Trans Jakarta has served a total number of 105 routes of direct service: • 27 routes direct service in the city center • 11 routes direct service in Jabodetabek • 16 routes direct service serving residential areas
Bike-sharing as First & Last Mile Solution
43
Conceptual Design of Full BRT in Semarang
BRT Infrastructure Design Principle
Traffic Management at Intersection High Capacity Station Branding
High Capacity Bus Level boarding Dedicated Lane
Off board ticket Safe and secure access for Pedestrian
BRT DESIGN STANDARD Bus Rapid Transit BRT Standard is an evaluation tool for BRT
corridors based on international best practices.
55-69.9 poin
70-84.9 poin
85-100 poin
Trans Semarang BRT Score Platform-level boarding Intersection treatments Off-board fare collection Busway alignment Dedicated right-of-way
BRT Basic 14/38
Sliding doors in BRT stations Docking bays and sub-stops Number of doors on bus Safe and comfortable stations Distances between stations
Station 3/10
Bicycle-sharing integration Bicycle lanes Secure bicycle parking Pedestrian access Integration with other public transport Universal access
Total : 37 Deduction Point : -18
Final Score : 19
Trans Semarang can not yet be categorized as BRT system
Integration & Access 3/14 Communication & branding 2/5
Passenger information Branding
Pavement quality Center stations Stations set back from intersections Minimizing bus emissions Passing lanes at stations
Infrastructure 4/14
Multi-corridor network Hours of operations Demand Profile Located In top ten corridors Control center Express, limited, and local services Multiple routes
Service Planning 11/19
0%
20%
Trans Semarang
40% Ideal
60%
80%
100%
Corridor Design Plan: 15.8km
From Simpang Jrakah (West) to Simpang Fatmawati (East), and also along Pemuda Street up until Jembatan Blerok.
BRT Service Coverage Area with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Direct-Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; system Stasiun Tawang
Bandara Ahmad Yani Jrakah
Simpang Lima
The BRT Full Corridor development plan is 15.8 km long which has 19 direct service routes and 176 km service coverage.
Example of Proposed Implementation of BRT â&#x20AC;&#x2122;Direct-serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; route in Semarang Terminal Terboyo
Mangkang Tugu Muda
Tipology Cross-Section General design of section and station The BRT corridor recommendations: • Central platform station • Segregated BRT lane • Off board payment • At-grade access to the station
Layout Stasiun BRT
Trotoar Jalur Reguler Jalur Reguler Jalur BRT
Jalur Reguler Jalur Reguler Trotoar
Proposed BRT Full Corridor Design in Semarang Cross Section at Jalan Majapahit Existing
Width from faรงade to faรงade: 20,3m
Location on Jl. Majapahit
N
N
Between Station
At Station
Proposed BRT Full Corridor Design in Semarang Cross Section at Mgr. Soegiyopranoto Width from faรงade to faรงade: 30.9 m
Location at Mgr. Soegiyopranoto
Proposed Design Full BRT Semarang Cross Section at Jalan Pemuda (Balaikota) Width from faรงade to faรงade: 29.7 m
A
North Side N South Side
B Bagian A
Between Station
Bagian B
Gambar 4.72 Contoh Cross-section di Jalan Pemuda (Balaikota)
54
4.3 Rencana Desain Full BRT Semarang
EKSISTING
Cross-section Jalan Pemuda (Balaikota)
55
4.3 Rencana Desain Full BRT Semarang
DESAIN
Cross-section Jalan Pemuda (Balaikota)
56
Next Step • Improve Trans Semarang performance, such as route arrangement and additional service hours • Improve payment system with electronic ticketing system • Design and preparation for Full Corridor BRT
• Stakeholder analysis and consolidation for acquisition of minibuses • Improve facility for pedestrian and cyclist.
Sam Kernaghan, Associate Director â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Asia Pacific
Reporting Session for The CoBenefits Transport Project in Semarang, Indonesia
Our mission is to catalyze an urban resilience movement. We believe itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the best way to ensure cities around the globe are better able to manage disruptions and plan for the future, so that people are safer, healthier, and have increased livelihood options. We want to make things better for urban dwellersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;especially the poor and vulnerable who are disproportionately impacted when bad things happen in cities.
Building a global practice
CROs Appointed: 2017
4
Changing how cities view risk + opportunity
Resilience Strategies: 36 by end of 2017
6
Pipeline of Resilience Strategy Initiatives 6000 5000
5000 3750
4000
# Initiatives
2500
3000 2000
1600
1000 0 32 (2017)
50
75 (2018)
100 (2019)
Strategies Released (by Year) 7
Forging new partnerships
Forging New Partnerships 105 Platform Partner relationships offering 135 services and 202 Subject Matter Advisors Built Environment, Infrastructure, Land Use
Climate and Weather, Natural Environment
Information and Technology, Cyber Security
Finance and Insurance
Public Health
DRM and Emergency Response Water Management, Energy Education/ Skills and Training, Economic Development, Culture and Arts Housing
Citizen Engagement, Government & Policy, Social Equity
Transportation
Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s next? 10
100RC will continue to support member cities to make lasting change to improve their resilience, with specific outcomes: Local Leaders and Champions are Mobilized
Cities Take Action by Embedding Resilience and Implementing
Urban Resilience Movement Resilience Solutions are Created and Used
Global Influencers Adopt Practices and Policies
Supporting Semarang’s Strategy implementation: 1.
Connecting city’s across the network to inspire and build on experience [Biodiversity
Exchange 2017/ New York Summit 2017] 2. Sharing tools for project design which retain resilience value [Urban Farming 2018] 3. Partnerships with funding agencies to support project implementation [Dutch/ UN Climate
Centre ‘Water as Leverage’ Program 2018] 4. Identifying Platform Partners with experience in detailed design and implementation [IGES…]
13
Sam Kernaghan, Associate Director â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Asia Pacific
Reporting Session for The CoBenefits Transport Project in Semarang, Indonesia
BRT TRANS SEMARANG IMPROVEMENT : INSIGHTS FROM STAKEHOLDERS 2017
WRAP-UP DISCUSSION INTERMODALITY AND BRT RIDERSHIP: MAKING THE LINK WITH CO-BENEFITS Semarang, 15 January 2018
OUTLINE ACTIVITIES DATA AND ANALYSIS INSIGHTS AND CHALLENGES WHATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S NEXT?
ACTIVITIES 1
2
3
Policy Dialog: In-depth Discussion with City Governments and Operators
Designing Surveys
6
5
FGD with BRT Users
Kick-off FGD with Stakeholders
4 Surveys
Analysis
7
8
FGD with Governments
Wrap Up Discussion
POLICY DIALOG: IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION WITH CITY GOVERNMENTS AND OPERATORS April 21st, 2017 Meeting Room of Dinas Perhubungan (Transport Agency) of Semarang City Consisted of 2 sessions: ◦ Morning: with representatives of government agencies ◦ Noon: with public transport operators AGENDAS ◦ IGES-UNDIP presented the plan on co-benefits activities in 2017 ◦ ITDP presented BRT concepts that could be adopted by Semarang ◦ Discussions
POINTS DISCUSSED 1. BRT Development in Provincial Level 2. Management of BRT Trans Semarang 3. Development of Full BRT System 4. Possibility of Piloting 5. Expanding The Engagement of ITDP FOLLOW-UPS Meeting arranged in May for Semarang City government and ITDP team for discussing the planning of full BRT system development in Semarang City.
Conducted by IGES, UNDIP, and ITDP, series of surveys were planned to analyze the existing condition of BRT Trans Semarang as well as other public transportations in Semarang.
DESIGNING SURVEYS From May-June 2017
SURVEYS From mid-end of July 2017 • Preparation and technical meetings were done twice by IGES, UNDIP, and ITDP with surveyors • There were surveys for supply side and demand sides (by questionnaire) • Questionnaire samples: 300 BRT users and 300 non-BRT public transport users
ANALYSIS During August 2017
KICK-OFF FGD WITH STAKEHOLDERS September 14th, 2017 Meeting Room Amaris Hotel Pemuda, Semarang Consisted of 2 sessions: ◦ Morning: with some BRT users and public transport operators ◦ Noon: with representatives of government agencies AGENDAS ◦ IGES-UNDIP presented demand side survey results ◦ ITDP presented supply side survey results ◦ Discussions FOLLOW-UPS Two smaller FDGs were scheduled in October to December with focus on the transportation policy in Semarang City.
FGD WITH BRT USERS November 17th, 2017 Meeting Room Amaris Hotel Pemuda, Semarang ◦ Attended by 15 users and UNDIP team. ◦ Users were selected proportionally as a sample of each corridor user. AGENDAS ◦ Users were grouped according their the corridod they most frequently used and given some keywords to discuss with their corridor group. ◦ Each group talked about experiences and issues related to their corridor.
POINTS DISCUSSED ◦ Big question: “How was your experience using BRT with the existing routes of each corridor?” ◦ Following questions: 1. How long is the average travel and waiting time from your origin to destination?; 2. Is the route of the corridor you use already effective?; and 3. In order to improve the route service, what could have been done? (E.g. Is there any unused shelter or should some shelters be added to some area? Should some routes get re-arrangement?)
Example of User Inputs on Infrastructure and Route of Existing BRT (Corridor III)
Example of User Inputs on Infrastructure and Route of Existing BRT (Corridor VI)
FGD WITH GOVERNMENTS January 11th, 2018 Meeting Room of Dinas Perhubungan (Transport Agency) of Semarang City
◦ Attended by Bappeda, Transport Agency, BLU BRT Trans Semarang and UNDIP team. AGENDAS ◦ Reported the findings of activities with BRT users and gained feedbacks ◦ Communicated the possible follow-up activities
POINTS DISCUSSED ◦ Co-benefits from BRT improvements: not only environmentally but also economically. ◦ BRT Trans Semarang will be developed to be able to support tourism in Semarang. ◦ Semarang will get more bus for BRT and school bus from Ministry of Transport within this year. ◦ By 2019 there would be 2 new corridors and by 2021 the city government wants to have 12 BRT corridors in total. ◦ Direct service and feeder service that are integrated with BRT system need further study.
DATA AND ANALYSIS FREQUENCY VS OCCUPATION 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
38 30
27 19
25
23
22
14 3
7
3
2
1 – 3 times/month Housewive
4 3 4
Once/week
Company Service
Others
7
6
4 5
2 1
2
2 – 3 times/week Students
4
8 2
10 10 2 3
1 1
4 – 6 times/week
Government Service
7
Self-employed
Every day Retired
Unemployed
MODE USED BEFORE SHIFTING TO BRT 35,0% 30,0%
28,7%
26,3%
25,0%
22,0%
20,0% 15,0% 10,0%
7,0%
5,0%
6,3%
0,7%
0,0% Angkot
Becak
Bus
Pick Walking Up/Drop Off by others
1,7%
2,3%
3,3%
Others
Car
Ojek (including online)
1,0% Bicycle
0,7% Motorcycle
Taxi (including online)
REASON CHOOSING BRT No Other Options
2%
More Secure
TRIP PURPOSE
7%
More Comfortable
33%
Cheaper To School; 10%
Faster
To Work; 17%
3%
Others
2%
0%
Otherd; 5% Business Trip; 6%
To Home; 43%
8%
More Safe Shopping; 5%
Recreation; 14%
45%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
ALTERNATIVE MODE WHEN NOT USING BRT BASED ON GENDER Total Of ID Motorcycle Ojek (including online)
To Work
Shopping
Otherd
Business Trip
To Home
Recreation
To School
Car Walking Pick Up/Drop Off by others Bus Angkot 0%
20% Pria
40% Wanita
60%
80%
100%
Origin â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Destination of BRT Users
Frequency use of BRT in Semarang – Ordered Logit Model Y*= β′x + ε,
Y=
0 if y* ≤ µ1, 1 if µ1 < y* ≤ µ2, . . N if µN < y*
Y* : Level of frequency to use BRT Y0 : Less than twice a week (N=68) Y1 : Between 2-3 times per week (N=66) Y2 : Between 4-6 times per week (N=58) Y3 : Everyday (N=108) b ' : Constant x: indicates a set of explanatory variables including both individual attributes and situational/contextual factors
e : error terms
Estimation Results of Frequency of use of BRT in Semarang No
1
Variable
N=300
Constant Observed Variables Age less than 20 Female Students Female & Don’t have access to use Car Origin Travel inside city & Travel time Female Worker Female & Don’t have access to use MC
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Income more than 4 Million/month Destination of trip to Central Semarang Experience use of BRT Trans Semarang Threshold Parameter for Index (μ) μ (1): μ (2): Model’s attributes Degree of Freedom=9 AIC = 2.719 BIC = 2.867 Mc Fadden Pseudo R-squared: 0.026
Note: ***: significant at 99% (1 %) **: significant 95% (5 %) *: significant 90% (10%)
0.642 1.158
Estimated Parameter
T-Statistic
0.426
2.223 **
0.303 -0.585 0.326 -0.001 + -
1.823 * -2.895 *** 1.744 * -1.997 ** Not Significant Not Significant
+ +
Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 10.712 *** 15.685 ***
Next Questions: Why are respondents willing to switch from Private vehicle (Motorcycle (N=79) or Car(N=7)) to BRT Trans Semarang? What factors influenced the decision to use public transport? To answer those questions: We propose a Logit regression model which depends on simultaneous observation of two discrete binary observed-dependent variables, i.e., YiPindahanPCMC2BRT : the respondents that switch from Motor Cycle or Car to BRT (Y=1) Y*iPindahanPCMC2BRT = β’ iPindahanPCMC2BRT XiPindahanPCMC2BRT + εiPindahanPCMC2BRT ; yiPindahanPCMC2BRT = 1 if y*iPindahanPCMC2BRT > 0 , = 0 otherwise i denotes an observation (i=1,2,3,…n ) - β and X stand for the vectors of parameters and the independent variables - εiPindahanPCMC2BRT is random variable
Estimation Results of Logit Model of Modal shift from MC or PC to use of BRT in Semarang No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Variable
N=300 Estimated Parameter
T-Statistic
Constant Observed Variables Age Income Level Female No Access (Availability) of Motorcycle No Access (Availability )of Car Origin Semarang Selatan
-1.761
1.772 *
+ 0.362 -1.510 + 0.695
Not significant 2.021** Not significant -3.593*** Not Significant 1.779*
Origin Semarang Timur Fulltime Employee Move residential within 3 years Move working place within 3 years Modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attributes Degree of Freedom=10 Loglikelihood=-160.396 Resticted loglikelihood=-174.977 Mc Fadden Pseudo R-squared: 0.083 P-Value=0/9106 with deg freedom=8
+ + +
Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
Note: ***: significant at 99% (1 %) **: significant 95% (5 %) *: significant 90% (10%)
Boarding â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Alighting of BRT Users
Contribution Of BRT Corridor Expansion to Emission Reduction Effort Expansion of BRT corridor There will be modal shift from Motorcycle (MC) to BRT: 26.3 % There will be modal shift from Car to BRT: 2.3% (Assumption based on Survey in 2017) Total Capacity for Corridor 5 & 6: 2010 passengers (Based on BLU’s target upon corridor 5 & 6 launching) Number of passenger swift from MC: 26.3 x 2010 = 52,86 (B) Number of passenger swift from Car: 2.3% x 2010 = 4,62 (C)
Based on AIT Study in 2016, average data of:
Total Emission CO2 from expansion of Corridor 5 & 6
Vehicle Kilometre Travelled by MC in Semarang: 34.1 km/day Vehicle Kilometre travelled by Car in Semarang: 32 km/day
MC: (B x 34.1x 85 gr/day + B x 6 x 2.83 gr/day)x 365 gr/year = 562,5 ton/year
Emission Factor MC: Composite Running: 85 g/km Composite Start Up: 2.83 g/km & Number of Start per day (6) Car: Composite Running: 418 g/km Composite Start Up: 10.53 g/km & Number of start per day (4)
C: (C x 32x 418 gr/day + C x 4 x 10.5gr/day)x 365 gr/year = 22,63 ton/year In total, the emission from motorcycles and cars can be lessened by 585,13 ton/year. While the city overall targets (in RPJMD) on emission reduction is 3,489,503 ton by 2021.
INSIGHTS AND CHALLENGES PROPOSED PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT BASED ON USERS AND OPERATORS INPUTS SHORT TERM
MID-TERM
Online/passenger information E-ticketing and tariff system integration
LONG-TERM Dedicated lane
Longer operational/service time
Integration with other existing Improvement of shelter mode (angkot) capacity
Training for on-board officers (especially drivers)
Public transport reform
Access improvement
ISSUES ON BRT SERVICES On shelters: ◦ A lot of shelters in corridor are located in the side of crowded road so it is not safe for the passangers. ◦
The condition of shelters, especially those of portable ones, are getting bad and not well maintained.
◦
Some routes are expanded without being equipped with sufficient shelters for passangers to board and alight.
On Routes Effectivity: ◦ No sufficient data for corridor III to Pelabuhan as during the study and survey it is so hard to find users taking that route. ◦
Route of corridor IV needs to be evaluated for it takes so far to reach the last shelter in Stasiun Tawang.
◦
Route of corridor VI to UNDIP and to UNNES need to be redesigned so it can connect departments and main points inside the universities, not only on its outer part.
External Factors: Shelters getting blocked by angkot, hawkers, and o the street parking make it hard to board and alight, a lot of bus drivers also find it difficult to position the bus correctly with a close gap with the shelter.
CHALLENGES
• • • •
resistance from angkot drivers public’s low enthusiasm in using public transport limited coverage of BRT Trans Semarang service insufficient supporting infrastructures that help push the use of BRT Trans Semarang
• comprehensive transportation policy that enable the development of integrated public transportation in Semarang City is not yet available • discussion about public transportation use still rarely links to its important role on reducing emission
WHAT’S NEXT? BRINGING COBENEFITS TO A WIDER CONTEXT ◦ Are there any more sectors that can be benefited by the improvement of BRT Trans Semarang? ◦ How can BRT system support the government plan on economic and tourism development in Semarang?
AWERENESS ON THE IMPORTANCY OF USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ◦ What should be done to rise awereness that will eventually effect on the raising number of public transport (e.g. BRT Trans Semarang) users?
FURTHER STUDY ON THE POSSIBILITY OF DIRECT SERVICE ◦ Longer travel time ◦ Random deviation for bus arrival on each shelter ◦ Uncertain schedule of direct service potentially effects users especially the regular commuters on their decission on using BRT. ◦ Is the road network sufficient enough to support the system?
THANK YOU
IGES’s Co-Benefit Study on Transport Sector in Developing Asian Cities – Case Studies in Semarang:
Increasing Ridership and Improving Intermodality of Public Transport in Semarang City
Wrap-up workshop – January 2018
BACKGROUND One of the goals of Semarang municipality government is realizing an integrated and sustainable transportation system. Semarang City Resilience Strategy (CRS) pillar no. 4: integrated mobility Strategy no. 1: encouraging a change in behavior from using private vehicles to public transport Initiatives: expand the coverage of BRT corridors and feeder service; improve pedestrian and bicycle path
IGES as a platform partner facilitated the development of a co-benefits action plan on public and non-motorized transport in Semarang City
In collaboration with UNDIP and other collaborators, such as: 1. AIT (2016) 2. ITDP; IUCCE, SAVE THE CHILDREN (2017)
IGES’s 5 Steps Co-Benefit Approach in Indonesia: Step 1
First Step – Emission Inventory • Quantify Emissions from Road Transport Sector (especially GHG Emissions) • Tools: IVE Model • Data Gathering: Interview, Onsite Measurement, Secondary Data
Step 2
Second Steps – Prioritizing Local Actions • Prioritizing Policies from the local Transport Masterplan considering: Applicability, Affordability, Feasibility, Short term and Mid term priority • Apply Tools: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) • Target: 2-3 Priority Policies
Step 3
Third Steps – Quantifying the Impacts of Priority Policies • Developing Future Scenarios based on Priority Policies • Quantifying Multiple Benefits: Climate & Air Pollution
Step 4
Four Steps – Consensus Building on Follow-up Actions - Consensus Building Among Stakeholders on Follow-up actions - Select 1-2 follow up actions
Step 5
Fifth Steps – Translating Policy Recommendation into Practical Actions - Reassessment the Co-benefit Impacts : Feedback for the methodology - Feedback process for institutional arrangement of program - Evidence Based Approach & Science Policy Dialogue: Strengthening the role of university/research institutes
1St Year
2nd Year
Implementation of 5 Steps Co-Benefit Approaches in Indonesia Since 2015 2015
2016
2017
Semarang Step 1: Emission Inventory
Bandung Step 1: Emission Inventory Tools: IVE Collaborative partner: Institute Technology Bandung; Asian Institute of Technology Step 2: Prioritizing Priority Actions Tools: AHP Collaborative partner: Institute Technology Bandung & Local Experts (40 People)
Step 3: Quantifying impact of Priority Policies Tools: IVE Collaborative partner: Asian Institute of Technology Step 4: Consensus Building Tools: Stakeholder Dialogue Collaborative partner: Institute Technology Bandung
Semarang
Tools: IVE Collaborative partner: Diponegoro University ; Asian Institute of Technology
Improvement of BRT System
Step 2: Prioritizing Priority Actions
Tools: AHP Collaborative partner: Diponegoro University & Local Experts (44 People)
Awareness Campaign to Promote the modal shift from Motorcycle to BRT among High School Students
Step 3: Quantifying impact of Priority Policies Tools: IVE Collaborative partner: Asian Institute of Technology Step 4: Consensus Building Tools: Stakeholder Dialogue Collaborative partner: Diponegoro University
Bandung
Eco Driving Training Walkability Index & Pedestrian Performance
Where: Apply similar approach to other city Translating Policy Research into Practical Actions
Co-Benefit Activities in Semarang in FY 2017 Schedule
Activities
Players
Start
April 2017
May-June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017
October 2017 November 2017 December-January 2018
Policy Dialogue 1:In-depth Discussion 1. With Policy maker (Governments ,etc) 2. With Stakeholders (Operators ,etc) Design the survey : (a) User’s need and user’s want; (b) what Government can do
Implement the Survey (a) and (b) Analysis the results Policy Dialogue 2: FGD
City Governments, Local Experts, NGO, Academia, 100RC IGES & Local Counterpart
IGES & Local Counterpart
ITDP
IGES & Local Counterpart
IGES & Local Counterpart IGES, Local Experts, NGO, Academia, City ITDP Government, 100RC STC
Pilot/Simulation for Validation
IGES & Local Counterpart
Recommendation/Policy Package
IGES & Local Counterpart
Policy Dialogue 3: Consensus Building
ITDP
STC
ITDP STC
IGES, Local Experts, NGO, Academia, City Government,ITDP 100RC STC
5
The Purpose of Wrap-up Workshop A. To share/report to the stakeholders on two programs that could reduce GHG & Air Pollution in Semarang in FY 2017 1. BRT Improvement Program (Supply Side and Demand Side)
2. Awareness Raising for High School Students on the BRT B. To discuss future follow-up activities stakeholders can undertake in Semarang to improve performance/ridership on the BRT 6
Highlights of Several Activities in Semarang City â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2017
7
Demand Side Survey â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in Collaboration with UNDIP & ITDP Jobs and Income Level Angkot/Minibus
Angkot/Minibus
8
Supply Side â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Recommendation to Improve BRT in Semarang In collaboration with ITDP
9
Awareness Raising Campaign for Junior High School Students (SMPN 1; SMPN 7 and SMPN 31) In collaboration with IUCCE & Save The Children
Three junior high school will join (Teachers and PTA will join training), however, full training for students will be implemented only in 1 junior high school.
Certificate for Trainer
10
Photos of Awareness Raising Program
11
Discussion Points - What steps can different stakeholders take to strengthen/sustain recommendations from this study?
- What challenges could undermine strengthening/sustaining recommendations? And how can they be overcome? - How could the 5-step co-benefit approach in other policy areas in Semarang? - How could the lessons Semarang learned from this work be transmitted to other cities?
12 12