Leveraging Integrated Bike-Sharing with Existing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to Reduce Motor Vehicle in Central Jakarta Municipal

*Daniella Daniella  -  Ikatan Surveyor Indonesia, Indonesia
Achmad Amri Dharma Wangsa  -  Ikatan Surveyor Indonesia, Indonesia
Received: 10 Aug 2018; Published: 30 Aug 2019.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/geoplanning.6.1.13-20 View
Potential bike-sharing spots with 300 meter walking distance standard
Subject BRT; walking distance; bike-sharing
Type Research Results
  View (1MB)    Indexing metadata
Potential bike-sharing spots with 400 meter walking distance standard
Subject BRT; walking distance; bike-sharing
Type Research Results
  View (2MB)    Indexing metadata
Potential bike-sharing spots with 500 meter walking distance standard
Subject BRT; walking distance; bike-sharing
Type Research Results
  View (2MB)    Indexing metadata
Open Access License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Citation Format:
Jakarta is one of the most congested cities in the world due to a plethora of motor vehicles used in the city. One of the government actions to address the issue is by implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an alternative public transportation mode. However, according to the convenience walking distance standard, the BRT coverage the inhabitant to choose motor vehicle rather than walking. This paper purposes Bike-Sharing as the smart transportation mode to overcome such issue and predict the three potential places to establish sharing-bike stations according to the convenience walking distance standard. In this paper the walking distance is classified into 100 mater range (300 meter, 400 meter and 500 meter) projected using the euclidean distance principle. As the result for 300 meter standard, there are 809 potential bike-sharing stations consist of 164 main stations and 645 feeder stations, while the 400 meter standard needs 541 potential stations with 140 stations serve the BRT station directly and 401 stations as the feeder. Furthemore, with 500 meter standard, 359 stations consist of 131 main stations and 228 feeder stations is needed.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Keywords: BRT; walking distance; bike-sharing
Funding: Albertus Deliar, Bandung Institute of Technology; Akinawati, Roslaini and C. Floriany, Family

Article Metrics:

  1. BPS-Statistics of DKI Jakarta Province. (2017). Jakarta in Figure.

  2. DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(4), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.12.4.3">[Crossref]

  3. Departemen Perhubungan Republik Indonesia. (2002). Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Perhubungan Darat no.SK.687/AJ.206/DRJD/2002.

  4. Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2013). Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature. Transport Reviews, 33(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.775612">[Crossref]

  5. Han, D., Shaokun, L., Wei, L., & Runjie, H. (2018, March). Can Private and Public Bikeshare Coexist? A Cautionary Tale from China. ITDP China.

  6. ITDP. (2014). The Bikeshare Planning Guide. New York, US: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

  7. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), & Badan Perencana Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas) Republik Indonesia. (2004). The Study on Integrated Transportation Master Plan for Jabodetabek Phase 2. Indonesia: Almec Corporation.

  8. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum Republik Indonesia. (2014). Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum no. 03/PRT/M/2014.

  9. Kodransky, M., & Hermann, G. (2010). Europe’s Parking U-Turn: From Accomodation to Regulation. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

  10. Martin, E. W., & Shaheen, S. A. (2014). Evaluating public transit modal shift dynamics in response to bikesharing: a tale of two U.S. cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.026">[Crossref]

  11. Mateo-Babiano, I. (2015). Public bicycle sharing in Asian cities. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 11, 60–74. https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.11.60">[Crossref]

  12. New York City Department of City Planning. (2009). Bike-Share: Opportunities in New York City.

  13. Noland, R., & Ishaque, M. (2006). Smart Bicycles in an Urban Area: Evaluation of a Pilot Scheme in London. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(5), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.9.5.5">[Crossref]

  14. Shaheen, S. A., Cohen, A. P., & Martin, E. W. (2013). Public Bikesharing in North America. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2387(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.3141/2387-10">[Crossref]

  15. Sustainability Management Capstone. (2013). C40 Cities in Action: How Bike-Share and BRT are Accelerating across the World. New York: Columbia University.

  16. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. (2003). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service: Manual. Washington DC.

  17. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2011). Bicycle-Sharing Schemes: Enhancing Sustainable Mobility in Urban Areas. New York: International Road Federation 9th session.

  18. World Bank. (1987). Bus Services: Reducing Cost and Rising Standards. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Last update: 2021-02-26 23:43:13

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-02-26 23:43:14

No citation recorded.