Interrogating the idea of Equitable Transit Oriented Development by Mega Primatama

Interrogating the idea of Equitable Transit Oriented Development: public transport planning in Surabaya, Indonesia Word count: 10,864

Written by Mega Primatama 16110153 Supervised by Dr Daniel Oviedo Hernandez A dissertation submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSc Building and Urban Design in Development At The Bartlett Development Planning Unit University College London On 1 September 2017

This page is intentionally left blank

Interrogating the idea of Equitable Transit Oriented Development: public transport planning in Surabaya, Indonesia Word count: 10,864

This page is intentionally left blank

Abstract This dissertation will interrogate the concept and principles of the traditional Transit Oriented Development (TOD) model with perspectives on sustainability and equity to explore the conceptual model of Equitable TOD (ETOD). It departs from the idea of a public transport system that builds on the perspectives of sustainability and equity. Recent motorisation and highway construction create problems such as a deteriorating dense urban centre, sprawling urban area, environmental hazards, and growing equity issues. The dissertation will start with a literature review on sustainable transport and transport equity. The case that will be examined is transport planning in Surabaya, Indonesiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second-largest city. Using the approach of spatial analysis (existing and planned land use map), discourse and content analysis (policy documents), and quantitative analysis (travel statistics), Surabayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transport planning will be explored by a conceptual model of ETOD to reflect how ETOD principles are related to existing planning. The dissertation will identify what is missing in existing planning policy and make suggestions towards sustainable and equitable transportation planning. In the end, this dissertation will generally suggest an alternative way of transport planning via different perspectives through the lens of sustainability and equity.

Acknowledgements Completing this dissertation shows how I have grown up to be more critical and analytical as a student and professional. The credits first goes to my professors and GTA in BUDDâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Camillo Boano, Catalina Ortiz, Camilla Cocina, Giovanna Astolfo, Giorgio Talocci, Ricardo Marten, Kay Pallaris, and Azadeh Masayekhi. Thank you very much for all of the knowledge and experience you have shared. This course has radically changed my perspective on the development process, and giving me the new lens have always been my deep gratitude. I am really thankful to my supervisor, Daniel Oviedo Hernandez, who always gives me very helpful suggestions and guidance along the dissertation progress. Thank you for all of the encouraging and thoughtful feedbacks. To my friends in BUDD, especially the Indonesian gangsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Annisa, Farisa, Riza, and Tatag, who have been my partners through the happiness, sadness, and worriedness. You guys give the new colour in my life journey, thank you so much for all of it. To my parents: My father, Teguh Soetenang, who has been endlessly encouraging me to reach the higher degree and relentlessly supports me in my study from afar, and my mother, Lies Untari, who always makes sure that I have been well fed, especially during the last months through voice and video call. Thank you for taught me to fly and encouraging me to fly higher. Last but not least, deep gratitude to the Government of Indonesia through the scholarship of Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education), who makes my dream to pursue higher degree become possible.

Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Literature review 5 2.1 Sustainability and transport: an entry point, a method, a goal 5 2.2 Equity and inequity in transport planning policies 7 2.3 (Traditional) Transit Oriented Development 10 Chapter 3: Traditional TOD and Equitable TOD: A conceptual model

Chapter 4: Methodology 18 Chapter 5: Transport network stepping towards de-motorisation: The case of Surabaya, Indonesia 5.1 Transport conditions in Surabaya 20 5.2 Transport planning for Surabaya 23 Chapter 6: Interrogating and analysing TOD

Chapter 7: Policy recommendations 37 7.1 Improvements 37 7.2 Provisions 38 Chapter 8: Conclusions 40 Chapter 9: Bibliography 42

Figures and maps Cover Genteng traditional market in Kampung Genteng, close to CBD area Figure 1.1. Location of Surabaya in East Java and map of Surabaya 3 Figure 1.2. Planned tramway and monorail plan, along with the existing public transport hub 4 Figure 2.1. BART system map overlapped on density map 12 Figure 2.2. Richmond and Fruitvale station 12 Figure 3.1. Merging of TOD key factors and equity indicators 16 Figure 4.1. Flow of phases in this dissertation 19 Figure 5.1. Two main public transport in Surabaya 21 Figure 5.2. Kampungs adjacent to TOD corridor 22 Figure 5.3. Recent general land use map for Surabaya 25 Figure 5.4. Land use plan for 2034 26 Figure 5.5. Catchment area alongside the tramway corridor, overlapped by the density map 27 Figure 5.6. 800 metre catchment area to the station, overlapped with existing land use 27 Figure 6.1. Existing and expected expansion of CBD with the development of tramway line 32 Figure 6.2. Provision of park and ride facilities along the line 32 Figure 6.3. Cycling path at the south of CBD area 33 Figure 6.4. Raw imagery of kampungâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s improvement and Row Housing project in Jakarta 34 Figure 6.5: Future CBD expansion that will impact kampungs close to the CBD 35 Figure 6.6. Monorail plan network compared to existing real estate sites in Surabaya 36

Tables Table 2.1. Horizontal equity and vertical equity Table 3.1. Indicators for transport sustainability and equity and key factors for TOD Table 4.1. Evidence collection classification Table 6.1. Breakdown of Equitable TOD indicators Table 6.2. Interrogation on Equitable TOD indicators towards transport planning in Surabaya

9 14 18 28 30

1. Introduction

In urban areas, the concept of sustainability has been widely acknowledged to ensure continuous improvement of urban living. As the urban area continues to grow and expand, generally in developing countries, mobility becomes one of the important values. The urban expansion in the developing countries mainly consists of private motorised transport, which results in the use of this transport as the main travel choice, since the development of public and non-motorised transport infrastructure does not much improve. This leads to inequality by transport provision, which favours private motorised transport and discourages disadvantaged groups. The framework of sustainability suggests the centralisation of the urban area by promoting less motorised mode provision and denser development. This dissertation will focus on the TOD model. However, although the TOD model has been widely acknowledged and applied around the world, some implementations may have been overlooked, mainly in recognising and involving impacted neighbourhoods, resulting in the rejection of the proposal, changing neighbourhood forms, and gentrification (Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2004). These examples of TOD utilizations suggest that aside from the creation of transit-oriented and mixed use neighbourhood, it requires concept of equity by recognising impacted communities. Meanwhile, transport provision in developing countries is heavily dependent on motorised transport, and public transport is mostly overlooked, does not get much attention and becomes dilapidated. From the perspective of TOD and transport in developing countries, this dissertation argues that creating TOD model may result in gentrification if it is not well managed, especially if this model is applied in developing countries. This may generate further inequality and, based on this argument, values of equity need to be added to the TOD model to achieve better planning and more sustainable community. The urban area that will be the object of this dissertation is located in the city of Surabaya, Indonesia (Fig. 1.1). With a population of 2.943.528 people in 2015 (Central Bureau of Statistics of Surabaya City, 2016), Surabaya is the second largest city in Indonesia and is taking on the role of the commercial centre in the eastern region of Indonesia (Pradono, Kusumantoro, & Retapradana, 2015). Urban areas in the region are not confined to Surabaya itself, but also include its neighbouring regions, the Gresik and Sidoarjo districts, thus creating a metropolitan area consisting of 5 million people (Pradono, Kusumantoro, & Retapradana, 2015). In a transportation context, Surabaya in recent decades has come to depend on motorised transport and road development. This road development triggers the motorised transport mode, which leads to the motorcycle ownership of about 34% and car ownership of 23%, although in recent years, road networks have only grown about 3% (Pradono, Kusumantoro,

& Retapradana, 2015). This creates traffic issues, mainly in the central business district (CBD) area in the city. According to a 2014 report, rebuilding the tramway network and development of new monorail lines in the city will result in less motorised traffic, lower carbon emissions, and a green urban corridor within the area by promoting the concept of TOD (Hansen Partnership & SUTD City Form Lab, 2014) (Fig. 1.2). Using the report as the case study, this dissertation will examine how TOD for Surabaya will work if it is integrated with the values of equitable TOD. Alongside the report, this dissertation will also build on land use plans, transport network plans, and literature about transport sustainability, transport equity, and TOD, which will be reflected in the 2014 report on Surabayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban corridor. This method of equitable TOD and Surabayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban planning sets out to create policy recommendations for Surabaya TOD development based on equity principles.

Figure 1.1. Location of Surabaya in East Java and map of Surabaya Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Labs (2014) and Google Maps. Graphics by author.

Figure 1.2. Planned tramway and monorail plan, along with the existing public transport hub to promote mode integration on the city centre. Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Labs (2014) and Google Maps. Graphics by author.

2. Literature review

2.1. Sustainability and transport: an entry point, a method, a goal In recent years, the traditional way of development was reconsidered and re-examined due to increased environmental change that resulted from industrialisation. This led to the shift of the traditional perspective of development to be more sustainable or enduring (Haq, 1997). The concept of sustainable development itself, by ensuring the same benefits for present and future generations, will be carried out by creating some limits on our recent activity depending on available resources and the effect of our own recent activities (Brundtland, 1987). Although they impose some limitations, sustainable development policies also have to meet the basic needs for all levels in societies for a better life. Reviewing and re-examining sustainability in transport sectors are viewed as essential, considering that transport plays the role of the engine of growth (Greene & Wegener, 1997), access to resources and markets and life quality improver (Rassafi & Vaziri, 2005), social and political cohesion provider (Button, 2009). However, it also plays a significant role in generating global warming and climate change because it relies on fossil fuel combustion (Pradono, Kusumantoro, & Retapradana, 2015), the primary factor behind environmental problems in the megacities of developing countries (Zhao, 2010). For the last 150 years, transport systems have created a dense urban areas and also experienced rapid changes in response to the demands of society, mainly in terms of advancing technologies that leads to faster and more reliable transport modes. The growing demands then leads to the emergence of the automobile, which was viewed as the new mode that was not only fast and reliable but also gave those who had one a sense of personal freedom (Sinha, 2003). This new transport mode led to the development of transport infrastructures to support it, the main point of which is building an extensive all-weather road network, resulting in the end in dependency on automobiles. Despite boosting the economy and increasing mobility, this dependency created a lot of problems, according to Schiller, Bruun, & Kenworthy (2010): â&#x20AC;˘

Environmental problems: The personal freedom the automobile offered increased consumption of fossil fuels, and the combustion of the fuels increase greenhouse gas emissions. The extensive road network creates a phenomenon called urban sprawl, which uncontrollably expands the urban area and changes rural life to be more like urban life. The other effects impacted areas close to the road

network, such as noise, visual intrusions, and physical danger. •

Economic problems: It comes with high urban infrastructure costs due to the extensive network. Urban sprawl also results in the loss of productive rural land to urban development. The increasing traffic created by the automobile lifestyle will also multiply the risk of accidents, pollution, and obesity.

•

Social problems: Road network development and urban sprawl that created low dense housing will result in the loss of the sense of community, anti-social behaviour, and physical and mental health problems. It also will emphasise the importance of automobile ownership for households with all levels of income.

Sustainable transport, according to Schiller, Bruun, & Kenworthy (2010), did not much have some difference on the idea of the sustainability itself, which promotes better access to meet needs but reduces its impact. But sustainability more emphasises reducing the impact of current mobility practices by optimising mobility (making important resources closer and more accessible) and minimising resource inputs, waste outputs, and effects on the environment (lowering traffic flow to cut greenhouse gas emissions). It also aims to improve the fitness of society by encouraging use of non-motorised transport. This concept is clearly a shift in the paradigm of traditional planning, a shift in how we perceive the way the transport system is conceived, planned, financed, and implemented. These problems were integrated into the goals of transport sustainability. According to Litman (2016), sustainable transport goals are addressed in four objectives. •

Economic: Economic productivity needs to be improved by creating policies that encourage local, community-scale economic potential. Another concern is that the transport provider must carefully manage available resources, spending them well and utilising them efficiently.

•

Social: This part relates to public welfare in contrast with the impact of the transport system, which influences community improvement by promoting transport equity, which then will promote security, heritage preservation, and the well-being/healthiness of the local community.

•

Environmental: Environmental intervention for sustainable transport should emphasise how to preserve the existing environment for the benefit of the users and how to make the local environment more sustainable through interventions such as biodiversity and open space preservation, pollution prevention, and, more generally, global warming mitigation.

•

Governmental: Regulations to achieve sustainability goals need comprehensive, integrated, and inclusive planning by the government bodies involved in the process. Affordability and efficient utilisation of resources must be realised through efficient pricing.

Although Litman’s and Schiller’s perspectives differ in some respects (for example, Litman includes health and well-being as a social aspect, but Schiller include them in economic category), the content of their propositions is very similar. Looking at the problem and setting goals for sustainable transportation will show how to achieve it by pinpointing indicators in the existing systems to determine what can be improved, what should be altered, and what type of policy should be enforced. The following criteria reflect on sustainability for transport system. •

Transport diversity—Users can choose various modes, locations, and pricing options.

•

Accessibility—How a planned dense area ensure all user to optimise the available infrastructure

•

Affordability—Access to transport by households of all income ranges.

•

Support for the economy—How the policies will improve the community’s existing economy.

•

Land use optimisation—How the government does (or does not) support a high-density, mixed, and multimodal area.

•

Emissions reduction—Efforts to reduce environmental impact by looking at total motor vehicle travel, vehicles’ fuel efficiency, and alternative fuels.

•

Integration—Integrated transport system components and integrated planning by the government.

2.2. Equity and inequity in transport planning policies The emergence of the idea of equitable transport is rather similar to the development of sustainable transport ideas. The equity issues of transport are indicated by the strong need for transit, especially from “vulnerable groups” that depend on public transport (Welch, 2013). The inequality in transport system mainly grew from the impact of cheap and abundant fuel, which results in motorisation of society (Mercier, 2009). Growing motorisation results in the demand for infrastructure that supports this particular transport mode. Several researchers have investigated the impacts of transport inequality in developing countries for low-income groups: •

•

Encouragement of suburban housing development, which is inaccessible by public transport and fosters residential segregation, and also the reduction in social interaction, sense of belonging, and public space usage (Vasconcellos, 2001; Mercier, 2009). Displacement due to the development of major highways through low-income neighbourhoods because of affordable land prices. This results in community breakdown, declining property values, and environmental injustice due to debris and sound pollution (Sanchez,

• •

•

Stolz, & Ma, 2004). Health problems from pollution (Vasconcellos, 2001) and traffic accidents. This also is worsened by limited access to health care for low-income groups in developing countries (Nantulya & Reich, 2003). Gentrification due to the transport investment such as rail network extension that builds stations in low-income neighbourhood. Although this is a physical improvement, the strategic locations will draw investors in and increase property values. The increase of value will create unaffordable living costs, which affects low-income group and results in the tendency to move from the gentrified area (Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2004). Inequity in accessing space and appropriation of space. For example, the issue of spatial mismatch (Vasconcellos, 2001; Welch, 2013) relates to the mismatch between housing and job locations. Cost inequity, in which lower income groups expend much higher shares of their income than higher income group (Vasconcellos, 2001). This happens due to sprawling development that viewed public transit as an unfeasible option, which will increase auto dependency (Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2004). Social exclusion in the transport context, formed by lack of transport supply or transport provision, results in lack of accessibility and mobility to opportunities (Ricciardi, Xia, & Currie, 2015; Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2004).

Litman (2015) explains that transport equity refers to the distribution of impacts and whether that distribution is considered fair and appropriate. The impact here is how transport quality affects people’s socioeconomic opportunities, how it affects location and types of development, accessibility, land values, and the local economy, how it directs external costs, and how it maintains expenditures from actors and users. Transport equity, based on the resulting impact, is divided into horizontal equity and vertical equity (Litman, 2015; Welch & Mishra, 2013). Horizontal equity concerns the level of equality for all income and ability individuals and groups, meaning that all individuals and groups should receive an equal share of resources, bear equal costs, and be treated the same, without favouring certain groups (Litman, 2015). Vertical equity concerns equity on two sides: social/income class and ability. Equity based on social/ income class should be implemented into policies that favour socially and economically disadvantaged groups, supporting affordable modes, offer discounts for these groups, and ensure that these groups will be burdened by excessive external costs. Equity based on mobility needs concerns how policies for transport meet the needs of people with mobility impairments. This could be applied in universal design for transport that accommodates all kinds of mobility groups. Improvement of transit infrastructure will significantly increase access to opportunities, notably to low-wage jobs, which favour low to middleincome groups and vulnerable groups (Fan, Guthrie, & Levinson, 2012). Furthermore, the objectives of implementing equity in the transport system are to enable access to social and economic opportunity by providing equitable access to all places (Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2004).

Although there are various methods to measure equity in transport, none is generally accepted for a particular equity framework (Litman, 2015; Welch & Mishra, 2013). For example, Kaplan (2014) measures the assessment of equity based on location and potential accessibility and compares it with the calculations on Gini coefficients. Equity on the transport for Surabaya will use the indicators that Litman identified. Sets of indicators here are not the standardised framework, so it can be expanded, elaborated upon, and disaggregated to meet the desired requirements (Litman, 2015, p. 12). Although the sets of indicators are already written, the indicators of transport equity need to include the indicator of community involvement to respect existing conditions and preserve community (specifically for low-income neighbourhoods). This indicator will be inserted in the existing set as part of vertical equity. Table 2.1. Horizontal equity and vertical equity. Source: Litman (2015)

Horizontal equity Equal regulations for all users Equal impact for overall expenditures Service quality for different groups and locations Modes receive public support in proportion to their use Users bear all travel costs they use (except for those eligible for subsidies)

Vertical equity Lower pay and larger benefits for lower income households Policies that support more accessible, multimodal communities Services and facilities that accommodate special needs (universal design) Special mobility service for mobility-impaired groups Well-planned systems and adequate support for affordable transport modes (walking, cycling, transit, etc.) Tariffs based on income and economic needs Provision of affordable housing in accessible, multi-modal locations Adequate access for basic activities (medical services, schools, employment opportunities, etc.) Prioritising travel for higher-valued travel Community involvement

2.3. (Traditional) Transit Oriented Development The early TOD concept was development-oriented transit, which differs from transit-oriented development because the developers of this early stage of transport networks were mostly private developers who tended to build stations to generate growth in the surrounding neighbourhoods that they had previously developed. The difference is that this early type of development was only interpreted as the provision of transit hubs without further reflection or thought for the future urban fabric, such as the consideration of site design and station access (Dittmar, Belzer, & Autler, 2004). But this transit adjacent development can be simply turned into TOD by redevelopment action (Renne, 2009). This conception of the new development, if contrasted with a transit adjacent approach, is straightforwardly designated as the densification of mixed-used development around transit stations (Cervero, 2016), which will increase accessibility, facilitate transport choice, cut travelling distance, revitalise urban districts, and encourage community development. To plan a TOD project, the developers (public or private sector) are required to follow the framework, which is a set of strategic principles. Although these principles have only been applied in Australia (Newman, 2016), this model can be applied anywhere. •

Development of the “centre” Car dependency leads to the decline of the urban centre. To develop a TOD area, this effect must be reversed by creating a “centre” that will provide services and amenities. This will encourage activity that will be centralised, generate lower transport energy emissions, and also reduce the pressure on suburban areas fostered by car dependency.

•

Linking centres with rapid transit base To ensure minimisation of automobile usage, planned centres need to be connected with fast and reliable rapid transit—in this case, almost invariably, rail-based transport. Rapid transit reduces the external costs of car dependency, saving time, city space, and long-term investment.

•

Statutory planning process To ensure the continuity of density and mixed usage of the centre, a specialised development agency is needed because this is not a short-time project and it requires continuity to reach and maintain sustainability. Creation of the agency is necessary because TOD cannot be left to local politics, which may not be able to sustain the density and mix in the central area. Also, regional government must be involved in planning the spatial context.

•

Public-private funding In developing centre of TOD, public sectors must collaborate with private sectors to support the transport network that links the centres, for example, through land development financing by private sectors and infrastructure development by public sectors.

These variables will function to determine the success of a TOD plan (Niles & Nelson, 1999). • • • • • • • •

Ensuring auto accessibility in the area and attracting activity on the outside of TOD by encouraging investment in transit Existence of public transport to stimulate concentrated development Encourages walking, discourages driving, and connects to the neighbourhood centre through street design Parking areas around the station to encourage transit activity and provide facilities for automobile from outside the TOD area Housing and employment density close to the station to generate accessibility Inducing walking trips through commercial mixed area development around the station Giving attention to existing communities in the planned TOD area Adequate government policies to activate the TOD area by providing basic public amenities and encouraging private developers with incentives

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit is one of the example of TOD implementation to encourage the non-automobile transport through enhancement of multi modal access and generating mixed-use development around the station (BART Board, 2005). This policy then complemented in 2016 by inserting community and affordability values (BART Board, 2016). Sets of TOD principles for BART have been implemented in their projects and to encourage densification and generating accessibilities. Figure 2.1 informs the density of Bay Area and how it served by rail-based transport that ensure the connection from urban fringe to the downtown of San Francisco. Example stations show connection of stations with residential complex in Richmond and shopping centre at Fruitvale station (Fig. 2.2).

Figure 2.1. BART system map (left), and overlapped on density map to show the served neighbourhood based on density level. Source: Left: derfotohof.net/transit/ maps/BartsMap.jpg; Right: United States Geological Survey (2000), modified by author.

Figure 2.2. Richmond transit station (left) that serves on residential area and Fruitvale station (right) that adjacent to shopping centre. Source: BART Board (2016)

3. Traditional TOD and Equitable TOD: A conceptual model TOD has three main objectives: density (densify the designated TOD area), diversity (maximised and diverse land use), and design (non-motorisedfriendly neighbourhood with physical approach) (Cervero & Kockelman, 1997). These objectives coincide with the goals of sustainability, which promotes transport diversity, accessibility, economic support, neighbourhood densification, planning integration, and environmental impacts reduction (Litman, 2016). But this “traditional” model of TOD mostly relates to the land values of its area (Atkinson-Palombo, 2010; Bajic, 1983), and building transit hubs in certain area leads to increased housing prices and higher property values (Atkinson-Palombo, 2010; Baum-snow & Kahn, 2005), which have the potential to encourage gentrification in the area (Jones & Ley, 2016; Wander, 2008). Gentrification results in the displacement of people from their neighbourhood. Departing from this, balancing income class groups and acknowledging lower-income groups will be the primary challenge for the TOD itself. Wander (2008) identified factors that impede the implementation of the TOD in the United States, such as: • • • • •

poor pedestrian access and parking lot expansion; municipal zoning that is unfriendly to TOD; high risks and costs due to auto-oriented development; local community concerns; and fear of conflicting users and agents.

TOD, in accordance with Calthrope in Wander (2008), has to focus on social and economic equity. It has to empower local residents and encourage community participation to directly benefit local residents and minimise the side effects of gentrification. Public or community involvement in TOD planning is essential and should reflect the community’s needs and values (Feigon, Hoyt, & Ohland, 2004; Leach, 2004; Litman, 2015). Some implementations of TOD projects in the United States show the importance of community to the future of the project. Creation of mixused city centres in Atlanta that ignored public involvement included an enormous budget for parking provision, stand-alone TOD edifice, and no affordable housing development has resulted in a building with a “woeful lack of connectivity”, relatively isolated from its surroundings and hostile to non-motorised transport access (Feigon, Hoyt, & Ohland, 2004). Meanwhile, the education and involvement of the community in TOD corridor project in Arlington has assured the future development of this corridor with the community’s support (Leach, 2004).

The contribution of community in project planning is the most variable and sometimes volatile. This is why other actors that have more significant influence tend to avoid involving the community or will not invite them to the table until later (Belzer, Autler, Espinosa, Feigon, & Ohland, 2004). Involvement of community can help developers and designers understand what will work best in integrating the corridor into the existing community. The community also should take on the role of how this project, aside from generating profits and ridership, will deliver the benefits to the community. To diminish the weaknesses of traditional TOD, objectives need to be added for equity, which will emphasise disadvantaged groups and ensure regulation will prevent TOD’s undesirable outcomes. Traditional TOD objectives need to observe the paradigm of equity (Litman, 2015) as a transport policy that emphasises: • • • •

favouring economically and socially disadvantaged societies; supporting affordable mode improvement; ensuring external costs will not burden disadvantaged groups; and accommodating all users.

Table 3.1 shows the indicators for transport sustainability and equity and key factors of TOD (the table is not horizontally connected).

Table 3.1. Indicators for transport sustainability and equity and key factors for TOD

Transport sustainability TOD as the main tools as the main goal and entry (Niles & Nelson, 1999) point (Litman, 2016) Transport diversity Ensuring auto accessibility in the area and attracting activity from outside of TOD by transit encouragement through investment Accessibility Existence of public transport to stimulate concentrated development Affordability Encourages walking, discourages driving, and connects to the neighbourhood centre through street design Support for the economy Parking areas around the station encourage transit activity and provide facilities for automobiles from outside the TOD area

Equity as the addition to the traditional approach of TOD (Litman, 2015) Equal regulations for all users

Equal impact for overall expenditures Service quality for different groups and locations Modes receive public support in proportion to their use

Transport sustainability TOD as the main tools as the main goal and entry (Niles & Nelson, 1999) point (Litman, 2016) Densification Housing and employment density close to the station to generate accessibility Environmental impacts Induces walking trips reduction through commercially mixed development around the station Planning integration Paying attention to the existing communities in the planned TOD area Adequate government policies to activate the TOD area by providing basic public amenities and encouraging private developers with incentives

Equity as the addition to the traditional approach of TOD (Litman, 2015) Users bears all travel costs they use (except those who are eligible for subsidies) Lower pay and larger benefits for lower income households Policies that support more accessible, multi-modal communities Services and facilities that accommodate special needs (universal design) Special mobility service for mobility-impaired groups Well-planned systems and adequate support for affordable transport modes (walking, cycling, transit, etc.) Tariff based on income and economic needs Provision of affordable housing in accessible, multi-modal locations Adequate access for basic activities (medical services, schools, employment opportunities, etc.) Prioritising travel for highervalued travel Community involvement

Transport sustainability will be merged into TOD key factors: sustainability as the perspective, entry point, and goal. TOD is one way to reach the goals for sustainability in transport. This merger is compared and contrasted with indicators of equity to show what elements commonly existed or did not existed (Fig. 3.1). Through this method, equitable TOD criteria can be conceived.

Indicators for equity TOD key factors Ensuring auto accessibility in the area and attracting activity from outside the TOD by encouraging transit through investment Existence of public transport to stimulate concentrated development Encourages walking, discourages driving, and connects to the neighbourhood centre through street design Parking area established around the station to encourage transit activity and provide facilities for automobiles from outside the TOD area Housing and employment density close to the station to generate accessibility Inducing walking trips through commercially mixed development around the station Paying attention to existing communities in the planned TOD area Adequate government policies to activate the TOD area by providing basic public amenities and encouraging private developers with incentives

Equal regulations for all users Equal impact for overall expenditures Service quality for different groups and locations Modes receive public support in proportion to their use Users bears all travel costs they use (except for those who are eligible for subsidies) Lower pay and larger benefits for lower income households Policies that support more accessible, multi-modal communities Services and facilities that accommodate special needs (universal design) Special mobility service for mobility-impaired groups Well-planned system and adequate support for affordable transport modes (walking, cycling, transit, etc.) Tariff based on income and economic needs Provision of affordable housing in accessible, multi-modal locations Adequate access for basic activities (medical services, schools, employment opportunities, etc.) Prioritising travel for higher-valued travel

Figure 3.1. Merging of TOD key factors and equity indicators

The comparison of indicators and key factors shows that both sides recommend physical (design) and governmental (policies) solution to resolve the issues of inequality and sustainability. But there is a factor in TOD that is not reflected in equity indicators, which is perceiving preTOD zoning, which considers how planner treats the existing community in this changing land use. According to Niels and Nelson (1999), people tend to oppose change, especially if the change increases vehicle traffic. The equity indicator shows that key factors in TOD did not consider affordability based on certain groups’ backgrounds. TOD also did not give more detailed information about service provision for disadvantaged groups, although in general, issues such as accessibility to basic facilities, amenities, and public services are evident. By integrating these two sides of TOD and equity, the goals of sustainable transport through TOD can be reached with an equity perspective. This new set of indicators are the equitable TOD indicators. • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Develop transit development through investment that takes into account creating accessible transport Stimulate concentrated development through well-planned, adequate, and affordable transport modes Design TOD area, services, and facilities to encourage walking, discourage driving, and connect neighbourhoods Ensure auto accessibility inside the TOD area and provide automobile services and facilities for people living outside the area TOD area should provide the neighbourhood with accessible public amenities and public services. Housing in TOD area should be income-mixed to ensure accessibility and affordability for all income groups. Proposal for future TOD development: In situ development for existing communities impacted by TOD development and involving the community by co-planning and co-designing Commercial area in TOD should be mixed to meet the needs of the neighbourhood and should be affordable so lower income people will not feel neglected and pushed out of the area. Policies and regulations of designing and managing TOD must be equal for all users and different groups. Protect vulnerable groups (economically and socially disadvantaged) by relaxing policies, increasing accessibility, and subsidising expenditure Services and facilities of TOD area should accommodate all the different groups (especially special needs and mobility-impaired groups). Private developers have to take into account all levels of groups in TOD area to minimise the impact of gentrification and keep services and facilities affordable. Policies on transport management should prioritise affordable transport.

4. Methodology

Using secondary data, this dissertation employs quantitative and qualitative analysis. Quantitative analysis will be used to support the argument for the importance of Surabaya, viewed through the lens of transport and sustainability. Qualitative analysis consists of literature on sustainability, equity, and TOD. Transport planning for Surabaya will also gathered from qualitative data through spatial analysis, discourse analysis, content analysis, and policy documents. Table 4.1 describes the methods to be used.

Table 4.1. Evidence collection classification

Evidence used Planning guidelines

•

TOD corridor development

• • •

Existing spatial conditions

•

Literature

• •

•

Information types Policy on transport planning and infrastructure provision Map of future land use Objectives for TOD development Details of the plan and provisions of the project Transport provision’s recent condition Map of recent land use Theoretical approaches to sustainability, equity, and (traditional) TOD to form the framework for Equitable TOD Another source for transport planning in Surabaya

Source Local Regulations on Urban Land Use Plan (Year 2003, 2007, and 2014) Surabaya Urban Corridor Development Programme, June 2014 report Google Maps, existing urban land use See bibliography

The literature review of sustainability and equity will inform the existing implementations of TOD in urban areas. This will result in an equitable TOD concept that will be useful in developing countries. This equitable TOD model will be created based on the understanding of the goals for TOD, which will create a sustainable neighbourhood with less private motorised transport ridership and orientation of mobility to public transport provision and adding the value of equity to the traditional TOD plan, due to concerns about the outcome for the TOD implementation, which excludes local knowledge and participation (Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2004).

The framework that integrates equity and TOD into transport planning for Surabaya will identify what planning policies need to be adjusted. This suggestion, which will come as policy recommendations, will generate TOD planning in Surabaya that promotes equity and ensures sustainability mobility in the city (Fig. 4.1).

Indicators for Sustainability and Equity

Proposing conceptual model of Equitable TOD

Literature review on TOD

Indicators of TOD

Literature review on sustainability and equity

TOD as one way towards sustainability in transport

Indicators for Equitable TOD

Surabaya transport planning Keys:

Analysis by interrogating

Policy recommendations

Basic knowledge Result of the phase Process Figure 4.1. Flow of phases in this dissertation

5. Transport network stepping towards demotorisation: the case of Surabaya, Indonesia 5.1. Transport conditions in Surabaya The recent urban form of Surabaya is the result of the shift of transport policy since around the 1970s. At that time, tramway transport was viewed as out of date, since the system never got any major refurbishment and was still using the early-century fleet (Dick, 2002), so it was abolished and replaced by city buses. Road improvements and rapid motorisation helped form new neighbourhoods and low-density housing further from the city centre. This results in difficulties of access to the existing transit network. Inaccessibility resulted in a new variety of transit system: paratransit, which ranged from non-motorised transport (becak or rickshaws) to motorised transport (three-wheeled bemo, then replaced by four-wheeled mikrolet (Fig. 5.1)) (Cervero, 1991). From the 1980s to the 1990s, toll roads were developed and intercity highway improved, connecting cities through new and more durable roads. This also was encouraged by the introduction of cheap automobiles and a growing middle-class society, which leads to the rapid increase in automobile ownership. Paratransit can reach narrow neighbourhoods due to its size (Fig. 5.1) and is an efficient road user, because it only contributes 18% of traffic flow but can accommodate 50% of passenger trips. But due to its motive for profit, paratransit caused congestion and provided low performance and facilities, which made them an affordable travel choice (Cervero, 1991; Joewono & Kubota, 2007). There is no single measurement of how much the people in the city earn and spend on average. According to provincial statistics, people in Surabaya spend IDR 1,822,474 (GBP 106.69)[1] per month and earn IDR 2,197,000 (GBP 128.62) for all labour sectors (Central Bureau of Statistics of East Java Province, 2016), although the regional government has established the regional minimum wage of IDR 3,296,212.50 (GBP 192.97) for Surabaya (Governor of East Java, 2016). Monthly spending on transport in Surabaya is obscured by other sectors and merged into two main sectors: housing and household facilities (including monthly fuel consumption for private vehicles) and goods and services (including spending on public transport), so this may be unmeasurable. The existing public transport mode of buses and angkots is considered affordable, with pricing at IDR 2.200-4.000 for buses (GBP 0.13-0.23) and IDR 3.200 for angkot (GBP 0.19) (Mayor of Surabaya, 2013) Roads in Surabaya are dominated by motorcycles (77.9%), followed by four-wheeled cars (16.4%) and heavy transport and buses (5.6% and 0.1% respectively). The total number of passengers who rode buses and angkots in Surabaya is measured only when they reach one of four operating bus All exchange rate in this dissertation based on 24 August 2017 rate, where GBP 1 equals IDR 17,081.76.

[1]

terminals in the city (angkots are only counted at three terminals) (see Fig. 1.1). A census conducted by the municipal statistics bureau from 2012 to 2014 showed a decrease at three terminals of about 22.5%, while the other terminal rose about 26% (Central Bureau of Statistics of Surabaya City, 2016). Surabayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic centres are mainly in the central part of the city, reaching from the north, close to the harbour, to the south, close to the neighbouring town of Sidoarjo. This area consists of the main roads that serves as both inner city and intercity roads, so the role of commercial concerns is strong in this region (see Fig. 1.1). The eastern and western parts of the city are occupied by housing, with suburban areas created mostly by private developers. Rapid suburban development also pushed development towards neighbouring towns, creating rapid urbanisation. The growing traffic issues in the city were only addressed by improving the existing network (quality improvement of the road and road widening) and building new road networks to ease traffic, although this step is viewed only as a temporary solution. The new roads also create a new problem: there are not many travel modes available, so access to the city is limited only to people who own auto-based transport such as cars or motorcycles. Despite the urban fringe development, some land in the city centre still functions as residential and is filled with low density and mixed income housing, referred to as kampung. Organic formation of kampungs in Surabaya mainly results from the rural-urban migration that occupied the empty land on the urban fringe that was poorly suited to residential settlement (Silas, 1992). As the city expanded, established kampungs are now located in the city centre, providing affordable housing in this strategic location. Through the Kampung Improvement Programme in the 1970s, kampungs in the city were provided with good basic infrastructure (Silas, 1992). Affordable housing in the city centre mostly consists of existing kampungs that have been occupied since the colonial era. Some kampungs in the city centres are adjacent to the planned TOD corridor (Fig. 5.2). Figure 5.1. Two main public

transport in Surabaya: city bus as formal transport (left); and angkot as informal transport (right). Source: Left: kabar7news.blogspot. co.uk/2013/07/kenaikan-tarifangkutan-surabaya-resmi.html; Right: zetizen.com/show/1951/survivenaik-bemo-keliling-surabaya

Figure 5.2. Kampungs adjacent to TOD corridor. Source: Maps: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Labs (2014); Fig. 1: enciety.co/ubah-wajahkampoeng-lawas-maspati-jadi-sentrabisnis/; Fig. 2: travel.kompas.com/ read/2015/08/20/121700327/ Bung.Karno.Lahir.Di.Sini?page=all; Fig. 3: musrenbang.surabaya.go.id; Fig 4 and 5: Google Street View

5.2. Transport planning for Surabaya Transport planning for Surabaya started with the Master Plan for 2000 that was conceived in 1978 and later updated into Master Plan for 2005 in 1992. This plan divides Surabaya based on land use, but mostly try to depict the strategic land use for the city such as central city definition, industrial zones, and green belts (Dick, 2002). Trying to ease traffic issues, the government started to create a new plan for the city. Designing a sustainable transport system has been identified as the guide towards sustainable development, and the planned sustainable transport infrastructure such as rail-based public transport will serve as the supporting element for the national road network (Surabaya City Government, 2007). Under the Surabaya Land Use Plan 2014-2034, the city centre will be transformed into a business and trading region, supported by residential areas on its fringe and business corridors on the main streets. Transport planning implementation describes the plan for transport infrastructure provision. The map for land use plan also incorporates the ring road transport plan (Fig. 5.4). In 2014, the city government set up a study to develop new transport modes. This plan includes revitalisation of the old tram network and development of monorail. The plan will create the urban corridor focused on recreating the tram network and the monorail with TOD approach, which will conserve heritage regions, improve pedestrian connections, strengthen the green image of the city, and enhance public spaces. This study later conceived the Surabaya Urban Corridor Development Programme (SUCDP). The section of the city centre that stretches from the heritage old city in the north to the river in the south will be designated a TOD area. The concept of this transit-oriented development also introduces pedestrianoriented development (POD), which is the expansion of certain values from the TOD that emphasise the urgency of development favouring pedestrian and human scale. POD relates to public space design and presentation and provision of universal design facilities alongside the transport corridor. This intensification of development in the area will increase the possibility of a driverless and walkable region, and the TOD approach will increase investment for future development and, in the long term, will minimise public expenditures (Hansen Partnership & SUTD City Form Lab, 2014). The conception of SUCDP will concentrate on eight directions and guidelines for each direction. •

Improving corridor legibility to identify certain places in broader spatial structure (urban scale) • Initiating local area urban design of highly interconnected intersections and prioritise intersections to be pedestrian-friendly by designing orientation nodes and public spaces • Upgrading pedestrian pathways leading to stations along the corridor (mainly in kampungs) • Improving existing landmarks as the navigation assistants and generate visual cues of the specified areas • Emphasising corridor façades and well-known zones such as heritage area, etc.

•

Respect heritage fabric to improve Surabaya’s heritage assets • Establishing heritage trails in the historic district • Preserving the existence of heritage edifices through adjustments to newer buildings • Natural shading for walking through trails • Establishing a pathway in kampungs as the heritage trail

•

Integration of kampungs to designate safe and attractive walking routes linking kampungs • Creating pedestrian-oriented access linking kampungs • Improving kampung neighbourhoods by incremental growth and development within the kampung through in situ affordable housing designation • Connecting kampungs with adjacent high-rise buildings through spatial intervention • Creating feeder networks from kampungs to TOD corridor • Small local economy centres in each kampung

•

Riverfront development to improve connections between transit corridor and the Kalimas River as the landmark of the city • Riverside development that encourages pedestrian activity through pathways and attractive and safe high-amenity public spaces • Suggestions for river-based transit mode • Development of river crossings to improve accessibility • Enhancing water quality

•

Green axes to strengthen the city’s green image • Ensuring public open spaces are accessible, safe, and equitable • Developing public green spaces along the corridor, river, and important nodes • Devising opportunities for pocket parks

•

Densification along the transit routes to maximise transit corridor usage • Incentivise high density and mixed use development along the transit corridor • Attract private sector investments through regulations to build along the transit corridor to generate income • Park and ride as a mixed-use structure, mainly for lower income groups

•

Defining the CBD to establish the CBD area in the city • Assessing and planning for future development and expansion of CBD • Maintaining the existence of kampungs behind the CBD high rises to keep the diversity of the corridor • Developing mixed use area in the CBD

•

Improve intermodal links to create practical connections between modes • Developing pedestrian links between the different transit modes • Improving intermodal connections through the latest technology

The transport of this urban corridor will prioritise on revitalising the tramway network through the centre of the city. This is because of the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concern to include the existing middle-low income neighbourhood, revitalise the connection of the city to the river, and boost investment to develop the transport hub proximity area. The tram, according to the report, will be mostly used by middle-low income families who live in the neighbourhood around the hub. About 263.000 middlelow income residents live in the catchment of TOD area (Fig. 5.5 and 5.6). They have access to limited modes and mostly depend on walking or other non-motorised transport for travelling. This line will improve their accessibility and travel choices (Hansen Partnership & SUTD City Form Lab, 2014).

Figure 5.3. Recent general land use map for Surabaya. Source: Office of Public Works, Human Settlements, and Spatial Planning of Surabaya City (2017)

Figure 5.4. Land use plan for 2034. Source: Surabaya City Government (2014)

Figure 5.5. Catchment area alongside the tramway corridor, overlapped by the density map of the city. Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Labs (2014), Surabaya City Government (2007).

Figure 5.6. 800 metre catchment area (10 minute walk) to the station, overlapped with existing land use. Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Labs (2014), Office of Public Works, Human Settlements, and Spatial Planning of Surabaya City (2017)

6. Interrogating and analysing TOD

This section will examine whether Surabaya and its transport planning are fit for sustainable development, according to their compatibility with the Equitable TOD principles. Each principle will be broken down into indicators to reflect on the planning documents. Table 6.1. Breakdown of Equitable TOD indicators

Equitable TOD principles

Transit encouragement through investment should take into account creating accessible transport.

Stimulating concentrated development through well-planned, adequate, and affordable transport modes

Design of TOD area, services, and facilities should encourage walking, discourage driving, and connect neighbourhoods.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

TOD area should ensure self-accessibility inside the area and provide automobile services and facilities for people living outside the area.

TOD area should provide the neighbourhood with accessible public amenities and public services.

• • • • • •

Indicators Provision of public transport Provision of accessible infrastructure Easy access to the station Universal design for transport infrastructure Enabling public-private partnerships Pro-dense development regulation Well-planned transport mode Accessible multimodal area to support auto mobility Affordable tickets for all public transport modes in TOD area Some roads are designed to be car-free Provision of vegetation for shading Easy access for walking (pedestrian infrastructure provision) Speed limitations on the main corridor of TOD Park and ride scheme for people from outside the TOD area Connectivity of mobility network on the peripheries of TOD area Easy access of non-motorised transport mode inside the TOD area through specified lanes besides pedestrian ways Easy access from/to stations Grid pattern block to gain accessibility Easier access for the community from the neighbourhood to the TOD area Open space in the TOD area

No 6 7

8 9 10

Equitable TOD principles Housing in TOD area should be incomemixed to ensure accessibility and affordability for all income groups. In situ development for existing communities impacted by TOD development and involving the community by co-planning and co-designing Commercial area in TOD should be mixed to fulfil the needs of the neighbourhood and should be affordable. Policies and regulations of designing and managing TOD must be equal for all users and different groups. Protects vulnerable group (economically and socially disadvantaged) by relaxing policies, increasing accessibility, and subsidised expenditure. Service and facilities of TOD area should accommodate all the different groups (especially special needs and mobilityimpaired groups).

• •

Indicators Affordable housing provision Mixed-use development

• •

Participatory mapping Designation of infrastructure involves local elements and knowledge.

• •

Affordable commercial area Accessible commercial area from the neighbourhoods

• •

Universal design of mobility infrastructure Discounts for special groups: low income, socially and physically disadvantaged Affordable cost of travelling by public transport

• •

Private developers have to take into • account all levels of groups in TOD area to minimise the impact of gentrification and • keep services and facilities affordable. • • Policies on transport management should • prioritise affordable transport. •

Universal design of mobility infrastructure

Provision of lower-income housing in the important part of TOD area Discounts for lower-income residents Affordable commercial area Prioritising affordable transport Efforts to minimise private motorised transport Further extension of planned mode

These indicators (similar indicators will be merged) will be confronted in the transport planning for Surabaya. The transport planning will mainly focus on SUCDP as the planning for TOD corridor. There are also supporting documents to back the main planning document.

Provision of vegetation as shading for pedestrians Pedestrian infrastructure provision Speed limitation scheme on the TOD corridor

Park and ride scheme for people outside the TOD area Connectivity of mobility network on the peripheries of TOD area Easy access of non-motorised transport mode inside the TOD area through specified way (for example, cycling paths) Grid pattern block to gain accessibility

Easier access for the community from the neighbourhood to the TOD area

Accessible multimodal area to support auto mobility Some roads are designed to be car-free.

Universal design for transport infrastructure Enabling public-private partnerships Favours dense development

Indicators

Yes

Shown on SUCD plan Note

Improvement of access and façade. Kampungs will also taking role as “feeder” to TOD corridor

Most of pedestrian way on the road corridors designated for TOD are already in proper condition The regular speed limit for the inner city road is 50 kilometre per hour (Minister of Transport, 2015), but by the sharing space on some roads this will decrease the speed of the vehicle passing the dedicated area Government is preparing some commercial centres to take role as park and ride facilities (Fig. 6.2) Main roads connecting to the TOD corridor are mostly in good condition, but some road did not have proper mobility infrastructure This comes in the development of pedestrian way, pedestrian bridge, open space, and sharing space for all modes of transport. But specialised way such as cycling lane is not stated in this document, although there are already some “suggested” line in the CBD area (Fig 6.3). There are no specific plans to change existing organic road pattern. Some grid pattern road in Surabaya is already existed since its development by urban planners in colonial era

TOD will also supported by open and green space and riverside development

Some improved pedestrian way are still inaccessible, mainly for the physically disadvantaged people By the development of high density area and walkable space, this will draw the private partnership to develop the area Urban corridor development plan intents to create a medium to high density development along the corridor (Fig. 6.1) But on designated TOD area at the moment bus and paratransit are available to serve. But in site examples that located in major nodes such as heritage and culture, business, and transport integration area will be provided by sharing space between pedestrian and motorised mode.

Table 6.2. Interrogation on Equitable TOD indicators towards transport planning in Surabaya

Open space provision in the TOD area Mixed-use development planning Participatory mapping and design

Designation of infrastructure involves local element and knowledge. Affordable commercial area in the designated TOD area Accessible commercial area from the neighbourhoods Discounts for special groups: lower income, socially and physically disadvantaged Affordable cost of travelling by public transport

Provision of lower-income housing in the important part of TOD area Prioritising other modes of affordable transport Efforts to minimise private motorised transport in TOD area Further extension of planned mode

15 16

Indicators

Yes

Shown on SUCD plan

The urban corridor development programme will also promotes BRT and paratransit rejuvenation in the future. By proposing the sharing space and public transport, the usage of private motorised transport will be minimised This LRT network plan raises concern due to its network that serves high income estates on Surabayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban fringe.

But this provision comes as the improvement for kampung that adjacent to the CBD region and TOD-designated corridor.

There are two options of pricing stated in Pradono, Kusumantoro, & Retapradana (2015), which are IDR 10.000 (GBP 0.58) as the normal ticket and IDR 6.000 (GBP 0.35) as the subsidised option. Surveys done by Pradono showed the willingness of using the mode tends to go to subsidised ticket. The survey also show the lower income groups that shows no favour at all on the first option. Meanwhile, another research done by Kartika and Ahyudanari (2016) stated that the ticket price will be IDR 5000 (GBP 0.30) and IDR 6000 (GBP 0.35) for the tram and monorail, respectively.

Not mentioned generally about transport affordability, but the existing public transport mode, buses and paratransit, have lower pricing scheme than the tramway.

Provision of commercial area will only be located inside kampungs that adjacent to the TOD corridors, in the form of neighbourhood market

Although some nodes like junctions will be designed to show the locality, there is no evidence that this project will include local knowledge such as local artist

Open and green spaces will be provided along the main junction to strengthen the locality aspect. Medium to high density will be planned along the MRT network Although some programmes related to the participatory process such as Kampung Improvement Programme, participatory steps is not stated in the document

Note

Figure 6.1. Existing CBD and the expectation of CBD expansion in the future with the development of tramway line. Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Lab (2014). Graphics by author.

Figure 6.2. Provision of park and ride facilities along the line. Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Lab (2014). Graphics by author.

Figure 6.3. Cycling path at the south of CBD area. Source: Self documentation, 2017

Table 4 shows that SUDCP has followed most of the principles used in traditional TOD, but the planning needs to improve the equity variable to ensure sustainability. There are also some policies mentioned in SUDCP that are in accordance with TOD principles but did not include sufficient details (although still in the planning step). The information in Table 4 raises some concerns. •

Low-income housing Provision for the low-income housing still depends on kampungs along the corridor. Although this may seem help improve the lowmiddle income neighbourhood, it does not make the kampung as a “real part” of the holistic system of TOD. Kampungs in the area that connected with skyscrapers via open spaces may face gentrification. For example, to create a spatial intervention between the skyscrapers and the low-income neighbourhood, the kampung’s façade will be adjusted, and its functions will be adjusted as well, from residential to commercial, and with that comes gentrification. The plan also forecasts future CBD expansion through the transit mode (Fig. 6.5). This picture may overlap the policy to preserve the locality in Surabaya, which reflected in the kampung. The existing kampung’s physical appearance will be improved by selecting potential blocks for densification and consolidation. Raw imagery of the end result of improvement reflects similarity to Row Housing project in Jakarta, which physically transform the neighbourhood from informal to formal, with the provision of amenities such as open space (Setiadi & Rahman, 2016) (Fig. 6.4).

Figure 6.4: Raw imagery of kampung’s improvement to create a detached housing typology (left) share the physical similarity with Row Housing project in Jakarta (right). Source: Left: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Lab (2014); Right: housing-estate.com/ read/2015/03/27/pemerintahgalakkan-revitalisasi-rumah-tidaklayak-huni/

•

Exclusion of local neighbourhood Parties involved in this project are diverse, including municipal agencies, local universities, the World Bank, and international experts. But in the spatial context, this project excludes the community that will be directly impacted by this development. The information of the project brief only went as deep as the district level, not to the community level.

•

Pricing equity issues Tariffs for the mode are unclear, with the findings of two different pricing scheme from two different papers (see table 6.2). The policy of equalising price within this system means that all income groups will have the same burden in terms of quantity, but transport cost will still burden lower income groups more than higher income groups.

•

Private motorised transport diversion TOD designation in Surabaya will shift the burden of private motorised transport network that already existed. This urban corridor, which will use the tram as its main mode, will take up at least one lane on the road. The plan also will develop sharing space for all transport modes. Both will relate to traffic issues. The lane used for this project is Surabaya’s main road, consisting of main business, commercial, and heritage nodes of the city. Connectivity to the TOD area mainly responded through widening roads and park and ride facilities provision. Traffic flow diversion will be distributed into two middle and two outer ring road schemes (see Fig. 5.4). This road development will only divert traffic to the outside the TOD area and generates further urban sprawl, which does not eliminate the traffic issues in general.

•

Future development issues Development of monorail as the advanced stage for mass transit provision also becomes a problem if we view it from the existing land use perspective. Stations that will be served are mostly located on real estates[2] in contrast to the tramway (Fig. 6.6). There is also a plan for improving the bus and paratransit, but no further details are available.

Surabaya Land Use Plan for 2003-2013 described real estate as a developed neighbourhood, mainly built by private or personal developers which its residents are mostly from middle-high income groups (Surabaya City Government, 2003).

[2]

Figure 6.5. Future CBD expansion that will impact kampungs close to the CBD. Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Lab (2014), Google Maps. Graphics by author.

Figure 6.6. Monorail plan network Two focal points that gathered from this analysis are the absence of compared to existing real estate sites in impacted neighbourhood and community in the project and the detailed Surabaya. future planning for this project. First focal points presses on how the Source: Hansen Partnerships & SUTD City Lab (2014), Surabaya City Government (2003), Google Street View. Graphics by author.

government will only try to improve kampungs physically and still preserve the low-density typology instead of building new high-dense affordable housing, knowing that CBD will be expanded along the operational of tramway, and with that also come the demand for new housing. Exclusion of community in some of TOD project may relates to the uncertain future of development, due to the lack of community support (see chapter 3). Other focal point is on how the policy will only move the vehicle volume from the centre to the city’s ring road, which still generates urban sprawling. Development of monorail network that “connect” high income neighbourhood in the east and west part of the city raises concern for the plan itself because the mode will mostly serve the high income and developed area rather than what tramway did. This may raise the issue of equity on public transport choice “segregation”.

7. Policy recommendations

Based on the analysis results in chapter 6, Surabaya needs to improve its transport planning. The SUCDP needs to describe in detail what they will do and, because the city’s development of transport system will be directed into more sustainable ways, the conception of TOD must be implemented from an equity perspective to ensure the sustainability of the system itself. Below are recommendations for the city’s transport planning based on the literature review and conceptual model of Equitable TOD. Recommendations are divided into two parts: improvements and provisions.

7.1. Improvements

The improvements here emphasise on the existing policies and how to improve in the perspective of Equitable TOD. •

Universal design for transport infrastructure (pedestrian ways, etc.) Application of universal design means that transport infrastructure should regard all user groups, especially disadvantaged groups. Existing revitalisation of pedestrian ways must ensure the continuity of less hassle experience. Pedestrian ways should not only established in the TOD designated area, but also in all roads in the city, which will encourage accessibility through walking.

•

Detailed transport mode improvement plan Bus and angkot are expected to be improved after the implementation of tramway network. But this plan requires details about how these modes are going to be improved, such as the fleet, schedule, stopping places, etc. Also, this improvement has to be affordable for all users to ensure accessibility of the city.

•

Cycle network improvement Although in the city centre there are already cycling paths (Fig. 6.3), regular bike users are rarely seen. The cycling lane network in the TOD area must be improved by dedicating the existing shared space to encourage cyclers. Another policy to increase cycling is the bike renting scheme in park and ride facilities.

•

Intersection nodes intervention The plan that stated the potential of intersections can be explored through the provision of the sites, such as densification of mixed-use neighbourhoods, accessible stations, and community involvement in the planning and designing processes.

7.2. Provisions Provision in policy recommendations relates on providing new policies that have not been stated in the existing policies (see chapter 5.2), so the existing public transport policies will be directed to be more equitable. •

Affordable housing and its amenities According to Feigon (2004), affordable housing in TOD planning requires the preservation of existing units and incentives for building new units. In TOD planning in Surabaya, kampungs as existing affordable housing need to be supported with the provision of new affordable neighbourhood complexes consisting of housing and other amenities that are accessible to the transit hub on the corridor. Policies need to be set up in the low-income housing scheme to minimise gentrification, both for the existing kampungs or new affordable housing.

•

Participatory design To ensure the sustainability of the corridor, TOD planning must involve all stakeholders, including the local community that will be affected. Residents of affected kampungs in the planning are already acknowledged and will be provided access to TOD corridor. But the inclusion steps on TOD have to extend beyond acknowledgement and provision. Communities that are affected need to be involved in the planning and designing process to provide feedback. For example, TOD corridor planning in Atlanta, Georgia, in the United States engaged the public in education about TOD and involved them in public meetings and workshops (Leach, 2004).

•

Traffic regulations Not only sharing space, but the planning of TOD requires traffic regulations, mainly speed regulations for private motorised transport, because corridors will be shared with the tramway and non-motorised transport. Streets need to be redesigned to discourage private motorised transport by reducing street parking and creating park and ride schemes by parking spots outside TOD area (Daisa, 2004).

•

Multimodal accessibility on the street Conventional street design needs to be adjusted for TOD. This comes in designating streets to classify their priority, such as designating certain streets to accommodate private motorised and transit vehicles while another street will accommodate non-motorised and transit vehicles only. However, all roads need to accommodate pedestrians (Daisa, 2004). Some improvements on Surabaya’s streets are focusing on pedestrian way infrastructure, mainly in the city centre, so this pedestrian infrastructure improvement needs to be scaled up to the city level rather than only the city centre level.

•

Pricing system The equalisation of the transport fare will burden the lower income more than the higher income groups. The pricing scheme must regards the vulnerable groups. This can result, for example, in the discount scheme for lower income and mobility disadvantaged groups.

•

Future development planning Although a monorail line will operate from the city’s east-west corridor, the larger part of the western part has not been reached by proper transport and heavily relies on angkot as the only reliable public transit. Road development encouraged by ring roads should be accompanied with transit mode provision and densification of development in the area. Affordable housing scheme also must be inserted in the development of monorail. Planned network shows that this line will mostly serve the real estates on the city’s peripheral area, so the provision of affordable housing and existing kampung’s improvement must be considered to reach the equity for the public transport system itself.

8. Conclusions

Surabaya Urban Corridor Development Programme as the project for planned TOD for Surabaya does not incorporate some principles of equity. This requirement for equity, in fact, has been closely related to transport sustainability itself. However, planning for a TOD corridor in Surabaya shows the concerns about Surabayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growing urban area and its transport problems. In reviewing a sustainable transport framework, this TOD plan was in accord with sustainable transport criteria such as transport diversity, accessibility, land use optimisation, and emission reduction. Surabaya also has been trying to move forward on provisions for pedestrians such as walkway improvements, which promote equity by developing a universal design. One lesson that can be learned through this dissertation is that the government has recognised the potential of kampungs in Surabaya. Integrating middle-low income neighbourhoods into business districts opens possibilities for kampungsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; improvement. The government sees the potential by planning better access to TOD corridors and developing local markets to support the local economy. These plans for the kampungs depend on the continuity of government policy. Until that, it is still uncertain whether kampungs will merge into the system and lift up the local economy, or recede into gentrification due to CBD expansion, increasing land values, and shifting identities (see chapter 3). Even though kampungs adjacent to TOD corridors provide diversity of housing types and affordability, these conditions do not seem to be enough. The government still needs to build more affordable housing on the corridor to make sure that all income groups have equal footing. One of the most important issues that seems to be missing in SUCDP is recognising the people in the kampung itself. In chapter three, community participation has been acknowledged as one of the successes of TOD planning and had been discussed in many kinds of literature. Planning that stated on SUCDP shows the provisions are mostly given by the planners, not as a collaborative and participatory design process. Even information on this plan ends at the district level, despite the communities being most impacted by the project, so the government has to involve the impacted kampungs and communities. Reviewing the methodology, literature review has been a major input for this dissertation. However, there are limited information in data sets that are not complementary. This showed the issue on coordinating and integrating plan. But this challenge opens the opportunity of the diverse data source, although there are contrasted planning policies for the same platform. For example, SUCDP fully support the preservation of

kampung neighbourhood yet they expect that dense development will also happen in kampung neighbourhood. A conceptual model of Equitable TOD appears to be confirmed in the plan to pursue sustainability in transport for Surabaya. A TOD plan for Surabaya that will be directed to more sustainability needs contrasting traditional formulation with values of equity. The argument for gentrification as the result of TOD will be in accordance if the approach for the TOD does not apply the value of equity (Sanchez, Stolz, & Ma, 2004). Applying Equitable TOD models in transport planning in Surabaya will help make Surabayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transport network more sustainable and will provide a better framework to facilitate sustainable development through an alternative perspective.

9. Bibliography

Atkinson-Palombo, C. (2010). Comparing the Capitalisation Benefits of Light-rail Transit and Overlay Zoning for Single-family Houses and Condos by Neighbourhood Type in Metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona. Urban Studies, 47(11), 2409–2426. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098009357963 Bajic, V. (1983). The Effects of a New Subway Line on Housing Prices in Metropolitan Toronto. Urban Studies, 20(2), 147–158. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1080/00420988320080291 BART Board. (2005). Transit-Oriented Development Policy: Adopted July 14, 2005. San Francisco, California: BART Board. Retrieved from https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ BART_TOD_Policy.pdf BART Board. (2016). Transit-Oriented Development Policy: Adopted June 9, 2016. San Francisco, California: BART Board. Retrieved from https://www.bart.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/BART%20Board%20 -%20TOD%20Policy%20Draft%206-9-16% 20Adopted%20FINAL_0. pdf BART Real Estate and Property Development Department. (2016). BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Program Overview. San Francisco, California: BART Real Estate and Property Development Department. Retrieved from https:// www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20TOD%20Overview%2012-6-16.pdf Baum-snow, N., & Kahn, M. E. (2005). Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Cities, 1970-2000. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 147–206. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/192572/pdf Belzer, D., Autler, G., Espinosa, J., Feigon, S., & Ohland, G. (2004). The Transit-Oriented Development Drama and Its Actors. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland, The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 41-56). Washington, DC: Island Press. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations Commission, 4(1), 300. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1080/07488008808408783

Button, K. (2009). Transport and Sustainability. In Kitchin, Rob & Thrift, Nigel, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Eds.). Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 435440. Central Bureau of Statistics of East Java Province. (2016). Executive Report: Expediture for Household Consumption of East Java Province, 2016. Surabaya: Central Bureau of Statistics of East Java Province. (In Indonesian) Central Bureau of Statistics of Surabaya City. (2016). Surabaya Municipality in Figures, 2016. Surabaya: Central Bureau of Statistics of Surabaya City.. (In Indonesian) Cervero, R. (1991). Paratransit In Southeast Asia: A Market Response to Poor Roads? Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 3(1), 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;27. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-940X.1991. tb00076.x Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199â&#x20AC;&#x201C;219. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6 Cervero, R. (2016). Public Transport and Sustainable Urbanism: Global Lessons. In C. Curtis, J. L. Renne, & L. Bertolini, Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen (pp. 23-38). New York: Routledge. Curtis, C., Renne, J. L., & Bertolini, L. (2016). Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen. New York: Routledge. Daisa, J. M. (2004). Traffic, Parking, and Transit-Oriented Development. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland, The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 114-129). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Dick, H. W. (2002). Surabaya, City of Work: A Socioeconomic History, 1900-2000. Ohio: Ohio University Press. Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (2004). The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Dittmar, H., & Poticha, S. (2004). Defining Transit-Oriented Development: The New Regional Building Block. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland, The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 19-40). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Dittmar, H., Belzer, D., & Autler, G. (2004). An Introduction to Transit-Oriented Development. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland, The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 1-18). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Fan, Y., Guthrie, A. E., & Levinson, D. M. (2012). Impact of light rail implementation on labor market accessibility: A transportation equity perspective. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(3), 28–39. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5198/ jtlu.v5i3.240 Feigon, S., Hoyt, D., & Ohland, G. (2004). The Atlanta Case Study: Lindbergh City Center. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland, The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 175-192). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Governor of East Java. (2016). East Java Governor Regulations No. 121 year 2016 about Minimum Wage of City/Regencies in East Java for the year 2016. Surabaya: Governor of East Java. (In Indonesian) Greene, D. L., & Wegener, M. (1997). Sustainable transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 5(3), 177–190. Hansen Partnership, & SUTD City Form Lab. (2014). Surabaya Urban Corridor Development Program: Final Report, June 2014. Retrieved from https://www.dropbox.com/ s/nefj1u5z1n26xzp/140714_Surabaya_ Urban_Corridor_Development_Program_FINAL.pdf ?dl=0 Haq, G. (1997). Towards Sustainable Transport Planning: A Comparison Between Britain and the Netherlands. Aldershot: Avebury. Joewono, T. B., & Kubota, H. (2007). User satisfaction with paratransit in competition with motorization in indonesia: Anticipation of future implications. Transportation, 34(3), 337–354. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1007/ s11116-007-9119-7 Jones, C. E., & Ley, D. (2016). Transit-oriented development and gentrification along Metro Vancouver’s low-income SkyTrain corridor. Canadian Geographer (Vol. 60). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12256 Kaplan, S., Popoks, D., Prato, C. G., & Ceder, A. (2014). Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit provision. Journal of Transport Geography, 37, 82–92. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.04.016 Kartika, R. U., & Ahyudanari, E. (2016). Analysis of the Possible Use of Park and Ride for Tram and Monorail to Facilitate the Air Travelers Based on Sub-district Area. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Science, 228(2016), 38-44. Leach, D. (2004). The Arlington County Case Study: Rosslyn-Balston Corridor. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland, The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 131-154). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Litman, T. (2015). Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance For Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from http:// www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf Litman, T. (2016). Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable Transport Planning. Victoria, BC. Mayor of Surabaya. (2013). Mayoral Regulations No. 49 year 2013 about The Amendment for Surabaya's Mayoral Regulations No. 41 year 2013 about the Establishment of Economy Class Fare for Route-based Transport and Approval on Passengers Fare for Non-route-based Transport by Taxi in the region of Surabaya City. Surabaya: Mayor of Surabaya. (In Indonesian) Mercier, J. (2009). Equity , Social Justice , and Sustainable Urban Transportation in the Twenty-First Century Transportation in the Twenty-First Century. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(2), 145–163. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2753/ ATP1084-1806310201 Minister of Transport. (2015). Ministerial Regulation No. 111 year 2015 about Procedures for Setting Speed Limits. Jakarta: Minister of Transport. (In Indonesian) Nantulya, V. M., & Reich, M. R. (2003). Equity dimensions of road traffic injuries in low- and middle-income countries. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 10(1–2), 13–20. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1076/icsp.10.1.13.14116 Newman. (2016). Planning for Transit Oriented Development: Strategic Principles. In C. Curtis, J. L. Renne, & L. Bertolini, Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen (pp. 13-22). New York: Routledge. Niles, J., & Nelson, D. (1999). Measuring the Success of Transit-Oriented Development : Retail Market Dynamics and Other Key Determinants. In American Planning Association National Planning Conference. Seattle. http:// www.globaltelematics.com/apa99.htm Office of Public Works, Human Settlements, and Spatial Planning of Surabaya City. (2017). C-Map. Surabaya: Office of Public Works, Human Settlements, and Spatial Planning of Surabaya City. Retrieved from http://petaperuntukan.surabaya.go.id/cktrmap/. Accessed on 23 August 2017. (In Indonesian) Pradono, P., Kusumantoro, I. P., & Retapradana, A. (2015). Towards Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction through Public Transport Revitalization : Case of Proposed Surabaya Tram Transit Project. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 11, 967–978. Rassafi, A. A., & Vaziri, M. (2005). Sustainable transport indicators : Definition and integration. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2(1), 83–96. Renne, J. L. (2009). From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environment, 14(1), 1–15. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1080/13549830802522376 Ricciardi, A. M., Xia, J. C., & Currie, G. (2015). Exploring public transport equity between separate disadvantaged cohorts: A case study in Perth, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 43, 111–122. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2015.01.011

Sanchez, T., Stolz, R., & Ma, J. S. (2004). Moving to Equity: Addressing Inequitable Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3141/1885-15 Schiller, P. L., Bruun, E. C., & Kenworthy, J. R. (2010). An Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning, and Implementation. New York: Earthscan. Setiadi, H. A., & Rahman, A. P. (2016). Post Occupancy Evaluation Toward Petogogan Row Housing Program. Jurnal Sosek Pekerjaan Umum, 8(1), 51-61. (In Indonesian) Silas, J. (1992). Government-community Partnerships in Kampung Improvement Programmes in Surabaya. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 33–41. Sinha, K. C. (2003). Sustainability and Urban Public Transportation. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 129(August), 331–341. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2003)129:4(331) Surabaya City Government. (2003). Surabaya Urban Land Use Plan 2013. Surabaya: Surabaya City Government. (In Indonesian) Surabaya City Government. (2007). Surabaya Local Regulation No. 3 Year 2007 about Surabaya Urban Land Use Plan. Surabaya: Surabaya City Government. (In Indonesian) United States Geological Survey. (2000). 2000 Population Density for the San Francisco Bay Region. Retrieved from https://geography.wr.usgs. gov/science/dasymetric/data/ dasymap_2000.pdf. Accessed on 24 August 2017. Wander, M. (2008). An Equity Agenda for Transit-Oriented Development: Planning for Sustainable Growth in Los Angeles’ Inner City. Welch, T. F. (2013). Equity in transport: The distribution of transit access and connectivity among affordable housing units. Transport Policy, 30, 283–293. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.09.020 Welch, T. F., & Mishra, S. (2013). A measure of equity for public transit connectivity. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, 29–41. https://doi. org/10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2013.09.007 Vasconcellos, E. A. (2001). Urban Transport, Environment and Equity: The Case for Developing Countries. New York: Earthscan. Zhao, P. (2010). Sustainable urban expansion and transportation in a growing megacity : Consequences of urban sprawl for mobility on the urban fringe of Beijing. Habitat International, 34(2), 236–243. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.habitatint.2009.09.00