Inception Report JARNS 2000

DEPARTEMEN PERMUKIMAN DAN PENGEMBANGAN WILAYAH
DIREKTORAT JENDERAL PENGEMBANGAN PRASARANA WILAYAH
JAVA ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK STUDY

(JARNS)
INCEPTION REPORT
October 2000
Ke
SU
MA
TE
RA
Bojonegara
Merak
Cilegon JAKARTA
Bts.DKI.
SERANG
TANGERANG
BEKASI
Pamanukan
Serpong INDRAMAYU
PANDEGLANG KARAWANG
RANGKASBITUNG
Labuhan Narogong Jangga
Cileungsi
Cikampek Lohbener
Karangampel
Jatibarang
Sadang
Jatiluhur Kanci
Cipeo
PURWAKARTA
JEPARA
BOGOR SUBANG
Ciawi
Palimanan CIREBON REMBANG
Dawuan
Cijelag PATI
CIANJUR Kadipaten KUDUS
BANDUNG MAJALENGKA BREBES TEGAL
BULU
Citatah Losari PEMALANG PEKALONGAN Trengguli

Tanjungsari JATI TUBAN Ketapang
PD.Larang
SUMEDANG
Pejagan KENDAL SEMARANG DEMAK Sotobar
BATANG
Cileunyi BLORA
SUKABUMI SUMENEP
P. MADURA
SLAWI Waleri GODONG
Kaliwungu
Nagreg KUNINGAN BANGKALAN
Babat LAMONGAN
PRUPUK
PURWODADI
GRESIK
Widang Kamal
UNGARAN
PAMEKASAN
BOJONEGORO
GARUT Bawen
SAMPANG
TASIKMALAYA
Baturaden
SURABAYA
WONOSOBO
SALATIGA Mantingan Waru
CIAMIS Bts.Prop PURBALINGGA TEMANGGUNG
BANJARNEGARA NGAWI
PURWOKERTO MOJOKERTO
SRAGEN
MAGELANG
Kartosuro Mojosari SIDOARJO
JOMBANG
Gemekan
BOYOLALI Caruban Gempol
KR ANYAR Pandaan
SURAKARTA PASURUAN
MADIUN NGANJUK Kertosono
SUKOHARJO PANARUKAN
KEBUMEN PURWOREJO MAGETAN Pilang
SLEMAN PROBOLINGGO
KLATEN Tretes Kejayan
CILACAP YOGYAKARTA WONOGIRI
KEDIRI
PONOROGO
BANTUL
BONDOWOSO
MALANG Gilimanuk
WONOSARI
TRENGGALEK BLITAR
Ketapang Cekik
LUMAJANG JEMBER
TULUNGAGUNG
BANYUWANGI
PACITAN
Pengambengan
Carl Bro International a|s

In association with
MVA Asia Ltd. ND. Lea Consultants Ltd.

PT. Amythas PT. Dressa Cipta Rekayasa
PT. Jasa Mitra Manunggal PT. Multi Phi Beta
Java Arterial Road Network Study (JARNS) Inception Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES.....................................1-1
1.1 Context.........................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Study Objectives...........................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Overview of the Inception Report .................................................................................1-3

1.3.1 Purposes................................................................................................................1-3
1.3.2 Content of the Inception Report.............................................................................1-3
2. ROAD NETWORK CAPACITY NEEDS IN JAVA .....................................................2-1
2.1 Overview of the Java Arterial Road Network ................................................................2-1
2.2 Development of the Toll Road Network........................................................................2-2

2.2.1 The Current Position .............................................................................................2-2
2.2.2 The Role of Toll Roads in the Future Development of the Strategic
Road Network in Java......................................................................................................2-4
2.2.3 Institutional and Policy Issues ...............................................................................2-4
2.2.4 Developing a Toll Road System ............................................................................2-5
2.3 Recent Studies ..............................................................................................................2-5

2.3.1 Update of Toll Road Investment Program Study (TRIPS)......................................2-5
2.3.2 Land Transport Development Plan (LTDP) Phase II ..............................................2-6
2.3.3 North Java Transport Corridor Study (NJTCS) ......................................................2-6
2.3.4 Heavy Loaded Road Improvement Project (HLRIP) ..............................................2-7
2.3.5 Pilot Feasibility Studies for Road Capacity Expansion Projects..............................2-7
(RCEP/CAPEX 1) ............................................................................................................2-7
2.3.6 Road Capacity Expansion Project Phase II (CAPEX 2)..........................................2-7
2.3.7 Strategic Urban Road Infrastructure Study (SURIP) ..............................................2-7
2.4 The Preliminary Screening of Inter-District Roads in Java.............................................2-8

2.4.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................2-8
2.4.2 Corridor Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................2-8
2.4.3 Generalised Economic Thresholds for Capacity Expansion....................................2-9
2.4.4 Preliminary Observations on Corridors................................................................2-10
2.5 The Transport Sector Strategy Sector ..........................................................................2-12

2.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................2-12
2.5.2 The Strategic Issues and the Development of Transport Policies ..........................2-12
2.5.3 Demand Forecasts ...............................................................................................2-13
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page i

3. KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................3-1
3.1 Overview......................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 How to Provide Environmentally Sustainable Arterial Road Capacity?..........................3-1

3.2.1 Review of the Problem ..........................................................................................3-1
3.2.2 Towards a Sustainable Solution.............................................................................3-2
3.3 Regional Autonomy and Arterial Road Development Strategies ....................................3-3
3.4 Can Regional Development be Promoted by Road Development? .................................3-3
3.5 Funding Availability for Strategic Road Improvements .................................................3-5

3.5.1 Possible Infrastructure Funding Constraints...........................................................3-5
3.5.2 Promoting Private Sector Participation ..................................................................3-6
3.5.3 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................3-7
4. BUILDING ON AN EXISTING BASE..........................................................................4-1
4.1 Overview......................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 The IRMS Database......................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Network Definition ...........................................................................................…4-2
4.2.2 Inventory Data ......................................................................................................4-2
4.2.3 Routine Traffic Count Data ...................................................................................4-2
4.2.4 Automatic Traffic Count Data ............................................................................... 4.3
4.2.5 Moving Observer Count Data................................................................................ 4.3
4.2.6 Road Condition .....................................................................................................4-3
4.2.7 Other IRMS Data ..................................................................................................4-4
4.3 The IRMS Vehicle Speed and Operating Cost Model ....................................................4-4
4.4 The Automated Road Monitoring Study (ARMS) .........................................................4-6
4.5 Enhanced Highway Information Module (EHIM)..........................................................4-7
4.6 Interfacing IRMS, ARMS and Network Modelling and Evaluation Tools......................4-7
4.7 Strategic Expenditure Planning Module ........................................................................4-8

4.7.1 SEPM and its Current Role in Highway Planning ..................................................4-8
4.7.2 Estimating Funding Availability for Strategic Network Development ..................4-11
4.8 The RIDPD Project Database......................................................................................4-12
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page ii

5. STUDY APPROACH ....................................................................................................5-1
5.1 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Methodology.........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Scope of Work and Level of Detail........................................................................5-1
5.1.3 Critical Elements of the Study Approach ...............................................................5-2
5.2 NETWORK MODELLING AND TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING....................5-3

5.2.1 Modelling Strategy Overview................................................................................5-3
5.2.2 Base Year Matrix Development.............................................................................5-3
5.2.3 Model Development..............................................................................................5-4
5.2.4 Forecasting Future Year Matrices ..........................................................................5-5
5.2.5 Modal Competition ...............................................................................................5-6
5.2.6 Network Assignment.............................................................................................5-6
5.2.7 Summary...............................................................................................................5-6
5.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................5-7

5.3.1 The Interaction Between Regional Development and Road Development ..............5-7
5.3.2 Forecasting Future Development Patterns..............................................................5-7
5.3.3 The Need for Careful Identification of Regional Development Aspirations ............5-8
5.3.4 Assessing the Possible Development Impacts of Arterial Road Investment ............5-9
5.4 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (VTTS) .........................................................5-9
5.4.1 Introduction and Objectives...................................................................................5-9

5.4.2 Definition of Value of Travel Time Savings ........................................................5-10
5.4.3 Assessment of Existing Evidence ........................................................................5-13
5.4.4 Preliminary Recommendations ............................................................................5-16
5.4.5 Derivation of Future Year Values of Time...........................................................5-17
5.5 EVALUATION ISSUES ............................................................................................5-18

5.5.1 Overall Evaluation Issues ....................................................................................5-18
5.5.2 Economic Evaluation Issues ................................................................................5-18
5.5.3 Other Elements of the Evaluation ........................................................................5-23
6. METHODOLOGY AND WORKPLAN ........................................................................6-1
6.1 General Approach.........................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Task Structures and Inter-Relationships ........................................................................6-1
6.3 Detailed Task Descriptions ...........................................................................................6-2
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page iii

7. WORK AND STAFF SCHEDULES.............................................................................. 7.1
7.1 General......................................................................................................................... 7.1
7.2 Work Schedule ............................................................................................................. 7.1
7.3 Staff Schedule............................................................................................................... 7.1
7.4 Reporting and Deliverables .......................................................................................... 7.1

7.4.1 Technical Reports and Working Papers ................................................................ 7.1
7.5 Proposed Variations in Staff Allocation......................................................................... 7.1
APPENDIX A: ADAPTATION OF THE IRMS SPEED MODEL FOR USE IN TRIPS
APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF THEORY OF VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS

AND ESTIMATION METHODS
APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page iv

THE KEY DIMENSIONS OF THE STUDY
1. The scope of the JARNS project is very large, requiring the preparation of a strategic road
network development plan for the whole of Java (some 3,000 km.) over the next 20 years
2. The strategic road network development plan is required to support the social, economic
and regional development aspirations for Java and Indonesia, well into the next millenium
3. A major component of the work in JARNS will be the development and application of
robust travel demand forecasting tools appropriate to the task, covering both passenger
and freight movements
4. A comprehensive database describing the road network, existing traffic patterns, and
socio-demographic and economic statistics will be needed to support this activity. The
database will be derived from existing information, supplemented by a substantial
programme of data collection
5. Measures of vehicle operating costs, values of time and accident costs will be estimated
for use in demand forecasting and evaluation
6. Travel demands will be based on forecast future patterns of regional development; the
possibility that these patterns will also be influenced by road improvements will be
investigated and taken into account if possible
7. The strategic road network development plan will be based on a full evaluation of all road
improvement options (including toll roads) and their implementation staging. Options
will include widening on existing rights-of-way and new construction. The evaluation of
options and the identification of a network development strategy will be based on
economic, social, environmental and financial factors.
8. Government budgets will be severely constrained for several years. There will be only
limited public sector funding available for major upgrading of the strategic road network.
9. It is believed that high-quality limited access expressways providing for long-distance

traffic are essential to future development in Java, and that private sector participation
will be necessary to support their construction.
10. Achieving a substantial toll road programme for Java will require the development of an
institutional framework that provides transparency and certainty to potential investors,
before further projects can be realistically contemplated.
11. The study will result in a strategic road network development plan that best meets
development needs in Java, within realistic budget constraints.
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates

1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
1.1 Context
The Java Arterial Road Network Study (henceforth JARNS) was first conceived of in 1996, well
before the economic crisis that has so badly affected Indonesia, or the political upheavals that
have since hugely changed the nature and structure of government. The initial stimulus for the
study derived from a number of different concerns:
• The need for road capacity expansion, particularly in Java

• The need for private sector participation (PSP) to provide adequate funds for the
many competing needs for major investment
• The relative disarray in the planning and co-ordination of the emerging
“programme” of toll road schemes available to the private sector
• The absence of an overall strategic development plan that would co-ordinate and
prioritise government’s investment programme in arterial road network capacity
provision in Java (and indeed elsewhere)
Since that time, there have been far-reaching changes in the political and economic environment
in Indonesia, and if anything, the needs for this study have intensified. Two additional issues have
emerged that will further shape the study:
• The limited funds available for major infrastructure improvements of any type
• The move to regional autonomy, and transferral of many central government
functions to local government
JARNS presents an excellent opportunity to fully review a wide range of policy and strategy
questions, and provides a vehicle for putting in place a significant framework to guide future
strategy. The intention of this Inception Report is to identify the major issues to be addressed, and
to present the detailed scope of work that will be undertaken. In this way, it is hoped to encourage
general discussion about the objectives and directions, so as to focus attention where it is most
needed.
1.2 Study Objectives
The Terms of Reference express the objectives for the study very clearly:
The principal objective of the study is to evaluate alternative strategies for the development of
the arterial road network on Java, and to formulate a recommended staged development strategy
over a 20 year period. This recommended strategy should cover all major investments, i.e.
capacity expansion of existing roads, the construction of by-passes of towns, the construction of
new arterial roads and the construction of (tolled) expressways by the private sector. The strategy
should include a time-based program of investments in all major corridors. This program would
provide a pipeline of well justified investments for financing by the public and private sector in a
co-ordinated manner. It would also provide the basis for scheduling a program of high priority
feasibility studies, detailed engineering designs or major interchange studies in individual
corridors, with associated schedules for land acquisition, selection, contracting of private
investors and of actual construction.
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page 1-1

The ultimate aim is to develop an arterial road network development plan for Java that is an
integral part of an environmentally sustainable spatial development strategy for the next 20
years. This will include:
• A 20-year integrated arterial road network development plan, which would indicate
the most economically feasible means of providing future capacity and access needs.
• A series of 5-year implementation plans, indicating the forecast optimal timing of

successive additions to and improvements of the network
• An analysis of the financial feasibility of toll roads identified as being economically

justified in the first 5-year period
The strategy to be developed clearly relates to an identified optimum staged development of both
toll roads and arterial roads. However it needs to be emphasised at the outset that there is no
unique solution to this, because it depends critically on the level of funding availability for major
additional road infrastructure, in the context of the competing needs for expenditure on
rehabilitation and maintenance. Funds for new investment in the next 10 years at least are
expected to be limited. Funding availability will not just delay the development of the preferred
strategy, but will alter both content and timing.
The Study must critically examine a number of major planning issues and concerns. These
include:
• There is a large policy question relating to the best way to provide environmentally
sustainable arterial road capacity. Given the strongly urban character of much of the
inter-urban road network, road widening to provide the needed future capacity has
only limited viability. At some point, social and environmental considerations will
have to take over from economic evaluation as the basis for making road widening
decisions
• The implications of regional autonomy for the development and implementation of a
strategic road network development plan, and the way funds are allocated to and
used by local and regional government to promote development and support road
investment
• Whether regional development is likely to be significantly affested by major road
improvement, and how this effect could be included
• How to promote private sector participation in the mobilisation of funds for new
road construction
These and other issues will be explored during the Study. While final conclusions will not
necessarily be forthcoming, it is expected that the analytical framework established will facilitate
informed debate, and encourage the major stakeholders in the process to take “ownership” of the
opportunity to provide a new direction to the development of Java.

1.3 Overview of the Inception Report
1.3.1 Purposes
The primary purposes of the Inception Report are to:
• Carefully identify the scope of work required

• Identify the approach that will be taken, and the scope and detail of the work to be
done
• Identify the work schedule and staff allocation
The Terms of Reference require that a number of specific tasks be addressed by the Inception
Report. These are:
a. Provide a summary but complete review of past work

b. Identify the approach and methodology to be followed in the study so as to address critical
issues
c. Review VOT estimates from other work in Indonesia, and previous toll road diversion
models developed or used, and identify a further program of work needed to refine or
validate these estimates and models
d. Identify the data collection program required
1.3.2 Content of the Inception Report
In Section 2, a brief review of the background to this study is provided. This is based in part on
previous work done in the Preliminary Screening of Inter-District Roads in Java by Carl Bro
International a|s and associates. This includes a review of previous work, and a summary of the
analyses of road capacity expansion needs identified in the study.
There are a number of key planning considerations that have to be taken account of in JARNS. Of
particular importance is the question of how best to provide additional road capacity at such time
as this is needed. Should it be provided by continued widening on existing rights-of-way, or is it
appropriate, given the significant social impact of widening, to consider new construction as
being necessary? This and other issues are reviewed in Section 3.
The Terms of Reference do not make clear that there has been a great deal of investment in the
development of an Indonesian Road Management System (IRMS), and recently in the collection
of road condition and traffic data necessary for the effective operation of this world-class system.
In JARNS, this system and its data will be used to the fullest, and the capability provided is
reviewed in Section 4.
In Section 5, a detailed review of the technical approach that will be used is provided. The main
features of this technical approach include:
• The network modelling and travel demand forecasting approach, which will include both
passenger and freight forecasting models
• Regional development analyses that will identify the future planning framework for
JARNS

• A review of the issue of the valuation of travel time savings, and of work recently
undertaken in Indonesia. Based on this review, a limited programme of additional work is
identified that will help refine estimates of traffic diversion to toll roads, and also improve
economic evaluation
• An outline of the economic evaluation methodology that will be used to help identify
“optimum” arterial road development strategies
Section 6 presents detailed Task Descriptions for each major Task Group to be undertaken, to the
extent that these can be determined at this stage. Summary details of a major programme of traffic
surveys is provided as an Appendix.
Section 7 translates the Task Descriptions into a Work Programme, and the staff allocation to and
schedule for these tasks. A number of minor changes to staff allocation are proposed, and reasons
for this provided. A reporting schedule is given, identifying what reports and Technical Papers
are envisaged, and the schedule by which they will be presented.
A number of Appendices contain useful data and conclusions developed during the course of the
Inception Report.

2. ROAD NETWORK CAPACITY NEEDS IN JAVA
2.1 Overview of the Java Arterial Road Network
A proper appreciation of the scope of the study requires some perception of the extent and level
of performance of the existing road system in Java, and in this essentially introductory section,
such an overview is attempted. This Section draws extensively on work previously undertaken by
the lead consultant as part of a “Preliminary Screening of Inter-District Roads in Java” (Carl Bro
International a|s, 1968).
The primary, inter-urban arterial and collector road network in Java currently extends to about
11,600 km of which about 2,800 km are classified as arterial roads. Arterial (A) and class 1
collector (K1) roads are classified generally as those linking provincial capitals (first order cities)
and major provincial cities (second order cities). As well, there are approximately 350 km of toll
road in Java. All arterial roads and the collector class 1 (K1) roads are currently under central
government jurisdiction, while the other (K2, K3) collector roads are under the jurisdiction of the
Provincial Governments. Toll roads are administered by Jasa Marga, who also own and operate
government-owned toll roads.
Summary statistics of the arterial and collector road networks in Java are provided in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Length of Primary Arterial and Collector Road in Java by Province (km)
Functional Class West Java Central Java East Java DI Yogyakarta Total
Arterial A 886 924 919 89 2817
Collector K1 177 292 865 69 1403
Collector K2 2011 1955 1158 343 5467
Collector K3 355 609 683 290 1938
Total 3429 3780 3624 791 11624
The arterial road network is entirely paved, predominantly with an asphaltic concrete or hot rolled
sheet surfacing. Mean road roughness in IRI (International Roughness Index) in 1997 was
estimated to be 4.9 with a median of 3.7. Mean carriageway width was 9.4 metres with a median
of 7.6 metres. Shoulders are predominantly unpaved and in practice often not readily usable by
motorised vehicles.
Mean traffic levels on the arterial road network in 1997 were about 17,500 motorised vehicles a
day (excluding motorcycles), with a median of about 14,000 AADT (Annual Average Daily
Traffic). Over 70% of the arterial road network carries traffic levels between 3,000 and 20,000
AADT. Most of these sections are full two lane roads with carriageway widths in the region of 7
metres. Roads with lower traffic levels and/or narrower widths make up only a few percent of the
network. About a quarter of the network carries traffic above 20,000 vehicles a day and much of
this has widths above 9 metres. About 15% of the network has carriageway widths in the range of
9-12 metres, technically providing 3 lanes, while about 11% comprises full multi-lane roads with
4, 6 or more lanes.

Table 2.2
Java Arterial Network: Matrix of Traffic and Width
Width m: <6 6-8 9-12 13-15 >15 Total
No. lanes: <2 2 3 4 >4
Traffic AADT
<3,000 - 4% -- - - 4%
3-6,000 1% 12% 2% 1% 1% 17%
6-10,000 - 16% 1% 1% -- 18%
10-20,000 1% 25% 5% 3% 1% 36%
20-30,000 - 6% 4% 2% -- 12%
>30,000 - 6% 4% 1% 1% 13%
Total 2% 70% 17% 8% 3% 100%
About 10% of this network is classified in the IRMS database as ‘urbanised’. These roads form
part of a through arterial route running in and out of major towns and cities. They include many
of the sections with the highest traffic and widths in the above matrix.
2.2 Development of the Toll Road Network
2.2.1 The Current Position
At the end of 1997 there were about 470 km of toll roads in operation in the country of which 324
km were operated by the state owned toll road operator, PT Jasa Marga, and 146 km by private
operators in collaboration with Jasa Marga. As of mid-1998, the length under construction was
stated by Binkot to be just under 200 km (17 main sections), although in practice some of these
were on hold or under review.
There were in addition almost 70 toll road schemes/main sections, comprising in excess of 1,800
km, at various stages of planning and preparation in the pre-crisis period. These included some
urban toll roads within DKI Jakarta and a few toll roads outside Java. The existing and planned
toll roads within Java excluding Jakarta and its environs, have a listed total length of some 1,863
km, of which 353 km are in operation and 131 km ‘in construction’. Allowing for unspecified
lengths for a number of proposed major toll routes of about 785 km, the total length of existing or
proposed toll roads in Java amounted to approximately 2,650 km, almost the same length as the
existing arterial network. The details of the current and proposed toll road network in Java is set
out in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3
Length of Existing and Recently Proposed Toll Roads in Java (kms)
Jakarta+environs Other Java Total
Existing 82 353 435
Under construction 55 131 186
Design 31 924 955
Planned 76 290 366
Others Planned*/** 50 95 145
Discussed** 116 70 186
Total** 410 1863 2273
* mainly ‘non-tender’ ** excludes some lengths of proposed projects estimated at 785 km
*** schemes or main sections Source: Binkot, Jasa Marga
The distribution of the combined arterial and potential toll road network is shown below for nine
broad corridors or zones in Java.
Table 2.4
Identification of Broad Corridors in Java, Associated Road Lengths (km) and Average
Traffic Flows (AADT)
Arterial Existing Proposed Av. Arterial
Toll Road Toll Road Traffic (AADT)
Jakarta-Merak/West Coast 103 100 101 28,803
Jakarta-Surabaya/North Coast 845 116 635* 20,329
Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung 211 46 234 29,953
Bandung-Cikampek 64 48 59 22,204
Bandung-Cirebon 107 0 108* 20,932
Bandung-Yogyakarta/South Coast 425 0 323* 8,627
Yogyakarta-Surabaya 373 1 307* 13,466
Semarang-Solo 173 0 80 16,778
Surabaya-Malang/East Coast 516 42 381* 13,994
2817 353 2295* 17,500
*including approximate allowance for unspecified lengths of proposed major toll roads plus 67 km unassigned.
Note: includes urban arterials; excludes Jakarta
Source: based on IRMS 97 data
There are clearly ambitious toll road proposals currently in existence, extending the total length of
the tolled network by a factor of 4. However with the current economic crisis, work on
construction and on the development of the toll road network has ceased although as discussed
above proposals to restart the programme are being made with some urgency.

2.2.2 The Role of Toll Roads in the Future Development of the Strategic Road Network in
Java
Constraints on Government expenditure over the short and possibly medium term are likely to
limit the extent to which public sector resources can be employed in the development of the
strategic road network in Java. As a result, if growing traffic demands are to be met and capacity
constraints overcome or at least ameliorated, much of the impetus for the development of the road
network may have to come from the construction of new toll roads funded by the private sector.
The contribution from this source to the overall expansion of the strategic road network in Java
and the examination of its possible implications is one of the major elements of JARNS.
2.2.3 Institutional and Policy Issues
The successful development of an effective toll road programme requires the development of an
appropriate institutional framework, within which the main policy issues can be properly
examined. The issues to be addressed relate to the minimisation or at least rationalisation of
project risk on the one hand, and putting in place transparent procedures for the awarding of toll
road concessions to private investors, on the other.
These matters of process are more important than establishing project priorities, or identifying
projects. Unless and until processes are improved, it is unlikely that there will be significant
investment in toll roads in Indonesia, by legitimate and responsible private sector interests.
The first practical issue relates to improving the balance of risk allocation between the
government and the private sector. The most immediate problems relate to the following:
• Policies, procedures and formulae governing rate setting and adjustment, which are
unclear and outcomes unpredictable
• Land acquisition responsibilities
The current system of tariff setting puts it firmly outside the control or influence of the investor,
and responsibility rests directly with the President. The first problem is that the investor has no
binding agreement on the tariff until the road has been constructed, and presidential approval
secured. This is both unpredictable and potentially time consuming, and results in high risks and
high finance costs, reducing the financial viability of any potential scheme.
Similarly, the investor has no guarantees as to when and by how much toll tariffs will be adjusted
over time. The cost of this exposure can be very high: as an example, toll tariffs in Indonesia have
not been adjusted for nearly 8 years, during which time the Rupiah has been devalued by around
500%.
One of the most time consuming aspects of toll road construction is land acquisition. At present,
the concessionaire is effectively responsible for the acquisition of the land required for a toll road
and therefore has to take the risks in relation to the both the costs of the land required and the
timescale for its acquisition. The uncertainty associated with this is a major problem and
disincentive for a potential investor.
The second issue relates to the establishment of an appropriate institutional framework within
which toll road policy can be set, and transparent procedures for the awarding of concessions
established. At the moment there is no such “home”, and this needs to be urgently addressed to
facilitate strengthening of the sector.

Resolution of these issues will be vital if the toll road programme is to attract high quality
investors. Although the importance of this has been established over a long period, action has not
yet been forthcoming.
These issues affect any toll roads, whether restarting existing proposals or developing entirely
new options. However, for the existing proposals, some progress has already been made, in some
cases with investors who are no longer able to continue with a role in their development or whose
concession or Authorisation Agreement has been revoked. If other firms or agencies are to take
over progressing these options, the legal position with regard to the former interested parties
needs to be clarified urgently, and in a way that can be regarded as fair and transparent. In the
absence of such action, it is again unlikely that there will be much investor interest in the
proposals.
The in-depth investigation of these issues and in particular the detailed investigation of their
possible resolution is outside the current scope of work of JARNS. In addition, it would require
skills which are not available to the study. However, this work is crucial for the development of
an effective future toll road network.
2.2.4 Developing a Toll Road System
Because of the importance of funding by the private sector, the development of a viable toll road
system and the ways in the components of this would fit into the overall strategic road network in
Java will be considered in detail as the study progresses. When traffic flows exceed the capacities
of the links, construction of toll roads may be an option. However, the requirements for these to
be financially viable will impose restrictions on the locations where new toll roads are likely to be
feasible. As a result the minimum traffic levels to ensure the financial viability of privately
financed toll roads are likely to be higher, possibly substantially higher, than the traffic thresholds
determined by economic considerations. If this gap is substantial, possible interim or alternative
solutions would have to be investigated.
The work on developing proposals for new toll roads would take into account those already
developed and summarised above in Table 2.5. It must be stressed however that many of these
earlier proposals for the development of new toll roads were based on only a very limited
appraisal. With more rigorous financial and traffic appraisal and assessment within a strategic
context, these proposals may not be reinstated in the future programme for the period up to 2020,
and may be judged inappropriate even over a longer term.
2.3 Recent Studies
2.3.1 Update of Toll Road Investment Program Study (TRIPS)
Although now outdated, the TRIPS report of 1990 is the precursor of the present study, and
extremely important as a result. The report included:
• a review of implemented toll road projects as of 1990

• a review of traffic data, traffic growth and road user costs
• development of a network traffic assignment and forecasting model

• identification of potential capacity needs and expansion projects in the main

corridors
• identification of a phased toll road programme for Repelita V
• a review of existing feasibility studies.
The TRIPS study focused on toll roads and was not able in the time assigned to evaluate
alternative strategies for developing capacity or recommend an overall strategy for capacity
development in individual corridors including investment on arterial roads.
2.3.2 Land Transport Development Plan (LTDP) Phase II
The broad objectives of the LTDPII Study, completed in 1993, were to:
• formulate an appropriate policy framework and strategy for development of inter-

urban surface transport, covering investment, operational, planning, management
and financing matters;
• focus on key transport corridors within and between Java and Sumatra, where there
is scope for intermodal competition or alternative investment options, including
coastal shipping, emphasising efficient use of existing facilities before embarking on
major new investment.
Case Studies were included for the following corridors:
• Jakarta-Surabaya (freight and passengers)

• Surabaya-Malang (freight)
• Jakarta-Bandung (passengers)
• Jakarta-Medan (passengers and freight)
• Jakarta-Palembang (freight)
2.3.3 North Java Transport Corridor Study (NJTCS)
The North Java Transport Corridor Study, completed in 1993, was concerned with investments in
new and improved inter-urban roads to facilitate travel between Jakarta and Surabaya. Feasibility
studies were undertaken in Phase II which led to recommendations for a capacity expansion
programme comprising 12 projects with a total length of 284 km and a total investment
requirement of Rp 326 bn (US$156 mn) at 1993 price levels. Implied average costs were Rp
1.15bn/km (US$0.55mn/km). Proposed improvements were mainly for widening to 4 lanes on the
existing alignment, providing a total carriageway width of 14m, 2 metre shoulders and a median
divider. Some bypass proposals were also included.
2.3.4 Heavy Loaded Road Improvement Project (HLRIP)
The OECF-funded Heavily Loaded Roads Improvement Project, completed in 1995, prepared a
Master Plan for the whole country, comprising 15,000 km of roads judged to be of strategic
importance to movement of heavy vehicles. A sub-set was identified of 5,000 km of inter-urban
roads where capacity expansion and/or pavement strengthening was required. This formed the
basis for a proposed prioritised works programme for the period 1995/96-2002/03.
The programme included 600 km of roads where capacity expansion would be required and these
links were included in CAPEX 2 feasibility studies. About a third of the overall proposed
programme (1,550 km) was located in Java.

2.3.5 Pilot Feasibility Studies for Road Capacity Expansion Projects

(RCEP/CAPEX 1)
Pilot studies for major capacity expansion were undertaken on five links in Java in 1992/93
following on from a preceding ‘Overview of Capacity Expansion’, as follows:
• Cileunyi-Nagreg
• Sidoarjo-Gempol
• Pandaan
• Gempol-Pasuruan
• Gempol-Mojosari
All but the last of these were found economically feasible. Much of the study effort went in
developing methodology and integrating suitable environmental and social impact procedures.
Because IRMS was found to be unsuitable for evaluation of major widening projects, an
alternative methodology was used based on the ECOVAL-S model.
2.3.6 Road Capacity Expansion Project Phase II (CAPEX 2)
The CAPEX 2 feasibility studies commenced in 1997, continuing the initiative cited above. They
comprised 21 studies covering some 540 km of roads, representing the links identified as
priorities for capacity expansion in the HLRIP study. 16 of the studies were located in Java and
most are of direct relevance to the inter-urban arterial network. Proposed improvements were
mainly widening from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, partly on existing alignments and partly off-line.
Average costs of proposed projects were in the region of Rp 4850 Mill/km (US$1.9 M) at 1997
prices plus an average land acquisition cost of Rp 6000 Mill./km (US$2.4 M). Evaluation was
carried out using a spreadsheet tool (CEEM) developed for the study, based on the Indonesia
Highway Capacity Manual (IHCM) parameters and the revised road user cost model from the
IRMS project.
2.3.7 Strategic Urban Road Infrastructure Study (SURIP)
The SURIP Study was undertaken in 1995/96. The main objective of the study was to examine
the issues of congestion on primary arterial roads in urban areas, which were not being adequately
addressed by other capacity expansion studies. A nationwide Strategic Assessment of urban roads
was undertaken in 306 cities in order to identify project needs. A number of priority corridors
with city clusters were identified of which the North Java Corridor between Jakarta and Surabaya
was found to be the highest priority for further study. A number of projects are currently under
construction in Cirebon, Semarang, Demak, Kudus, Kendal and Weleri.
A start on project identification and preparation for a second phase of the SURIP program
(SURIP 1B) has recently been made, with feasibility studies in a number of smaller cities and
Urban Transport Studies underway in Probolinggo and Pekalongan. It may not be immediately
acceptable politically, for further World Bank funding to be applied to major road infrastructure
projects in Java, but eventually it is likely that funding support for such projects will be
forthcoming. Certainly, the improvement of strategic urban roads will be essential if the
objectives for JARNS are to be fully realised.

2.4 The Preliminary Screening of Inter-District Roads in Java
2.4.1 Overview
The “Preliminary Screening of Inter-District Roads in Java” was undertaken by Carl Bro
International for Bina Marga in 1998, to give a quick assessment of likely corridor road capacity
expansion needs in Java. The study was essentially a desk-top study, making use of existing data
and resources in order to identify short- to medium-term road capacity needs. The study, while
limited in scope, was fairly comprehensive in its analysis, and important aspects of this are
summarised below.
2.4.2 Corridor Capacity Analysis
For the purposes of a preliminary screening of capacity issues, a spreadsheet analysis was
undertaken, applying look-up tables incorporating the Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual
(IHCM) parameters to IRMS 1997 data fields. The main steps were:
• Forecasts of traffic from reported base 1997 levels were prepared, using 4 different
growth scenarios
• Traffic volumes were converted to passenger car (or light vehicle) equivalent, using
the IHCM factors which vary according to total traffic/peak hour flows, road type
(and width in the case of motorcycles) and terrain.
• Calculate base capacities defined by IHCM by road type and terrain for carriageway
width, directional split, and side friction
• Calculate the volume capacity ratio (VCR) for each road section and forecast year by
traffic scenario
The resulting distribution of arterial road lengths by VCR in 1997 and subsequent years is set out
in Table 2.5.
Under the central and low growth scenarios there would be a decrease in sections facing severe
congestion problems in five years time and only a moderate increase under the central scenario in
ten years time, when mean VCRs across the network would still be close to their present level. It
should be noted that the validity of the analysis is critically dependent on the reliability of traffic
and road width data. This indicates that the effect of the economic crisis will have been to delay
the time at which road capacity limits will be reached. It will be interesting to see from the results
of the traffic surveys, whether this hypothesis is proved correct.
Table 2.5
Road Lengths by VC Ratio for Different Forecasts
FCR 1997 2002 2002 2002 2007 2007 2007
low central high low central high
<0.6 2041 2471 2182 1928 2352 1764 1330
0.6-1.0 577 297 535 575 387 700 803
>1.0 200 50 101 315 79 354 685

2.4.3 Generalised Economic Thresholds for Capacity Expansion
Volume capacity ratios are useful indicators of physical road performance, but they are not
necessarily good indicators of economic needs for capacity expansion. A review was undertaken
of various studies for evidence regarding generalised economic traffic thresholds for a range of
capacity expansion options in Indonesia. This revealed a fairly wide range in traffic thresholds
arising from the wide variety of assumptions regarding critical parameters, including:
• the relative levels of construction costs for different options

• the cost of land acquisition
• the proportion of peak hour traffic flows and peak flow bands in daily traffic
• assumptions about levels and changes in side friction
• treatment of time values and road user costs
• the evaluation period
• traffic growth rates
• in the case of new roads, the proportion of diversion and travel distance change
assumed.
It was considered desirable to have a consistent framework for evaluating generalised economic
traffic thresholds for capacity expansion related to the range of traffic scenarios, and for more
specific testing of implications for individual corridors. A preliminary generalised analysis was
carried out, focusing on the implications of the range of traffic growth scenarios discussed above.
Explicit assumptions have been made for the parameters listed above, although most of these
need further review.
The analysis undertaken focused on improvements from the predominant existing 2 lane/7 metre
undivided road (2U/7) to various levels of capacity expansion on existing alignments and new
alignments, including both 4 and 6 lane roads. A basic widening option to 11 metres, technically
offering 3 lanes, was included to illustrate the upper limits of minor capacity expansion schemes.
In the case of a new road, alternative diversion assumptions of 40% and 60% of traffic on the
existing route were tested, assuming no change in diversion distance.
The resulting economic optimum base (1997) traffic thresholds for various capacity expansion
options were as follows. The absolute levels of economic viability were in most cases lower than
these figures.

Table 2.6
Economic Optimum Base Traffic (AADT) Thresholds for Capacity Expansion Options
from Two Lane Road by Traffic Scenario
Expansion from 2U/7 to: Alignment High Central Low
3U/11 Existing 5,500 7,000 11,500
4U/14 * Existing 9,000 13,500 25,000
4D/16 Existing 16,500 26,000 45,000
6D/22.5 Existing 24,000 40,000 >50,000
4D/16 low diversion* New 25,000 35,000 55,000
4D/16 high diversion* New 20,000 25,000 45,000
6D/22.5 low diversion New >50,000 >60,000 >70,000
6D/22.5 high diversion New 45,000 >50,000 >60,000
* relative to 3U/11 case
Widening from a 2 lane to a 4 lane undivided road on an existing alignment, for example, would
be the optimum economic solution at 1997 traffic levels between 9,000 AADT (High) and 25,000
AADT (Low). This very broad range illustrates how critical the choice of traffic scenario will be
in determining appropriate schemes in the short to medium term. The NPV curves for
4U/existing and 4D/existing and for 4D/new and 6D/new run in close parallel over a wide traffic
range, so that the above thresholds are only illustrative and might be changed, for example, by
small adjustments to relative costs.
2.4.4 Preliminary Observations on Corridors
An implication of the traffic scenarios is that identification of congestion bottlenecks may be

focused on the 1997 situation, as this is not likely to deteriorate much over the next ten years
under the central and low scenarios.
A brief review was made of each corridor, applying the above traffic thresholds and volume
capacity ratios to base traffic data, incorporating existing toll road traffic data where appropriate,
and comparing, where available, the findings of the CAPEX 2 feasibility studies and some other
studies.
As an initial screening approach, links were divided into three groups:
• links with traffic over 30,000 AADT

• links with between 10,000 and 30,000 ADT and less than 14 metres width where
there may be a case for widening to 4 lanes
• links with a VCR of 0.6 or higher
Of some 360 km of arterial roads with stated 1997 traffic levels above 30,000 AADT:
• approximately 100 km (45 sections) are in urban areas, mainly Bandung, Surabaya,
Semarang and Malang; of these, 20 sections, mainly in Surabaya and Malang, have
FCRs above 0.8.
• 64 km have incipient congestion problems (FCR 0.6-0.8)
• 271 km have moderate to severe congestion problems (FCR >0.8)

• the principal inter-urban sections with >30,000 AADT and moderate to high
congestion (FCRs>0.8) are:
◊ Jakarta-Tangerang-Serang
◊ Jakarta-Bekasi
◊ Gandaria-Bogor
◊ Bandung-Padalarang
◊ Bandung-Cileunyi
◊ Cileunyi-Nagreg
◊ Cikampek-Sadang
◊ Cikampek-Pamanukan
◊ Surabaya-Waru
◊ Waru-Taman
On a general corridor basis the main apparent incipient (FCR:0.6-0.8) and more severe congestion
problems (FCR>0.8) affect the following road sections:
• Short sections of the corridor from Jakarta to Cilegon, particularly east of Tangerang
where the Serpong toll road may divert some traffic away, but traffic variation along
the corridor needs further checking;
• most of the corridor from Jakarta to Cirebon, excepting only some sections between
Karawang and Cikampek (moderate to severe);
• intermittent sections of the corridor between Cirebon and Semarang and around
Demak and Kudus (incipient);
• approaches to Surabaya from Widang (incipient);
• Jakarta-Bogor (severe), Bogor-Ciawi and Cianjur-Padalarang (incipient) (traffic data
for Ciawi-Sukabumi-Cianjur need special review);
• Bandung-Cikampek: severe at the terminals; incipient in the central sections.
• Bandung-Cirebon: severe at the terminals; low in the central sections;
• Bandung-Yogyakarta: only the Bandung terminal as far as Nagreg (severe);
• Yogyakarta-Surabaya: Yogyakarta-Solo-Sragen (mostly incipient, but traffic data
needs a careful review); Caruban-Nganjuk and Jombang-Mojokerto-Taman/Waru
(moderate to severe based partly on CAPEX 2 studies); low traffic on inter-
provincial sections;
• Semarang-Solo: intermittent sections especially Salatiga-Sruwen and Boyolali-Solo
(incipient);
• Surabaya-Gempol-Pasaruan-Probolinggo (moderate to severe)
Evidently, the main capacity bottlenecks tend to be located on the roads radiating from the
principal cities. This tends to apply even where there are parallel toll roads, suggesting that travel
demand is very heavily concentrated in local sections of corridors and strongly influenced by the
proximity of urban areas. Traffic levels and associated congestion tend to be relatively low in the
central corridor sections more remote from the large urban conglomerations. There is also the
possible implication that some existing toll roads are under-utilised and not attracting sufficient
traffic to alleviate congestion on the parallel arterial roads, either because of the local character of
trip patterns or because toll rates are too high.
Figure 2.1 shows where capacity problems have been identified. Overlaid on this map are
sections of the NJTC where recent capacity expansion projects have been completed.

2.5 The Transport Sector Strategy Sector
2.5.1 Introduction
The Transport Sector Strategy Study (TSSS) was completed in mid 2000. This aimed to develop a
policy framework for the development of the strategic transport sector in Indonesia for the period
up to 2009. As part of this work, forecasts of strategic flows were developed for all the major
modes across the whole of Indonesia. Given the currency of this Study, its findings have been
considered in some detail and the main findings are summarised below.
The study has two main elements which may be important in relation to JARNS:-
• It sets out some policy guidelines for the development of the road sector in Java, and
also considers the potential interactions between road and rail, although not in
quantified terms; and
• As part of the study, matrices of longer distance strategic road traffic were developed
for 1998 and 2009 and were assigned to the road network in Java. These matrices
and traffic forecasts could have the potential to be used in JARNS. Their suitability
for this purpose has therefore been examined.
2.5.2 The Strategic Issues and the Development of Transport Policies
The main function of the TSSS is to develop the guidelines for the development of the transport
sector within Indonesia as a whole over the short-medium term period up to 2009. As such, it
concentrates on general objectives and policy recommendations rather than a list of specific
projects. The key issues which are of relevance to the JARNS project include:-
General Background
• There is the need to improve the institutional framework within which the elements
of the transport sector operate. In particular this would require better co-ordination
between the agencies involved, and the development of a transparent framework to
encourage the involvement of the private sector. It would also need to recognise the
changes in responsibilities brought about by the granting of increased regional
autonomy.
• The need for tariff adjustments to bring the charges for the use of transport services
more closely into line with the costs of the provision of these services. Where this is
considered undesirable for social reasons the Government should be prepared to pay
a specific PSO grant rather than provide general revenue support for the agencies
affected or to insist on low tariffs without compensation
• In terms of the concrete actions to be taken, there is a need to maintain and upgrade
the national road network, which is the major element of the transport network
particularly in Java (and Sumatra). This is becoming increasingly congested
• There is a need to look for expanded sources of financing for the maintenance and
possibly for the development of the road network including the establishment of a
Road User Fund supported by earmarked revenues from taxes paid by road users.

Issues Specific to Java
The key road corridors in Java were identified as:
East-West Routes:
• the Java North Coast Route from Merak-Banyuwangi via Jakarta and Surabaya
• Surabaya-Yogyakarta via Kertosono
North -South Routes:

• Jakarta-Bogor
• Bandung-Cikampek
• Bandung-Cirebon
• Semarang-Yogyakarta/Solo
• Surabaya-Malang-Blitar
2.5.3 Demand Forecasts
The forecasts of highway demand are essentially based on the patterns and volumes of inter-
provincial movement derived from the 1996 National OD Survey. In order to provide reasonable
estimates of the longer-distance flows on the highway network, and to provide flows which could
be validated against observed data, the inter-provincial totals were broken down to a more
disaggregated level,. This was essentially based on a zoning system at Kabupaten and Kodya
level, which broke Java down into 96 zones. The flows derived from this more disaggregated
zoning system were then updated in the light of data on traffic flows across a number of
screenlines estimated from a range of existing sources including IRMS, and the North Java
Transport Corridor Study. A number of problems were experienced in using the IRMS data which
in a number of instances was found to be fairly clearly “erroneous and inconsistent”. In these
instances, information from other sources was used where available.
One of the factors that emerged from an analysis of trip distributions was the relatively small
number of longer distance trips. The average trip length was about 85 kms and only about 10-15
per cent of trips had a journey length of over 150 kms (about 100,000 per day in 1998). The
matrices produced are in terms of total vehicles and these were not separated by vehicle type.
Forecasts of Future Travel Demands
Future travel demands were derived primarily using the predicted growth of GDP and GRDP.
Relationships were estimated linking the growth of vehicle ownership of different types to
forecasts of GRDP. The coefficients were estimated at an aggregated level combining the data for
Java and Sumatra. These were then applied to the forecasts of GRDP for 2009 to give factors to
update the matrices. These were then assigned to an unimproved network to give forecasts of the
overall demand for longer-distance movement on the strategic highway network.
With the availability of more recent information on economic trends, the additional traffic data to
be collected, and the longer time horizon for JARNS, the forecasts for 2009 are probably of
limited use for this project. However the forecasts of the pattern of movement in 1998 probably
provide a reasonably comprehensive and consistent set of data for that year, and as such can be
used in the early work in JARNS in the period before the transport model has been developed
developed satisfactorily.

3. KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 Overview
The task of preparing a development plan for the whole of the strategic road network for Java is a
very large and complex one, and one that must cover many different major planning and
development issues over a wide range of very different areas. The technical issues and
complexities of such a task are very considerable, and are compounded by the fairly limited
resources and time available for the study. However, the Methodology and Work Plan that is
described in the next section will, it is believed, be appropriate to deal with these issues, and
produce the needed results.
In this Section, what are perceived to be the key planning considerations confronting the study are
reviewed. It is hoped that this will give a uniform understanding to all interested parties, and
provide an opportunity for comment on any and all aspects of the issues raised.
3.2 How to Provide Environmentally Sustainable Arterial Road Capacity?
3.2.1 Review of the Problem
The question of how most effectively to provide arterial road capacity is not just a technical issue,
because many of the options have potentially major social and environmental consequences that
should not be evaluated by narrowly focussed technical methods alone. This question is at the
core of the study: given the intense level of roadside development that exists throughout Java, and
the potentially major effects of road widening on adjacent communities, under what
circumstances is widening of existing roads acceptable?
It is of course possible to measure the economic and financial costs of road widening, and identify
the number of persons affected and the degree of land and property resumption needed. What is
more difficult is to put objective measures of value against the costs of severance and social
dislocation caused by major road widening.
In exploring this issue, a number of considerations are relevant:
a. In Java, land is a scarce commodity, and villages have developed in ways that minimise
their need for land. Roads are few and largely unplanned, and villages have evolved to
take advantage of the access opportunities provided by the few roads available. Even
major arterial roads provide for social and economic activities that interact with traffic
movements to the detriment of the amenity and efficiency of each. Roads have evolved
rather than been planned, and there is no access restriction. Development set-backs are
usually limited, and road rights-of-way (ROW) are usually too limited to provide for
significant widening without substantial land acquisition and demolition of existing
development
b. Even if additional road width can be provided in existing ROW, the efficiency of this
additional width is usually very limited, because roadside development of some form
always remains, and local activities continue to interact with traffic movements. This
significantly reduces the efficiency of the investment

c. Roadside development along major arterials is not usually provided with alternative
parallel roads. Consequently, the levels of local short-distance traffic are high, and are the
major cause of congestion. Long distance traffic levels are not usually the cause of local
congestion, but suffer significantly as a result of it
d. The achievement of environmentally (and socially) sustainable improvements in long

distance and short distance traffic movements requires at a minimum, that separate
infrastructure be provided for each. It is not possible to achieve other than short-term
improvements in road capacity and traffic conditions by widening existing roads, and
achieving improvements in this manner is costly, inefficient, and socially disruptive
e. The separation of long and short distance traffic can really only be achieved by providing
limited access roads on a separate ROW, much like the US Interstate system. Such a
system is amenable to tolling, and as such is potentially attractive to private investors, if
an appropriate environment that is supportive of private sector participation (PSP) can be
developed (it does not yet exist), and traffic levels are sufficiently high
f. Such a strategy would certainly resolve many of the road capacity problems that exist, but
it would then generate another set of social issues, relating to the acquisition and
severance of land relatively intensely used under traditional patterns and methods of
farming. Past government policies have tended to support the preservation of traditional
farming methods and structures of land ownership, but it is certainly debatable whether
such policies are likely to be effective for the social and economic development of the
agriculture sector in Indonesia.
It is not proposed that this study will be able to address these issues directly. Instead, it will be
necessary to determine the social and environmental impacts of major road improvement
proposals, so that the information can be included in a broad evaluation and prioritisation of
candidate schemes.
3.2.2 Towards a Sustainable Solution
It follows from the development of the arguments above, that the only sustainable solution is to
provide a network of strategic roads, intended to provide primarily for long-distance traffic,
separate from the existing unlimited access network of National and Provincial roads.
It also follows from Government policies developed over the last 20 years, that such a network
should be financed primarily by the private sector, and that therefore such roads should
necessarily be regarded as candidate toll roads.
It will be difficult to mobilise the substantial funds necessary for the construction of such a road
network if there is not substantial improvement in the institutional framework responsible for toll
road strategy and policy. Therefore the improvement of this framework is perhaps the greatest
priority for government at this time.

3.3 Regional Autonomy and Arterial Road Development Strategies
Under the emerging regulations that will implement the move to regional autonomy, it is expected
that central government will retain direct responsibility for the planning and funding of
improvements to the national road system. It is also expected that responsibilities for toll road
schemes will also remain at central level, though it is suggested below that consideration might be
given to empowering local or regional government in respect of toll road promotion and
development.
As well as direct responsibility for national roads, it is expected that central government will
continue to have responsibility for the planning of strategic roads infrastructure. But it is not clear
that central government will be able to do more than encourage local or provincial government to
pay attention to any strategy plans developed by central government.
In recognition that the only way to make a strategy involving regional interests really effective is
to enlist the support of the regions in preparing the strategy, it will be essential for the study to
fully include the regions in the process.
3.4 Can Regional Development be Promoted by Road Development?
There is a large body of evidence that road network development actively encourages land
development, and alters the balance of factors that affect locational decisions at all levels. This
importance is well recognised. There are many examples that demonstrate the strength of this
interaction, as the boxes below suggest:
Box 1: Hotel Development in Pelabuhan Ratu in Response to Proposed Ciawi-Sukabumi

Toll Road
The proposed Ciawi-Sukabumi toll road was widely thought to be a successful project, and one
which would greatly reduce travel times between Jakarta – Sukabumi and the south coast around
the picturesque and popular tourist town of Pelabuhan Ratu. The route was heavily congested
with local traffic and stopping buses, and the trip to Pelabuhan Ratu could take as much as 4
hours, when with the toll road, it might take less than 2 hours. By mid-1997, a concession
agreement was being negotiated with the proposed developers, and it was believed that the toll
road would be completed in 2001. Considerable land speculation followed, and land values in
areas along the route soared. In anticipation of significantly increased weekend tourism to
Pelabuhan Ratu following reductions in travel time, a number of small to medium hotel
developments were undertaken, even before the concession agreement was awarded or
construction started. In the event, the economic crisis caused the project to be suspended, and it is
unlikely that it will prove to be viable in the medium term. Sadly, the road to Pelabuhan Ratu has
not been maintained during the economic crisis, and it is now all but impassable. Travel times are
around 4-5 hours of misery, and the hotel developments that were to have brought a small
measure of prosperity to a disadvantaged area now stand empty.
Conclusion: Even the anticipation of significant reductions in travel times believed likely to
result from a future facility can generate major changes in the structure of economic activities and
land values. The realisation of such changes will have an even more marked effect.

Box 2: The Cikampek Toll Road and Industrial Estate Development
One of the planning success stories in Jakarta has been the dramatic growth of the industrial
estates established along the Cikampek toll road. The toll road was used to open up a 70 km
corridor of what was very marginal agricultural land. The take up of land in the industrial estates
was slow from 1987 (when the first stage of the toll road was completed) until the early 1990’s,
but between 1992 and 1997, growth was extremely rapid. This occurred both within the industrial
estates and associated housing developments, but also beyond in Cikampek to the north, and in
Purwakarta to the south. Without the enabling effect of the toll road, this development would not
have occurred, and would instead have located around the periphery of Jakarta, Bekasi and
Tangerang, where it would have added significantly to the environmental problems associated
with badly planned and poorly accommodated development.
Conclusion: In an environment of substantial economic growth and development pressures,

toll roads – or indeed any major road infrastructure - can both stimulate growth, and heavily
influence its direction. The joint planning and facilitation of transport and land use development
encourages environmentally sustainable development.
Box 3: Residential Development Along the Merak Toll Road
The toll road from Jakarta to Merak, the terminus for the Sumatera ferry, was completed in 1995,
with the first section from Jakarta past Tangerang to Balaraja being opened in 1987. Despite
major residential developments to the west of Jakarta in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, there were no
other significant additions to major road infrastructure by central, provincial or local
governments. While records are not available, many observers believe that no new arterial or
collector roads have been built in this area for more than 20 years, other than the toll road. This
despite major growth in the urban area.
Toll roads are meant to provide for long distance not short distance traffic, but don’t tell local
residents with no other available transport facilities that! In the period 1988 – 1995, more than
20,000 hectares of new residential development was built to the west of Jakarta – without a single
new road connecting to Jakarta. The result was predictable: traffic chaos during peak hours,
where the toll road unloads onto the local street system, and the clogging of what should have
been a network of toll roads that would provide for through traffic, with essentially local traffic
with few alternative routes. And worse, road authorities have made no attempt to provide
residential developments with an adequate road network. “Retro-fitting” the necessary arterial
and major collector roads essential to the longer-term viability of these developments will be
hugely expensive and inevitably delayed. Thus the social and environmental costs of government
inaction will be huge.
Conclusion: Development needs access. Residential developments can be encouraged and

shaped by early provision of the necessary infrastructure, at relatively low cost. If this is not done,
the social, environmental and engineering costs of badly planned developments can be huge. Toll
roads are much more expensive to construct than lower capacity road facilities providing for local
traffic, and must not be allowed to have their function suborned by local traffic that has not been
otherwise adequately provided for.

The lessons contained in these examples drawn from round Jakarta are powerful, but it must be
remembered that the strength of the interaction between development and road infrastructure
provision is largely dependent on development pressures. Where there is no such pressure, it is
most unlikely that road infrastructure provision is going to create it. The provision of roads will
only significantly affect development patterns when development pressures are substantial, and
they are constrained by limited available access.
The problem that is faced in JARNS is that there is no readily accessible approach to the
quantification of this phenomenon. We know that it exists; we know generally how it works. We
just don’t know how the interaction between changed accessibility and future land use can be
expressed in ways that allow the effect to be easily and directly included in demand forecasts, and
therefore in evaluation and strategy development.
This area remains very much in need of research, but the complex of forces and influences
involved is such as to make the needed research both large and long-term. The idea is not a new
one, and generally has been the subject of research work for many years, at many learned and
well-funded institutions. We are familiar with the work, the concepts and the budgets required.
This familiarity does not encourage us to attempt any such work in the current study.
3.5 Funding Availability for Strategic Road Improvements
3.5.1 Possible Infrastructure Funding Constraints
A critical planning consideration will inevitably be the scale of road improvement investment
needs over the next 20 years. There are only two potential sources of funds for this purpose:
• Direct Government funding (central or local government), either from general

revenues or through loans from international funding agencies
• Private sector funding
Government expenditure in Indonesia, either from locally generated sources or from overseas
loans is under very considerable pressure, and the needs of competing sectors are substantial. As
a result the funds that the Government is likely to be able devote to the roads sector is likely to be
tightly constrained, especially for the short-medium term. Within the roads sector there are
competing needs, and the maintenance of the existing network will have a high priority,
particularly because maintenance levels have fallen substantially during the economic crisis, and
may be expected to remain at a lower level than desirable for the next few years. The scope for
the Government to fund the substantial network development that is likely to be needed will
therefore be extremely limited.
Private sector participation (PSP) in road infrastructure provision is therefore an extremely

appealing alternative to a government that is short of funds. For the type of major road
improvement of relevance to this study, PSP means toll roads. There remain a number of
challenges yet to be fully addressed by government in creating an environment that will attract
such investments. Some aspects of this are briefly reviewed below.

3.5.2 Promoting Private Sector Participation
Is a Major Programme of Toll Roads Required?
It is not yet possible to answer the somewhat rhetorical question: is a major programme of toll
road development in Java going to be justified? Certainly, there will be substantial needs for
additional road capacity likely to emerge in the medium-term, and it is clear that there will be
continued growth in the need for additional capacity as population and economic growth
continue. What is not known, is whether these demands will be sufficient to warrant an extensive
toll road network, or whether greater economic benefits might derive from a lower quality
network of untolled but limited access highways. As suggested by the TOR, substantial additional
capacity can be achieved in any link by providing for urban bypasses or other localised road
improvements that will overcome spot deficiencies. These would be good candidates as toll roads
with PSP, leaving the inter-urban sections for lower cost improvement.
Eventually, however, there will need to be overall link capacity increases, and this will only be
possible by major road improvement.
What is not yet known, is what is the likely timeframe for needed major capacity improvements?
This question will be answered by JARNS.
The associated question is, how much additional capacity can be squeezed out of each existing
link, making use of localised capacity expansion measures and minor urban bypasses or other
improvements? This question will not be answered in JARNS, because to do so would require a
much more detailed analysis than is possible within the timeframe.
It has already been suggested that significant additional capacity cannot be provided on existing
rights-of-way, as a sustainable long-term strategy, because the social and environmental costs are
too high. A new approach is needed, to allow the long-term development of acceptable living
environments and transport systems that serve them. This new approach will require the
development of substantial lengths of new roads catering for long-distance traffic, on new
alignments. Such limited-access facilities may be considered as toll roads, or they may be
considered as free roads. The assumption in this study (thus far) is that it is not realistic to
consider that GOI will have available funds for the construction of a (possibly major) programme
of constructing limited access roads for long-distance traffic. Iff this is true, then the only
alternative is for these to be provided as toll roads through PSP.
How to Make a Major Programme of Toll Roads Achievable?
In many ways, the potential for substantial PSP in toll roads may have been somewhat oversold.
There are negative aspects:
• The traffic levels at which toll roads become financially viable tend to be higher than
typically found on inter-urban roads in Java, except on the approaches to Jakarta and
Surabaya
• Either initial traffic levels must be high, or rates of growth high, if adequate revenues
are to be achieved in the critical first few years of the project. It is possible that high
rates of traffic growth will not resume in Indonesia for a number of years
• There remain unresolved issues about a number of matters that increase project risk,
therefore financing costs and financial viability

• As institutional procedures are improved and made more transparent, the

opportunities for short-term investors to make profits through illicit practices is
diminished
GOI is actively pursuing ways to improve the institutional framework, and reduce risk aspects by
addressing tariff setting and adjustment questions, and the problems of land acquisition. There are
other possible ways to overcome these difficulties, and two possible areas that merit review are
briefly noted below.
Reducing the Cost of Toll Roads
One problem with toll roads is that they are expensive. They are built to high standards, and this
is expensive. It may well be that standards are too high, and that a perfectly adequate toll road
could be built to lower standards and function just as efficiently and effectively.
This question cannot be addressed within JARNS within current resources, but it is a question
that should be asked, and possibly deserves an answer.
Local Government Participation in Toll Road Provision
It is suggested that, from the point of view of promoting toll road developments, it may be
desirable that local governments become directly involved, as part6ners to central government, in
the identification and promotion of local toll road alternatives. Such an involvement would help
forestall two potential difficulties:
1. It would directly involve local government in the identification and planning of a

local strategic road improvement project, and (most importantly) with the detailed
road alignment and land acquisition issues that create such difficulties and delays for
large projects. These are more difficult for central government to manage effectively,
because they tend to be somewhat removed from and not familiar with local
concerns
2. It would be likely to result in a more rapid take-up of toll road schemes, as it would
be possible for a number of different local schemes to proceed in parallel. Processing
at a central level has the potential to create congestion and introduce delays.
The participation of local government would need to be conducted within the context of
comprehensive guidelines prepared and supervised by central government, but this should present
no particular challenge.
3.5.3 Conclusions
Until we know more about the likely timeframe within which additional major road capacity is
needed, the possible costs of this, and the likely availability of government and private sector
funding, it is not possible to comment meaningfully on the achievability or otherwise of such a
program. However, it is safe to assume that a substantial need for new road capacity will emerge
in many major corridors within the study timeframe. We have proposed that there is a strong case
to be made for putting major limits on the extent of future road widening. Instead, it is suggested
that limited access facilities on new alignments are necessary.
The challenge will be to find ways of funding such facilities.

4. BUILDING ON AN EXISTING BASE
4.1 Overview
A great deal of work has been done in Indonesia over many years in the development,
implementation and refinement of a number of different Road Management Systems and
associated databases. The resources that have been created by this effort, which has spanned
nearly two decades, are worth millions of dollars, and need to be properly used to add value to
projects like JARNS.
The Study Team very quickly realised that the Indonesian Road Management System (IRMS)
database and current related programmes add enormous value to the JARNS project, and it is
important to extract as much of this value as possible, by building on the existing base of
resources and databases. However it should be noted that until recently, the IRMS database
was very unreliable, and both road condition and traffic data was often seriously in error.
Recent initiatives have corrected this situation, and for perhaps the first time, the database that
will be used in JARNS will be of very high quality. The elements of this overall package
include:
• The IRMS database, which contains inventory and condition data for every road
link in the network
• Analytical models and concepts embodied in the overall IRMS set of modules
themselves, which will provide a valuable framework for determination of road
construction costs and vehicle operating costs
• The current Automated Road Monitoring System (ARMS) data collection
programme, which is collecting a wide range of road data for all roads in the
JARNS network. This includes digital image data of the whole of the JARNS
network that will be extremely valuable in network modelling
• The Strategic Expenditure Model (SEPM) that can be used to examine forward
funding needs for road expenditure, and economic warrants for road capacity
additions versus rehabilitation or maintenance
This Section provides an overview of the major elements of this system that will be used in
JARNS. The objective for doing this is to emphasise to as wide an audience as possible, the
depth and value of the road management system resources that have been created in
Indonesia.
4.2 The IRMS Database
A comprehensive database for national and provincial roads was established in the mid
1980’s and populated for all Indonesia in 1987. This database is now the foundation for the
Indonesian Roads Management System (IRMS). The database currently contains data for
11,652 km of roads in Java, which until recently has been considered unreliable, in particular
traffic and road condition data. During 1999/2000 efforts have been made to improve the
quality of the road condition and traffic surveys with an independent audit of traffic and
roughness surveys, and the collection of data by independent foreign contractors. This
chapter discusses how the quality of IRMS data is in the process of being improved and how
it will be applied to this study.

4.2.1 Network Definition
The network is divided into links which originally connected nodes. The original links have
in some cases been subdivided at administrative boundaries and urban streets added where
these form a continuous part of the national and provincial road network. Link lengths are
thought to be generally accurate in Java.
Table 4.1
Number of Links and Lengths by Functional Class in Java
Functional No. Length
Class Links (km)
A All 279 2817
Kota 124 289
K1 All 132 1402
Kota 49 70
K2 All 392 5509
Kota 141 294
K3 All 141 1923
Kota 13 37
Total All 944 11651
Kota 327 690
Roads only enter the IRMS database when they have been designated as either national or
provincial roads (ministerial decree). New roads, such as urban bypasses, may become “non-
status” for some time after completion until such time as their status is decided, and are not
therefore part of the database.
4.2.2 Inventory Data
The only item of interest to this study for which the database is populated is pavement width.
This is recorded in the RNI survey which is not an annual survey. It is probable the current
data does not take account of widening carried out in the last five years or so, but this will be
rectified by using data collected in the ARMS project (see later).
The database shows around 652 km (23%) of arterial roads have a width of 12 m or more
indicating they probably have four or more lanes; of these 159 km are city streets. A number
of links are not homogeneous in terms of width; 19 non-urban links have been identified
where 25% - 75% of the length is four lane and the rest two lane.
Originally, the inventory contained data on road alignment and roadside land use but these
items have been omitted from the survey since 1986.
4.2.3 Routine Traffic Count Data
Each link has a single traffic count station regardless of its homogeneity in terms of traffic
volume. Manual classified volume counts are made each year at each post for varying
periods. Classification is in 12 groups:
• Motor cycle
• Car
• Utility – freight
• Utility – passenger

• Small bus
• Large bus
• 2-axle truck – light
• 2-axle truck – medium
• 3-axle truck
• Truck + trailer
• Tractor + semitrailer
• Non-motorised
Table 4.2 summarises daily volumes excluding motorcycles and non-motorised traffic.
Table 4.2
IRMS Traffic Data excluding City Streets
All Arterials
AADT Length % Length %
< 1,000 1446 13% 0 0%
1,000 – 5,000 6213 54% 558 20%
5,000 – 10,000 1954 17% 861 31%
10,000 – 20,000 1471 13% 1051 37%
> 20,000 457 4% 348 12%
4.2.4 Automatic Traffic Count Data
Between 1996 and 1998 a number of automatic traffic counters were operated throughout
Java, giving hourly and daily gross volumes of motorised traffic for up to one year in some
locations. This is considered to be the most reliable traffic data in Java obtained in recent
years. Locations where this data was collected are given in Section 5.
4.2.5 Moving Observer Count Data
The IRMS routine and automatic traffic count data gives volume at a single point on a link.
During 1999/2000, moving observer counts (MOC) were made on all provincial and around
25% of national roads in Java. These surveys were controlled by automated recording of
distance, time and speed and, when adjusted for these factors, gave a longitudinal traffic
profile along each link. This data was also used as a control on the routine count data which
was subsequently adjusted in cases where the RTC figures appeared to have a large error.
This data has substantially improved the accuracy of traffic data contained in the IRMS,
which was previously considered to be often highly unreliable. Additional MOC data will be
provided from the ARMS digital data.
4.2.6 Road Condition
The 1999/2000 roughness survey is thought to be the most reliable carried out in recent years.
Table 4.3 summarises the network condition, with only 5% of arterials being in poor
condition (IRI > 7 m/km).

Table 4.3
Network Condition
Condition All Arterials
Good 22% 34%
Fair 56% 61%
Poor 10% 5%
Bad 11% 0%
4.2.7 Other IRMS Data
Unit Construction Prices
IRMS includes a database of unit rates for the most commonly used work items. These are in
the form of a national average rate and provincial variation factors for each item. The unit
rates were updated in 1999 and recently validated by another TA project. The design and cost
model in IRMS can only handle maintenance and betterment comprising minor incremental
widening. There is no model for major capacity improvement such as dualling. For the type
of road improvements being considered in this project, quantities must be generated for
different options and the IRMS unit rates applied to obtain generalised costs per km.
The unit rates can also be used to produce unit prices for periodic maintenance which will be
annualised and added to routine costs for use in the economic analyses.
4.3 The IRMS Vehicle Speed and Operating Cost Model
For economic analyses, IRMS uses a vehicle speed model that has been derived from the
Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual for inter-urban roads. The structure of this model is
shown in Figure 4.1.

Classified Traffic Vehicles per

Volumes hour
Terrain
PCE Flow
Road Type
Pavement Width Factors PCE/hour
Terrain
Road type
Pavement width Volume/
Capacity
Shoulder width Capacity
NMT
Terrain
Road type
Road function
Pavement width
Free flow Congested
Shoulder width
Lane width Speeds Speeds
Land use
NMT
Roughness
Figure 4.1
IRMS Speed Model Flowchart
This model will be adapted for use in TRIPS by:
• using an average PCE factor for each vehicle group within TRIPS
• computing the capacity for each road link (existing or improved) prior to TRIPS
• defining for each link the appropriate speed flow curves depending on the free
flow speed for the link
The adaptation of the IRMS speed model for use in traffic modelling in this study is described
in more detail in Appendix 1.
The IRMS vehicle operating cost model has been derived from the HDM-III model. This
uses a matrix of base costs and model indices which require periodic update. This was last
done in 1999 and it is considered that a further update is needed before it is used for the
economic evaluation component of this study. The work that will be undertaken is detailed
elsewhere in this Inception Report.
The model form is:
RUEj = BASEj NDXj
NDXj = [k1j + k2j / Vj + k3j Vj2 + k4j Vj IRI + k5j IRI2]
where: RUEj is the road user cost for vehicle group j

NDXj is the VOC index for vehicle group j
BASEj is the base road user cost for vehicle group j

Vj is the speed of vehicle group j

k1j to k5j are model coefficients for vehicle group j
The procedure for updating the base cost and model coefficients is as follows:
• determine economic prices for new vehicles of a representative model for each
group
• determine economic prices for tyres
• estimate economic fuel prices derived from projected oil price ($/bl) and
exchange rate (Rp/$)
• use the stand-alone HDM-VOC model with the above prices and other
previously determined data such as utilisation, generating a matrix for each
vehicle group of VOC versus speed and roughness
• make a regression analysis on the output to obtain the base cost and model
coefficients k1 to k5.
This work is currently being undertaken in JARNS.
4.4 The Automated Road Monitoring Study (ARMS)
In recognition of the poor quality of IRMS data, the ARMS project commenced in mid 1999
with the aim of using automated equipment and methods to collect data on road inventory,
condition and pavement structure. This project is scheduled for completion by end 2000 and
the field surveys for Java were already complete as of October 2000.
ARMS comprises four surveys:
• road location
• road condition and imaging
• pavement strength (FWD)
• pavement structure (GPR)
The first two of these surveys are of interest to this study as they provide accurate road
location and geometry together with digital imagery from which other data can be extracted
more conveniently and cheaply than by means of further field surveys. The following items
will be obtained from the ARMS survey data or imagery:
• road type (number of lanes, lane separation e.g. four lanes, two way undivided)
• pavement width
• shoulder width
• road alignment (3 ratings from good to poor)
• side friction (5 ratings from very low to very high)
• node coordinates
Road type and widths are currently being interpreted from the imagery by the ARMS
contractor and should be available shortly in the form of an updated IRMS Road Network
Inventory file. It is intended that JARNS staff will use this data to extract values for
alignment standard and roadside friction from the imagery. Although ARMS images are
available at 10 m intervals, 500m or 1,000 m intervals will suffice for obtaining link averages
of these parameters.

Coordinates in the form of latitude, longitude and altitude are available at 10 m intervals of
the road centreline. These will be related to the IRMS Data Reference Points (link start, end
and km posts) which will themselves be related to the nodes used in the TRIPS network.
Thus coordinates for the TRIPS nodes can be obtained without recourse to digitised mapping.
4.5 Enhanced Highway Information Module (EHIM)
The spatial location of national and provincial roads has been digitised and applied in EHIM
which, connected with the IRMS database, has the ability to display a wide range of thematic
maps. It is expected that this will be of considerable value in this study, and EHIM has been
installed for use by the Team.
4.6 Interfacing IRMS, ARMS and Network Modelling and Evaluation Tools
The study network will be manually defined using maps and then expressed in terms of links
and nodes which will be used in the TRIPS model. The nodes will then be related to the
IRMS location reference system (province, link, km post) allowing data for each TRIPS link
to be obtained from external sources – IRMS, ARMS and EHIM as shown in Figure 4.2.
Nodes IRMS
Modelling and Location
Network Links Reference
IRMS ARMS
EHIM
Database Data
Link Spatial
Physical Location
Attributes of Nodes
Interface
TRIPS
Model
Figure 4.2
Definition of Model Network and Data

The key data items needed for each link are:
• length
• pavement and shoulder widths
• road type (lanes, carriageway division)
• road alignment
• roadside friction
This data will be used to define capacity and type of speed flow curve for each link which will
then be applied in the traffic model. This computation will be the interface between the data
sources and the TRIPS model as shown in Figure 4.3 and described in more detail in
Appendix 1.
TRIPS
Classified Traffic
Volumes
Flow
PCE/hour
IRMS
Interface
ARMS
Volume/
Capacity
Capacity
Alignment
Road type
Road function
Pavement width
Side Friction
Speed Flow Congested

Curve Speeds
Figure 4.3
Interface between IRMS, ARMS and TRIPS
4.7 Strategic Expenditure Planning Module
4.7.1 SEPM and its Current Role in Highway Planning
The development of management systems for inter-urban and rural roads allowed budgets to
be allocated within a particular sphere, but the lack of compatibility between the planning
modules did not allow expenditure for the whole roads sub-sector to be equitably divided.
Between 1997 and 2000 the Strategic Expenditure Planning Module (SEPM) was developed
to meet the needs of central planning in this regard.

SEPM is not in itself an economic analysis tool. It uses the outputs from other systems, in a
standardised format, and then further manipulates this data (cash flows of agency and road
user costs for different investment strategies) to find the optimal split of a total roads budget
between road class, status, region and works programme.
While designed for use at central level of government, SEPM is readily adaptable for use at
regional level and has already been employed within the IRMS to optimise works
programmes for national and provincial roads.
IRMS Strategies Budgets

Planning Inter-urban
IRMS
Module Roads Medium Term
Database
Investment
Programmes
IBMS Strategies
Planning Inter-urban
IBMS
Module Bridges
Database Monitoring
SEPM Statistics
KRMS Strategies
Planning Rural
KRMS
Module Roads Key
Database
Performance
Indicators
URMS Strategies
Planning Urban
URMS
Module Roads
Database
Feasibility
Studies
CAPEX
NETEX
Figure 4.4
The Strategic Expenditure Planning Process
SEPM imports strategy files produced by each RMS containing the following information:
• 30 year stream of agency costs

• 30 year stream of road user costs
• 30 year stream of exogenous benefits (if any)
• 10 year stream of works programme codes
• 10 year streams of performance indicators
As well as road maintenance programmes, SEPM has the capability of including major road
capacity expansion projects, so that these can be programmed and prioritised under different
funding constraints alongside maintenance expenditure programs. Thus in JARNS, proposed
improvement strategies (including toll roads) will be input to the overall optimisation process,
to identify optimum expenditure programmes for the first 10 years of the study period.
Consideration will be given to the possibility of extending SEPM to a full 20 year analysis
period.
In addition to direct road user benefits, SEPM can apply factors, derived from macro level
planning, to represent indirect benefits from improved road transport efficiency. Factors for
indirect benefits have been determined, on a regional basis, using an input-output model
which estimates the effect on other sectors of the economy (industry, agriculture etc.) of
changing road transport costs.
Parameters that can be varied for a strategic analysis are:

• the economic discount rate

• inflation and financial interest rates
• ratio between financial and economic prices
• demand elasticity for generated and suppressed traffic
• indirect benefit factors
For each strategy, the Net present Value is calculated relative to a notional “do minimum”
case. Optimisation is then performed using an algorithm with the objective function being the
maximisation of NPV. This process uses the efficiency frontier approach with an iterative
procedure to allow for multi-year budget constraints.
Strategy 3
Strategy 2
Efficiency Frontier
Strategy 4
INPV4/IC4
INPV3/IC3
Net Present Value
Strategy 1
IC1 INPV2/IC2
INPV1
INPV1/IC1
Agency Cost
Figure 4.5
Incremental Benefit Cost Analysis and the Efficiency Frontier
SEPM produces a large range of graphic and tabular output showing the results of an analysis
in terms of budget distribution and performance indices for the network. Costs or road length
can be broken down by:
• road status (national, provincial, kotamadya, kabupaten)

• road management system (urban, inter-urban, rural, bridges)
• works programme (betterment, periodic, routine)
• budget (APBN, APBD etc)
• region or province
Performance indicators are:
• pavement condition (roughness)

• average vehicle speed
• road user cost index
• bridge condition mark
It will also calculate economic indicators (NPV, EIRR) for an entire investment programme.

Figure 4.6
SEPM Output
4.7.2 Estimating Funding Availability for Strategic Network Development
Road expenditure can be broadly categorised into preservation and development. The former
includes routine and periodic maintenance of roads, routine maintenance and rehabilitation of
bridges, road betterment (including minor incremental widening) and replacement of bridges
with inadequate load or traffic capacity. Preservation of the existing network should take
priority over construction of new roads or major capacity improvements to existing links.
There is no logic in expanding one part of the network while leaving other parts to decay to
the point where they become impassable and no longer serve as feeders to the strategic
network. Although, in SEPM, a capacity expansion project in Java can compete for a share of
the total highway budget with a preservation project in Kalimantan, this may not meet
regional equity demands and it is not proposed to apply the tool in this way.
SEPM will first be used to determine the financial needs for network preservation for the
period 2001 – 2010 for Indonesia, with major projects excluded from the analysis. This total
will be compared with potential available total funding for the roads sub-sector; the balance
will be an indicator of likely funding for road development projects throughout Indonesia.
The next step will be to find what proportion of this could be equitably allocated to projects in
Java, a difficult task when network expansion projects in other parts of the country have not
been fully identified and evaluated. A crude approach would be to allocate the funds on the
basis of existing travel.
A further subdivision of the road development funding must be made between urban and
inter-urban roads. Again, this could be based on relative total travel on the primary and
secondary networks in Java.

4.8 The RIDPD Project Database
The Road Improvements and Development Projects Database was developed for Bina Marga
in 1995, using funds provided by the Danish Trust Fund. It was designed to monitor and keep
track of the road development and major road improvements works, through the various
stages of project preparation. It was intended that this would be able to quickly provide an
overview of potential road projects, and be a tool for tracking the current status of all projects.
While the concept may have been appropriate, the reality is that this facility has never been
used by Bina Marga. The TOR suggest that it might be appropriate to use the tool as part of
JARNS, but to do so would require a large amount of work to locate a wide range of different
studies, and input their results into the database. The value of this to the JARNS project would
be negligible. The value to the Client would also be negligible, because there is no indication
that the circumstances now exist to make the facility valuable, when it was previously not
valued by Bina Marga.
However, what will be done is similar to work that was undertaken with a reduced and
somewhat different version of RIDPD by the IRMSs consultants, in the development of
SEPM. In this application, the economic details of projects prepared outside the context of
IRMS or other road management systems are included in SEPM, and evaluated as potential
road expenditure candidates at the same time as all road expenditure possibilities are
evaluated. In this way, major capacity expansion projects can be compared with routine road
maintenance, and an “optimal” mix of roadworks identified for a 10-year period, under a
budget constraint.
SEPM provides an ideal tool to assist in determining the effect of budget constraints on the
proposed strategic road programme. In operating it, all proposed elements of the programme
will need to be entered as discrete projects. For this purpose, a reduced version of RIDPD will
be used, in line with earlier facilities developed under IRMSs.

5. STUDY APPROACH
5.1 OVERVIEW
5.1.1 Methodology
The overall approach that will be taken to this study is indicated diagrammatically in Figure 5.1, and
summarised below. The remainder of this Section discusses key aspects of the approach, and detailed
Task Descriptions are provided in Section 6.
Review and data • Identify strategic road network, and quantify existing travel
collection demands
• Identify existing levels and patterns of economic and regional
development
Network • Develop a network model and base year O-D matrices,

modelling calibrated against existing traffic patterns
• Identify effects and likely future of modal competition
Identify • Identify likely future development patterns and pressures

development • Identify network capacity deficiencies and expansion needs and
opportunities opportunities
Strategy • Formulate and evaluate alternative network development

formulation and strategies
evaluation
5.1.2 Scope of Work and Level of Detail
The Java Arterial Road Network Study (JARNS) is strategic in nature, with the ultimate aim of
identifying a strategic road network development plan for Java that is an integral part of an
environmentally sustainable spatial development strategy for the next 20 years. Consequently, the
study must be wide-ranging in nature, and be adequately responsive to the major emerging forces that
will shape development in Java over the study period.
It is essential that at the start of this study, the scope of work and degree of detail be fully discussed
and agreed. In the section that follows, the scope of work that is believed to be appropriate to the
overall study objectives, and the time and resource constraints that apply, is set down.
a. The study will examine the future capacity needs of the strategic road network. As such, the
primary interest is in long distance travel, and its road infrastructure needs. Local traffic is of
course important in the social and economic life of the nation, but the strategic road network
should mainly provide for long distance and economically important traffic flows, and these
will be the major interest of the study. Generally speaking, the strategic road network includes
all primary arterials and toll roads, but on occasion important connectors to Ibu Kota
Kabupaten also need to be included, together with some collector roads that might in the
future need to be upgraded to provide additional network density and increased capacity.
b. The study will address broad issues of road corridor development priorities, rather than
detailed feasibility study or road design issues. In identifying possible alternative capacity
expansion options for any road link, it will not be possible to identify preferred alignment

FIGURE 5.1: OVERALL STUDY APPROACH
IDENTIFY STRATEGIC
REVIEW AND ROAD NETWORK AND EXISTING ECONOMIC AND
DATA EXISTING TRAVEL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
DEMANDS
COLLECTION
NETWORK DEVELOP NETWORK

MODELLING AND MODEL AND BASE YEAR
MATRICES
ANALYSIS
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES SCENARIOS
DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
FORECAST FUTURE
TRAVEL DEMANDS
IMPLICATIONS OF
FUTURE DEMANDS AND ALTERNATIVE
CAPACITY NEEDS DEVELOPMENT
SCENARIOS
STRATEGY
FORMULATION
AND
EVALUATION ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REVIEW AND EVALUATE
EVALUATION ALTERNATIVE
STRATEGIES STRATEGIES
RECOMMENDED
STRATEGIES
options in detail. However, the likely severance and resettlement implications for different
broad options will be estimated.
c. The study is by definition directed at inter-urban road corridors for the whole of Java, and this
examination will therefore exclude urban road systems from consideration. Developing
appropriate arterial road network structures for large cities like Surabaya, Bandung and
Jabotabek is an extremely large task, and is outside the scope of a strategic study of this type.
A line will be drawn around major cities, and the focus of the study is directed towards the
inter-urban network only.
d. One of the major concerns of the study is providing adequate future road network capacity for
future development in Java. Here, the emphasis is on network capacity, rather than corridor
capacity. The network implications of future likely development patterns, and the network
effects of arterial road improvement strategies, are to be examined. In order to undertake such
an examination, network analytic tools are needed, and for this purpose a road network travel
demand model will be developed. This model will necessarily be strategic in nature, and
limited to the needs of examining alternative network development options. It is not
appropriate in a study of this type to attempt to develop a multi-modal modelling capability, at
least at this stage. It may be found during this study that further analytic capability is needed
to properly examine some of the issues that may be identified, and if so, appropriate
recommendations will be made for more detailed analyses in subsequent studies. In the first
instance, a sketch planning model appropriate to the strategic nature of the study is what is
required.
5.1.3 Critical Elements of the Study Approach
In this Section, critical technical aspects of the Study Approach are reviewed. These include:
• Network modelling and travel demand forecasting

• Regional development
• Value of travel time savings
• Economic evaluation
While all tasks to be undertaken in the study are important, those listed above are technically very
demanding, and are deserving of particular attention. This is why they have been singled out for
special reference.
In Section 6, the detailed task descriptions for all aspects of the study are presented.

5.2 NETWORK MODELLING AND TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING
5.2.1 Modelling Strategy Overview
A key element of the overall study is the development of a network model of traffic flows for Java,
and the capability of forecasting future travel demands. Relatively simple, robust models are needed,
that are capable of being used to evaluate and prioritise arterial road capacity expansion needs, and
which are therefore adequately sensitive to the major factors affecting levels and patterns of travel
demand. It will be important to carefully specify models that are able to reflect the major
characteristics of travel demand, and take account of variations in the travel environment resulting
from major road capacity expansion.
In JARNS, passenger and freight models will be separately developed. These models will be based on
the 1996 National Origin-Destination Surveys (NODS), supplemented by detailed traffic counts and
O-D surveys that will be conducted throughout Java. These will be used to build base-year matrices
for 2000, and this data will then be used to estimate models of trip generation and distribution for
subsequent traffic forecasting.
The modelling strategy that will be used is based on a number of pragmatic considerations:
• The strategic nature of the study, which makes detailed model development inappropriate
at this stage
• Very limited availability of data suitable for detailed model development
• Limited resources for model development and data collection. For such a large study area,
the data needs for transport system model development are very significant, and data
collection and model development are time consuming
Models of road passengers and road freight will be developed, and will be based on existing O-D
matrices from the 1996 National O-D Survey (NODS), combined with O-D information from a
program of roadside interviews on major roads, and from classified traffic counts on other roads. The
estimation of the base matrices will be the most important step in the process, because these will then
be used for all subsequent model development. The matrices available from the 1996 NODS include:
• Passenger vehicle matrix

• Bus passenger matrix
• Truck matrix
The zone system to be used will be based on Kotamadya and Kabupaten, but large kabupaten towns
will be separately treated.
The road network will include all Arterial roads and K1 collectors. It will also include some K2 roads,
to ensure that Ibu Kota Kabupaten are connected to the network. In addition, some K2 and K3 roads
will be included for analysis, where it appears that they might usefully be upgraded to strengthen the
network. A map of the proposed network is shown in Fig. 5.2.
5.2.2 Base Year Matrix Development
The approach to building the base year trip matrices will be an iterative one, in which the amount and
quality of data input to the process is gradually increased as more primary data becomes available as a
result of traffic surveys. A process of matrix estimation will be used, in which the 1996 matrices (or
“prior” matrices) will be updated using available information including vehicle flow counts, vehicle
routing and travel cost matrices and any other relevant information. The first round of matrix
estimation will rely solely on existing data, including available or derived traffic counts for year 2000,
to produce the first matrices.

As new O-D survey information becomes available it will be directly used to replace selective parts of
the matrix. In areas where traffic counts but not O-D surveys were carried out, the matrix would be
improved through matrix estimation. This second round of matrix development would be used as a
basis for identifying any remaining potential weaknesses and gaps in the data, which could be
collected and then used as an input to the third round of matrix estimation. The third and final round
would be used as the matrix on which relationships would be calibrated.
Public and private passenger matrices and goods vehicle tonnage matrices will be developed in
parallel as they will be important in the forecasting process. These will be developed starting from the
1996 NODS matrices and refined using available information from the traffic surveys (bus passenger
counts and goods vehicle tonnage estimates) as well as any available data from the operators or
Government authorities. Matrices for rail, air and sea modes will be developed in a similar way though
their updating will be based solely on information which can be obtained from operators and
Government authorities.
A reliable model network will need to be established to obtain travel costs for input to the matrix
estimation process. This will be based on an existing model of Java, with review of the network and
zoning system and refined to take into account latest capacities (which will be calculated based on
IRMS data), free-flow speeds, speed-flow relationships. The network will take into account the effect
of local traffic on the strategic traffic.
5.2.3 Model Development
While generally it is expected that models of trip generation and trip distribution for both passengers
and freight traffic will be developed, the actual form of these models will depend critically on what the
available data will support. Some alternative possibilities are summarised below.
A Joint Model of Trip Distribution and Trip Generation
Models of long distance travel are usually very different from the structures used for short-distance
urban travel. The demand model structures often used do not just distribute a fixed quantum of trips
between origins and destinations. They also include the equivalent of a trip generation model, and are
therefore more like a direct demand model (in aggregate terms), or alternatively a joint frequency-
destination choice model (using choice modelling concepts).
Thus a typical model may have the form:
Tij = k.Piα.Pjβ.Cijλ
where:
Tij = trips from i to j

Pi = population of zone i
Pj = population or some measure of attraction of zone j
Cij = a measure of zonal separation, such as travel cost
α,β,λ are parameters to be estimated.
A model of this form can be readily estimated using OLS (regression) analysis, with the base year
matrix providing the observed data.

Sequential Models of Trip Generation and Distribution
The more conventional modelling approach is to separately develop models of trip distribution and trip
generation.
A form of trip distribution model that is appropriate to modelling travel in Java is:
Dj exp(Vij )
Pij =
∑ Dj exp(Vik )
k
where: Vij = αj + f(Cij)

Dj = total trips to destination j
f(Cij) = some function of travel cost between i and j
and αj is a set of J-1 alternative specific constants to be estimated, that effectively measure
destination “attractiveness”. This means that detailed measures of zonal attraction, such as
zonal employment, are not required for model estimation. This is a significant advantage,
because such data is not available in Indonesia.
Again, the parameters of this model form are easily estimated directly from the matrix.
One appropriate model form for a trip generation model is the power form, which directly estimates
the demand elasticities of included variables.
Ti = ki.Piα.Eiβ.Aiλ
This includes the effect of :
• Origin zone population (Pi)

• Measures of economic activity - GRDP or similar (Ei)
• City type dummy variables or other similar (captured by ki)
• Accessibility (Ai)
Of particular interest is the form of the “accessibility” variable. One appealing measure derives from
choice modelling, and is the “inclusive value” term that allows sequential choice structures to be
modelled correctly. In this case, the inclusive value term would provide the necessary linkage between
generation and destination choice models, and would have the form:
IVi = ln( ∑Dj.exp(Vij))
This is the logarithm of the denominator of the destination choice (trip distribution) model above, and
is well known as a theoretically appropriate measure of accessibility, corresponding to estimated
population preference structures.
5.2.4 Forecasting Future Year Matrices
While forecasting is conceptually straight-forward, it is somewhat practically complicated by the fact

that it is expected that the total amount of travel will be related to the quality and extent of the road
network that is assumed. Thus the usual approach of independently forecasting a future year matrix,
and then designing an appropriate road network to cater for this level of traffic, will not be
appropriate. Instead the matrix will be dependent on the road network being examined.
The approach to forecasting road-based passenger traffic will need to take account of future growth in
vehicle ownership. While the effect of economic growth will be taken account of in the trip generation

model, changing levels of car ownership will impacts on mode share. Mode choice models cannot be
developed within the timeframe of this study, and manual methods will be used to adjust forecasts to
take account of changing car ownership.
It should be noted in this context, that substantial increases in the demand for road space by private
vehicles will result from increasing vehicle ownership and availability, as demonstrated by the
example in the table below. This shows the effect of 10% of passengers moving from bus to car, which
at the assumed relative composition of road traffic, results in a doubling of the number of cars on the
road, and a 36% increase in the total traffic volume as measured by passenger car equivalent (pce)
units. This demonstrates the importance of policy measures to maintain the mode share of bus. It also
demonstrates the possible later need for the development of a more refined passenger travel demand
modelling capability than will be possible in JARNS
Type Veh. Occ pce Base Mode Shares Shares After 10% Shift Bus to Car
Veh. Pax. pce Veh. Pax. pce
Car/LV 2.5 1.0 50 125 50 100 250 100
Bus 50 1.5 25 1250 37.5 25 1125 37.5
Truck 2.5 2.0 25 50 50 25 50 50
Total 100 1425 137.5 150 1425 187.5
5.2.5 Modal Competition
The effect of future shifts between rail and road, and between sea traffic and road, will necessarily be
undertaken in a similar manual fashion. This will require likely future mode shares to be estimated,
based on expectations of future modal developments, and estimates of base year matrices. This will
affect both passenger and freight forecasts.
The effects are expected to be relatively small, but the process will identify the extent to which such
manual methods might introduce errors into the process, and will allow the estimation of the likely
effect of such errors. The possible need for subsequent refinement of the modelling approach may be
evaluated from these results.
5.2.6 Network Assignment
Assignment of the forecast matrices to the built road network will be done within the TRIPS
modelling package. The traffic assignment approach will need to take into account choice between
different routes, characteristics of different vehicle types and users (willingness-to-pay) and different
time periods.
Conventional capacity applied restraint approach is favoured for the JARNS model, with each market
segment loaded in turn using specific values-of-time and vehicle operating costs. The method is an
iterative using a volume averaging/equilibrium technique, and enables multiple route choice to be fully
reflected. However, in order to reflect that in an inter-urban situation, the speeds for different vehicle
types may be significantly different, the conventional capacity restraint approach will be modified.
Separate networks will be set up with speeds for different types of vehicles and corresponding speed-
flow curves will be calculated from the IRMS data. An “average” speed-flow curve, weighted by the
vehicle composition, will be used in the capacity constraint process, and output speeds for separate
vehicle classes output. This will be important for economic evaluation where the vehicle operating
cost is given on a speed band basis for different vehicle types.
5.2.7 Summary
The approach for establishing the base year matrices is well established, and will build upon the
existing information from the 1996 NODS with infilling and updating based on new surveys carried

out under JARNS. The precise way in which the resulting trip matrices will be used to establish
relationships between trip-making and socio-economic data is not known at this stage, and will
become apparent only once the data has been fully analysed.
The key issues for forecasting relate to the impact of geographical change and the effect of improved
highway infrastructure on the extent and patterns of trip making. The likely change in future
composition of road traffic, particularly with increasing car ownership, will be key to determining the
future highway priorities.
The traffic assignment approach will take into account choice between different routes, characteristics
of different vehicle types and users (willingness-to-pay) and different time periods, and will be based
on a modification of the conventional capacity restraint approach.
5.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
5.3.1 The Interaction Between Regional Development and Road Development
The Terms of Reference (correctly) emphasise the importance of the interaction between land
development and transport infrastructure development, and direct that to the extent found possible,
some effort should be given to ways by which this interaction might be incorporated in the study.
The emphasis given in the TOR to this question derives from the concern that future development in
the North Java Corridor may well exceed the potential future transport capacity of that corridor. This
is probably a little overstated, but it is the case that there are a few bottle-necks where road and rail
infrastructure costs will be greater than elsewhere, because of adverse terrain conditions. Nevertheless,
additional development in the NJC is likely to be more efficiently achieved there than elsewhere.
There would appear to be potential synergy available from such additional development, with
marginal benefits substantially greater than the additional marginal costs of providing transport
capacity. In other words, it is not necessarily proven that development in the NJC is undesirable, and a
much more detailed analysis than is possible in JARNS would be necessary to examine this question.
However, it is the case that there will be areas in Java where development pressures will become
significant, and the early and effective provision of transport infrastructure will be helpful in directing
and promoting such development. But knowing this to be the case is not really sufficient. To be
effectively used, this knowledge needs to be able to be used in a quantitative way, that allows us to
predict the strength and direction of the effect.
This, unfortunately, we have no tools to do. We might have a general sense of the way the interaction
will work, but we cannot measure or predict it with any degree of confidence. Other approaches need
to be taken for this task, and possibilities are outlined in the following sections.
5.3.2 Forecasting Future Development Patterns
Traffic forecasting and economic benefit assessment in a strategic planning study of this kind needs to
be underpinned by an understanding of the sources of existing and potential transport demand in each
corridor set within a plausible framework of regional development
The basic geography and socio-economic characteristics of each corridor will first be established from
secondary data sources and summarised briefly. Consideration of the likely path of future economic
development needs to take account of the framework of formal spatial planning with an environmental
emphasis which was developed in Indonesia during the 1990s. However, this process is in a state of
flux, and detailed consultation with regional government will be undertaken to help identify current

priorities and emerging directions. Spatial Plans (RUTR – Rencana Umum Tata Ruang1) were
intended to provide the foundation for regional development planning within the framework of a
national spatial planning strategy referred to as ‘Strategi Nasional Pengembangan Pola Tata Ruang’
(SNPPTR). Development planning and budgeting over the last three decades has been framed within a
series of five-year plans (Repelita). This process no longer exists, and it is probable that most available
medium and long term plans prepared under the previous regime will not adequately reflect the new
policies and directions being developed under the new government.
Because we lack any formal definition of the way increased accessibility from improved transport
infrastructure interacts with development pressures to give rise to new patterns of development, we
cannot forecast what these patterns will be. All that could be said – after a substantial planning study
has been undertaken – is where new development is most likely to be beneficial, and where it would
be harmful. It would also be possible to identify what transport infrastructure would be supportive of
particular development patterns, and what would not. Identification of the desirability of particular
development patterns is a complex task, involving a wide variety of measures. Only after desirable
growth patterns have been widely agreed would it be possible to design transport systems that would
support them.
The process will include the following tasks:
• To carefully review existing and planned development levels and patterns

• To undertake economic and population forecasts for the study period and for each region,
in the context of current economic and demographic projections
• To identify possible growth scenarios in each region, based on assumptions of achievable
growth rates and the more detailed knowledge of regional government. It will be possible
to identify a small number of development growth scenarios for this purpose
• To examine the transport implications of these development scenarios, and identify those
most likely to be efficiently and effectively supported by “reasonable” transport system
development strategies
5.3.3 The Need for Careful Identification of Regional Development Aspirations
What has changed since this study was conceived and the Terms of Reference prepared, is the drive to
“regional autonomy”, which will involve a shift of real responsibilities for planning, programming and
implementation of projects and development policies from central to local government. The
implications of this major paradigm shift remain unknown. The relative roles and responsibilities of
each level of government in development planning also remain unknown. What is known, is that the
role of central government in local and regional planning will be minor, if not minimal.
In this context, it is only likely to be possible to identify clear and coherent statements of regional
development directions, from provincial governments. Central government has never been an effective
advocate of regional development aspirations, and local government cannot be expected to adopt other
than essentially local interests. Because the focus of JARNS is strategic, and strategic network
development considerations will be paramount, so too must the focus be on strategic regional
development interests.
It will therefore be essential to the success of the study that regional aspirations be actively solicited at
the earliest opportunity, and lines of communication be opened to senior regional stakeholders to enlist
their understanding, commitment and support for JARNS and the strategic planning process. To this
end, it is proposed that immediately after acceptance of the Inception Report, a “road show” be
undertaken, and the concepts be presented to regional governments at all levels. Following the
1
These were earlier termed RSTRP (Rencana Struktur Tata Ruang Propinsi), while the August 1995 draft of the
National Spatial Plan is entitled RTRWN – Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional.

presentations and discussions, it is hoped that contacts will be established that will facilitate the
collection of necessary information and data.
5.3.4 Assessing the Possible Development Impacts of Arterial Road Investment
While the effect of transport infrastructure investment on promoting land development is well-known,
there are no widely accepted quantitative methods that can be used to formally estimate the direction
or magnitude of the likely development outcomes of road investment. The reasons for this are straight-
forward: the relationships are extremely complex, and depend on a wide range of factors each of
which are difficult to quantify.
There is no time in this study for research: this can come at a later stage, when the results of the initial
work are in. However, it should be possible to undertake a manual “what-if” evaluation of the possible
effects of alternative development patterns that one might speculate would result from forward road
investment designed to attract development. Assuming that such efforts were successful, and gave rise
to different development patterns, it should be possible to evaluate whether this differential effect will
be such as to make the project feasible.
Depending on the results of this, additional work to explore and parameterise the source and nature of
such interactions might then be considered appropriate.
5.4 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (VTTS)
5.4.1 Introduction and Objectives
The determination of the value of travel time savings, ‘value of time’, is a key component in the
planning and appraisal of transport projects. In the case of road and other transport projects, the
reliable estimation of time/cost trading behaviour is fundamental in forecasting travel demand (and
revenues for toll roads) and the calculation of the economic benefits of road schemes.
Most OECD (and increasingly non-OECD) countries routinely impute unit values for travel time
savings (VTTS) and use them widely in both highway and public transport assessment. A recent
publication of The World Bank (Gwilliam KM, TWU Transport No OT-5, July 1999) quotes that in
the UK, The Netherlands and Finland time savings account for 80% of the measured benefits of road
projects. It is interesting that national research studies on which the VTTS conventions are based show
much similarity in the level and structure of time values estimated.
In Indonesia, proxy VTTS have been routinely used, developed on the basis of evidence from other
countries (mainly the UK) and applied to the assessment of road schemes and toll roads in particular.
On the other hand, the effects of alternative assumptions about the value of time have been rarely
examined. A recent study carried out for Bina Marga and Jasa Marga (Johnson et al, Highway Toll
Study, TA no 2762, Asian Development Bank, July 1997) attempted limited sensitivity analysis of
vehicle operating cost savings (VOC) and the assumed value of time. As expected the study showed
that the value of time has a significant effect on the level of overall savings, but more importantly, that
time savings could account for 30% to 88% of the total economic savings of a toll scheme, depending
on the value of time assumed.
Some empirical research on the estimation of VTTS for different road user groups has been carried out
recently in Indonesia, mainly by the Institute of Road Engineering in association with the Transport
Research Laboratory, UK. This work is reviewed in this section.
As implied above VTTS are important for two different reasons. First in project planning, travel time
is recognised as a major factor influencing travel behaviour, whether it relates to route choice, mode
choice, destination choice, or the decision to travel at all. In this study, VTTS will provide a measure

of drivers’ willingness to pay tolls in order to save journey time, and it is a key input to the traffic
forecasting and route choice models.
Secondly, in the economic appraisal of projects, road user benefits represent the main benefits of
transport projects. These benefits flow through the economy in a variety of ways, but they are most
readily measured as reductions in travel time, reductions in travel cost, reductions in accidents,
opportunities to extend the choice of activities in which people are engaged, etc.
The principles of travellers’ behaviour used in transport modelling and economic evaluation (CBA)
are based on the fundamental philosophy of willingness to pay. The theoretical background of this
approach is briefly discussed in Appendix 2, together with an overview of empirical methods available
for estimating VTTS.
The objectives of this study are to:
• Review VTTS estimates from previous work in Indonesia, in the light of best
international practice
• Identify a further programme of work necessary to refine or validate these estimates
• Develop robust values for use the traffic forecasting and economic evaluation of JARNS
The international best practice discussed in this report and supporting our evidence stems from a
variety of sources, the most important of which are:
• First UK VTTS study (1982-85): MVA et al (1987) Value of Travel Time Savings
• Second UK VTTS study (1993-96): Accent and HCG (1999) The Value of Travel Time
on UK Roads
• Value of Travel Time and Reliability in the USA: HLB, MVA and Universities of
California Irvine and Florida, published by NCHRP (1999)
• The Netherlands Value of Time Study: HCG (1990)
• Other value of time projects in Chile, Sweden, Norway, etc.
5.4.2 Definition of Value of Travel Time Savings
Three distinct definitions of VTTS can be identified which relate to project planning and economic
evaluation. These are:
• Behavioural (or perceived) values

• Resource values
• Equity values
In addition, it is important to distinguish between VTTS for:
• Work or business purposes

• Non-work purposes, such as commuting, leisure travel, etc
The distinction of VTTS according to the three categories mentioned above originates from the work
carried out in the 1960s in the UK by McIntosh and Quarmby (1970) normally referred to as MAU
Note 179. This review example has been used as a reference for both transport modelling and
economic evaluation for more than a decade in the UK and abroad.
Behavioural Values of Time
Behavioural values of time relate to behavioural costs, and are “… those costs which when used in
appropriate models give the best empirical fits to observed behaviour” (MAU Note 179). Assuming

that the appropriate models are available, estimates of changes in travel patterns and conditions,
consequent on changes in the transport system, can be made, and these can be quantified in terms of
changes in time and money expenditure.
Therefore, behavioural VTTS are those values which, in combination with other choice factors, best
describe an individual’s decision to travel in any particular circumstances and should be used in all
stages of travel demand modelling. They are based on the concept of willingness to pay (WTP) money
for travel time savings.
In the case of non-working travel, behavioural VTTS are best estimated from real world (revealed
preference) or hypothetical (stated preference, transfer price) choices where a trade-off exists between
time and money. The appropriate techniques for estimation are discussed in the Appendix.
Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence show that behavioural VTTS are most successful in
predicting travellers’ behaviour when disaggregated according to a number of different dimensions
that facilitate understanding existing behaviour. These include travel purpose, time of day, car
ownership, socio-economic group, etc. However in most cases, modelling considerations (and data
availability) determine the disaggregation of VTTS.
If values of time are related to incomes, and if there is regional variation in incomes, then in principle
there should be regional variation in VTTS. Therefore, regional VTTS should be sought in this project
as far as possible (note that for traffic assignment purposes Java based VTTS would be appropriate).
An exception to the behavioural approach is the treatment of working travel, or more accurately travel
for work or business purposes: in this case historically the VTTS has been based on the marginal
productivity of labour (MPL) theory. This approach, in its simplest form, assumes that all time savings
during normal working hours of employment are to be treated as working time and are assumed to be
convertible into extra productive output. The value to the employer, on average, is the marginal value
of production. Because the value of output to the employer is its return net of any indirect tax, and the
cost of labour is its price before the deduction of income tax, it is argued that for working time the
VTTS should be based on income (plus overhead) before taxes.
In the UK the current DoT procedure for valuation is to take the value of travel time savings in the
course of work to be equal to the cost of replacing that time. This requires the use of the average gross
wage earnings (AGWE) for a range of occupational groups plus a mark up (overheads) of about 35%
(this figure was 36.5% in 1997) to represent the direct on-costs of employing labour. This mark-up
will vary between countries and may not be relevant in Indonesia.
The MPL approach makes questionable assumptions regarding the transfer of travel time to other
purposes, neglects possible productive use of travel time and ignores the utility to the employee of
time spent at work or in travel. A number of corrections have been proposed in the past to account for
such factors, which can be different between say ‘briefcase’ business and other business purposes. In
addition, the UK VTTS studies also proposed corrections estimated by means of stated preference
research of employers and employees.
Such modifications seem valid, and some studies in Europe have applied them. A common approach is
to use behavioural VTTS for private car business travel derived from stated preference surveys,
although this has yet to become standard practice.
The early (1960s and 1970s) empirical research (mainly using revealed preference techniques) in the
UK indicated that the VTTS for non-working time was about 25% of the average wage earnings
(AWE) per hour. Appropriate corrections were recommended to convert to units of household income,
so that (MAU Note 179) suggested that the value of adult time in household is 19% of household
income (assumed over a 2000 hour working year). In addition, it was arbitrarily assumed that
children’s time could be valued at 1/3 of the adult rate.

These estimates were applied to all purposes and modes of travel. (Note that the early empirical
studies were mainly focussed on, and models were calibrated for, commuting travel.) The value of
non-working time was re-estimated, on a different basis, as 40% of the mileage-weighted hourly
earnings of commuters. In the last thirty years the above estimates, or variations of them, have been
directly transferred to other countries (including Indonesia) and used in modelling and evaluation of
transport projects without further validation.
As an example, the recent World Bank Note (Gwilliam 1999) recommends the use of a common value
of time for all non-working trips unless there is strong local evidence to the contrary with a default
value of 30% of household income per hour.
Resource Values of Time
These are the values used in project economic evaluation. They represent the amount of money that
individuals are willing to pay (WTP) to save a unit of travel time. The fundamental assumption here is
that the social valuation corresponds with the individuals’ valuation as evidenced by behaviour and
this is also the basic philosophy underlying CBA.
Therefore, behavioural VTTS provide the basis for resource values and accordingly empirical studies
have formed the basis for the values used in CBA in several countries.
The distinction between the two values of time (and costs) mainly relates to the incidence of taxation
(as well as to the perception of vehicle operating costs). This applies to the value of non-working time
only. The resource VTTS for working time is the same as the behavioural VTTS for working time
according to MPL theory.
However, for non-working time a correction is required. As discussed above VTTS is based on an
individual’s WTP. The assumption is that the traded money would have been spent on goods that carry
indirect taxation. The resources associated with the time trade are thus equal to the expenditure less
the indirect taxation.
Therefore, the resource non-working time savings should be valued at the behavioural rate divided by
(1+X), where X is the average rate of indirect taxation.
Equity Values of Time
The concept of ‘equity’ VTTS has arisen through what is essentially an overlay of political objectives
other than economic efficiency. It is widely understood that using WTP as a criterion for investment in
public services will involve a net redistribution of welfare in favour of those who already have higher
incomes.
In the UK and other countries the standard practice has been to calculate the ‘equity’ VTTS for non-
working time as an average across different income groups, different modes of transport, different
regions of the country, etc. These values are then used in economic evaluation.
What is Required for JARNS
JARNS, as a strategic study, requires VTTS for both modelling and economic evaluation. As
discussed above behavioural values are required for modelling and/or equity values for the economic
evaluation.
For working time, according to our international review and recommendations (see above), the
position is straightforward and all types of VTTS (behavioural, resource, equity) coincide. The value,

however, has to be estimated on the basis of the most up-to-date statistical information about gross
average wage earnings.
For non-working time, it is desirable to use values based on empirical research and only employ
default values, nominally set at a percentage of household income, if empirical results are not
available.
Since the main objective of JARNS is the study of inter-urban and rural travel, a single value of time
for all non-working trips is adequate.
Behavioural values should be used in transport modelling (e.g. trip distribution, traffic assignment).
Resource or equity values should be used in the economic evaluation.
Values of time for passenger and freight movements are required. For passenger traffic VTTS for
private cars and possibly average VTTS for bus passengers will be necessary. Depending on the
modelling process finally adopted for freight movements, VTTS and possibly by type of truck and per
type of commodity might appropriate. For JARNS it appears that two types of trucks: semi-trailer and
other (3 axles, 2 axles or light) might be appropriate.
Finally, note that VTTS are usually estimated by person type. On the other hand, the traffic forecasting
is undertaken in terms of vehicle types. It will therefore be necessary to adjust the personal values
according to vehicle occupancy. It is anticipated that the vehicle occupancy levels will be estimated
from the O-D surveys carried out in the course of JARNS.
5.4.3 Assessment of Existing Evidence
As already mentioned a number of studies of road schemes and toll roads in particular have been
conducted in Indonesia. In most cases proxy values of time were used, usually directly transferred
from other countries. The so called “income approach” was employed together with the MAU Note
179 (1970) method of using a percentage of the average income as representing the VTTS of non-
working time (see McIntosh and Quarmby 1970; Gwilliam 1999).
For working time, the most common approach has been to use an estimate of the average gross wage
earnings or average personal income. In practice in Indonesia, most studies used GDP per capita and
the distribution of household expenditure because average incomes and income distribution data are
difficult to obtain. Using the above information an income distribution was imputed. The same
(imputed) income was also used in the calculation of non-working time, but in this case a proportion
ranging from of 25% to 45% (depending on the study) of the hourly rate was taken as the value of
time.
When research findings are transferred internationally there are always risks (and confusion) about the
treatment of income tax structures, indirect taxes, non-wage benefits to employees, different
obligations for employers’ costs, informal economic activity, currency conversions, appropriate
exchange rates and indexing for inflation etc. Fortunately, some of the above problems may be
irrelevant in Indonesia.
In Indonesia, there were cases when only a fraction of the income estimate was taken to represent the
value of working time because it had been assumed that only 50% of the working time saved could be
productively utilised (Sweroad and Indec 1990). We have introduced in the previous sections some
reasons for a correction, but the above study offers little justification. The same study used a
proportion of 35% of the average personal income to represent the value of non-working time.
Johnson et al (1997) used a different approach. In their study of highway tolls, values of time were
derived by assuming vehicle utilisation as the recipients of time savings, not the occupants. Although

this approach was in accordance with the then used vehicle operating costs (PCI VOC) model, it is not
consistent with the theory and practice discussed above.
A small number of studies have employed empirical methods to estimate the VTTS. In particular, RP
research has been used. A number of studies are quoted (see e.g. Johnson 1997) but very little
information is available about either methodology employed or the confidence attached to the results.
However, there are exceptions. For example, we were able to review the work carried out by Herman
(1995). This study attempted to quantify the value of time of passenger cars on the Jakarta to
Cikampek toll road. Data was collected by means of a vehicle number matching survey on the two
parallel routes (toll and non-toll road. Then values of time were estimated by employing two different
statistical models (simple linear regression and logit models). The functional specification was the
same in both models and the generalised cost of travel (specified as a linear function of journey time
and toll cost) was assumed to explain car users behaviour. The Herman (1995) research is well
thought-out and organised. However, it appears that it suffered from some particular problems
persisting in RP work, ie lack of data variation, in general, and of ‘traders’ in particular. Although
values of time were derived initial examination of the reported results indicates that they were not
statistically significant, which could be the direct effect of the RP data problem.
It might be the case that we have failed to notice other work. However, and on the basis of the studies
we reviewed, it appears that the RP evidence on VTTS in Indonesia is thin, the available values of
time do not seem robust enough and were based on methodologies not well developed. To be fair our
criticism should be judged in the light of the international evidence about the generic problems of the
RP approach, mentioned above and reviewed in the Appendix.
We were also able to review a number of SP studies. These are important because, as discussed in
earlier sections (see Appendix for a comprehensive statement), SP appears to be the most effective
means to estimating VTTS.
This seems to have started being recognised in Indonesia. The earliest application we found was
carried out in the course of the TNPR project (C Buchanan and Partners et al 1990). The original
objective was to use SP in order to build a mode choice model (between public and private transport),
which was not very successful (and its validity could be questioned in principle). However, the SP
data were also used to derive VTTS and a value of Rp4000 per hour was obtained for private
transport.
In the last four years a small number of studies have been carried out directly addressing VTTS. An
example at the urban level is the work of Henry Armiyaya (2000), which studied a Jakarta intra-urban
toll road using SP. Different values of time were derived for different trip purposes (working,
commuting, other) and depending on who paid the toll (company or travellers). They ranged from
Rp4800 per hour to Rp10700 per hour.
More important for JARNS is the research programme carried out by IRE in association with TRL in
Indonesia (see Hine 1998, IRE 1998 and 2000). Since 1997 a total number of over 1000 SP (face-to-
face) interviews have been carried out with private car users, bus passengers and transport managers of
firms transporting freight in Java. The passenger transport surveys targeted urban, inter-urban and
rural travel. The results from the urban context are within the range of the Armiyaya (2000) values
quoted above.
For JARNS the inter-urban and rural research, carried out in the course of the IRE and TRL
programme, is more important. In this context the aforementioned research has a lot to offer. It is
important to notice that the research (see Hine 1998, IRE 1998 and 2000) was specified and conducted
according to international SP standards.

In particular, the design and application of the SP questions was developed according to a standard
which has its origins in the second UK VTTS study (Accent and HCG 1999) and was devised for
situations where simplicity and avoidance of any risk of respondent fatigue or confusion are
paramount. In addition, the SP data analysis was carried out according to international best practice.
Appropriate statistical techniques were used based on the theories of random utility and discrete
choice and quality approved software with a world-wide acceptance was employed.
The IRE and TRL work offers different values of time for different modes (car, small and large bus),
in different situations (urban, inter-urban, rural), for different trip purposes (mainly non-working) and
for different types of respondents. In the latter case a number of different models were estimated for
different segments according to age, gender, education, occupation, household expenditure, etc. In
practice in most modelling and economic evaluation applications, single values of time by purpose are
required. However, the IRE and TRL segmentation analysis was carefully reviewed because the the
plausibility of the results significantly increase the overall confidence (not only statistical) of the
research recommendations.
On the basis of the above work we prepared the following Table, which presents our appreciation of
the Indonesian evidence of values of time and prepares the way forward for JARNS research
programme.
Table Assessment of VTTS from Existing Evidence 6 (Revalued at current prices)

Category of VTTS Existing value Confidence Date of Importance
Rp/hour source (JARNS)
Car user non-working 5100-5900 1 H3 1997 H3
2
Car user working TBE H
Bus user non-working 1600-2800 1 H 1997 L
Bus user working TBE L
Truck: light 46000-50000 4 L 1999 L
Truck: medium 50000-57000 4 H 1999 H
4
Truck: heavy (semi- 112000 H 1999 H
trailer)
By types of goods 5 M 1999 M
Notes: 1 These are personal values and require car occupancy adjustment to represent VTTS per vehicle
2 TBE = to be estimated from AGWE see Chapter 6, task 3 Secondary Data and Implementation
3 H=high, M=medium, L=low
4 These are VTTS per truck assuming full load, in application they should reduced according to average load
5 See range of VTTS per type of goods in IRE (2000)
6 Sources: Hine et al 1998, IRE 1998 and 2000.
The IRE and TRL work provides evidence about non-working VTTS of time for car. The values range
from Rp5100 to Rp5900 per hour for inter-urban and rural travel (the urban travel values are higher).
The total sample size for all car surveys was approximately 750 personal (face-to-face) interviews.
Such values of time for car users seem intuitively attractive. For example, for an average income of
Rp3m per month, which may be typical of the average car user in Indonesia, the above VTTS of
approximately Rp5500 per hour represents approximately 29% of income.
For bus travel the VTTS range from Rp1600 to Rp2900 per hour. The total sample size for all bus
surveys was approximately 450 personal (face-to-face) interviews.
Note that the above values of time for bus passengers compare well with the evidence from other
research carried out in 1999 in Bandung (Hermawan et al (1999). There two VTTS were estimated for
urban bus users: first based on SP research (Rp2032/hour) and second based on the income approach
(Rp2206/hour).

Note that the above (car and bus) are personal values of time. Therefore, they need to be multiplied by
an appropriate occupancy factor in order to determine values of time per vehicle (the IRE and TRL
reports provide some evidence on occupancy levels from their surveys).
In addition, VTTS for freight movements were estimated (from a sample of approximately 250
interviews). This was done both per type of truck and per type of commodity. Note that the surveys
targeted firms and their transport managers and not the truck drivers, which is appropriate in this case.
Different values were estimated for the categories of trucks that will be of interest in JARNS. They
ranged from Rp50000 to Rp57000 per hour for two and three axles trucks and Rp112000 per hour for
semi-trailers. Note that the above values for trucks assume full load and they should be corrected
according to the average load per return trip. IRE and TRL (2000) provide some evidence on this
subject, according to which it appears that load factors of the order of 0.60 and 0.33 should be applied
to trucks and semi-trailers respectively.
5.4.4 Preliminary Recommendations
As mentioned above the Hine et al (1998) and the IRE (1998 and 2000) research is of high quality.
The VTTS obtained have been tested extensively by them and seem internally valid and consistent
with prior expectations. In addition, the variation of VTTS according to various segments (e.g.
household expenditure) is also consistent and intuitive.
As a result, the JARNS team has decided at this stage of the study to adopt some of these values for
non-working time, subject to further tests. As will be discussed later, in our research programme we
included two major tasks, which will facilitate further validation and refining of the values (RP task
and single SP experiment).
Finally, the question is often asked about how these values compare with international experience.
Two issue must be emphasised on this subject. First, the differences between countries in terms of
social and economic characteristics and historic circumstances in their development path are so vast
that such comparisons should be treated with caution. This applies to comparing VTTS derived in
France and The Netherlands for example, let alone comparisons between the UK and Indonesia.
Indeed, this is the reason for avoiding transferring VTTS across countries, which is a very difficult
task and subject to uncertainty.
Second, in most countries where VTTS are important inputs to transport modelling and economic
evaluation, and in the case of major projects requiring public and/or private money, the generic advice
is to carry out empirical research. This should target the population affected by or benefiting from the
project and should address appropriate local issues. Thus, for example, the UK Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions, publishes default VTTS, which it updates regularly by mans
of empirical research covering the whole country. However, for major road or multi-modal
programmes it strongly recommends carrying out primary research and only if this is impossible
should use be made of the default values.
The following Table provides example of the VTTS used in the UK.
Table: VTTS used in the UK (1998 prices)

Working Time for Appraisal (resource) 1
Car driver (main occupant) £17.44
Car passenger £13.69
LGV/OGV £7.31
All workers £11.57
Non-Working Time for Appraisal (resource) 1

All (commuting and other) £3.74

Working Time Behavioural 1
All (commuting and other) £4.52
Working Time Behavioural 2
Business £11.8
Non-Working Time Behavioural 2
Commuter £6.4
Other £6.0
Notes: 1. Source DETR COBA HEN2 (Nov 1997) and TUBA last updated 29/9/00
2. Source Second UK VTTS Study (Accent and HCG 1999)
Note that in 1999 the average (gross) wage earnings for the whole UK economy were £20919 per
employee per annum, ie £10.60 per hour (if we assume 1976 working hours per annum). Therefore,
the VTTS of £4.52 per hour represents approximately 42% of the AGWE. There is no detailed
information about the AGWE for car occupants, but it is likely that they will be somewhat higher and
the proportion of VTTS over AGWE lower, thus more comparable with the Indonesian estimate given
above.
5.4.5 Derivation of Future Year Values of Time
One of the tasks identified in our proposal is the development of methods and relationships to estimate
the value of travel time savings in future year forecasts and assessment of schemes. A related task is to
re-base values obtained from data (primary or secondary) representing different years.
There are two different issues:
• Modifying VTTS to express them in values and prices of different years

• Forecasting VTTS changes over time
The first issue is resolved by up-rating and re-basing VTTS on the basis of average encourages and the
RPI as appropriate.
The second issue relates to forecasting VTTS in the future. In general, it is assumed that the real value
of time will grow in line with the forecast of real GDP per head.
This assumption is used to forecast VTTS over time in the UK and other western countries. Note that
in theory, VTTS should actually change with income but in the UK it appears that income growth is
similar to GDP growth (note again that if non-equity values are of interest GRP growth may be more
appropriate). At the same time this convention is convenient where income forecasts are not available,
and it is recommended in the recent World Bank Note (Gwilliam KM, TWU Transport No OT-5, July
1999).
The above publication also recommends that “… given the limited evidence, … the value of time
continue to be treated as increasing over time in proportion to GDP per capita unless there is local
evidence to the contrary.”
Theory suggests that VTTS should have a monotonic relationship with income. This is true both at a
single snapshot when comparing different income groups at the same point in time and longitudinally,
when comparing income changes of the same group over time. However, there is very little evidence
about the actual relationship, although it has been assumed that a one to one relationship is plausible.
The first UK VTTS study (MVA et al 1987) reviewed the limited empirical and theoretical evidence
and concluded that there is a strong set of arguments against the a-priori presumption that the value of
time of non-working time should increase over time broadly in step with the level of GDP per capita.

More recent studies in the UK and the Netherlands suggest elasticities of VTTS with income of less
than one and possibly as low as 0.5 (see e.g. second UK VTTS study).
As the first UK VTTS study found, there is no theoretical reason to expect that VTTS would be
proportional to income in either a cross section of individuals or as incomes of particular groups of
individuals increase over time. Such a conclusion is of obvious importance because of the large
contribution to discounted benefits of road schemes by growth in VTTS as a result of income growth.
However, note that the use of a non-proportionate relationship would imply a much more complex
approach in order to address the distribution of incomes across different road users and forecasting
how they may change over time (both average income and income distribution).
Therefore, we do agree with the recommendation of the World Bank Note (op.cit). However, we also
believe that this issue is worth further consideration and the relationship between VTTS and GDP per
capita should be the subject of future research.
Other complex effects could also be considered in forecasting future values of time. An example,
which was discussed in our proposal, relates to the VTTS of car owners in Java. At present car
ownership is low and car owners are generally at the upper end of the income distribution, and
therefore, have high VTTS. In future, as incomes rise and cars become more affordable, VTTS of car
users is likely to relate more to a median income band than the very upper band, and so may grow at a
rate that is less then the growth in GDP.
5.5 EVALUATION ISSUES
5.5.1 Overall Evaluation Issues
The essential purpose of the Study is to develop a strategy for the development of the highway
network in Java which provides the “best” solution for the resources that may be available.
Determining the level of these resources therefore forms an important component of the overall study,
and one that is ideally addressed at an early stage in they development of possible programmes. This
is considered in more detail in Section 5.6.
In determining the “best” or at least “better” solutions it will be necessary to consider the factors
which influence the overall desirability of the possible courses of action. While an important
component of this overall desirability will clearly be the economic returns from the proposed
programme, other issues such as the potential development impact and the environmental and socio-
economic effects may also have to be taken into account. It is therefore proposed that some form of
evaluation framework be developed and reviewed with the client to allow these factors to be
considered in a comprehensive and consistent fashion.
5.5.2 Economic Evaluation Issues
Introduction
The economic evaluation compares the benefits that will result from the improvement of the level of
service offered by the highway network against the social costs of this action. It is intended that the
economic evaluation will as far as possible make use of the relationships developed for Indonesian
conditions and embodied in the IRMS and associated procedures. The issues associated with
determining the appropriate values of time for use in the appraisal, both in terms of behavioural and
resource costs have been described above, and issues associated with determining appropriate vehicle
operating costs are discussed below.

The purpose of the economic evaluation is to ensure that the schemes proposed represent a good use of
the nation’s resources, and to allow schemes to be ranked in order of their economic desirability so
that the “best” schemes can be constructed at an early stage.
The economic evaluation looks at the desirability of a scheme or proposal from the viewpoint of the
community as a whole. As such, it differs from a financial analysis which considers a narrow range of
costs and revenues, and looks at the position from the viewpoint of a potential investor or operator.
The Components of the Economic Evaluation
The main elements of the appraisal are:
Benefits
• Benefits to road users as journey costs (comprising journey times and vehicle operating
costs) are reduced
• Benefits to road users and others from a reduction in accident costs
Costs
• The costs of construction of the new or improved link, including land acquisition and
resettlement costs, and the costs of any environmental protection or mitigation works.
• The increased costs of operation of the expanded or improved network. This may be
particularly important with the construction of toll roads.
• Changes in environmental and socio-economic conditions to the extent that these can
quantified in monetary terms
The balance between the streams of costs and benefits over time when appropriately discounted
provides a measure of the economic desirability of the proposed scheme or project.
Determining Economic Benefits : Some Methodological Issues
The method of determining the economic benefits differs according to whether the number of trips is
the same with and without the road improvement (the Fixed Matrix Case) or whether the construction
of the new road will result in changed levels of traffic, normally increases, (the Variable Matrix case.
For the Fixed Matrix case, the benefits are determined by a simple comparison of the total user costs
on the system, and differences between resource costs (on which the economic evaluation is based)
and the values as perceived by road users can be ignored. However, in the case where the road
generates a significant level of new traffic, reflecting the release of suppressed demand or the
achievement of new development opportunities, the total user costs are likely to increase because of
the additional traffic. In this case simply comparing the total user costs will not reflect the benefits
generated by the new traffic.
In principle, therefore the estimation of user benefits should have two components:-
• The benefits to existing road users resulting from an improvement in traffic conditions.
This benefit will be affected by the generation of new traffic which will result in higher
flows and lower benefits compared to the position where this additional traffic was not
taken into account.
• The benefits to the new trips, which will take into account the “value” of these to the trip
makers and the costs of the resources consumed in making these journeys.

Including the effects of generated traffic complicates the analysis, since an assessment has to be made
of the value as well as the resource costs of the generated trips. This will depend critically on the
appropriate valuations of potential travel time savings and vehicle operating costs. New trips will be
generated if the reductions in the perceived costs of travel are such that the perceived benefits exceed
these costs. However, the perceived costs of travel will differ from the resource costs on which the
economic evaluation is based. In part, this reflects differences in the value of time and in part,
differences in the valuation of vehicle operating costs and in the impact of toll charges (which are not
a resource cost). Adjustments will therefore be needed for these items.
The simplest approach is probably to consider the change in the resource costs and the value of the
new trips separately. The total resource costs for the DM and DS situations can be calculated by
interfacing the output of the TRIPS model with the Economic Model. This would include the resource
costs associated with the new trips generated or unsuppressed by the new road construction or road
upgrading. The benefits from these additional trips would be estimated by manipulation of the trip and
cost matrices to give the relationship:-
Willingness to pay for new trips = 0.5*(TDS-TDM)*(CDS-CDM)
where TDS and TDM are the numbers of trips in the Do Minimum and Do Something situations and CDS
and CDM are the associated travel costs. These costs would reflect the perceived values of time and
vehicle operating costs.
Graphically the position is as follows:-
Figure 5.3: Proposed Approach For Economic Evaluation

The supply curves are represented by the lines R1 and R2 for the resource costs, and P1 and P2 for the
equivalent perceived costs. The demand is represented by the curve D1.
In the Do Minimum Case, the equilibrium point is at B, which represents a perceived cost of CDM and
a total demand of TDM. The associated resource cost is RDM.
With the improvement of the network, the supply curves shift to P2 and R2 for the perceived costs and
resource costs respectively. The equilibrium position shifts to F, with a demand of TDS, and a
perceived cost of CDS. The associated resource cost is RDS.
In resource cost terms, the benefit to the existing traffic is represented by the area ATDMXRDM-
CTDMXRDSr or BDCDSCDM, i.e. the change in average resource costs (CDM-CDS) multiplied by the base
traffic (TDM). This takes into account the impact of the generated traffic, which increases the resource
costs to the existing traffic.. For the generated traffic, the willingness to pay for the trips is represented
by the area BFTDSTDM The resource costs for these additional trips amounts to CETDSTDM. The net
benefit to the generated trips is therefore the difference between the two areas.
The total benefits can either be represented by either:-
• The benefits to the base load traffic plus the net benefits to the generated traffic
(willingness to pay minus the resource costs);, or alternatively
• The change in the total resource costs plus the willingness to pay of the generated trips.
Either of these measures can in principle be produced by the combination of the Economic Model plus
TRIPS output. For ease of computation, it is proposed that the second approach be adopted, although
this would need to be reviewed as the modelling techniques are developed.
Defining the Reference Case
The economic evaluation is based on the comparison of traffic conditions in the Do Minimum or
Reference Case with the conditions forecast to be experienced if the proposal under consideration is
undertaken. The reliable definition of the Reference Case therefore forms an important element of the
overall economic evaluation process.
For many roads in Java, traffic flows are high and the application of the growth rates likely for the
future may give traffic flows which are above the effective capacities of the links. In modelling the
conditions in such cases, it will be assumed that a minimum speed will apply. This will reflect the
situation where either or both of the following conditions will hold:-
• Because of the slow speeds on the link in question, traffic either finds an alternative route,
possibly on roads which are not included in the modelled networks, or changes the time
of day at which the journey is made.
• Small scale improvements would be undertaken to improve bottlenecks and resolve
particular capacity problems funded from local maintenance or development budgets.
The critical factor in this approach is the minimum speed to be assumed. An analysis will be
undertaken of current traffic conditions using the data from a range of studies undertaken in Java. This
information will be used to identify typical speeds in congested conditions which could then form the
basis for the determination of appropriate minimum speeds for evaluation purposes.

Vehicle Operating Costs
The determination of the unit vehicle operating costs to be used in the evaluation process will be based
on the approach adopted in IRMS but the opportunity will be taken to update the base prices to 2000
price levels. An interface will be developed between the traffic forecasting model and the evaluation
model to allow vehicle operating costs to be calculated directly for each of the scenarios tested.
Accident Costs and Benefits
The construction of new highway links or the upgrading of the existing network will potentially affect
the level of accidents. New roads will tend to have lower accident rates, but because of the higher
speeds achieved, the severity of the accidents is likely to increase with a higher proportion of fatalities
and serious casualties.
The estimation of reliable accident benefits depends critically on:-
• the availability of good data on the level and severity of accidents on the existing network
• Reliable data on the costs of accidents and casualties of different severities.
Possible sources of information for both these will be reviewed in order to determine whether it is
possible to determine reliable estimates of the potential accident benefits for the schemes and networks
proposed.
Overall Economic Appraisal
The TRIPS and Economic Models will provide estimates of traffic flows, road user costs and user
benefits at 5 year intervals, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. For intermediate years, the benefits will be
interpolated on the assumption of a constant annual growth rate (i.e. a fixed percentage growth rate).
For years between 2020 and 2025, a constant annual growth in benefits in absolute terms will be
assumed, based on the growth rate between 2019 and 2020. After 2025, benefits will be assumed to be
constant.
As discussed earlier, the construction of new roads as tolled facilities will have two main impacts on
the economic evaluation:-
• The benefits for the roads tolled will in most cases be less than those generated by a free
road. A tolled road will attract lower flows, fewer trips will benefit from the new facility
and the relief given to those on the existing road will be smaller.
• The introduction of private sector finance into the highway programme will allow more
schemes to be constructed. The total economic benefits will be increased by those
generated by the incremental schemes.
Both of these factors will be taken into account when undertaking the economic evaluation. However,
in order to identify the extent of these two elements, it will be necessary to determine the appropriate
toll levels to be charged. This affects both the level of traffic diversion and the potential viability of
the project and hence the scope for and scale of the possible involvement of the private sector.
The main measures of economic worth to be identified will be the EIRR and scheme NPVs, and
benefit:cost ratios on the basis of a discount rate of 15 per cent in line with the standard approach used
for new highway schemes. Each of these measures will provide an indication of the value for money
or economic worth of the project.

5.5.3 Other Elements of the Evaluation
Development Impacts
The upgrading of the highway network in Java is likely to have an impact on the patterns of economic
development across the island, and in particular may encourage a different spatial distribution of
activities. An assessment will be undertaken of the extent to which schemes proposed would support
desirable patterns of development and a simple ranking scale will be developed for incorporation in
the overall evaluation framework.
Socio-Economic Impacts
The analysis discussed above has considered the desirability of the schemes in terms of their economic
returns. The construction of new roads can potentially have serious socio-economic impacts,
especially for on-line widening of roads in developed urban areas. To some extent the costs of
relocation will be included in the estimated capital costs of the schemes, but it proposed that measures
of the scale of dislocation likely to result in terms of the numbers of persons affected should also be
developed. These can only be estimated in approximate terms, given the scale of the road network and
improvements under consideration, and the need to assess the likely impact a number of years into the
future. However, broad ranking scales will be developed which will give an indication of the relative
impacts of the schemes, and these will also be incorporated in the evaluation framework.

6. METHODOLOGY AND WORKPLAN
6.1 General Approach
Important elements of the overall study have been described in Section 5. In this Section, a
more detailed description of each of the Tasks envisaged is given. There are a number of
reasons for going into such detail at this stage:
1. To inform the Client as to the detailed Work Plan and the Staff Schedule that is
envisaged for the whole project period, and to provide justification for any
changes that might be proposed to the Terms of Reference, or previously agreed
staff allocations or related cost items in the Contract
2. To make clear the inter-relationships that exist between study elements, and the
complexity of the technical approach that is required to satisfy the overall
objectives of the study. There is an educational objective here, which is to assist
in informing the Client and other stakeholders about the nature of the planning
process required for such a study
3. To provide a framework for all members of the Study Team, so that each has a
broad appreciation and understanding both of the tasks that each is involved in,
as well as the overall work program and inter-relationships.
These are important reasons, and every attempt has been made to prepare a carefully detailed
statement of the tasks that will be undertaken. Inevitably, the proposed methodology will be
changed, in the light of results as they emerge, and the enhanced understanding of the whole
study that experience will bring. The Task statements, therefore, are not cast in stone. They
will be changed as circumstances require. But it is hoped that this initial description will help
guide the study, and enhance the understanding of all parties of what is being undertaken.
6.2 Task Structures and Inter-Relationships
The principal tasks required to achieve the study objectives are set out below and indicated
diagrammatically in Figure 6.1.
There are four main work streams:
Work Stream 1: Review and Data Collection

Work Stream 2: Network Modelling
Work Stream 3: Identify Development Opportunities
Work Stream 4: Strategy Formulation and Evaluation
These comprise seven inter-related Task Groups, each of which is further broken down into
detailed component tasks as indicated in Figure 6.1, and discussed in detail in the remainder
of this Section. The relationship between Work Streams and Task Groups is detailed below,
with an overview of each Task Group.

FIG 6.1: JARNS TASK STRUCTURE
NETWORK MODELLING IDENTIFY STRATEGY AND

REVIEW AND
& TRAVEL DEMAND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
DATA COLLECTION
FORECASTING OPPORTUNITIES FORMULATION
NETWORK ECONOMIC IDENTIFY NETWORK

DATA MODAL
REVIEW MODEL AND REGIONAL NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
COLLECTION COMPETITION
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES STRATEGIES
Review previous Traffic and

Prepare and Existing and
studies, status of Roadside Review Rail and Corridor Capacity Economic and social
code strategic Planned
projects and Interview Port Traffic Assessment evaluation methodology
road network Development
works Surveys
Capacity
Review Forward Economic and Future network demands,
Review Road VOT Surveys Develop Initial Expansion
Plans and Population capacity needs and
and Traffic Data and Analysis Matrices Options and
Opportunities Forecasts development options
Costs
Analysis and
Regional Network needs to Develop and evaluate
Review Value of Secondary Data Refinement of Assess Future
Development support regional alternative network
Time Approaches Collection Base Year Modal Shares
Aspirations development development strategies
Matrices
Travel Demand Assess implications of

Sensitivity of
Plan Field Survey Model alternative development
Development to
Program Development and and growth scenarios,
Accessibility
Estimation and budgetary
constraints
Traffic
Assignment and Identify and evaluate
Model Validation recommended network
development strategy
and implementation
programme
6.3 Detailed Task Descriptions
TASK GROUP 1: REVIEW
This Task Group has already been completed, culminating in the preparation of this Inception
Report. As a result, it is unnecessary to describe each of the Tasks that was undertaken.
TASK GROUP 2: DATA COLLECTION
The data collection programme will be crucial to the success of the project, and provide the
basis for the technical and analytical work on which the study will be based. Both primary
and secondary data will be needed: primary data will describe existing traffic and its
distribution, as well as road inventory and condition data. Secondary data from existing
compilations will include land use, planning, development and economic data. The primary
data collection program will be extensive, and will include the major activities outlined
below.
2.1 Traffic Surveys
A substantial programme of traffic surveys is required, including:
• Classified traffic counts

• Roadside interview surveys to collect O-D information, and freight data
• Travel time surveys
The major database for the traffic forecasting models to be developed will be an estimated
matrix for 2000. This will be derived from the 1996 NODS; existing traffic counts; and –
most importantly – the O-D information that will be collected from the programme of
roadside interview surveys. This survey programme is critical to the success of the modelling.
Time is also critical, and it is particularly problematic that Ramadhan starts at the end of
November, because this leaves only 2 weeks or so in November when traffic surveys can be
done. Accordingly, the modelling approach will make use of partial data, and progressively
refine matrix estimates as additional data becomes available.
Details of the survey programme are given in Appendix B.
2.2 Secondary Data Collection
Secondary data needs are also substantial, and will include:
• Road inventory and condition data

• Population and socio-economic data
• Regional economic statistics
• Land use and development information

Task Description:
The data and information needs thus far identified are tabulated below.
National and Provincial Level:

1. GRDP at Current Prices by Province 1995 – 1998
2. GRDP at Constant 1993 Prices by Province 1995 –1998
3. GRDP at Current Prices by Province (excl. Oil and Gas) 1995 – 1998
4. GRDP at Constant 1993 Prices by Province (excl. Oil and Gas) 1995 – 1998
5. Per Capita GRDP at Current Price by Province 1995 – 1998
6. Per Capita GRDP at Current Price (excl. Oil and Gas) 995 – 1998
7. Per Capita GRDP at Constant 1993 Prices by Province 1995 – 1998
8. Per Capita GRDP at Constant 1993 Prices (excl. Oil and Gas) 1995 – 1998
9. Type and number of Registered Motor Vehicles by Province 1988 – 1999
10. Population 10 year of age and over by province and type of activity during the previous week,
by province, 1996 – 1999
11. Population 10 years of age and over who worked during the previous week by age and total
working hours, 1996 – 1999
12. Average of weekly hours worked and average of income per month by province and main
industry, 1996 – 1999
13. Heads of Household laborers/employees by income per month and total of household members,
1996 – 1999
Regency/Municipality level:
14. GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Jakarta, 1983 – 1998
15. GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in West Java, 1983 – 1998
16. GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Central Java, 1983 – 1998
17. GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Yogyakarta, 1983 – 1998
18. GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in East Java, 1983 – 1998
19. GRDP at Constant 1983 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Jakarta, 1893 – 1993
20. GRDP at Constant 1983 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in West Java, 1983 – 1993
21. GRDP at Constant 1983 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Central Java, 1983 – 1993
22. GRDP at Constant 1983 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Yogyakarta, 1983 – 1993
23. GRDP at Constant 1983 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in East Java, 1983 – 1993
24. GRDP at Constant 1993 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Jakarta, 1993 – 1998
25. GRDP at Constant 1993 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in West Java, 1993 – 1998
26. GRDP at Constant 1993 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Central Java, 1993 – 1998
27. GRDP at Constant 1993 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Yogyakarta, 1993 – 1998
28. GRDP at Constant 1993 Price by Regencies/Municipalities in East Java, 1993 – 1998
29. Per Capita GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Jakarta, 1995 – 1998
30. Per Capita GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in West Java, 1995 – 1998
31. Per Capita GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Central Java, 1995 – 1998
32. Per Capita GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in Yogyakarta, 1995 – 1998
33. Per Capita GRDP at Current Price by Regencies/Municipalities in East Java, 1995 – 1998
34. Number of Traffic Accidents, Victims and Losses in DKI Jakarta , year 1993 - 1998
35. Traffic Accidents in Yogyakarta, year 1991 – 1998
36. Number of Victims in traffic accidents by victim’s status and Regency/Municipality in
Yogyakarta, year 1998
37. Number of Involvement in Traffic Accidents by age group and Regency/Municipality in
Yogyakarta, Year 1998
38. Number of victims in traffic accidents by age group and Regency/Municipality in Yogyakarta,
Year 1998
39. Number of traffic accidents by type of motorized vehicles and Regency/Municipality in
Yogyakarta, Year 1998
40. Number of Motorized Vehicles by Type in Yogyakarta, 1994 - 1998

2.3 Value of Time Surveys
A detailed review of recent work conducted in Indonesia by members of the Institute of Road
Engineering in Bandung was conducted. It was found that by and large, this work provided an
excellent base for the VoT estimates needed for JARNS, but that some additional work was
needed to validate and update previous estimates. These are outlined below.
VOT Task 1: Revealed Preference Experiment
Stated preference experiments were undertaken in previous research, and obtained what
appear to be reasonable VoT estimates. However, it is appropriate to undertake some
validation of this work, through the use of Revealed Preference measures. For this purpose,
data will be collected using a small number of Roadside Interviews (RSI) to examine car
users’ (and possibly truck drivers’) behaviour to route choice where a toll is involved. The
interviews would be similar to other RSI interviews that will be conducted as part of the
traffic surveys. Respondents will be asked carefully designed questions about their
perceptions of alternative routes, and details of the route chosen.
This exercise will not require a large number of sites (two to three route choices with the
appropriate number of sites will be adequate). However, a significant number of interviews
with people who have a real choice between a toll and non-toll route will be necessary.
After data coding and cleaning, the data will be analysed by simple means such as SPSS or
Excel. In addition, statistical model estimation will be necessary by using a combination of
tools such as simple linear regression or logit analysis (using ALOGIT or MVLGT).
Sub-Tasks
1. Survey planning
2. Fieldwork methodology
3. Questionnaire development
4. Pilot survey
5. Fieldwork
6. Data coding and cleaning
7. Preliminary analysis
8. Model estimation
9. Reporting
VOT Task 2: Stated Preference Experiment
Following the detailed review, it was found to be necessary to carry out one additional Stated
Preference (SP) experiment, to provide additional validation of the programme of work
previously undertaken. While the previous SP work was very comprehensive, and covered a
number modes and market segments, it was all undertaken in 1997 and 1998 (ie before the
economic crisis).
There are two objectives of this exercise:
• To provide an independent test of the methodology previously used

• To test the effects of the recent economic crisis on peoples’ willingness to pay

Approximately 100 completed SP interviews from car users will be needed, using the same
methodology that was used in previous research.
Sub-Tasks
1. Survey planning (as in previous research)

2. Fieldwork methodology (as in previous research)
3. Questionnaire development (as in previous research)
4. Stated preference design (as in previous research)
5. Fieldwork
6. Data coding and cleaning
7. Preliminary analysis
8. Model estimation
9. Reporting
VOT Task 3: Secondary Data and Implementation
In order to properly apply the estimated values of travel time savings to the modelling
processes, a number of secondary data items are required.
The information needed includes:
• regional and national average wage earnings for all employees

• average income for car drivers
• GRDP and GDP
VTTS for working time will be estimated on the basis of the above information as discussed
in Chapter 4. Forecasts of future VTTS for both working and non-working time will also need
to be made, based on estimated future levels of average income, GDP and other economic
indicators.
Sub-Tasks
1. Secondary data research

2. Analysis
3. Implementation of values of time savings
TASK GROUP 3: NETWORK MODELLING AND TRAVEL DEMAND

FORECASTING
A key component of the study will be the development of a road network modelling
capability that will allow the forecasting of future traffic flows on the strategic road network.
The model will make it possible to undertake a wide range of analyses of the likely effects of
major new road development, and will provide a framework for economic evaluation of
alternative development strategies. As well, it will allow the examination of the variation of
future traffic with a range of economic development and planning scenarios. Separate models
will be needed for road vehicles, freight and passenger traffic.
The various models will be calibrated against observed traffic data though the use of matrix
estimation in order to ensure that they provide a robust basis for the forecasting process. The
models will then be applied to forecast the traffic implications of successive combinations of

network expansion options under a range of development scenarios. Adjustments will be

needed to the forecasts of road traffic to take account of the assessment of modal competition
as a result of possible developments in the rail, shipping and air transport sectors.
Task 3.1: Prepare and Code Strategic Road Network
Objective:
An accurate representation of the road network so that the costs of travel between areas can be
accurately reflected. Vehicle operating costs and time costs are important in all stages of
modelling. They are used in the matrix development phase as a determinant of both trip
generation and trip distribution; in the traffic assignment stage to ensure that the relative costs
of alternative routes are represented; and finally for economic evaluation.
Task Description:
A highway network will be built, representing the strategic road network for Java, and
containing the following elements:
• All primary arterial links

• All provincial collector links (K1 and K2)
• Selected provincial collector (K3) links, where these appear likely to have future
network significance
• Link correspondence with IRMS segments, using intermediate nodes where
necessary to define each link
• Road characteristics consistent with the IRMS data base, and incorporating
ARMS data throughout
• Separate urban and interurban links, with urban links defined by observed
lengths of urbanised areas using ARMS video data. Travel times estimated from
travel speed surveys and/or ARMS
The zoning system has been designed to separate major urban areas from other areas. The
focus of JARNS is on the arterial road network, and the detail within urban areas does not
need to be included. Urban areas fall into two categories:
• towns and cities which have Kotamadya status, and therefore are readily
distinguished as urban centres from the surrounding areas;
• large Kabupaten towns that do not have separate administrative definition
For Kotamadyas, these may be grouped together in the large urban areas such as Jakarta. In
cases where significant continuous urban development spreads from the Kotamadya to the
surrounding Kabupaten, groupings of Kecematan within the Kabupaten may need to added to
that of the Kotamadya to represent distinguish “urban” areas from elsewhere.
Speed-flow relationships and free-flow speeds for each link in the network will be obtained
directly from IRMS and ARMS data, using relationships based on the IHCM, as described in
Appendix A.
Output:
A coded highway network for use in the modelling process.

Task 2: Develop Initial Matrices
Objective:
Using available information (before new survey data is available) to create initial road traffic
vehicle, passenger and tonnage matrices.
Task Description:
Outline
Matrices will be initially developed based on data from the 1996 NODS, with disaggregation
by vehicle type and purpose as deemed appropriate for forecasting at a later stage. Matrix
estimation will be used to update and refine the matrices to the current situation. Later, as
information from new traffic surveys (vehicle and passenger counts, and O-D surveys)
becomes available, these will be used to further refine the matrices (as described in Task 3.3).
It is envisaged that there will be a total of three matrix development stages, making
progressive use of more detailed information as this becomes available.
The Matrix Estimation Process
The basis for developing the base year matrices will be a combination of new information
from O-D surveys and updating old matrices (from NODS) using new count information to
feed into a matrix estimation process.
The TRIPS package contains a matrix estimation program called MVESTM. This uses not
only vehicle traffic or passenger flow counts, but also partially observed matrices, zonal trip
end (generation and attraction) data, vehicle routing and travel cost matrices.
Data is ascribed confidence, or reliability levels by the user. This conditions the influence of
data when different data items (inevitably) imply different trip matrix cell values. The
estimation process is based on a statistically rigorous procedure that takes direct account of
inherent traffic data variability. It uses the Maximum Likelihood technique, coupled with a
powerful optimisation procedure that is used to determine the estimated trip cell values with
correspondingly enhanced precision.
The count data, which is usually the most extensive “new” data input to the matrix estimation
process, is typically arranged in screenlines. These are defined as the set of count sites that
intercept traffic/passenger flows between sets of zones that share the same general corridors
of movement. With the relatively sparse inter-urban road network on Java where for many
origin-destination pairs (particularly medium distance) there may only be one or two
alternative routes, the screenlines may only represent one or two count locations.
Existing Count Data
A number of sources of existing count data exist, including:
• Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC)

• IRMS traffic data
• Moving Observer Counts (MOC) from the ARMS data
• NODS data
• Jasa Marga data
• Other studies

While the quality of this data is variable, in aggregate it represents an extremely

comprehensive and valuable database of traffic flows.
This data will be gradually replaced as information from the new surveys carried out in
JARNS is made available. This will include (as documented elsewhere) the following:
• manual classified traffic counts

• moving observer traffic counts
• bus passenger counts
• roadside interview surveys, including O-D questions
The data will be organised where possible into groups of screenlines which bisect corridors.
Data arranged in this way gives the matrix estimation process the best chance for ensuring
that overall corridor demands are matched closely with traffic flows as it helps to mitigate
against unpredictability in route choice. Nonetheless, the process does attempt to match as
closely as possible the flows at the individual link level.
As the newly collected data becomes available, so part of estimated matrices can be replaced
or updated. Confidence levels used in the matrix estimation process can also be gradually
revised.
Existing Matrix Data and Further Disaggregation
The 1996 NODS includes three basic type of matrices:
• total private road traffic O-D, vehicles and passengers (excludes motorcycles)
• total public road traffic (ie. buses) O-D, vehicles and passengers
• total goods traffic O-D, vehicles and tonnage
The matrices are already in “expanded” format. In other words, the sampled roadside
interview data at given sites has been expanded to observed counts; post-adjustment is
assumed to have been undertaken to remove multiple observations of the same O-D
movements. However, as no individual site information is available, the exact process cannot
be verified, nor is the disaggregated information including the precise type of vehicle within
these broad categories or detailed Kecematan O-D data available. The matrices as presented
are given at the broad Kabupatens and Kotamadya across Indonesia, and have been converted
to annual movements, whereas the matrix development will be for the average annual daily
traffic (AADT) situation. Analysis of traffic data will be needed to convert the initial matrices
accordingly.
Despite lack of this information directly on an O-D basis from the NODS data, further
disaggregatation of the vehicle categories will be necessary as their characteristics are likely
to vary. For the public and goods traffic, the size of the vehicle and willingness-to-pay are
important, and in the future these proportions may change. For private vehicles, the size of
vehicle (whether it be a sedan, jeep or small van) is similar so the pcu factor may not be an
issue, but wiilingess-to-pay are likely to vary according to the purpose of the trip. It is noted
that in the future, as private vehicle ownership spreads to include more people from the
medium income bands, there is likely to be an increasing variance in willingness-to-pay.
Based on the initial analysis, the following possible disaggregations have been identified:
• Private road traffic:
¾ Business
¾ Non-business
• Public road traffic:

¾ Small bus/public van

¾ Medium bus
¾ Large bus
• Goods traffic:
¾ Light commercial vehicle/delivery van
¾ Medium truck
¾ Large truck
These 8 categories may be further refined as more information becomes available and the data
is examined in detail.
Information is available from the NODS 1996 on total passengers by private and public
modes, and for total goods tonnage. These matrices will extracted and developed in parallel
with the vehicle matrices.
Identifying Local Traffic
Traffic which is not strategic in nature (ie. local traffic) will be identified in two ways:
• Intra-Kabupaten traffic from the O-D matrices;

• Other traffic not included in the O-D matrices including motorcycles and
scooters as well as non-motorised vehicles (NMV), but which can be observed
by traffic counts.
In principle, such local traffic will be represented on the network by way of a traffic “preload”
so that all volume/capacity calculations take it into account. The precise mechanism by which
individual site data will be converted to a continuous preload along several links will need to
be determined based on local knowledge and other available information.
Preliminary Matrix Check
The accuracy of the 1996 matrices is not known at this stage, but may be expected to be poor.
As an initial check on the broad volumes of traffic across corridors, the vehicle matrices for
the three available classes (private, public and goods) readily available directly from the 1996
NODS will be assigned to the network. These will then be compared with flows across
screenlines covering strategic corridors.
There are relatively few route choices in the 1996 network, so the assignment may be carried
out without explicity taking into account the effect of “local” traffic on capacities and speeds.
Similarly, a global pcu factor may be applied to each of the three vehicle classes for the initial
assignment only.
The resulting comparisons allow a view to be taken on the integrity of the NODS matrices
(allowance would need to be made for local traffic in this comparison). As matrix estimation
allows confidence levels to be assigned to a number of variables including to selected parts of
the existing matrices and to tripends, the preliminary assignment can establish the confidence
levels for the initial matrix estimation.
Producing the Initial Matrices
Vehicle Matrices
The available data will consist only of existing information before data from new traffic
surveys has been collected. The key inputs will be as follows:

• 1996 NODS matrices

• Count data as available (no new surveys available at this stage)
• Partial trip data (Jasa Marga)
• Costs and routeing information from network
• Other relevant information
As the 1996 NODS matrices are only available for three basic vehicle classes, it will be
necessary for the matrix estimation to stratify these according to the classes discussed above.
For bus and goods vehicles, the count data will need to be presented by vehicle type namely
three categories of bus and three categories of truck. For the disaggregation of private
vehicles into business and non-business purposes, trip end information on purposes from the
NODS data will be used to disaggregate the input trip ends.
Partial trip data from Jasa Marga gives the on-ramp and off-ramp O-D movements. Optionally
this can be input to the matrix estimation process, which can build this into the actual
Kabupaten O-D of the trip.
The routeing information is obtained from paths built in the highway network. While in the
assignment model a more sophisticated approach will be taken to path building, based on
volume averaging or the equilibrium method, for the purposes of building paths for input to
the matrix estimation process, a simple approach is sufficient. A typical approach would be to
build paths based on the Burrell assignment technique, in which a specified number of
alternative paths can be chosen within a given cost range. This enables the likely routes to be
represented without the need for an iterative process. The costs of travel for each O-D
movement can then be established based on the least cost path.
Passenger and Tonnage Matrices
The 1996 NODS passenger and goods vehicle tonnage matrices will be available. In the
matrix development there are two principal sources from which these may be updated:
• loading information from the operators of buses and goods vehicles

• bus passenger count data and goods vehicle loading
In the initial stage of matrix development, it is not known at this time whether this additional
data will be available. If it is, the information thus obtained can be used to refine the
passenger and tonnage matrices, either through the matrix estimation process or by re-
constructing parts of the matrices, for example where bus ticket sales data is available. The
exact approach will need to be reviewed in due course.
Output:
Initial vehicle, passenger and tonnage matrices for road traffic for initial analysis purposes
and for input to the next stage of matrix development.
Task 3.3: Analysis and Refinement of Base Year Matrices
Objective:
Analysis of the Initial Travel Matrices, and their progressive refinement with additional
survey data.

Task Description:
The output matrices from Task 2 would be used for the three main purposes:
• to compare the validation of the assignment

• to review confidence levels as appropriate
• enable initial exploration of model relationships
The validation of the assignment would be at the level of vehicles crossing strategically
located screenlines across Java. Comparison of the observed counts and estimated matrices
would lead to a review of the confidence levels of both the matrices and count data for input
to the next round of matrix estimation.
The process outlined below will be iterative, and make progressive use of data as it becomes
available.
Vehicle Matrices
The O-D survey data will be based on a sample of drivers from the roadside interview sites
across Java. This will be processed in the following way:
• for each roadside interview site, the O-D survey data is initially stratified into the
vehicle classes required based on information obtained in the interviews (8
classes were identified above);
• the sample is expanded up to the average observed daily traffic by vehicle class;
• for each site, a matrix is built consisting of “flags” indicating the O-D pairs
expected to pass through; the matrices for each site are then added together
• the individual matrices built for each site are added together then divided by the
“flag” matrices to give an average flow by O-D pair.
The newly built O-D matrices will be used to replace part of the matrix which was created
from estimated matrix from the initial matrix development stage described above.
In order to make maximum use of the available data, this newly constructed “prior” matrix
will be used as input to a second round of matrix estimation. As this segment of the matrices
will have been constructed from newly collected data, a high level of confidence may be
assigned to cells as appropriate.
Where new count data is available, this will replace the data used in the Initial matrix
development. New sites will be added, such as from the moving observer surveys in order to
maximise the information available in the matrix estimation process. Higher confidence
values can be assigned to newly observed data. Some of the original count data from the
initial matrix development may remain where not covered by new data; the confidences of
these would be revised based on the results from the initial assignment and new counts in the
vicinity.
Passenger and Tonnage Matrices
Bus occupancy and goods vehicle loading will be observed at the same sites as the manual
classified count locations. These will be converted to estimates of total passengers and
tonnage passing the count locations. This will be used in a matrix estimation process, using as
an input matrix either the 1996 NODS matrices as given, or the output matrices from the
initial matrix development stage, depending on progress at that point. It should be sufficient to
deal with total passengers or tonnage rather than disaggregate these to vehicle types.

Output:
Base matrices for year 2000 which closely observed traffic patterns and which would be used
as the basis for finalising relationships between the levels of trip-making and socio-economic
variables. The matrices would be disaggegated as shown in the table below:
Vehicles
Private Business
Non-Business
Public Small bus/public van
Medium bus
Large bus
Goods vehicles Light commercial vehicle/delivery van
Medium truck
Large truck
Passengers/Tonnage
Private Total passengers
Public Total passengers
Goods Total tonnage
Task 3.4: Travel Demand Model Development and Estimation
Objective:
To establish trip distribution and generation model forms; estimate these from the base year
matrix and other data; and develop a model forecasting procedure.
Task Description:
Trip distribution and generation models will be estimated from the base year matrices. It is
not really possible to be prescriptive about this task at this stage. The model forms to be
developed will be based on those already presented in Section 5, but practically these will be
limited to “what the data will support”. It is nevertheless expected that sensible and robust
structures and relationships will be able to be extracted form the base matrices, and that these
will be able to support forecasts of future traffic .
Whatever approach is eventually adopted will be such as to satisfy two key requirements:
• that the model structure can adequately reflect changing economic and
geographical patterns
• that the model recognizes a linkage between the quality of infrastructure
provision and the level of trip-making
Output:
Forecast demand matrices, taking into account the key issues of spatial change, shift between
bus and private vehicles and changes in the level of trip-making with improvements to the
road network infrastructure.

Task 3.5: Traffic Assignment and Model Validation
Objective:
To set up an approach to traffic assignment taking into account choice between different
routes, characteristics of different vehicle types and users (willingness-to-pay) and different
time periods.
Task Description:
Conventional capacity applied restraint approach is favoured for the JARNS model, with each
market segment loaded in turn using specific values-of-time and vehicle operating costs.
Whether each of the 8 discrete matrices identified above is assigned separately (or whether
the disaggregation is primarily for the purpose of matrix development) will be determined at a
later stage. The method is iterative using a volume averaging/equilibrium technique. For O-D
pairs where more than one choice of route exists, the technique enables this to be reflected.
In an urban situation, it is standard practice to combine the different vehicle types and/or
market segments into a single total vehicle flow before applying the speed/flow relationships.
This reflects the nature of urban areas that have many intersections and where networks are
generally congested, so speeds for different vehicle classes can be expected to be quite
similar. Therefore the use of a common set of “average speeds” for the both the path
building/loading and capacity constraint is generally satisfactory.
However, in an inter-urban situation, the speeds for different vehicle types may be
significantly different, particularly where multiple lanes allow different types/classes of
vehicles to use different lanes (such as on expressways or toll roads). In particular private
vehicles will tend to travel much faster on the same stretch of road than heavily loaded goods
vehicles, especially where there is minimal side friction. Only when the road starts to become
congested would the speeds be expected to converge.
The JARNS modelling process needs to reflect this, and entails a detailed set of steps that do
not need to be reviewed here. The process allows realistic speeds to be calculated for each of
the vehicle types. This will be important for economic evaluation where the vehicle operating
cost is given on a speed band basis for different vehicle types. For each vehicle type,
procedures can be set up in the modelling process to “look up” the speed on a link, calculate
the vehicle operating cost, and then skim the total VoC for any given O-D pair. This cost
matrix would then be weighted by the number of trips to get the trip-weighted total costs.
Output:
Highway networks containing “congested assignment speeds” and volumes of traffic for each
link. For economic evaluation these will be used to extract cost information for analyzing “do
nothing” and “do something” networks, and comparing “do something” networks against one
another.

TASK GROUP 4: MODAL COMPETITION
Key issues
The focus of JARNS is the strategic highway network. However, traffic demand for the
highway network is also affected by the possible interaction with other modes, primarily the
rail network, but also by coastal shipping. In principle, this interaction could be two way.
Improvements or changes in policy favouring other modes could lead to a switch of traffic
away from roads. Conversely, improvements in the highway network could lead to a switch of
traffic away from rail or shipping.
In practice the scope for switches between road and rail or shipping that would have a
significant impact on highway traffic is likely to be very small, affecting only a limited range
of commodity movements and passenger flows. Reflecting this, attention would be
concentrated on those areas where heavy flows of passengers or freight commodities suitable
for rail or coastal shipping are carried by road, and where diversion would have a significant
impact on the flows in road corridors. Although both passenger and freight movements would
be considered, it is likely that the main focus of the work would be on freight.
Task 4.1: Review Existing Rail and Port Traffic
Objectives:
To establish a picture of current rail and coastal shipping activities and flows in each main
corridor where these are likely to be significant.
Task Description:
Information on existing rail, shipping, port and air transport operations and traffic relevant to
each road corridor will be sought from a number of sources including:
• Recent studies including the Land Transport Development Study phase II of

1992 and the Java North Coast Corridor Study
• Ministry of Communications
• PT KAI
• Pelni, PT ASDP and other operators of shipping services
• Port operators, especially Tanjung Priok and Surabaya
• BPS statistics especially import/export data by port
• Major traffic generators such as Krakatau Steel, Bulog, power stations
• Information from the 1991 and 1996 National Origin/Destination Surveys
The information to be collected will consist of both published material and data gathered from
interviews with the key players if necessary supplemented by the questionnaires sent to other
major freight generators and shippers. The data assembled will be used to establish base year
estimates of flows in each corridor for freight and passengers by main competing mode and
generated by the main ports. Further breakdowns will be made, distinguishing where possible
between passenger classes and important freight flows particularly container movements,
other major port flows, coal, steel, bulk liquids, etc.

Recent trends in flows will also be established. A general assessment will be made of existing
capacity, loading and capacity utilisation and the degree of competitiveness of other modes in
each corridor.
Information will also be assembled on current tariffs and fares by main route and corridor and
for a range of freight and passenger classes for comparison with similar information from the
road transport sector.
Output:
A statistical summary of existing rail, port and air traffic in the main corridors for comparison
with road traffic flows and an overview of current activities and competitiveness of each
mode.
Task 4.2: Review Forward Plans and Opportunities
Objectives:
To identify planned developments and realistic future options that might significantly
influence the share of traffic carried by competing modes in each corridor and affect their
level of competitiveness.
Task Description:
Ongoing and committed development plans will be examined for each mode, together with
longer term proposals or options that might result in significant changes in traffic volumes.
The potential for these to affect road traffic volumes in the main road corridors will be
examined. A wide range of issues will need to be studied, including, for example:
• Possible introduction of high-speed rail services between Jakarta and Surabaya.

• Other investments in rail capacity including track, signalling, traction and rolling
stock that are likely to have a significant impact on the level of service offered
• Improvements in utilisation and efficiency as a result of institutional and
management reforms
• Trends in containerisation, including further inland container penetration,
development of inland container depots, use of domestic containers,
improvements in container handling capacity
• Further development of Ro-Ro shipping services, especially between Jakarta and
Surabaya
• Development of deep water ports such as at Merak
• Changes in the policy environment relating to cost recovery, subsidy levels and
protection of the environment which are likely to affect inter-modal competition
• Major long-term bridge project proposals that would influence modal choice and
the overall volume of transport demand including links to Bali and Sumatra.
Output:
A realistic assessment of the timing and influence on future modal choice in each main
corridor, of possible developments in rail and sea modes.

Task 4.3: Future Modal Shares
Objectives:
To assess the quantitative influence on forecast road flows in each corridor of the likely
developments in competing modes identified as above.
Task Description:
The assessment of likely developments in each mode in Task 4.2 will be compared with the
existing flows established in Task 4.1 to determine the direction and possible scope of inter-
modal transfers in traffic that could occur in each corridor. Where these appear likely to be
significant further analysis would be undertaken to try to quantify more precisely the
implications for future road traffic. The main interest would centre on changes that would
alter the pattern of movements, especially port-related movements, or could lead to a
substantial shift in traffic away from road transport.
Output:
Forecast volumes of road traffic adjustments necessary in each corridor to reflect major shifts
between modes or changes in patterns of movement.
TASK GROUP 5: ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Overview:
The identification of the strategic road network, and the development of the forecasting and
evaluation procedures that will be used, needs to be firmly based on realistic expectations of
future development. A plausible framework of regional development scenarios will be a
crucial input to this, as will sensible forecasts of development, population and economic
growth. This will be assessed primarily from a review of existing sources, which will include
the Spatial Plans (RUTR – Rencana Umum Tata Ruang1) which are now intended to be the
foundation for regional development planning within the framework of a national spatial
planning strategy referred to as ‘Strategi Nasional Pengembangan Pola Tata Ruang’
(SNPPTR). It is recognised that most available medium and long-term plans were prepared
under the previous regime and may not adequately reflect the new policies and directions
being developed under the new government. The Repelita process has been at least
temporarily abandoned and has been replaced by PROPENAS. Possible development
scenarios may thus have to be considered for the present study within an uncertain and fluid
planning climate.
A range of possible scenarios for economic growth over the next 20-25 years will need to be
prepared, as part of this process. The distribution of existing and forecast population and
economic activity will be established by corridor. Likely future developments will be
considered in the light of national and regional spatial plans and development plans.
A key issue for the study is the extent to which major new road investments may influence the
location of economic activity and development.
1
These were earlier termed RSTRP (Rencana Struktur Tata Ruang Propinsi), while the August 1995
draft of the National Spatial Plan is entitled RTRWN – Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional.

Particular interest attaches to the possible role of improved north-south road corridors that
would take pressure off the congested North Java Corridor and encourage a wider distribution
of economic development in the island. As far as possible, the potential effects of such
development would be identified in terms of both traffic effects and the desirability of
alternative patterns of economic activity.
Task 5.1: Review Existing and Planned Development Levels and Patterns
Objectives:
To establish from secondary data sources the basic geography and existing pattern of
economic activity within each main corridor and the plans and forecasts for future
development based on existing national and province level spatial plans and development
plans.
Task Description:
The socio-economic characteristics of each of the main corridors will be established and
briefly summarised. The main source of this data will be secondary data sources including
maps and statistics held by the central and provincial offices of the BPS (Badan Pusat
Statistik) and the regional planning documents held by the provincial Bappeda. The analysis
will include:
• Main physical features

• Administrative structure
• Population size and distribution
• Land use
• Employment data
• Income data
• Gross Regional Domestic Product estimates
• Agriculture and other primary activities
• Manufacturing activity
• Service activities
• Location of environmentally protected areas and reserves
• Location and function of markets and distribution centres
Official policies regarding the desired direction of future development will be assessed
through an analysis of available spatial plans and previous five-year plan documents,
including the following material and components:
• The National Spatial Plan (RTRWN) indicating the broad development strategies
designated by sector for each main island up to 2019 (it is noted in this context
that a fundamental policy recommendation is that further development should be
directed as far as possible outside Java to spread benefits more widely to other
islands and to reduce pressures on Java., so that Java would retain but not
increase its present proportional share of expanding national output).
• The Provincial Spatial Plans (RTRWP) for the four component provinces of Java.
• Location and function of designated strategic development areas (kawasan
andalan) and other priority areas set aside for protection or specific development
activities.
• The designated urban hierarchy for each province whereby main towns are
classified according to their actual or intended function in the provincial
economy.

• ‘Sistem Transportasi Nasional’ or SISTRANAS (Ministry of Communications,

Jan 1995) which complements the National Spatial Plan in respect of the
envisaged development of the transport system over the next two decades.
Staff of Bappenas and provincial Bappedas will be consulted to establish what changes are
emerging in the direction of spatial planning and development policy under the new
government.
Output
A clear overview of the existing level and distribution of economic activity in each corridor
and its intended future direction as evidenced from official spatial and development plans.
Task 5.2: Economic and Population Forecasts
Objectives:
To prepare a range of macro-economic and demographic forecast scenarios for Java for the
period 2000-2025 consistent within a plausible national framework and including appropriate
regional variations related to province or corridor.
Task Description:
A range of broad macro-economic scenarios will be prepared reflecting the unusual

uncertainty in economic prospects arising from the last two years of economic and political
crisis. These will take into account the likely timing of a resumption in economic growth and
the possible range of alternative growth scenarios in the medium to long-term growth path.
An optimistic view might incorporate some short-term acceleration of growth, representing a
‘catching up’ process following a period of severe downturn. A more pessimistic view would
assume a continuation of a measure of economic and political dislocation over a longer
period. A central scenario will probably be related more to official expectations of the
Government, IMF and international donor community. Plausible scenarios will be proposed in
consultation with Bappenas, Kimbangwil and the World Bank. The starting point for this task
will be a review of the scenarios considered in the Preliminary Screening of Inter-District
Roads in 1998, and the more recent Transport Sector Strategy Study, 2000.
As far as possible growth by economic sector will be identified, in order to assist in the
development of the freight forecasts, and the split of the freight traffic between road and other
modes.
Population forecasts are required for urban nodes and rural zones principally as an input to the
trip generation model. This requires an update of the work originally carried out for the
National Urban Development Strategy (NUDS) study in the 1980s. The forecasts will be set
within a national and island-based context, taking due account of formal and spontaneous
inter-island migration and influences on the rate of urbanisation, particularly in JABOTABEK
and other metropolitan areas. The main sources of information are expected to be analysis of
past census data, the 1995 SUPAS data, current fertility and mortality statistics and
demographic projections prepared by the Bureau of Statistics (BPS). The National Spatial
Plan also contains long-term population projections. These sources will be critically reviewed
and extended as necessary in consultation with Bappenas.

Output:
An agreed range of macro-economic and population forecasts Java for the next 20 years, for
use in forecasting normal traffic trends and development scenarios.
Task 5.3: Regional Development Aspirations
Objectives:
To identify regional development aspirations and objectives, and the extent to which these
may be likely to be achieved.
Task Description:
The results of the past three years, and the effects of the emerging regional autonomy, have
created local and regional development aspirations that are at least potentially at variance with
national planning strategies. It will be necessary to identify regionally preferred development
patterns for each main corridor, and assess the relative likelihood of each. This will focus
principally on spatial planning options, in particular for the location of expansion in
manufacturing and associated urban development, taking account of a range of factors
including:
• recent trends
• spatial planning targets and policies
• land use potential
• environmental issues
• locational influences including sources of materials and labour, distance to
markets and supply points, power supplies and other infrastructure
• cost of transport and quality of access
• major development schemes
Identification of plausible development scenarios will need to consider the particular

circumstances and options in each corridor. The main intention here will be to assess likely
developments that might take place spontaneously or as a result of planning initiatives, given
apparent trends and policies and existing corridor potential.
Output:
“Most preferred” development scenarios reflecting regional aspirations and economic growth
forecasts.
Task 5.4: Sensitivity of Development to Accessibility Influences
Objectives:
To assess in qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative terms the potential impact on
travel demand and net incremental output of economic development induced by improved
arterial access.

Task Description:
The broad development scenarios outlined above will be modified to try to take account of the
possible influence of major improvements in arterial access in relevant corridors. Particular
attention will to be paid to the possible effect on the Java North Coast Corridor of upgrading
north-south cross-links. This requires the assessment of the extent to which future growth will
be “footloose”, in the sense that it could be attracted away from in areas where it might more
naturally occur. It also requires a review of the likely relative effects of the various factors
that affect locational decisions. Once these have been identified, by type of industry, it may be
possible to estimate the extent to which non-transport factors dominate decision making, and
the extent to which locational decisions could be influenced by improved transport and
accessibility.
Output:
The assessment should aim to identify in a qualitative way, the extent to which major road
improvements might be expected to generate development shifts, and the relative magnitude
of this affect vis-à-vis expected levels and patterns of additional development.
TASK GROUP 6: IDENTIFY NETWORK ALTERNATIVES
Overview
Traffic congestion has a potentially high cost for road users where reduced speeds increase
travel time and vehicle operating costs. As traffic levels have risen, road development needs
in Java have increasingly focused on capacity expansion projects through road widening,
dualling, urban bypasses and new multi-lane roads. They have also typically been considered
in isolation from the remainder of the network. The purpose of the present study is to identify
and evaluate appropriate comprehensive strategies, options and priorities for capacity
expansion in the main arterial network. The specific aim of this group of tasks is to define
capacity by link; identify where and when capacity constraints are likely to begin to arise,
under a range of base traffic growth scenarios; and to identify and characterise in general
terms the range of alternative options and strategies that need to be considered in each case.
There are potentially an enormous number of theoretical capacity expansion options that
could be considered, given the size of the arterial network to be studied, the choice of
alternative improvement standards and the expected range in development scenarios.
Although it is the intention to model the whole network, it would clearly be impracticable to
test every combination of options. Thus some level of screening will be required to identify
where capacity expansion is likely to be appropriate and what standards are likely to be
applicable. This will initially use volume capacity ratios as a generalised performance
indicator, and a framework of generalised economic traffic thresholds or warrants for various
expansion options and for a range of different cost assumptions.
Task 6.1: Corridor Capacity Assessment
Objectives:
To define parameters for corridor capacity assessment and undertake a preliminary screening
of main corridors and sub-corridors to confirm where capacity issues are already arising under
existing and possible short-term future traffic flows.

Task Description:
A preliminary screening of corridors will be undertaken to determine apparent performance

based on conventional congestion indicators such as the Volume Capacity Ratio (VCR). This
will update and extend work previously undertaken in the “Preliminary Screening of Inter-
District Roads in Java”. This will use revised base traffic flow data, new information on road
characteristics and the speed flow relationships reviewed in Appendix 1. The initial focus will
be on existing traffic levels and a range of simple projections, ignoring at this stage potential
network interaction and diversion effects, to establish where there are apparent incipient
congestion issues.
While the VCR is a useful indicator of physical road performance, it is not necessarily a good
indicator of economic needs for capacity expansion. It would also be useful to have a
generalised indicator of economic base traffic thresholds for capacity expansion. Earlier work
undertook an initial analysis of such economic warrants, and this should be further refined
using improved parameter estimates and consistent assumptions.
As well as the traffic capacity of existing roads, a corridor assessment also needs to be made
of the ease by which additional road capacity can be provided, and what options could be
reasonably considered for each. This will depend on the extent of urbanisation; topography;
agriculture; and any other major constraints on road widening or new road construction.
Digital image data from the ARMS project will materially assist this assessment, but field
review will also be needed.
Output;:
• A revised and updated preliminary identification of corridor sections where base
traffic levels indicate a prospective need to focus studies of capacity expansion
options
• An assessment of the types of capacity expansion options that can be considered
in each corridor, and those which cannot.
Task 6.2: Capacity Expansion Options and Costs
Objectives:
To define clearly the categories of capacity expansion options available to be studied, and
their likely cost.
Task Description:
For the purposes of the study, a standard set of options only will be able to be considered as
candidates for road improvement. These may be classified in terms of the following
dimensions:
• Carriageway width, number of lanes and whether divided or not (conventionally

2U, 4U, 4D, 6D, etc).
• Level of planned access restriction
• Alignment, ranging from widening existing roads to entirely new alignments,
close to or widely separated from existing arterial roads
• The method of funding and charging the road user (i.e. tolls)

In principle, the economic prioritisation process should ignore the method of road funding,
but in practice the presence and level of any toll charge will influence the volume of traffic
using the new road and thus cannot be disregarded.
Potential components of strategies to be considered where capacity expansion is warranted are

likely to include:
• Minor widening within existing alignments (up to 2-3 metres)

• (variants of which might be taken to represent a base reference ‘do minimum’
case combined with betterment).
• Major expansion within existing alignments, usually from 2 to 4 lanes, possibly
in combination with provision of (tolled or untolled) urban bypasses, usually on
new alignments.
• Major expansion on new alignments of 2, 4 or 6 lane tolled or untolled highways
broadly parallel to and combining limited improvements to existing routes.
• Inter-regional toll roads on new alignments, often widely separated from
alternative arterial routes.
• Alternative forms of network development including upgrading of roads with a
presently sub-arterial function (densification of the network) and including
provision of new inter-corridor cross-links.
The applicability of these and similar options will be examined for each corridor in the light
of the preliminary findings on capacity, scheme proposals and information on the existing
network, local geography and distribution of population and economic activity.
Appropriate general standards will be reviewed and defined for each option, taking into
account highway design standards and toll road standards employed by Jasa Marga.
The engineer will develop a set of generalised costs/km for each option for preliminary
planning purposes based on a review of recent studies and contracts. These will be used for
preliminary screening, but as the study progresses cost estimates will be refined from both
field and map inspection to reflect likely variations in specific corridors, for example, in
respect of terrain and soil conditions, sources of materials and land acquisition costs. The
engineer will need to make a particularly careful review of the technical appropriateness and
cost implications of proposed new alignments especially in hilly terrain.
In view of the continuing volatility of exchange rates and domestic price levels, careful
consideration will need to be given to the bases for cost estimates.
Output:
A set of study options and strategies with associated generalised characteristics and costs
together with a preliminary indication of their applicability in each corridor.
Task 6.3: Network Needs to Support Regional Development
Objectives:
To identify particular network development emphases or specific projects necessary to

support regional development.

Task Description:
Likely regional development priorities will need to be supported by the strategic road
network, and it will be more efficient to manually identify where particular support is needed
than to attempt to identify this from forecast traffic flows. For example, there may be major
proposed port developments where additional network strengthening will be required, and the
needs for this could not be identified from traffic forecasts. Significant local opportunities for
development may exist, the key to which might be the early provision of improved road
access. Possible road infrastructure needs to support larger-scale proposals for the promotion
of development also need to be identified.
Outputs:
Identified areas of future development with particular needs for road network improvements
that will support development.
TASK GROUP 7: STRATEGY AND PROGRAMME FORMULATION
Overview
The final group of tasks will be concerned with developing a range of options for road and
network capacity provisions; undertaking their broad-based evaluation; and then translating
the results into a development plan for the strategic road network in Java. This will identify
the most desirable means of providing future capacity and access needs over 20 years, as a
series of five-year implementation plans incorporating the optimal timing for expansion of
different parts of the network, and taking realistic account of likely budgetary constraints.
The proposed approach to the selection of schemes and economic evaluation is sehown in
Figure 6.2.
The overall evaluation of the schemes and development of the strategy will take into account
both economic factors as well as less readily quantifiable factors, including possible socio-
economic impacts and overall development impacts. The overall evaluation framework that
will be needed will highlight the key differences between the alternatives considered, so as to
assist in the identification of a socially preferred development strategy. The evaluation
process will take into account both the changes in trip patterns and trip volumes that would
result from improved accessibility levels, as well as the effects of the expansion of the
strategic road programme that would become possible with the inclusion of privately funded
toll road projects.
The outcome of the economic and financial evaluations will be a list of schemes which will
meet the requirements for financial and economic viability over the study period. These can
essentially be assembled into programmes in the light of the possible budgetary constraints in
two ways:
• The analysis can start by looking at the schemes which would best meet the needs to
provide capacity in 2020, and can then work backwards in time to determine the
appropriate date when each of the schemes should be constructed. This could be
undertaken for both an unconstrained and a constrained budgetary position.
• Alternatively the analysis can consider the position working forward from the present
day, in effect considering which schemes should be constructed in each of the 5 year time
slices identified.

FIGURE 6.2:
STRUCTURE OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
TRIPS MODEL OUTPUTS FOR

REFERENCE CASE
CORRIDOR DEMANDS
CAPACITY OF REFERENCE
CASE ROAD NETWORK
IDENTIFICATION OF CAPACITY
SHORTFALLS
IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE
REQUIRED CAPACITY
FORECASTING OF POTENTIAL
TRAFFIC FLOWS ON INITIAL
UPGRADED NETWORK
IDENTIFICATION OF SCOPE
TOLL ROAD THRESHOLDS
FOR TOLL ROADS
TOLL ROAD POTENTIALLY

FEASIBLE
NO YES
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE
FEASIBLE TOLL LEVELS
FORECASTS OF TRAFFIC ON
TOLL ROADS AT ASSUMED
TOLL LEVELS
FINANCIAL EVALUATION
SCHEME VIABLE IN FINANCIAL

TERMS
NO YES
FORECASTS OF
FORECASTS OF TRAFFIC TRAFFIC AS TOLLED
AS UNTOLLED ROAD ROAD
SCHEME ECONOMIC
EVALUATION
These different approaches would provide different paths for network upgrading. The effects
of these alternative approaches would be assessed, and the key differences highlighted.
The overall process of network analysis; improvement strategy formulation and testing; and
performance evaluation, is an iterative and complex one. There are many possible expansion
options and combinations, and many different growth and development scenarios, but formal
testing and evaluation of all possible combinations will not be possible. Procedures that will
reduce the volume of testing to be undertaken, possibly by the examination of case studies in
particular limited areas, will be considered before the main evaluation programme
commenced.
Task 7.1: Economic and Social Evaluation Methodology: Development of an

Evaluation Framework
Objective:
To develop a framework for evaluation that combines both economic and non-economic
factors.
Task Description:
Evaluation of the desirability of each major road upgrading scheme identified has to include
all relevant impacts. The major categories of relevance to JARNS are:
• Economic impacts (costs; operating cost and time savings; accidents; etc)
• Socio-economic impacts (environmental; resettlement; severance and community
dislocation)
• Development impacts (contribution to and promotion of development patterns)
Economic impacts (costs and benefits) will be expressed in terms of standard measures of
economic worth, including NPVs and BCR. Development impacts will be measured on a
simple qualitative scale setting out the extent to which the schemes or proposals were
supportive of desirable development patterns, or local development aspirations. Socio-
economic impacts aim to measure the extent to which activities in the highway corridor would
be displaced by road improvements, especially with on-line upgrading. Again, this would be
measured in a qualitative scale reflecting the intensity of development alongside the road.
The framework that would be developed would be essentially presentational, and would not
attempt to combine all the factors in a single overall weighting.
Output:
A framework for evaluation that takes into account not only economic benefits but also
potential development and socio-economic impacts in a consistent and reasonably
comprehensive fashion.
Task 7.2: Economic and Social Evaluation Methodology
Objective:
To provide updated vehicle operating costs and accident costs for inclusion in the economic
appraisal.

Task Description:
The vehicle operating costs for use in the economic evaluation will be calculated using the
HDM-VOC model, the standard approach used in Indonesia. A survey will be undertaken to
update the key elements of the vehicle operating costs to current prices and values. This will
cover:
• New vehicle prices

• Tyre prices
• Fuel Costs
• Lubricant Costs
Values for the other elements of the costs will be reviewed in the light of current market
conditions.
Liaison will be maintained with other similar studies currently being undertaken to ensure that
to the extent appropriate, the values used are consistent.
The value of accident cost savings is a function of the change in the number of accidents of
different severities and the costs of these accidents. As far as possible data on accident rates
on different road types would be sought from sources such as:-
• BPS,
• the Traffic Police
• Asuransi Jasa Raharja
• Jasa Marga.
These will be reviewed in the light of experience in other countries.
The costs of accidents will be determined according to the Gross Output Method, which is
based on the loss of output resulting from road accidents, with an allowance for medical costs,
the costs of damage and administration and legal costs. These will be updated to present day
costs and values.
Because of the volatile nature of the market, the final derivation of economic costs will be
delayed until the later part of the project.
Output:
Parameters for use in the economic evaluation of the schemes and networks tested.
Task 7.3: Determine Network Demands, Capacity Needs and Development Options
Objective:
To estimate the future pattern and level of demand for longer distance road transport in Java,
and to identify areas where this gives rise to the need for additional highway capacity.

Task Description:
Forecasts of the future demand for the strategic highway network, for all types of traffic, will
be produced from the network model. Forecasts for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 will
be needed. It is expected that the traffic demand models will be dependent on the level of
transport infrastructure, and therefore stand-alone demand forecasts and matrices for each
year will relate to the assumed level of network provision. Consequently, assessment of
capacity needs and the estimation of travel demands will be an iterative and inter-related
activity.
Given the estimates of demand (from the traffic forecasts) and the supply determined from the
forecast capacity of the network, the areas where network deficiencies appear to be the most
severe would be identified. These would then form the basis for the development of the
programme of development for the road network.
On the basis of identified network deficiencies, a series of options will be developed and
tested to address problems. A number of alternatives are possible, ranging from simple on-
line widening to the construction of new high-capacity limited access routes on new
alignments away from existing settlements and areas of urban development. The type of
option potentially developed would reflect the degree of potential overloading of the network,
and will also reflect broad constraints and opportunities within the road corridors. A standard
set of road upgrading options will have been prepared and costed in an earlier task, and the
appropriateness of each for possible use in each link will have also been assessed. Thus it will
be straight-forward to identify the elements for which evaluation and testing is required.
Because of the limited public sector resources which are likely to be available for the
development of the Java arterial road network, options for developing new viable toll roads
will be included at this stage. Simple assessment criteria reflecting the likely financial
viability of these will need to be developed and where toll road options appeared feasible,
proposals would be developed in more detail for subsequent appraisal.
Output:
Identified capacity expansion needs by corridor for each forecast year, together with an initial
assessment of likely available options for upgrading.
Task 7.4: Develop and Evaluate Alternative Network Development Scenarios
Objective:
To develop and evaluate alternative network strategies.
Task Description:
The options developed under the previous task will be grouped to form overall network
strategies. As discussed, this can be achieved in different ways. One approach is to develop
appropriate link capacity expansion strategies for each forecast year, with the final strategy
then being the resultant of such an incrementalist approach. However, this approach may not
allow more radical solutions that would be justified only with a longer-term perspective to
emerge. The alternative would be to consider the position in 2020, develop options for
addressing the capacity deficiencies in that year, and then work backwards to determine the
dates when these “final solutions” would be required. In balance, this larger perspective is
considered the more desirable, but it may well run foul of problems with constrained budgets,
particularly over the next ten years.

There are advantages and disadvantages of both these approaches and the differences which
might emerge will be actively examined.
An economic evaluation will be undertaken of all the options and networks defined. This will
take into account the options for the construction of toll roads and the potential involvement
of the private sector. At this stage, the networks developed would not be limited by budgetary
constraints. Evaluation results for each of the years will then be interpolated or extrapolated to
give a full set of benefits over the life of the project, taken as 25 years. For projects due to
commence towards the end of the study period, options for estimating benefits over time will
need to be assessed.
The extent of the schemes and the number of options to be considered will mean that the
volume of work required for the evaluation (both economic and non-economic) will be
extensive. Ways will be sought to reduce the amount of work required while continuing to
retain the key elements of the evaluation.
Outputs:
An identified network development strategy (or strategies) for Java, for the next 20 years,
together with costs and benefits (both economic and non-economic) that will allow proposed
strategies to be compared.
Task 7.5: Assess Implications of Alternative Development and Growth Strategies

and of Budgetary Constraints
Objectives:
To identify the impact on the evaluation of alternative development scenarios for Java,
alternative growth assumptions and of budgetary constraints
Task Description:
The main analysis described above will be undertaken for a single set of economic and
development forecasts. However alternative development scenarios need to be examined, at
least for their implications for the desirability of the preferred network development strategy.
Alternative traffic forecasts would be developed to reflect alternative growth and

development scenarios, and the stability of the proposed network development strategy will
be examined.
A second element of this task will be to identify likely funding availability for public sector
investment in the arterial road network in Java for the period up to 2020. The volume of
economically viable arterial capacity expansion projects will almost certainly exceed the
available supply of investment funds for a long time to come. While an unconstrained
optimum capacity expansion path will be examined in the first instance, it will be necessary to
specify realistic ceilings to annual expenditures on capacity expansion in order to formulate a
prioritised development plan.
This review will take account of:
• A review of recent and pre-crisis levels of expenditures on national and provincial roads
according to funding sector (APBN, APBD, foreign loans, private finance), geographical
spread (Java by province, other islands), and works categories (routine maintenance,

periodic maintenance, betterment and minor widening, major capacity expansion, network
extension).
• An assessment of how budget expenditures are likely to develop over the future, and
particularly in light of the emerging regional autonomy
• The possible impacts of new sources of revenue which might accrue to the Government
through increased road user charges and taxes, and the possibility of the introduction of
some kind of Road Fund.
These tasks will identify the possible level of public sector resources which might be
available for expenditure on the road network. The second part of the task will be to develop
realistic assumptions about how this might be allocated to specific areas of work and the
resulting level of resources which might be available for expenditure on upgrading the
strategic highway network in Java. The key elements of this would be:-
• IRMS needs assessments for priority categories of maintenance and betterment

assessment.
• Output on optimum budget allocations from the Strategic Evaluation and Planning Model
(SEPM), newly developed under the IRMS updating project.
It is likely and indeed intended that the public sector resources would be supplemented by
private sector investment in toll roads. While the total to be allocated is probably primarily
dependent on identifying profitable and attractive schemes, it will also be desirable to
ascertain that the total proposed to be mobilised in this way would be within the capacity of
the market to provide. This might be a particular issue if any local private sector funding is
proposed for the project.
Output:
The output of this task will be in two parts:
• An assessment of the sensitivity of possible network development strategies to alternative

patterns of development and general economic growth and an assessment of possible
amendments that would be required to accommodate the changed patterns of demand
arising from these.
• A set of realistic budget constraint scenarios for annual and five-year expenditures on
arterial capacity expansion in Java.
Task 7.6: Identify and Evaluate the Recommended Development Strategy and
Implementation Programme
Objective:
To identify the recommended development taking account of budget constraints and the
possible effects of alternative growth and development scenarios, to undertake its evaluation,
and to identify the key steps in its implementation.
Task Description:
On the basis of the options considered earlier, the likely feasibility of toll road construction,
and the potential availability of funds over successive five year periods, the list of schemes
will be adjusted to bring total costs within the constraints identified. Toll road schemes will be
assumed to be financed by the private sector, subject to any limits on the total expenditure by
the private sector that might be expected. Expenditure on privately financed toll roads would

not reduce the total available for expenditure by the Government, and would therefore expand
the programme that would be possible. In economic terms, the effect of toll roads would be to
reduce the level of economic benefits for the roads tolled compared to those generated by a
free road, but would increase the total level of economic benefits because of the expanded
programme that would be made possible
In addition to constraining the costs of the total list of schemes to be within the budget
available, it would also be necessary to ensure that these balanced within shorter time periods.
Any bunching of schemes would need to be reduced and a programme developed which
balanced the costs of the work proposed to the resources available. Changing the possible
timing of major schemes to match budget constraints may alter the needs for smaller-scale
works to be undertaken in interim years and this would be examined. A degree of iteration
may be required before a final set of proposals is developed.
The high priority Government schemes defined as above and the toll road schemes which
appear to be financially viable will be combined in an overall programme for the development
of the strategic road network in Java. This would be broken down into five-year periods.
A more detailed implementation programme will be prepared for the first five years
identifying required needs for:
• Feasibility studies
• Environmental and social impact studies
• Resettlement plans and public consultation
• Design
• Tendering and contract award
• Land Acquisition
• Construction
Output:
The output of this task would consist of:
• A preliminary set of priority projects for five-year programs to be constructed by the

Government based on economic criteria within specified budget and implementation
constraints. These would be complemented by a proposed programme of toll road
development over the period to 2020.
• An integrated implementation programme for arterial road and toll road development for
the first 5 year period.

7. WORK AND STAFF SCHEDULES
7.1 General
The Work and Staff Schedules originally proposed for the project provided the basis for the
Contract between the Client and the Consultants for the conduct of this study. The detailed
review of the project work requirements that has been conducted during the first two months
and the preparation of the Inception Report has confirmed that in large part, these
arrangements are appropriate. In a number of instances, however, it has been found that they
are less than ideal, and a more effective way of undertaking the tasks is proposed.
The Work and Staff Schedules that are presented in this Section reflect this revised approach.
Where there are differences to what was originally proposed, these are highlighted in a later
section, so that the Client may review the possibility of making minor amendments to the
Contract to allow the proposed improvements to be made.
7.2 Work Schedule
The Work Schedule for the Tasks detailed in Section 6 is shown in Figure 7.1.
7.3 Staff Schedule
The Staff Schedule for the study is shown in Figure 7.2. This includes the Work Schedule and
person-months originally proposed for comparison. As discussed below, we believe that the
project will benefit from a number of minor changes to the staff allocation.
The Staff Mobilisation programme that has so far been achieved is shown in Table 7.1.
7.4 Reporting and Deliverables
7.4.1 Technical Reports and Working Papers
It is proposed that a number of Technical Reports will be produced, documenting the results
of the study. The proposed Reporting Schedule for these is shown at the foot of Figure 7.1.
The list of reports proposed, and their titles, is very similar to that proposed in the TOR, with
some exceptions:
• The TOR suggested that a report entitled Updating of RIDPD Databases of

Current Project Proposals would be required. For reasons that have been
discussed, the RIDPD system has been found to no longer be of relevance to the
Client, and further work in this project would not add value, or benefit the
results. The suggested Technical Report will not therefore be appropriate
• Some minor changes in the titles of the TR referenced in the TOR are proposed
7.5 Proposed Variations in Staff Allocation
In the process of refining Task Descriptions and the Work Schedule, it has become apparent
that the work program would benefit substantially from a number of minor variations in Staff
Allocation. The proposed new staff months are shown in Figure 7.2. In Table 7.2 below, the
proposed changes are summarised, and reasons for the proposals are given in the remainder of
this section. While costs have not been presented, the proposed changes result in a minor

Figure 7.1
WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
MONTH
TASK/ACTIVITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug
REVIEW
Previous studies
Road / traffic data
Ongoing/committed works
Value of Time (VoT) approch
Planning and econ data
Transport modelling approach
Field survey scope
Inception report
DATA COLLECTION
Traffic counts
O-D surveys
Travel time surveys
Data processing and analysis
Secondary data
NETWORK MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Prepare strategic road network
Develop initial matrices
Refine base year matrices
Demand model development
Traffic assignment & validation
MODAL COMPETITION
Review rail and port traffic
Future plans and opportunuities
Future modal shares
ECONOMICS & DEVELOPMENT

Existing & planned development
Economic & pop. forecasts
Regional development
Accessibility implications
NETWORK ALTERNATIVES
Corridor capacity assessment
Capacity expansion options
Development needs
STRATEGY / PROGRAMME
Economic & soc. evaluation
Future demands & options
Evaluate alt. strategies
Scenario analysis
Recommended development strategy
REPORTING SCHEDULE
Inception Report
Traffic Surveys and Data Collection
Value of Time for Modelling and Evaluation
Network Modelling and Demand Forecasting
Regional Development in Java
Capacity Expansion Options
Economic Evaluation Methods
Financial Feasibility and Priority Toll Roads
Strategic Road Network Development Plan
Draft Final Report
Final Report
Monthly Progress Reports

FIGURE 7.2: JARNS STAFFING SCHEDULE
Name Position Month Total

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Brown Team Leader 12

12
Riley Mgt. Syst. Specialist 3

1.5
Fothergill Highway Engineer 8

8
Shrewsbury Senior Modeller 4

4
Ayles Transport Modeller 6

6
Terzis VoT Specialist 1

3
Thomsen Traffic Engineer 3

3
Paling Transport Economist 5.5

5
Davey Development Planner 4

4
Hodgkinson Rail Specialist 1

1.5
Laing Port Specialist 1

1
Soong Financial Advisor 1

1
49.5
50
Richardus Senyawi Co-T/l - Planner 10

12
Agus Wahyudino Highway Engineer (2) 12

12
F. Widiastanto Highway Engineer (3) 9

9
Tatang Kurdystam Cost Engineer 6

6
Wimpy Santosa Transport Modeller (2) 8

8
Luthfy A. Lubis Transport Modeller (3) 11

10
Agus Mujiono Database Specialist 11

10
PD Oetoyo VOT Analyst (2) 5.5

6
DJ Widiantono VOT Analyst (3) 5.5

6
H Parman Traffic Engineer (2) 6

6
Nur Hakim Traffic Engineer (3) 6

6
Sri Purwanti Transport Economist (2) 11.5

11
Mustari Development Planners (2) 8

6
Engkus Ruswana Development Planners (3) 6

6
Edward Siregar Demographer 4

6
Tohir Katabrata Railway Analyst 6

6
Syawaluddin Ports and Shipping Analyst 4

4
129.5
130
LEGEND: 12 Revised and recommended time schedule

12 Originally proposed time schedule
reduction in the total project value. As a result, the total person-months have been reduced
marginally, to ensure that the cost does not exceed the contract cost.
Table 7.1: Staff Mobilisation
NAME POSITION MOB

Foreign Staff
Hugh P. Brown Team Leader / Transport Planner 1 04-Sep-00
M. Riley Road Management System Spec 03-Oct-00
Mike Fothergill Highway Engineer 1 20-Sep-00
John Shrewsbury Modelling Specialist
Chris Ayles Transport Modeler 1 26-Sep-00
G. Terzis Value of Time Specialist 1 09-Oct-00
Thomas Thomsen Traffic Engineer 1 03-Oct-00
R. Paling Transport Economist 1 09-Oct-00
Noel Davey Development Planner 1
Peter Hodgkinson Railway Specialist
Ted Laing Ports and Shipping Specialist
Eddie Soong Financial Advisor
Local Staff
Richardus Senyawi Co TL / Transport Planner 2 27-Oct-00
Agus Wahyudiono Highway Engineer 2 06-Sep-00
F. Widiastanto Highway Engineer 3
Tatang Kurdystam S Cost Engineer
Wimpy Santosa Transport Modeler 2
Luthfy A. Lubis Transport Modeler 3 02-Oct-00
Agus Mujiono Database Specialist 09-Oct-00
PD Oetoyo Value of Time Analyst 2 16-Oct-00
DJ Widiantono Value of Time Analyst 3 16-Oct-00
Nur Hakim Traffic Engineer 3 23-Oct-00
Hariyanto Parman Traffic Engineer 2 02-Oct-00
Sri Purwanti Transport Economist 2 07-Sep-00
Mustari Development Planner 2
Engkus Ruswana Development Planner 3
Edward Siregar Demographer
Tohir Kartabrata Railway Analyst
Syawaluddin Ports and Shipping Analyst
Sub Profesional Staff
I.B.Rasyid Assistant Engineer 1 07-Sep-00
M.E. Fachry Assistant Engineer 2 07-Sep-00
Yafril Ismail Assistant Engineer 3 01-Nov-00
Abdullah Rizal Assistant Engineer 4
Nasri S Assistant Engineer 5
Dadan Assistant Engineer 6
Apip Rosidin CAD Operator 1 03-Oct-00
Bambang Purwanto CAD Operator 2
Yossie Dian Purnomo CAD Operator 3
Rita Veronika Survey Administrator 1 16-Oct-00
Jack T.H. Survey Administrator 2 16-Oct-00
Pandji Survey Administrator 3 16-Oct-00
Dadang Ass. Survey Administrator 1 01-Nov-00
Edwin Ass. Survey Administrator 2 01-Nov-00
Tatang Sarfana Ass. Survey Administrator 3 01-Nov-00
M. Irsyad Data Entry Manager

Data Compiler (3)

Support Staff
Ucok Adriansyah Office Manager 07-Sep-00
Theresia Sri W. Biligual Secretary 02-Oct-00
Khairil Anwar Secretary 1 07-Oct-00
Titi Mumpuni Secretary 2 13-Sep-00
Tato Mintardjo Computer Operator 1 07-Sep-00
Harben Computer Operator 2 22-Sep-00
Rusli Office Boy 07-Sep-00
Sungkono Watchman 07-Sep-00
Table 7.2: Changes in Staff Allocation
Name/Position Original Revised Reasons for Change

Months Months
Foreign Staff
M. Riley 1.5 3 Mr. Riley developed the new IRMS and SEPM. His
/Road Mgt. Spec assistance is needed to make maximum use of these
systems in modelling, and particularly for SEPM to
assist with identifying future funding availability
G. Terzis 3 1 Mr Terzis found that existing work was of excellent
/VOT Spec value, and needed only minor further survey work to
provide updates for previous values, that had been
derived prior to the economic crisis. The surveys
needed can be accomplished by Indonesian
specialists, with a review of results by Mr. Terzis.
R Paling 5 5.5 Mr Paling has been asked by the Client to provide
/Transport Economist additional advice on associated toll road issues,
requiring approximately 1 month input. The
additional time is necessary to achieve the original
work objectives
P. Hodgkinson 1.5 1 The task does not require the amount of work
/Rail Spec. originally envisaged
Indonesian Prof. Staff

Richardus Senyawi 12 10 The originally proposed Co-T/L was not able to be
Co-Team Leader mobilised, and an acceptable replacement was not
found until mid-October
Luthfy Lubis 10 11 Some strengthening of modelling resources at end of
Transport Modeller (2) project needed
Agus Mujiono 10 11 Database function will extend to project completion,
Database Specialist and it is exceptionally important that this be properly
managed, so that the data is properly handed over to
the Client
PD Oetoyo 6 5.5 VOT effort required is less than expected
VOT Analyst (2)
DJ Widiantono 6 5.5 VOT effort required is less than expected
VOT Analyst (3)
Sri Purwanti 11 11.5 Extend inputs marginally, to support complex
Transport Economist (2) evaluation
Engkus Ruswana 6 8 Extend to end of project to provide continuous
Development Planner support with regional government
(3)
Edward Siregar 6 4 Reduce scale of task needed
Demographer

APPENDIX A: ADAPTATION OF THE IRMS SPEED MODEL FOR

USE IN TRIPS
Table of Contents
1. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2
2. THE IRMS SPEED MODEL .........................................................................................................2
2.1 Model Structure ................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Road Capacity...................................................................................................................................2
2.3 Volume in Vehicles per Hour ............................................................................................................6
2.4 PCE Factors......................................................................................................................................6
2.5 Hourly PCE for Flowband.................................................................................................................8
2.6 Free Flow Speeds..............................................................................................................................8
2.7 Congested Speeds ...........................................................................................................................13
3. TRIPS REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................................15
3.1 Road Capacity.................................................................................................................................15
3.2 PCE Factors....................................................................................................................................15
3.3 Speed Flow Curves .........................................................................................................................15
4. MODEL ADAPTATION ..............................................................................................................15
4.1 Road Capacity.................................................................................................................................15
4.2 PCE Factor .....................................................................................................................................16
4.3 Speed Flow Curves .........................................................................................................................17
4.4 Change of Roadside Friction with Time ..........................................................................................18
4.5 TRIPS/IRMS Interface File.............................................................................................................19
5. INTERPRETATION OF ARMS DIGITAL IMAGES................................................................20
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page A- 1

A1. BACKGROUND
The vehicle speed model currently used in IRMS was derived from the Indonesian Highway
Capacity Manual for Inter-urban roads. This model is relatively complex and demanding of
data and this working paper examines how the model can be simplified and used in the TRIPS
model for estimation of vehicle speeds and traffic assignment.
A2. THE IRMS SPEED MODEL
2.1 Model Structure
The IRMS speed model is derived from the Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual for inter-
urban roads. The structure of the model is shown in Figure A1.
Classified Traffic Vehicles per

Volumes hour
Terrain
PCE Flow
Road Type
Pavement Width
Factors PCE/hour
Terrain
Road type
Pavement width Volume/
Shoulder width
Capacity
Capacity
NMT
Terrain
Road type
Road function
Pavement width
Free flow Congested
Shoulder width
Lane width
Speeds Speeds
Land use
NMT
Roughness
Figure A1
IRMS Speed Model Flowchart
2.2 Road Capacity
CAP = C0 FCWc FCSP FCSF
FCWc = W1 + W2 WCARR + W3 WCARR2
FCSP = 0.97

FCSF = F1 – min[F2 max(min(VEH_8,2300) – 200, 0)F3 +

F4 max(SWIDTH - 0.5, 0)F5 max(min(VEH_8,2300) - F6, 0), 0]
where: CAP is the capacity in PCE/hour

C0 is the base capacity for road type and terrain
FCWc capacity adjustment factor due to road width
FCSP capacity adjustment, traffic directional split adjustment
FCSF capacity adjustment factor due side friction
WCARR is the total pavement width in m (excluding shoulder width)
SWIDTH is the shoulder width in m
VEH_8 is the volume of non-motorised traffic in veh/day
W1 to W3 are model coefficients from Table A1
F1 to F6 are model coefficients from Table A1
Table A1
Coefficients for Road Capacity Model
Road Type Terrain BASE W1 W2 W3 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
1 F 3800 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
1 R 3700 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
1 H 3600 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
2 F 3100 -0.360 0.274 -0.0115 0.97 0.00003109 1.1 0.00001600 1.6 -1550
2 R 3000 -0.360 0.274 -0.0115 0.97 0.00003109 1.1 0.00001600 1.6 -1550
2 H 2900 -0.360 0.274 -0.0115 0.97 0.00003109 1.1 0.00001600 1.6 -1550
3 F 6800 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00003109 1.1 0.00001600 1.6 -1550
3 R 6600 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00003109 1.1 0.00001600 1.6 -1550
3 H 6400 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00003109 1.1 0.00001600 1.6 -1550
4 F 7600 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
4 R 7400 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
4 H 7200 -0.470 0.175 -0.0050 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
5 F 11400 -0.470 0.117 -0.0022 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
5 R 11100 -0.470 0.117 -0.0022 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
5 H 10800 -0.470 0.117 -0.0022 0.97 0.00002012 1.1 0.00001050 1.8 -1150
Table A2
Road Type Codes
Road Type Name Description
1 2/1U 2 lane 1 way undivided
4 4/2D 4 lane 2 way divided
5 6/2D 6 lane 2 way divided

Table A3
Terrain Expressed in Terms of Road Alignment
Code Description Vertical Alignment Horizontal Alignment
rise + fall (m/km) curvature (deg/km)
Range Representative Range Representative
Value Value
F Flat < 10 5 < 60 15
R Rolling 10 – 30 25 60 - 150 115
H Hilly > 30 45 > 150 200
Table A4
Roadside Friction Expressed in Terms of NMT
Side Friction Class NMT (veh/day)
Very low < 330
Low 330 – 980
Medium 980 – 1,640
High 1,640 – 2,300
Very high > 2,300
4500
4000
Hilly
3500
Rolling
3000 Flat
Capacity (PCE/h)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total Pavement Width (m)
Figure A2
Sensitivity of Capacity to Pavement Width
Two-Lane Road without Side Friction

8500
8000 Hilly
Rolling
Flat
Capacity (PCE/h) 7500
7000
6500
6000
12 13 14 15 16
Total Pavement Width (m)
Figure A3
Sensitivity of Capacity to Pavement Width
Multi-Lane Road without Side Friction
3500
Shoulder width = 2.5m

3000
Capacity (PCE/h)
2500
Pavement width = 7 m
Rolling Terrain
2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Non-Motorised Traffic (veh/day)
Figure A4
Sensitivity of Capacity to Non-Motorised Traffic and Shoulder Width
Two-Lane Road

3250
Side
3000 Friction
Very Low
Capacity (PCE/h)
Low
2750
Medium
High
2500
Very High
Pavement width = 7 m
Rolling Terrain
2250
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Shoulder Width (m)
Figure A5
Sensitivity of Capacity to Roadside Friction and Shoulder Width
Two-Lane Road
2.3 Volume in Vehicles per Hour

j=11
FLOWi = ∑ AADT
j =1
j HDA i
where: FLOWi is the total hourly flow for flowband i

HDAi is the hour/day factor for flowband i (light/heavy as
appropriate)
AADTj is the AADT for vehicle group j
2.4 PCE Factors
Locate record for road type, terrain and nearest hourly flow.
( Pn − Pn −1 )( FLOWi − Fn −1 )
PCE j = Pn −1 +
( Fn − Fn −1 )
where: PCEj is the passenger car equivalent for the vehicle group j
Pn-1 is the PCE value for the flow value below FLOW
Pn is the PCE value for the flow value above FLOW
Fn-1 is the flow value below FLOWi
Fn is the flow value above FLOWi
FLOWi is the flow for flowband i in veh/h
If vehicle group 1 (motorcycle) and road type 2/2U
if pavement width < 6 m

PCE1 = 1.33 * PCE1
if pavement width > 8m

PCE1 = 0.67 * PCE1

Table A5
Coefficients for PCE Model
Road Type Terr Flow PCE_01 PCE_02 PCE_03 PCE_04 PCE_05 PCE_06 PCE_07 PCE_08 PCE_09 PCE_10 PCE_11
1 F 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6
1 F 2000 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0
1 F 3600 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5
1 F 4300 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
1 R 0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
1 R 1500 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.6 4.6 4.6
1 R 2800 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.0 2.2 4.3 4.3 4.3
1 R 3500 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.8 3.5 3.5 3.5
1 H 0 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 3.2 5.5 5.5 5.5
1 H 1100 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 2.9 5.1 5.1 5.1
1 H 2200 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 1.0 2.6 4.8 4.8 4.8
1 H 3000 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 3.8 3.8 3.8
2 F 0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8
2 F 800 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.8 2.7 2.7 2.7
2 F 1350 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
2 F 1900 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.3 2.5 2.5 2.5
2 R 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.8 5.2 5.2 5.2
2 R 650 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.4 5.0 5.0 5.0
2 R 1100 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
2 R 1600 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 3.2 3.2 3.2
2 H 0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0
2 H 450 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.2 1.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 5.5
2 H 900 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
2 H 1350 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 1.9 4.0 4.0 4.0
3 F 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6
3 F 1700 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0
3 F 3250 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5
3 F 3950 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
3 R 0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
3 R 1350 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.6 4.6 4.6
3 R 2500 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.0 2.2 4.3 4.3 4.3
3 R 3150 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.8 3.5 3.5 3.5
3 H 0 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 3.2 5.5 5.5 5.5
3 H 1000 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 2.9 5.1 5.1 5.1
3 H 2000 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 1.0 2.6 4.8 4.8 4.8
3 H 2700 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 3.8 3.8 3.8
4 F 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6
4 F 2000 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0
4 F 3600 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5
4 F 4300 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
4 R 0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
4 R 1500 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.6 4.6 4.6
4 R 2800 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.0 2.2 4.3 4.3 4.3
4 R 3500 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.8 3.5 3.5 3.5
4 H 0 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 3.2 5.5 5.5 5.5
4 H 1100 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 2.9 5.1 5.1 5.1
4 H 2200 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 1.0 2.6 4.8 4.8 4.8
4 H 3000 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 3.8 3.8 3.8
5 F 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6
5 F 3000 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0
5 F 5500 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5
5 F 6500 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
5 R 0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
5 R 2200 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.6 4.6 4.6
5 R 4200 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.0 2.2 4.3 4.3 4.3
5 R 5300 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.8 3.5 3.5 3.5
5 H 0 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 3.2 5.5 5.5 5.5
5 H 1600 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 2.9 5.1 5.1 5.1
5 H 3400 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 1.0 2.6 4.8 4.8 4.8
5 H 4600 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 3.8 3.8 3.8

2.5 Hourly PCE for Flowband

j=11
PCEHi = ∑ AADT
j =1
j HDA i PCE j
where: PCEHi is the total hourly PCE for flowband i

HDAi is the hour/day factor for flowband i
AADTj is the AADT for vehicle group j
PCEij is passenger car equivalent for flowband i and vehicle group j
2.6 Free Flow Speeds
If vehicle group is light:
FVj = (FV0j + FVWLV) FFVSF FFVCR – RL EFFIRI
If road type = 2/2U and pavement width >= 5.0m
FVWLV = 4.91[1 - 15/(WCARR - 2.5)1.8]
If road type = 2/2U and pavement width < 5.0m
FVWLV = 9.15 (WCARR - 5.0) – 9.244
If road type = 4/2U, 4/2D, 6/2D
FVWLV = MIN[1.5, 6(WLANE - 3.5)]
FFVSFLV = min[1 - F1 max(VEH_8 – 200, 0)F4

+ F2 max(SWIDTH - 0.5, 0)F3 max(VEH_8 – 200, 0), 1 ]
FFVRCLV = L1 - L2 LU/100
If vehicle group is heavy:
FVj = FV0j - FFV FV0j / FV0LV – RH EFFIRI

FFV = FV0LV - FVLV
FVLV = (FV0LV + FVWLV) FFVSFLV FFVCRLV
where: FVj is the free flow speed for vehicle group j

FV0j is the base free flow speed for vehicle group j from Table A6
FFV is free flow speed adjustment for the composite light vehicle
FV0LV is the base free flow speed for the composite light vehicle
WCARR is the pavement width in m
SWIDTH is the shoulder width in m
WLANE is the lane width in m
LU is the roadside urban land use in percent
VEH_8 is the volume of non-motorised traffic in veh/day
EFFIRI is the effective roughness including partial shoulder use
F1 to F4 are coefficients from Table A7
L1 to L3 are coefficients from Table A8
RL, RHare coefficients from Table A6

Table A6
Coefficients for Free Flow Speed Model 1
Road
Type Terr LV Base 01 Base 02 Base 03 Base 04 Base 05 Base 06 Base 07 Base 08 Base 09 Base 10 Base 11 RL RH
1 F 78 64 90 70 70 81 81 65 65 62 62 62 2.267 2.494
1 R 68 58 78 61 61 66 66 55 55 51 51 51 2.001 1.915
1 H 70 55 69 54 54 53 53 44 44 39 39 39 1.607 1.284
2 F 68 55 78 61 61 73 73 60 60 58 58 58 2.267 2.494
2 R 61 53 70 55 55 62 62 52 52 49 49 49 2.001 1.915
2 H 65 51 63 49 49 50 50 42 42 38 38 38 1.607 1.284
3 F 74 60 85 67 67 78 78 63 63 60 60 60 2.267 2.494
3 R 66 56 76 59 59 65 65 54 54 50 50 50 2.001 1.915
3 H 58 53 67 52 52 52 52 43 43 39 39 39 1.607 1.284
4 F 78 64 90 70 70 81 81 65 65 62 62 62 2.267 2.494
4 R 68 58 78 61 61 66 66 55 55 51 51 51 2.001 1.915
4 H 70 55 69 54 54 53 53 44 44 39 39 39 1.607 1.284
5 F 83 64 95 75 75 86 86 67 67 64 64 64 2.267 2.494
5 R 71 58 82 64 64 68 68 56 56 52 52 52 2.001 1.915
5 H 62 55 71 56 56 55 55 45 45 40 40 40 1.607 1.284
Table A7
Road Type F1 F2 F3 F4
1 0.00001171 0.00001500 2.30 1.20
2 0.00002007 0.00003000 1.90 1.20
3 0.00001589 0.00002000 2.30 1.20
4 0.00001171 0.00001500 2.30 1.20
5 0.00001171 0.00001500 2.30 1.20
Table A8
Road Type Function L1 L2
1 A 1.000 0.050
1 K 0.990 0.050
1 L 0.980 0.050
2 A 1.000 0.060
2 K 0.940 0.060
2 L 0.880 0.060
3 A 1.000 0.055
3 K 0.975 0.055
3 L 0.950 0.055
4 A 1.000 0.050
4 K 0.990 0.050
4 L 0.980 0.050
5 A 1.000 0.050
5 K 0.990 0.050
5 L 0.980 0.050

100
6/2D
90 4/2D
Free Flow Speed (km/h)

4/2U
80
2/2U
70
60
Flat Rolling Hilly
Terrain
Figure A6
Sensitivity of Base Free Flow Speed to Terrain and Road Type
Car
70
6/2D
4/2D
4/2U
60 2/2U
50
40
Flat Rolling Hilly
Terrain
Figure A7
Sensitivity of Base Free Flow Speed to Terrain and Road Type
Medium Truck

80
70 Car
60

50
40 Medium Truck
30
20
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pavement Width (m)
Figure A8
Sensitivity of Free Flow Speeds to Road Width
Two lane Road, Rolling Terrain
75
Shoulder Width = 2.5m
Free Flow Speed Adjustment Factor
70
65

60
55
50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Non-Motorised Traffic (veh/d)
Figure A9
Sensitivity of Free Flow Speed to Non-Motorised Traffic
and Shoulder Width

75
Side
Friction
Free Flow Speed Adjustment Factor

70 Very Low
Low
65
Medium
60
High
55 Very High
50
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Shoulder Width (m)
Figure A10
Sensitivity of Free Flow Speed to Side Friction and Shoulder Width
80
Flat
70
Rolling
60 Hilly
50
Two-lane road
No roadside friction
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Roughness (IRI m/km)
Figure A11
Sensitivity of Free Flow Speed to Roughness
Car

60
Flat
50
Rolling
40 Hilly
30
Two-lane road
No roadside friction
20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Roughness (IRI m/km)
Figure A12
Sensitivity of Free Flow Speed to Roughness
Medium Truck
2.7 Congested Speeds
For all road types:
DSi = PCEHi / CAP
If DSi <= 0.85 and FVj <= 100
Vj = FVj - DSi C0 [C1 - C2(100 - FVj) - C3(100 - FVj)C4]
If DSi <= 0.85 and FVj > 100
Vj = FVj(1 - C9 DSi)
If FVj <= 100
V85 = FVj – 0.85 C0 [C1 - C2(100 - FVj) - C3(100 - FVj)C4]
If FVj > 100
V85 = FVj(1 – 0.85 C9)
If road type = 2/2UD:
If DSi > 0.85 and FVj <= 100
Vj = V85 - [DSi - 0.85][C5 - C6(56 – V85) + C7(56 - V85)C8]
If DS > 0.85 and FV > 100
Vj = V85 - C10 FVj (DSi - 0.85)
If road type = 4/2UD, 4/2D, 6/2D

If DSi > 0.85 and FVj <= 100
Vj = V85 - [DSi - 0.85][C5 - C6(72.6 – V85) + C7(72.6 - V85)C8]
If DSi > 0.85 and FVj > 100
Vj = V85 – C10 FVj (DSi – 0.85)
Vj = max(Vj, MINSPD)
where: Vj is the congested speed for vehicle group j in km/h

DSi is the degree of saturation for flowband i
CAP is the capacity of the sublink
PCEHi is the flow for flowband i in PCE/hr
VSj is the free flow speed for vehicle group j in km/h
C0 to C10 are coefficients from file CONG
V85 is the speed when DS = 0.85
MINSPD is the minimum vehicle speed from file NSMPARAM
Table A9
Coefficients for Congested Speed Model
Road Type C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
1 0.9 35.88 0.400 0.000040 1.2 90.35 1.75 0.0026 2.42 0.3588 0.89
2 1.0 51.76 0.505 0.000156 2.5 80.03 1.75 0.0026 2.42 0.5180 0.80
3 0.9 35.88 0.400 0.000040 1.2 90.35 1.75 0.0026 2.42 0.3588 0.89
4 0.9 35.88 0.400 0.000040 1.2 90.35 1.75 0.0026 2.42 0.3588 0.89
5 0.9 35.88 0.400 0.000040 1.2 90.35 1.75 0.0026 2.42 0.3588 0.89
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Volume Capacity Ratio
Figure A13
Speed Flow Relationships
Two Lane Road

120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Volume Capacity Ratio
Figure A14
Speed Flow Relationships
Multi-Lane Roads
A3. TRIPS REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Road Capacity
For a given study network TRIPS can use a predetermined value of capacity for each link
expressed in PCE/hour.
3.2 PCE Factors
TRIPS requires a network average value of PCE for each vehicle group included in the
analysis. This cannot be related to any other model parameters.
3.3 Speed Flow Curves
Up to 132 speed flow curves can be defined and assigned to links. These are in the form of x-
y definition rather than a numeric expression.
It is not yet determined whether it can (or, for this study, should) use different speed flow
curves for different vehicle classes.
A4. MODEL ADAPTATION
4.1 Road Capacity
IRMS uses the following parameters to estimate capacity:
1. road alignment expressed as “terrain” (flat, rolling, hilly)

2. road type (see Table A2)
3. pavement width (m)
4. shoulder width (m)
5. NMT volume (veh/day)

NMT volumes in IRMS are unreliable and in place of this it has been proposed that the level
of roadside friction is assessed from the video logs on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
Using the HCM an expression has been derived:
FCSF = a0 – a1 SF max(a2 – SW, 0)
where FCSF = side friction adjustment factor

SF = roadside friction rating
SW = shoulder width in m
Road Type a0 a1 a2
1 1.02 0.012 3.0
2 1.02 0.018 3.0
3 1.02 0.018 3.0
4 1.02 0.012 3.0
5 1.02 0.012 3.0
All road links will fall into one of three categories:
1. existing road, no improvement

2. existing road with capacity improvement
3. new road
For the base network all roads will be category 1 and data on terrain, road type and width will
be obtained from the IRMS database augmented with data extracted from ARMS video logs.
For category 2 links, the road type and widths must be specified as part of the network
definition; terrain will be taken from IRMS. For new links, the road type, widths, terrain and
roadside friction must all be specified. Capacity for each link will then be calculated using the
IRMS model described in Section 2.2.
4.2 PCE Factor
For light vehicles, the PCE factor is unity and independent of all other parameters. For heavy
vehicles, an average value has been obtained from Table A5 for each vehicle group.
Table A10
Average PCE Factors in IRMS
Vehicle Group PCE
Motor cycle 0.5
Car 1.0
Utility – freight 1.0
Utility – passenger 1.0
Small bus 1.0
Large bus 2.0
2-axle truck – light 1.0
2-axle truck – medium 2.0
3-axle truck 3.8
Truck + trailer 3.8
Tractor + semitrailer 3.8

4.3 Speed Flow Curves
The speed flow curve will relate to free flow speed. The model for this uses the same
parameters as capacity with the addition of road function (arterial, collector)1 and roadside
land use (percent urban). For categories 1 and 2 this data will be taken from the IRMS
database. For category 3 it will be assumed that function will be arterial.
As for capacity, an expression has been derived from HCM relating side friction to free flow
speed.
FFVSF = a0 – a1 SF max(a2 – SW, 0)
where FFVSF = side friction adjustment factor

SF = roadside friction rating
SW = shoulder width in m
Road Type a0 a1 a2
1 1.03 0.010 4.0
2 1.05 0.017 4.0
3 1.03 0.012 4.0
4 1.03 0.010 4.0
5 1.03 0.010 4.0
Free flow speed is affected by roughness; it is not intended to model roughness in this study
and a global average value will be used.
For each link, free flow speeds will be calculated using the models described in Section 2.6
for the vehicle classes used in TRIPS. This will then be assigned to a band with a range of 5
km/h. It is expected that not more than 30 curves will be needed, 15 each for two lane and
multi-lane roads.
For each curve (free flow speed), values of congested speed will be calculated for a range of
v/c ratio to give x-y curves in TRIPS format.
1
The speed model does not explicitly include toll roads and it will be assumed that toll roads
are arterials with road type 4 or 5, depending on number of lanes, and no roadside friction.

TRIPS
Classified Traffic
Volumes
Exogenous Estimate
Terrain Average
Flow
Road Type PCE
Pavement Width
PCE/hour
Factors
Terrain
Volume/
Road type Capacity
Pavement width
Capacity
Terrain
Road type Speed Flow
Congested
Road function Curve
Pavement width
Speeds
Number
Land use
Figure A15
Exogenous Estimation of TRIPS Inputs
4.4 Change of Roadside Friction with Time
Roadside friction is an important parameter in the estimation of capacity and free flow speed
(and hence appropriate speed flow curve) for a link. Friction is not a time-stable parameter
due to lack of planning controls and continuing ribbon development alongside arterial and
collector roads. The interpretation of the ARMS images will give a current value but a
method must be devised to project future values over the 20 year horizon needed for this
study.
When the IRMS road network inventory was first designed around 1983/84 roadside land use
was included in the survey using a set of codes for land use category. Between 1984 and
1986 this data was collected for pilot provinces including Jawa Tengah. If the survey is
repeated for selected links using the ARMS images it may be possible to assess the historic
growth in urban roadside land use and hence side friction.

4.5 TRIPS/IRMS Interface File
When the model network has been defined (nodes and links) a network file will be created to
interface between TRIPS and other data sources such as IRMS. For national and provincial
roads the TRIPS link will be referenced to the IRMS location reference system. In the case of
toll or other roads this will not be possible and link characteristics will be entered into the file
manually.
When the file has been populated with base year link characteristics, values of capacity and
speed flow curve numbers will be calculated using the models described above for 2005,
2010, 2015 and 2020. In addition an improvement level will be defined for each link; it is
expected that this will be one level above that existing e.g. if the existing road is 2/2UD the
next level would be 4/2UD. Capacity and flow speed curves will be calculated for the
improved link in each of the four years.
The file will thus contain the following data:
TRIPS Link ID IRMS Location

node from Province code
node to Link code
Link suffix code
DRP from
DRP to
Characteristics in 2005, no improvement Calculated Values for 2005, no improvement

road type Capacity
pavement width Speed-flow curve number – car
shoulder width Speed-flow curve number – bus
terrain Speed-flow curve number – truck
roadside friction
Characteristics in 2005, improved Calculated Values for 2005, improved

road type Capacity
roadside friction
Characteristics in 2010, no improvement Calculated Values for 2010, no improvement

road type Capacity
roadside friction
Characteristics in 2010, improved Calculated Values for 2010, improved

road type Capacity
roadside friction
Etc. for 2015 and 2020

A5. INTERPRETATION OF ARMS DIGITAL IMAGES
The purpose of this exercise is to augment/update the IRMS road inventory. It is proposed
that the following data is recorded for use in the determination of capacity and free flow
speeds for each link.
1. road type
2. pavement width
3. shoulder width
4. road alignment
5. side friction
Images are available at 10m intervals but for this study it is not necessary to record data at this
frequency – a sampling interval of 500 m or 1000 m will suffice bearing in mind that the data
will be averaged for a link.
For ease of recording, numeric codes are proposed.
Table A11
Road Type Codes
Code Description
1 2 lane 1 way undivided
4 4 lane 2 way divided
5 6 lane 2 way divided
Table A12
Pavement Width Codes
Code Width Range
1 <7
2 7–8
3 8 – 10
4 10 – 12
5 > 12
For undivided roads the range refers to the full width of pavement. For divided roads it refers
to the carriageway width.
Table A13
Shoulder Width Codes
Code Width Range
1 < 0.5
2 0.5 – 2
3 >2

Table A14
Terrain Expressed in Terms of Road Alignment
Code Description Vertical Alignment (m/km) Horizontal Alignment
(deg/km)
Range Representative Range Representative
Value Value
1 Flat < 10 5 < 60 15
2 Rolling 10 – 30 25 60 - 150 115
3 Hilly > 30 45 > 150 200
Table A15
Side Friction Codes
Code Side Friction
1 Very low
2 Low
3 Medium
4 High
5 Very high

APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF THEORY OF VALUE OF TRAVEL

TIME SAVINGS AND ESTIMATION METHODS
B1. INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this Appendix is to provide a brief introduction to the theory of the
value of travel time savings (VTTS) and the concept of valuation. In addition, we briefly
review the available methods for empirical estimation of VTTS and concentrate on Transfer
Price, Stated Preference and Revealed Preference methods.
Note that this is only a basic introduction to the above subjects. For a more extensive
treatment the reader should refer to the bibliography given in the references attached to this
document. On issues of theory of value of time see, for example, Bruzelius (1979), MVA et al
(1987). On the subject of utility theory and discrete choice theory with applications from the
transport sector (including revealed preference techniques) a good reference is Ben Akiva and
Lerman (1985). This is an impressive reference and includes a comprehensive thesis on the
theory and practice of random utility discrete choice models. Stated preference techniques are
also covered in a number of references over the last 25 years, see eg Bates 1988 and PTRC
2000.
B2. UTILITY THEORY
The standard micro-economic theory of the consumer (see eg Deaton & Muellbauer, 1980)
characterises the consumer as attempting to maximise available utility from expenditure. If q
is a vector of commodities, with p the vector of prices, then with total available income Y,
this can be written as:
Max U(q) subj p.q = Y
and this gives:
∇U = λp ⇒ q = g(Y,p) Marshallian demand
It is standard to work with the indirect utility function which can be written as:
ψ( Y,p) = U(g[Y,p])
This represents the maximum utility that can be obtained, given income Y and price vector p.
From indirect utility we can use Roy’s identity to obtain Marshallian demand:
g(Y,p) = – ∇pψ⁄ (∂ψ/⁄∂Y)
The derivative of ψ with respect to Y, usually referred to as λ, the "marginal utility of

income", will be positive, and the second derivative can reasonably be expected to be
negative ("declining marginal utility of money"). However, since utility has no absolute
value, these derivatives are not strictly measurable. The general theory of preference allows
for any monotonic transformation of utility without affecting the results. In other words, any
specific functional forms used are merely conveniences for mathematical tractability. Some
economists have therefore argued that the marginal utility of income is essentially
meaningless (eg Deaton and Muellbauer, 1980 §5.3).
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates PageB-1

It is also worthwhile introducing here the concept of consumers’ surplus. There are a
number of ways of defining and discussing consumers’ surplus (CS). It is conventional to
define it in terms of an aggregate (Marshallian) demand curve. In this case, the marginal
consumer has no CS, but other consumers will have increasing amounts. In effect, this means
that most consumers value the commodity at more than they have to pay for it. The total CS
can be defined as the area under the demand curve and above the current market price.
Note that current microeconomic theory tends to operate at the level of the individual
consumer. Since a corresponding demand curve can be derived, expressing the amount which
the consumer would purchase at different prices, together with the existing market price, it is
clearly possible to discuss CS at this level as well. However, this is beyond the remit of this
introductory material.
B3. THE NOTION OF VALUATION
The method of valuing “non-market commodities” (ie, in this context, aspects of the product
which cannot be directly traded for money) is firmly based on the concept of “willingness to
pay”. In considering the valuation of a single commodity, it is easier to work with the implicit
indifference curves between the commodity and “money”. Because we are interested in
quality variations, we can consider a family of indifference curves U(R,Q) where R is
residual income after paying for the commodity in question, and Q is the quality of the
commodity. Clearly utility will increase with both Q and R.
According to basic microeconomic theory, the amount of time spent on an activity is an

outcome of a utility maximisation problem, subject to monetary, resource, technological and
institutional constraints. Examples of technological contsraints are the available modes of
transport, which put limits on the combination of travel times and costs of travel. An example
of institutional constraint is the legal speed limit. The basic theory ignores the fact that there
is a time requirement for consumption and that for some activities this time will be fixed,
others might have a minimum requirement. Introducing the time dimension of consumption
into modelling theory provides a mathematical basis for the value of time transfers between
activities.
The present state of development of microeconomic models which include the time-duration
of consumption derives from the 1960s and has been reviewed in Bruzelius (1979) and MVA
et al (1987).
B4. TECHNIQUES FOR EMPIRICAL ESTIMATION
In the following sections, we consider the three methods for obtaining valuations of non-
market attributes, which are Transfer Price (TP), Stated Preference (SP) and Revealed
Preference (RP). The emphasis is on principles and not on estimation or statistical models.
B4.1 Transfer Price
In theory, Transfer Price (or Contingent Valuation as it is widely known) is the ideal method
for valuation, since it aims to obtain a direct assessment of the individual’s valuation of a
quality imrpovement, in terms of “Willingness to Pay” [WtP]. In other words, it attempts
precisely to obtain the point on the indifference curve corresponding to a specific
improvement, whether composed of a single attribute or a package. Consequently, though
there remains, as with any method, the question of how to convert from individual results to

an appropriate average for the population of interest, the method raises no specific issues of
analysis.
Unfortunately, practical experience reveals serious problems. In the first place, as with any
survey technique relying on hypothetical alternatives, the questions need to be carefully
formulated, in terms of correctly conveying the specific improvements to which the
interviewee must respond. Much more seriously, we need to ensure that we are indeed on the
indifference curve. The normal way in which this is done is by using questions of the form:
What is the most you would be willing to pay in order to gain an improvement of X?
However, while this is an improvement on some forms that have been reported in the
literature, it does not make clear how the terms “most” and “willing to pay” should be
interpreted, in terms of the consequences.
Based on a comparison with so-called “Willingness to Accept” [WtA] methods (which aim to
find the required compensation for a decline in quality), it has been suggested that TP
estimates of valuation are biased downward. It has often been reported that WtP valuations of
the same absolute change are consistently lower than WtA valuations. There are, however,
reasons for expecting a difference between the two methods. In addition, it is common
experience of these methods that a significant proportion of the survey give “extreme” values
(eg zero willingness to pay, demands for very high compensation), and a decision has to be
taken about what to do with these responses.
As with any hypothetical data technique, there are concerns that respondents may not treat
questions of payment (or compensation) seriously, since they will not in fact have to make the
payment (or receive compensation). This could lead to an over-valuation from the Transfer
Price approach, based on ignoring the Budget Constraint. On the other hand, by understating
the maximum they are willing to pay (which is, after all, an intuitively reasonable bargaining
position!) they can effectively locate themselves at a higher utility level.
Another possibility is that respondents may be influenced by their current “consumers’

surplus”. The argument can be expressed as follows. In reality most respondents would in fact
be willing to pay some additional amount for the existing services they use, without any
enhancements, and without modifying their behaviour. That is, elasticities are often fairly low
and many consumers would simply pay increased prices. At existing prices, such consumers are
enjoying a consumers’ surplus CS. It has been suggested that part or all of this surplus might be
"contained" in consumers' responses to the package valuation questions.
However, the fact that some consumers would be prepared to pay more for their current
service does not mean that they are indifferent between the current price and a higher one! It
merely establishes that they would tolerate a certain level of price increase without changing
their behaviour: they would, however, suffer a loss of utility, due to the consumption of other
goods forgone as a result of the reduced “budget”. In principle the current level of CS has no
influence on the amount P which, combined with the improvement, would bring them to the
same utility level as they have at the moment, and any TP exercise should seek to separate
these two effects.
This again suggests that, if TP is to be used to assess valuations of attribute improvements, the
possibility of “contamination” by CS should be recognised and dealt with by finding a
wording for TP questions that makes it clear that we are staying on the same indifference
curve (rather difficult in practice).

B4.2 Stated Preference
At least partly in response to the perceived problems with TP, Stated Preference (SP) methods
have become the preferred approach for non-market valuations. In themselves they are less
powerful than TP, but they appear less susceptible to misinterpretation. This does not mean
that they are problem-free, however!
There are a number of different SP approaches, including types of “rating” which, in the
extreme, are not substantially different from Transfer Price. However, we will concentrate on
the case of pair-wise comparisons, which has become by far the most popular form.
The standard approach, then is to offer a series of pair-wise comparisons between

combinations of attributes (which may include price). The chosen combination is assumed to
have the higher utility, and the aim of the analysis of the exercise is to devise a formula for
utility which explains the choices as far as possible. Note that the presentational problems
associated with the notion of indifference are explicitly avoided: it is only required to choose
the preferred alternative. For this reason, it would seem that the possible “contamination”
from consumers’ surplus is not likely to be a problem.
However, since indifference is ultimately the required concept, the data has to be sufficiently
rich to allow the tradeoffs to be estimated with confidence. This has consequences both for
the amount of data required and the design of the pair-wise comparisons.
While in early examples of SP research the data was analysed by relatively mechanical
methods, in current practice the analysis is firmly rooted in micro-economic theory, and in
particular the extension of the theory which relates to discrete choice (see eg McFadden 1974,
Ben Akiva and Lerman 1985). According to this, a respondent choosing between alternatives
i and j (which might represent, for example, different travel modes for carrying out a given
journey) will choose the alternative with the greatest (indirect) utility. Hence, we may assume
that, if i is chosen, that
ψi ≥ ψj ∀j ≠ i
The quantities ψi should be viewed as the conditional indirect utilities assuming that the
option i is chosen. In other words, for each possible option, we calculate the maximum utility
available if that option is chosen. The actual option chosen is then that which yields the
greatest maximum utility.
Of course, we do not know the utilities ψi, and this is where the notion of random utility
comes in. The aim is to find appropriate functions Vi for each option which will “best
explain” the actual choices made: the standard analytical assumption is that of Maximum
Likelihood.
Hence, given a proposed utility formulation, which we write as Ui = Vi + εi = Xi.β + εi, where
εi is an unknown random or error term, Xi is a vector of characteristics of option i, and β is a
vector of parameters to be estimated, we aim to find the most likely values for β, given the
actual choices.
Since V is an indirect utility function, one of the elements of X should be the price P. By far
the most common assumption is that V is “linear in parameters”, as here, though this can be
relaxed. If V is also assumed to be linear in income, then it falls out of the estimation, since its
contribution will be the same for all options i.

In order to carry out the maximum likelihood estimation, it is necessary to make a further
assumption about the distribution of the random term εi. In general, this can have quite
significant consequences. However, in the restricted case of binary choice (in SP terms, pair-
wise comparisons), the results are hardly affected, provided that the distribution is
“reasonably close to normal”. To avoid the problems of numerical integration, it is convenient
to choose a distribution which has a closed form outcome for the likelihood function, and the
Gumbel distribution, which yields the logit probability formula, is invariably chosen in this
case. Thus, the probability that i is chosen rather than j is given as:
pi = exp (Vi)/( exp (Vi)+ exp (Vj)) = 1/(1 + exp (Vj –Vi))
Having obtained the coefficient vector β, the valuation of particular attribute Xk can be
obtained by dividing the coefficient on Xk by the coefficient on price P. Because of the
standard assumption of linearity no allowance is made for changes in the marginal utility of
income.
With regard to the question as to whether respondents carry out the task in a reliable way,
even if the technique as a whole suffers from fewer problems than Transfer Price, a number of
concerns remain. A number of hypotheses have been put forward relating to possible
problems with SP-based studies, with special reference to the methodology.
• The form of presentation of trade-off exercises (e.g. rating versus ranking or pair-wise
choices), as well as the complexity of the task (e.g. number of options to be ranked) can
affect attribute values significantly.
• Valuations given to attribute improvements may be influenced by the perceived cost of

implementation.
• There is also some evidence that the numbers of attributes in an SP exercise can affect the
valuations. This may either reflect confusion on the part of respondents at being asked to
deal with too much complexity (who may then apply lexicographic or other simplifying
decision rules to cope), or it may represent a genuine diminishing marginal utility with
increasing numbers of attributes in a package.
• “Framing effects” may be important. The psychological literature has shown that
responses can be influenced by the context in which exercises are presented to
respondents, including the base position used. (For example in transport research
sometimes it appears that respondents value gains and losses of travel time at different
unit rates).
None of these possible problems can easily be ruled out, and all have the potential to
undermine the valuations, whether for individual attributes or packages, as obtained from SP
studies.
It follows that it is up to the analyst to carefully design SP questions and test them laboriously
to demonstrate that such problems are solved.
B4.3 Revealed Preference
In contrast to SP, Revealed Preference (RP) analysis involves an interpretation of traveller

preferences from actual behaviour (real world observation), which the analyst may not fully
understand. The real world observation is not controlled as the experimental conditions
especially designed in SP questionnaires. Therefore, the risk is that important choice factors
will be neglected, or that constraints on behaviour will not be recognised (specification error).

In addition, measurement of actual behaviour may also present a problem (measurement

error). A major issue is perceived levels of factors affecting choice might differ from
objective measurement, which itself may include a measurement error.
The table below summarises the sources of error for both SP and RP.
Table: Sources and Importance of Error in SP and RP

Error source SP RP
Data measurement: explanatory variables Negligible potential
Data measurement: response variables significant negligible
Model: choice of variables negligible potential
Model: functional form minor potential
Model: taste variation tractable significant
Although it appears that RP suffers from more sources of error, it is important to notice that
SP is not error free. In particular, most of the SP (and TP) problems discussed in the previous
sections emanate from the ‘response error’, ie that individuals may not actually choose in the
real world what they state that they will choose under experimental conditions (people saying
one thing but doing another).
On the other hand, RP studies also experience difficulties in isolating ‘traders’ from the bulk
of the population of travellers whose choice is firmly constrained to one or other option either
because of physical circumstances or habit. Consequently the number of useful observations
is frequently limited and definitely much lower than in SP research and, therefore, the relative
cost is high.
In addition, the critical variables for the estimation of VTTS: money cost and travel time are
likely to be correlated in RP, mainly because travel time has a close association with distance
for a number of modes and travel conditions. This causes extra strain during RP analysis and
further exacerbates sample requirements. In SP the experimental design controls correlation
and can be tested in advance of the experiment.
Traditionally, demand analysis and evaluation have been based on RP data; With theoretical
advances in econometrics (see early McFadden 1974 publication and later comprehensive book
by Ben Akiva and Lerman 1985), there has been great expansion in this field. But there are
practical limitations to the RP approach, largely connected with survey costs and the difficulty
in distinguishing the effects of some attributes, as discussed above. In addition, for obvious
reasons, models based on RP cannot handle new alternatives that might be introduced in the
future.
As a consequence, there has developed within the field of market research the practice of basing
demand estimates on an analysis of responses to hypothetical choices. The alternatives are
presented to respondents in terms of their component attributes which can take different values.
The design of these Stated Preference techniques (sometimes called Conjoint Analysis in the
USA) is based on the theory of experimental statistics. Data analysis and interpretation are
based on utility theory and econometrics (see previous section) actually developed earlier to
deal with RP data.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the last 25 years have seen the emergence of SP in transport
research. It has enjoyed widespread application in a number of different countries and has
shown itself to be a powerful, flexible and relatively cost effective means of guidance for the
transport planner and economist.

B4.4 Summary
In comparing the three main survey techniques for obtaining valuations, we have shown that
while Transfer Price in principle could provide precisely what is required, there are serious
(generally fatal) problems in ensuring that the underlying requirement of indifference is
respected. Stated Preference, while a weaker (ie, less efficient) technique from a theoretical
point of view, generally avoids these problems. Finally, Revealed Preference initially appears
to be the most robust method because it is based on real and not hypothetical choices.
However, in practice it is the least efficient method because of large data requirements and the
significant difficulties in assembling RP data with reasonable choice variation and clearly
identified alternatives.
B5. OTHER ADVANCED ISSUES ON VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS
There are a number of other technical issues relating to VTTS, which are currently being
debated by international academics and practitioners. They are briefly mentioned below.
Bearing in mind JARNS’s timescale and budget such issues are of lesser priority to date and
have been rightly excluded from our remit. Note that some of the VTTS studies referred to in
this report included significant theoretical, social and market research and analytical phases
lasting three to four years.
However, some of them are likely to become important in the foreseeable future when
detailed assessments of toll roads might be required in Indonesia. Therefore, they should be
subject to future research.
• Distributions of VTTS
• Value of reliability of travel time
• Relationship between VTTS and incomes
• Value of small time savings, time savings versus time losses, etc
B6. DETAILED REVIEW OF SELECTED PREVIOUS INDONESIAN WORK
Hine J, Harlan Pangihutan and Didik Rudjito (1998) A Study of the Value of Time in
Indonesia Using Stated Preference Data, Institute of Road Engineering, Indonesia and
Transport Research Laboratory, UK.
This research, published by TRL was carried out in Jakarta and West Java, under a Road
Research Development Project (contract no 012/IRE.BDG/95). The objective was to derive
values of time using stated preference techniques. Four separate surveys using personal (paper
and pen) interviews were undertaken in 1997, one for bus passengers at bus terminals and
three for the occupants of cars and light vehicles. These were conducted at a petrol station in
Jakarta, at a service station on a toll road and at the road side (between Jakarta and Bandung).
Background information was collected on household size, car ownership, journey
characteristics, education, employment and household expenditure.
Values of time were estimated for a number of different segments using logit modelling.
Values of time were found to be strongly related to household income (though the effect was
less than proportionate). Because of their lower incomes bus passengers were found to have
values of time much lower than car occupants. For a given household expenditure level,
higher education, car ownership and gender (being female) were also associated with higher

values of time. Lower values of time were associated with people living in large households
and aged over 35 years old.
Although for most purposes average only VTTS by journey purpose are required, such
segmentation analysis by household expenditure, education, etc facilitates an in-depth
understanding of people’s behaviour. In addition, it serves as a validity test of the VTTS
obtained.
The Table below summarises the VTTS results for different travel conditions and shows that
the VTTS form the SP research range from 5100 Rp/hr to 6500 Rp/hr. The VTTS for bus is
Rp2700/hr. Such value of time for bus appears to be high, in 1997 some other studies were
using values of that order to represent the average income level per hour. However, the
authors argue in their report that there is no a-priori expectation about VTTS and the values
obtained depend on the characteristics of the sample and they quote work from Latin
American countries where similar results were obtained. Note that follow-up studies by IRE
(1998) and an independent study by Armijaya (2000) obtained bus VTTS consistent with the
above values
The VTTS for car travel (car occupants) obtained by Hine et al (1998) are also consistent with
other empirical findings and also with results from studies emplaoying the “income
approach”.
Table VTTS Results from Hine et al (1998)

Survey (sample size) Time coefficient (mins) Cost coefficient (Rp) VTTS Rp/hour
(T-statistic) (T-statistic)
Bus, south Jakarta (96) -0.3421 (-9.2) -0.007448 (-9.3) 2756
Car at petrol station, urban, -0.07985 (-11.8) -0.0007325 (-15.7) 6541
Jakarta (206)
Car rural road (207) -0.07238 (-10.6) -0.0007426 (-13.5) 5848
Toll road Jagorawi (112) -0.09398 (-9.3) -0.001093 (-11.4) 5159
It is important to note that this research (Hine et al 1998), as well as its follow-up (IRE 1998
and 2000) mentioned below was specified and conducted according to international SP
standards. In particular the SP design was developed according to a standard which has its
origins in the second UK VTTS study (Accent and HCG 1999) and was devised for situations
where simplicity and avoidance of any risk of respondent fatigue or confusion are paramount.
In addition, the SP data analysis was carried out according to international best practice.
Appropriate statistical techniques were used based on the theories of random utility and
discrete choice and quality approved software with a world-wide acceptance was employed.
IRE (1998) Penelitian Nilai Waktu Sebagai Komponen Biaya Pemakai Jalan (1998), Institute
of Road Engineering, Indonesia.
This study concentrated on obtaining VTTS for bus and car users using much larger samples
than its predecessor and mainly for inter-urban and rural travel. A total of 266 car interviews
and 360 bus interviews were conducted. The respondents were intercepted on arterial roads in
west Java.
The methodology for surveys, SP design and analysis was similar to Hine et al (1998) and the
research successfully derived statistically significant VTTS. For bus passengers two different
values were derived depending on the size of bus: Rp1600/hr (bis kecil) and Rp2800/hr (bis
besar).
For ‘car occupants’ a single value of time was derived at Rp5800/hr.

IRE (2000) Penelitian Nilai Waktu Sebagai Komponen Biaya Pemakai Jalan (2000), Institute
of Road Engineering, Indonesia.
This research employed the SP methods to determine the VTTS for goods vehicles moving on
primary inter-urban atrerial roads. Approximately 250 interviews were conducted with
transport managers and officers of firms transporting goods in Java with bases at Cirebon,
Semarang and Bandung.
The research team further developed the methodology originally devised by Hine et al (1998)
and IRE (1998) and adapted it to fit the circumstances of freight movements.
A number of different values of time were developed according to types of goods and size of
company. In addition, different Values were estimated by different categories of trucks.
Two of these the categories of trucks that will be of interest in JARNS are truk berat with two
and three axles and semi-trailers. The values of time ranged from Rp50000 to Rp57000 per
hour for two and three axles trucks and Rp112000 per hour for semi-trailers. Note that the
above values assume full load and they should be corrected according to the average load per
return trip. IRE and TRL (2000) provide some evidence on this subject, according to which it
appears that load factors of the order of 0.60 and 0.33 should be applied to trucks and semi-
trailers respectively.
References
MVA et al (1987) The value of Travel Time Savings, a report of research undertaken for the
UK Department of Transport, Policy Journals, UK 1987
Accent Marketing and Research and Hague Consulting Group (1999) The Value of Travel
Time on UK Roads, a report prepared for the UK Department of Transport.
SACTRA (1977), The Leitch Committee Report of the Advisory Committee on Trunk Road
Assessment, HMSO, UK
Hague Consulting Group (1990) The Netherlands Value of Time Study, report to Dienst
Verkeerskunde, Rijkswaterstaat, The Hague.
Gwilliam KM (1999) the Value of Time in Economic Evaluation of Transport Projects:

Lessons from Recent Research, The World Bank, TWU, Transport No OT-5, July 1999.
McIntosh PT and Quarmby DA (1970) Generalised Costs and the Estimation of Movement
Costs and Benefits in Transport Planning, Department of Transport (UK) MAU Note 179,
London (also available in Highway Research Record 383 (1972), pp11-26).
Bruzelius N (1979) The Value of Travel Time: Theory and Measurement, Croom Helm,
London.
Deaton, Angus and John Muellbauer (1980) Economics and Consumer Behaviour, Cambridge
University Press, London.
Ben Akiva M and Lerman S (1985) Discrete Choice Theory, MIT Press.
McFadden D (1974) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour, in P

Zarembka (ed): Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York.

Bates J, ed (1988) Stated Preference Methods Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Jan
1988.
Hine J, Harlan Pangihutan and Didik Rudjito (1998) A Study of the Value of Time in
Indonesia Using Stated Preference Data, Institute of Road Engineering, Indonesia and
Transport Research Laboratory, UK.
IRE (1998) Penelitian Nilai Waktu Sebagai Komponen Biaya Pemakai Jalan, Institute of
Road Engineering, Indonesia.
IRE (2000) Penelitian Nilai Waktu Sebagai Komponen Biaya Pemakai Jalan, Institute of
Road Engineering, Indonesia.
Henry Armijaya (2000) Urban Toll Road Users’ Value of Time Savings, Program Magister
Thesis, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Herman (1995) Value of Travel Time of Passenger Cars on Jakarta – Cikampek Toll Road,
Strata Two Thesis at Institut Teknologi Bandung, in collaboration with Bina Marga,
Indonesia.
Norojono O (1998) Freight Transportation Mode Choice Behaviour: A Lesson from a Small
Sample Size Analysis, Simposium I Forum Studi Transportasi Perguruan Tinggi, Aula Timur
ITB, 3 December 1998.
Hermawan R, A Sjafruddin, H Purwatmoko and E Permadi (1999) Penentuan Nilai Waktu

Pengguna Angkutan Umum di Kotamadya Bandung, Journal Transportasi, Vol 1 No 2,
December 1999.
Johnson J et al (1997) Highway Toll Study (TA No 2762) Asian Development Bank, final
report for Bina Marga and Jasa Marga, Indonesia.
Hoff & Overgaard (Carl Bro International) et al (1998) Preliminary Screening of Inter-District
Roads in Java, prepared for Bina Marga, Indonesia.
Sweroad and Indec Associates (1990) Consultancy Service for Update of Toll Road
Investment program Study (IRBD Loan No 2049-ind), final report for Jasa Marga, Indonesia.
Colin Buchanan and Partners et al (1990) Transport Network Planning and Regulation
(TNPR): Existing Travel Demand and Integrated Forecasts for JABOTEK (IBRD Loan 2932
– Ind)

DATA COLLECTION
C1. DATA NEEDS
While the strategic road network in Java provides for both local and long distance traffic, the
major traffic of interest to the study is long-distance traffic. Network modelling will not be
concerned with local traffic, except insofar as it reduces the road capacity available to long-
distance traffic.
The major interest in modelling will be the origin-destination patterns of traffic in Java, rather
than the absolute volumes on any link. It is these patterns that provide the vital information
about the total transport costs, and the potential economic benefits from road improvements,
essential for evaluating possible road improvement options, and formulating a network
development strategy.
The modelling approach to be used will be heavily reliant on matrix estimation, using the
1996 NODS matrix (separate matrices for vehicles, passengers and freight) as a base. It is
clear from separate analyses that this data source cannot be considered to be highly reliable,
but it must be assumed that it contains kernels of adequate data about the level and spatial
pattern of travel within Java. As such, it is of some value as a starting point for the analysis.
This data source will be updated using existing traffic data (outlined below), and the results of
O-D information obtained from roadside interviews to be conducted throughout Java. Traffic
counts will supplement this information. The result of this process, combining what will
essentially be a poor quality base matrix with good quality survey traffic data, will provide the
base for model estimation and subsequent travel demand forecasting.
It is obvious that the most effective way to obtain good quality resultant traffic forecasting
models, is to obtain comprehensive and high-quality survey data. This will be the aim of the
traffic survey program.
C2. DATA RESOURCES
There are already available a number of traffic survey results that will be of major use in the
study. These include:
• IRMS Data base, (1997 and up-date 1999/2000)

• ARMS surveys, including the coding of Moving Observer Counts (2000)
• Jasa Marga ramp counts, for most toll roads
• Road Capacity Expansion Project Phase II (CAPEX II), 1997
• Automatic Traffic Count Program ATC (5 Survey station only, 1996)
• Automatic Traffic Count Program ATC (West Jawa, 17 survey stations, 1997)
• Automatic Traffic Count Program ATC (Central Jawa, 15 survey stations, 1998)
• Automatic Traffic Count Program ATC (East Jawa, 16 survey stations, 1999)
• National Origin-Destination Survey, 1996
The ATC data in particular provides valuable information about hour-of-day and day-of-week
variation in traffic levels, for up to one year’s duration in many locations. Locations of ATC
posts are shown in Fig. C.1. A compilation of data by link is included in this Appendix.
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page C-1

This data, when appropriately factored up to represent current traffic levels from the results of
sample traffic surveys, will provide the data necessary for matrix estimation and model
validation.
C3. TRAFFIC SURVEY PROGRAM
The Traffic Survey Program needed has two components:
• A program of roadside interviews, that will provide O-D information

• Classified counts, that will both provide controls over the O-D surveys as well as
give estimates of current expansion factors to be applied to survey data collected
previously
The selection of origin-destination survey locations was based on a review of major transport
corridors, and the selection of locations that would ensure that major long-distance traffic
flows are included in the analysis, and avoid over-representation of local traffic.
Manual classified traffic count stations were selected in a way that ensured that all major links
were covered by some form of reliable traffic count.
The result of the above selection process is that the survey program will cover 44 origin-
destination survey stations and 68 manual classified traffic count stations distributed as shown
below.
Survey Type West Java Central Java/D.I.Y East Java Total

Roadside 11 15 18 44
Interviews
Traffic counts 19 28 21 68
112
The survey station locations are shown in Fig C.2.
C4. TRAFFIC SURVEY COVERAGE
C4.1 Traffic Counts
The traffic count programme will comprise mainly simple manual classified volume counts of
1day duration, covering 12 hours/day. However, on all origin-destination survey stations the
traffic counts will cover 24 hours.
The traffic counts will use a vehicle classification based on the IRMSs classification, in order
to ensure comparability with both previous count data and the requirements of the vehicle
operating cost model. The vehicle groups specified in IRMSs are presented below.
1. Motor cycles, scooters, motorised cycle and 3 wheel vehicles.

2. Sedans, jeeps and station wagons. Generally used as private vehicles.
3. Small public transport vehicles, suburban microbus, combi and minibuses.
Except for combis, generally have no more than 12 passenger seats and include
mikrolet, angkot, minibus, or covered pick-ups used for urban or village
transport.

4. Pick-ups, delivery vehicles such as covered pick-ups. Generally used for goods
with maximum load on rear axle of 3.5 tons, and a single wheel single rear axle
called STRT (sumbu tunggal roda tunggal) configuration. Not to include micro-
truck listed below.
5. Small buses. Small buses are public passenger vehicles with between 16 to 26
seats, including kopaja, metromini, with a single rear axle and double wheels
called STRG (sumbu tunggal roda ganda) configuration, and maximum length of
9 metres, called 3/4 bus.
6. Large buses. Large buses are public passenger vehicles with usually from 30 to
50 seats, including overnight long distance buses, city buses and inter-city buses
with about 12 m length and STRG configuration.
7. Small two-axle Truck. Includes micro-trucks, used to carry goods. It has single
wheels on the rear axle only, and a rear axle load of 5 to 8 tons (MST 5 - 8, tons,
STRT configuration).
8. Large two-axle truck. Used to carry goods, with a rear axle load of 8 to 10 tons
(MST 8 - 10 tons, STRG configuration) and with double rear axle double wheels.
9. Three-axle truck carrying goods, with double rear axle and double wheels (STRT
and SGRG configuration).
10. Trailer truck, of either type 8 or 9 with an additional trailer (truck bed) and
connected with a triangular steel coupling. Also called Full Trailer Truck.
11. Semi trailers or joined truck; the head of a truck with two or three axles
connected through a joint, with plates and truck body frame with rear wheels also
having two or three axles.
12. Non-motorised, bicycles, tricycles, horse-drawn or ox-drawn carts
The traffic count form proposed for the surveys is attached.
C4.2 Roadside Interview Surveys
Roadside Interview surveys will be carried out as sample surveys of 12 hours/day. As it is

recognised that considerable night traffic flow may be observed, consisting mainly of large
buses and trucks, night-time interview surveys will be carried out at selected locations. Thus
some nine stations have been identified for night interviews. These include:
• a station at Merak to intercept night traffic from Sumatera

• two stations around Bandung to intercept night traffic in the southern Jakarta-
Bandung-Yogyakarta corridor
• a station west of Cirebon to intercept night traffic between Jakarta, Bandung
and Cirebon and Central and East Jawa
• a station west of Semarang to intercept all major long distance night traffic in
the north corridor including traffic between West Jawa and the Yogy area
• A station east of Surakarta to intercept traffic in the southern corridor between
Yogyakarta area and Surabaya
• Two stations on the Lamongan-Widang and Mirilip-Krian sections west of
Surabaya have been identified, to intercept long distance night traffic between
Surabaya in both the north and south corridor
• a station on the Probolinggo-Baduan section to intercept long distance night
traffic to/from Bali.
The vehicle types covered in the origin-destination surveys include all vehicle types above
except motorcycles and non-motorised traffic. However, as it will be possible to identify the
origin and destination of buses without stopping them, buses will not be stopped for
interview, but information about route origin and destination shown on the buses will be
recorded, including an assessment of the approximate number of passengers.

The origin-destination survey forms designed for the surveys are included in this Appendix.
The entire survey program, giving survey station number, survey type, survey coverage and
timing of survey is also attached.
C4.3 Traffic Survey Organisation
The traffic surveys will be carried out by three survey teams. The program has further been
planned so that, for each province, each team will cover a similar limited geographical area
and approximately the same number of kabupaten and survey stations.
Each team will be headed by a Team Co-ordinator supported by an Assistant Team Co-
ordinator, and a number of supervisors to monitor the surveys and make sure that work is of
acceptable quality.
Supervisors as well as survey staff (interviewers and enumerators) will be recruited locally,
and trained by the co-ordinators and assistant co-ordinators, who will participate actively
during the initial phases of the surveys. It is further anticipated that the same survey staff will
be used for all surveys in the area of responsibility of each team.

TRAFFIC SURVEY PROGRAM - WEST JAWA
OD Count January
Survey Survey Survey Period S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
Station Road Section Kabupaten Activity Hours Hours 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3
22001 Cilegon - Merak Serang OD Survey 24 24 24-25 January x x
22003 Sp. Bitung - Cikande Tangerang OD Survey 12 24 26-27 January x x
22101 Serpong - Tangerang Tangerang Traffic Count Survey 12 26 January x
22091 Bekasi - Cileungsi Bekasi Traffic Count Survey 12 29 January x
22092 Cileungsi - Citeureup Bogor Traffic Count Survey 12 29 January x
220951 Cibubur - Cileungsi Bogor Traffic Count Survey 12 29 January x
22043 Ciawi - Cibadek Bogor OD Survey 12 24 30-31 January x x
22014 Cibinong - Bogor Bogor Traffic Count Survey 12 1 February x
22071 Parung - Bogor Bogor Traffic Count Survey 12 1 February x
22015 Bogor - Ciawi Bogor Traffic Count Survey 12 2 February x
22042 Sukabumi - Cibadak Sukabumi Traffic Count Survey 12 2 February x
22017 Cianjur - Selajambe Cianjur OD Survey 12 24 24-25 January x x
22016 Ciawi - Punjak Cianjur Traffic Count Survey 12 25 January x
22045 Sukabumi - Cianjur Cianjur Traffic Count Survey 12 25 January x
22080 Cikampek - Sadang Purwakarta OD Survey 12 24 26-27 January x x
22008 Cikampek - Pamanukan Subang OD Survey 12 24 29-30 January x x
22075 Cagak - Subang Subang Traffic Count Survey 12 31 January x
22076 Pamanukan- Subang Subang Traffic Count Survey 12 31 January x
220782 Cisomang - Padalarang Bandung OD Survey 24 24 1-2 February x x
22072 Indramayu - Lohbener Indramayu Traffic Count Survey 12 12 2 February x
22020 Cileunyi - Sumedang Sumedang OD Survey 12 24 22-23 January x x
22049 Cileunyi - Nagreg Sumedang OD Survey 24 24 24-25 January x x
22021 Sumedang - Cijelag Sumedang Traffic Count Survey 12 26 January x
22118 Sumedang - Wado Sumedang Traffic Count Survey 12 26 January x
22056 Sasabengi - Malangbong Garut Traffic Count Survey 12 29 January x
22069 Majalengka - Kadipaten Majalengka Traffic Count Survey 12 29 January x
22024 Cirebon - Palimanan Cirebon OD Survey 24 24 29-30 January x x
22013 Cirebon - Losari Cirebon OD Survey 12 24 31 Jan-1 Feb x x
22012 Cirebon - Karangampel Cirebon Traffic Count Survey 12 2 February x
22067 Cirebon - Kuningan Kuningan Traffic Count Survey 12 2 February x
Subtotal
TRAFFIC SURVEY PROGRAM - CENTRAL JAWA
OD Count November
Survey Survey Survey Period T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T
240041 Pemalang - Tegal Pemalang OD Survey 12 24 13-14 November x x
240301 Pemalang - Bantar Bolong Pemalang Traffic Count Survey 12 14 November x
241321 Moga - Towel Pemalang Traffic Count Survey 12 14 November x
24027 Tegal - Slawi Tegal Traffic Count Survey 12 15 November x
24151 Randudongkal - Slawi Tegal Traffic Count Survey 12 15 November x
24029 Slawi - Prupuk Tegal Traffic Count Survey 12 15 November x
24028 Ketanggungan - Prupuk Brebes Traffic Count Survey 12 15 November x
240312 Ajibarang - Bumiayu Purwokerto OD Survey 12 24 16-17 November x x
24033 Kr. Pucung - Wangon Cilacap OD Survey 12 24 20-21 November x x
240361 Wangon - Jeruklegi Cilacap Traffic Count Survey 12 22 November x
240422 Sampang - Buntu Cilacap Traffic Count Survey 12 22 November x
240502 Gombong - Buntu Kebumen OD Survey 12 24 23-24 November x x
24057 Prembun - Kebumen Kebumen Traffic Count Survey 12 24 November x
240511 Banyumas - Klampok Banjarnegara OD Survey 12 24 27-28 November x x
24045 Sukaraja - Purwokerto Purbalingga Traffic Count Survey 12 28 November x
24006 Pekalongan - Batang Pekalongan Traffic Count Survey 12 13 November x
240071 Batang - Banyuputih Batang Traffic Count Survey 12 13 November x
24118 Bawang - Blado Batang Traffic Count Survey 12 13 November x
24009 Semarang - Kendal Kendal OD Survey 24 24 14-15 November x x
24010 Semarang - Ungaran Semarang OD Survey 12 24 16-17 November x x
24081 Semarang - Demak Demak OD Survey 12 24 20-21 November x x
240821 Semarang - Tegowanu Demak Traffic Count Survey 12 21 November x
24156 Ungaran - Cangkiran Salatiga Traffic Count Survey 12 22 November x
24012 Bawen - Salatiga Salatiga Traffic Count Survey 12 22 November x
240151 Salatiga - Sruwen Salatiga Traffic Count Survey 12 22 November x
24074 Secang - Kranggan Temanggung OD Survey 12 24 23-24 November x x
240662 Parakan - Kretek (KDT) Temanggung Traffic Count Survey 12 24 November x
24061 Kretek - Wonosobo Wonosobo Traffic Count Survey 12 27 November x
24065 Kretek - Sapuran Wonosobo Traffic Count Survey 12 27 November x
240112 Pringsurat - Ambarawa Magelang Traffic Count Survey 12 27 November x
24017 Muntilan - Salam Magelang OD Survey 12 24 13-14 November x x
24075 Magelang - Salaman Magelang Traffic Count Survey 12 14 November x
241032 Purwodadi - Gundih Purwodadi Traffic Count Survey 12 15 November x
240782 Salaman - Maron Purworejo Traffic Count Survey 12 15 November x
24080 Purworejo - Karangnongko Purworejo Traffic Count Survey 12 15 November x
26026 Wates - Sentolo Yogyakarta OD Survey 12 24 16-17 November x x
26019 Gading - Gledok Wonosari Yogyakarta OD Survey 12 24 20-21 November x x
24018 Klaten - Prambanan Klaten OD Survey 12 24 22-23 November x x
24020 Kartosari - Boyolali Boyolali OD Survey 12 24 24-25 November x x
241391 Boyolali - Selo - Blabak Boyolali Traffic Count Survey 12 24 November x
24022 Surakarta - Palur Surakarta OD Survey 24 24 27-28 November x x
24105 Karanganyar - Bts. Jatim Karanganyar Traffic Count Survey 12 29 November x
24106 Surakarta - Sukoharjo Surakarta Traffic Count Survey 12 29 November x
24127 Giriwoyo - Duwet Wonogiri Traffic Count Survey 12 29 November x
Subtotal
TRAFFIC SURVEY PROGRAM - EAST JAWA
OD Count January
Survey Survey Survey Period M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M
28003 Madiun - Maospati Magetan OD Survey 12 24 4-5 January x x
280681 Madiun - Ponorogo Madiun OD Survey 12 24 8-9 January x x
280691 Trenggalek - Dengok Ponorogo Traffic Count Survey 12 9 January x
28072 Kertosono - Kediri Kediri OD Survey 12 24 10-11 January x x
280731 Kediri - Ngantru Kediri Traffic Count Survey 12 11 January x
280791 Kediri - Srengat Kediri Traffic Count Survey 12 12 January x
28071 Nganjuk - Kediri Kediri Traffic Count Survey 12 12 January x
28074 Ngatruk - Tulungagung Tulungagung OD Survey 12 24 15-16 January x x
280751 Tulung Agung-Blitar Tulungagung Traffic Count Survey 12 16 January x
280061 Nganjuk - Caruban Nganjuk OD Survey 12 24 17-18 January x x
28007 Kertosono - Nganjuk Nganjuk Traffic Count Survey 12 18 January x
28009 Jombang - Mj. Agung Jombang Traffic Count Survey 12 19 January x
28076 Jombang - Pulorejo Jombang Traffic Count Survey 12 19 January x
280851 Batu - Kandangan Malang Traffic Count Survey 12 3 January x
280292 Purwodadi - Karanglo Malang OD Survey 12 24 4-5 January x x
28089 Malang - Kepanjen Malang OD Survey 12 24 8-9 January x x
280902 Gondanglegi - Turen Malang Traffic Count Survey 12 9 January x
280211 Probolinggo - Baduan Probolinggo OD Survey 24 24 10-11 January x x
281041 Wonorejo - Pondok Dalem Lumajang OD Survey 12 24 12-13 January x x
280982 Bts. Cabdin - Lumajang Lumajang Traffic Count Survey 12 12 January x
281012 Probolinggo - Grobogan Lumajang Traffic Count Survey 12 12 January x
28110 Jember - Arjoso Jember OD Survey 12 24 15-16 January x x
28129 Mayang - Sumberjati Jember OD Survey 12 24 17-18 January x x
28107 Gembirono - Rambipuji Jember Traffic Count Survey 12 18 January x
28025 Ketapang - Banyuwangi Banyuwangi OD Survey 12 24 19-20 January x x
28022 Mlandingan - Panarukan Panurukan Traffic Count Survey 12 22 January x
280241 Asembagus - Bajulmati Panurukan Traffic Count Survey 12 22 January x
28031 Tuban - Glandong Tuban OD Survey 12 24 4-5 January x x
280441 Lamongan - Widang Lamongan OD Survey 24 24 8-9 January x x
280461 Babat - Ploso Lamongan OD Survey 12 24 10-11 January x x
28142 Kamal - Bangkalan Bangkalan OD Survey 12 24 12-13 January x x
281431 Bangkalan - Galis Bangkalan Traffic Count Survey 12 15 January x
280411 Gresig - Sadang Gresig Traffic Count Survey 12 15 January x
28043 Surabaya - Gresik Gresig Traffic Count Survey 12 15 January x
28012 Mirilip - Krian Mojokerto OD Survey 24 24 16-17 January x x
28018 Gempol - Pasuruan Pasuruan OD Survey 12 24 18-19 January x x
28026 Gempol - Pandaan Pasuruan Traffic Count Survey 12 19 January x
28013 Krian - Taman Sidoajo Traffic Count Survey 12 22 January x
28016 Waru - Sidoarjo Sidoajo Traffic Count Survey 12 22 January x
Subtotal
Survey Days (West Jawa): 12

Survey Days (Central Jawa): 17
Survey Days (East Jawa): 20
ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY
Link No: Link Name: Date: Hour From - To:

Direction: Surveyor:
Vehicle Origin Destination Via Number Trip Commodity Type: Empty-Part Full-Full-Over
Type Toll Road Passenger Purpose Write tonnage if known
2. Car/Jeep 6a. Small Truck-2 Yes: Buss: Main Commodity: Empty:

1/4:
To/from
3. Mini Bus 6b. Large Truck-2 Kec: No: 1/4:
Kec: 1/2: Work:
4. Pick-up 7a. Truck-3 axle Not 3/4: Other: Other: 1/2:

5a. Small Bus 7b. Truck Trailer known: 3/4:
Kab: Kab: 4/4:
5b. Large Bus 7c. Semitrailer >: Container: Yes: No: 4/4:
Tons: >

1/4:
To/from
3. Mini Bus 6b. Large Truck-2 Kec: Kec: No: 1/2: Work: 1/4:

Kab: Kab: 4/4:
Tons: >

1/4:
To/from
3. Mini Bus 6b. Large Truck-2 No: 1/4:
Kec: Kec: 1/2: Work:

Kab: Kab: 4/4:
Tons: >

1/4:
To/from
3. Mini Bus 6b. Large Truck-2 No: 1/4:
Kec: Kec: 1/2: Work:

Kab: Kab: 4/4:
Tons: >
MANUAL CLASSIFIED TRAFFIC COUNTS
Link No: Link Name: Date: Weather:

Direction: Direction Code: Weather:
1 2 3 4 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 7c 8
Opelet,
Hour Motorcycle, Scooter, Sedan, Jeep Pick-up Opelet Pick-up Truck Small Bus Large Bus Small Truck Large Truck Truck Truck - Trailer Tractor- Non -
Station Wagon Mini Bus 2 - Axles 2 - Axles 3 - Axles Semitrailer Motorised
COMPILATION OF RECENT TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
Sub- SOURCE Km Km Length Sepeda Sedan, Jeep Mobil Bus non Bus Hantaran Truk Truk Truk Tempelan Delman, IRMSs Update Survey Database
Prop- LINK Section Admin. Funct. NODS NAMA LINK Post Post m Year motor, station van Pnp angkutan angkutan pick-up 2 as 3 as gandengan kontainer becak, Totals
posed NUMBER Urban Class Class Vehicle scooter wagon, taksi umum umum umum gerobak, IRMS IRMS Moving
Survey (K) Classification (CAR) (UTIL) (UTIL) (MHV) (LB) (UTIL) (MHV) (LT) (LT) (LT) sepeda Units Units Units "Old" IRMS 5-Year Observer
Link IRMS Link Km Km Length MC Car Ut-Pas Ut-Fr S-Bus L-Bus 2-AxSmall 2-AxLarge 3-Axle Trailer Semi-Trail N.M.V Excluding Excluding & Average Counts
Number Classification Name Post Post m 1 2 3 4 5A 5B 6A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8 MC & NMV NMV All Cap/IRMS 1999 1993-97 MOC
OD 22001 NODS 96 CILEGON - MERAK 1996 1,930 3,684 1,024 2,422 212 2,106 1,452 3,450 828 190 15,178 17,108 17,298 12,813
Survey 22001 N A NDLea-IRMS 10,960 12,160 12.045 1999 1,774 1,464 2,393 816 630 502 314 209 264 92 42 323 6,726 8,500 8,823 19,916 11,214
22002 NODS 96 SERANG - CILEGON 1996 13,039 5,019 6,249 14,781 1,304 12,949 9,211 19,907 250 300 69,670 82,709 83,009 23,076
22002 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,150 10,960 18.100 1999 100 2,824 3,040 1,449 992 355 676 451 10 139 115 70 10,051 10,151 10,221 20,151 17,426 12,282
OD 22003 NODS 96 TANGGERANG - SERANG 1996 8,247 5,345 2,605 6,032 478 876 3,556 20,737 892 216 382 1,710 41,119 49,366 51,076 35,526
Survey Capex1/IRMS Cikande - Serang 1991 6,395
Capex1/IRMS Balaraja - Cikande 1991 8,038
Capex1/IRMS Tangerang Barat - Balaraja 1991 10,657
Capex1/IRMS Tangerang - Tangerang Barat 1991 19,193
22003 NODS-7day Tangerang - Tangerang Barat 1991 7,902 3,005 2,802 8,688 764 2,978 145 62 67 929 18,511 26,413 27,342
22003 NODS-7day Balaraja - Serang 1991 1,322 2,634 1,581 1,946 1,364 4,250 480 364 107 139 12,726 14,048 14,187
22003 ATC 1997 3,573 2,316 1,129 2,613 207 380 1,541 8,984 386 94 165 17,814 21,387
22003 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,570 9,150 65.800 1999 2,820 1,390 3,854 1,542 184 289 833 556 1,244 673 784 382 11,349 14,169 14,551 22,048 18,915 13,764
22004 NODS 96 BTS. DKI TANGERANG 1996 6,211 2,761 2,338 5,413 279 511 4,652 15,249 55 1,082 31,258 37,469 38,551 47,534
22004 Capex1/IRMS DKI Jakarta - Tangerang 1991 32,025
22004 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,850 2,570 7.200 1999 9,989 4,244 9,517 3,193 1,583 1,342 866 577 95 1 363 21,418 31,407 31,770 30,746 35,701
Toll Road Capex1/IRMS DKI Jakarta - Kebon Jeruk 1991 80,000
Toll Road Capex1/IRMS Kebon Jeruk - Tangerang 1991 40,000
Toll Road Capex1/IRMS Tangerang - Karawaci 1991 35,000
Toll Road Capex1/IRMS Karawaci - Tangerang Barat 1991 27,000
22005 NODS 96 BTS.DKI - BEKASI 1996 1,564 1,770 972 1,360 68 550 3,276 1,236 1,382 132 10 72 10,756 12,320 12,392 65,102
22005 Capex1/IRMS DKI Jakarta - Bekasi 1991 31,288
22005 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,680 3,300 6.200 1999 12,943 7,199 9,995 4,561 1,852 1,916 1,543 1,028 2,234 830 1,211 1,273 32,369 45,312 46,585 27,310 53,961
22006 NODS 96 BEKASI - KERAWANG 1996 2,017 13,071 3,566 557 437 1,134 5,125 5,507 1,688 468 998 87 32,551 34,568 34,655 28,316
22006 NODS-7day Bekasi - Karawang 1991 1,600 904 1,524 1,268 1,384 6,848 729 901 147 580 13,705 15,305 15,885
22006 ATC 1997 969 6,279 1,713 268 210 545 2,462 2,645 811 225 479 15,637 16,606
22006 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,300 7,410 41.100 1999 4,653 3,267 3,752 2,776 2,033 1,574 1,168 779 2,014 1,411 1,426 899 20,200 24,853 25,752 21,048 33,675 8,757
22007 NODS 96 KARAWANG - CIKAMPEK 1996 2,263 2,878 2,345 749 102 3,389 2,132 5,012 2,463 924 388 540 20,382 22,645 23,185 27,433
22007 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,410 9,510 21.000 1999 2,768 2,032 3,056 1,430 812 929 798 532 947 548 493 328 11,577 14,345 14,673 31,621 19,298 12,524
OD 22008 NODS 96 CIKAMPEK - PAMANUKAN 1996 11,262 11,786 4,587 4,889 646 4,232 4,921 6,024 3,559 395 601 684 41,640 52,902 53,586 30,947
Survey 22008 NODS-7day Cikampek - Pamanukan 1991 782 1,549 1,136 1,958 2,117 4,117 651 1,080 169 401 12,777 13,559 13,960
22008 Capex1/IRMS Cikampek - Pamanukan 1991
22008 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,510 14,046 45.360 1999 2,575 2,760 2,043 1,438 186 1,597 1,173 782 1,029 1,094 515 644 12,617 15,192 15,836 13,361 21,035 13,201
22009 NODS 96 PAMANUKAN - LOHBENER 1996 10,525 7,446 4,415 4,706 69 455 2,031 3,282 242 27 41 470 22,714 33,239 33,709 21,257
22009 ATC 1997 7,375 5,217 3,094 3,297 48 319 1,423 2,300 170 19 29 15,915 23,290
22009 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,000 11,552 55.520 1999 2,140 1,684 1,762 1,195 706 872 645 430 594 670 337 985 8,895 11,035 12,020 11,919 14,831
22010 NODS 96 JATIBARANG - LOHBENER 1996 11,041 7,161 6,732 7,175 50 330 1,706 3,282 387 43 65 321 26,931 37,972 38,293 15,859
22010 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,950 6,000 10.500 1999 1,139 765 892 518 238 602 620 413 621 490 464 683 5,623 6,762 7,445 17,183 9,370
22011 NODS 96 KARANGAMPEL - JATIBARANG 1996 15,167 10,850 6,155 6,561 100 655 2,737 5,072 406 45 69 705 32,650 47,817 48,522
22011 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,212 4,950 17.380 1999 600 363 445 539 29 35 268 179 94 1,858 2,458 2,552
Count 22012 K1 NODS 96 CIREBON - KARANGAMPEL 1996 23,998 25,959 16,469 17,554 361 2,367 4,223 3,889 696 77 118 1,256 71,713 95,711 96,967
22012 K2 NODS 96 JL. YOS SUDARSO (CIREBON) 1996 84,766 75,261 25,286 26,951 201 1,314 13,611 4,938 2,427 269 410 7,306 150,668 235,434 242,740
22012 K3 NODS 96 JL. SISINGAMANGARAJA (CIREBON) 1996 26,270 38,944 21,397 22,806 1,144 7,493 10,525 15,592 10,106 1,122 1,707 2,069 130,836 157,106 159,175
22012 K4 NODS 96 JL. SAMADIKUN (CIREBON) 1996 29,131 71,356 25,444 27,120 1,164 7,627 15,041 16,491 9,981 1,108 1,685 1,242 177,017 206,148 207,390
22012 k5 NODS 96 JL. DIPONEGORO (CIREBON) 1996 19,429 6,864 16,783 17,888 24 160 2,521 3,641 68 8 11 254 47,968 67,397 67,651
22012 NODS 96 JL. PILANG RAYA 1996 1,364 2,888 464 1,127 27 456 1,659 994 306 99 2 363 8,022 9,386 9,749
22012 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 366 3,213 28.470 1999 1,253 770 780 587 200 386 371 248 182 44 323 3,568 4,821 5,144 11,622 5,948
22012 11K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 84 0.843 1999 3,114 2,464 2,954 1,763 65 228 564 376 219 156 44 1,873 8,833 11,947 13,820 18,377 14,724
22012 12K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 78 161 0.833 1999 3,211 2,248 3,601 1,305 656 748 551 367 664 415 307 4,277 10,862 14,073 18,350 14,787 18,107
22012 13K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 161 301 1.400 1999 1,889 1,039 2,194 857 67 256 404 269 358 189 157 664 5,790 7,679 8,343 15,638 9,654
22012 14K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 301 358 0.574 1999 1,328 1,346 2,063 612 116 269 283 188 157 69 363 1,382 5,466 6,794 8,176 8,188 9,118
22012 15K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 358 622 2.640 1999 2,385 1,786 1,578 595 64 42 2,332 4,065 6,450 8,782 2,562 6,778
OD 22013 K1 NODS 96 CIREBON - LOSARI 1996 1,116 6,409 828 2,011 45 764 3,477 3,156 2,505 278 423 77 19,896 21,012 21,089
Survey 22013 K2 NODS 96 JL. KASUNEAN (CIREBON) 1996 2,234 2,745 1,821 4,424 2,279 1,068 29 3 5 212 12,374 14,608 14,820
22013 11K NODS 96 JL. KALIJAGA (CIREBON) 66 134 0.685 1996 1,142 471 111 271 257 515 3 1,625 2,767 2,770 18,764 17,685 15,743
22013 12K ATC 134 387 2.555 1997 9,069 3,740 882 2,152 2,041 4,090 12,905 21,974 11,296 14,197
22013 N A NDLea-IRMS 387 3,220 28.330 1999 1,802 2,278 1,787 1,268 217 1,061 1,136 757 712 829 218 610 10,263 12,065 12,675 11,708 17,109
Count 22014 K1 NODS 96 GANDARIA - BOGOR 1996 16,464 41,902 6,663 16,185 23 381 8,426 715 77 9 13 13,192 74,394 90,858 104,050 33,417
22014 K2 NODS 96 JL. PAJAJARAN (BOGOR) 1996 21,591 82,182 4,063 9,870 23 385 13,831 72 58 6 10 4,538 110,500 132,091 136,629 20,563
22014 K3 NODS 96 JL. SILIWANGI (BOGOR) 1996 21,591 82,182 4,063 9,870 23 385 13,831 72 58 6 10 4,538 110,500 132,091 136,629 31,324
22014 K4 NODS 96 JL. AKSES TOLL JAGORAWI 1996 21,591 82,182 4,063 9,870 23 385 13,831 72 58 6 10 4,538 110,500 132,091 136,629 22,312
22014 NODS 96 JL. SURYA KENCANA(BOGOR) 1996 5,295 6,043 938 3,754 264 1,694 785 6,343 273 219 67 49 20,380 25,675 25,724 49,166
22014 NODS-7day Gandaria - Bogor 1991 3,582 2,658 2,477 5,522 2,290 3,654 170 97 42 124 16,910 20,492 20,616
22014 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,878 5,540 26.620 1999 4,875 3,731 6,264 2,120 2,583 550 450 300 539 147 118 924 16,802 21,677 22,601 19,268 28,006
22014 21K N A NDLea-IRMS 5,540 6,180 6.388 1999 3,258 5,372 8,473 2,740 340 302 196 131 82 5 103 17,641 20,899 21,002 12,935 29,407
22014 22K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 90 0.833 1999 2,912 2,629 5,523 1,500 321 255 354 236 37 88 10,855 13,767 13,855 29,770 18,095
22014 23K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 106 1.060 1999 7,370 3,841 2,384 547 1,542 319 212 193 88 40 16,536 16,536 16,536 29,770 27,565
22014 24K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 200 2.000 1999 3,985 3,826 6,183 1,516 110 55 51 34 2 57 11,777 15,762 15,819 29,770 19,635
Count 22015 NODS 96 BOGOR - CIAWI 1996 26,899 37,746 2,984 11,942 53 896 3,191 12,823 4,832 3,876 1,186 281 79,529 106,428 106,709 31,568
22015 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,324 6,850 5.249 1999 3,473 3,373 7,859 2,559 453 328 424 283 404 37 23 206 15,743 19,216 19,422 42,395 26,242 20,122
Count 22016 NODS 96 CIAWI - PUNCAK - CIANJUR 1996 3,258 13,341 5,192 5,444 280 1,101 3,104 1,274 40 3 58 29,779 33,037 33,095
22016 NODS-7day Ciawi - Puncak 1991 856 9,593 2,553 9,244 1,299 1,640 63 1 26 24,393 25,249 25,275
22016 ATC 1997 2,187 8,954 3,485 3,654 188 739 2,083 855 27 2 19,986 22,173
22016 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 6,850 11,756 49.060 1999 1,134 5,819 8,371 3,199 70 877 232 155 49 68 18,772 19,906 19,974 18,488 31,284
OD 22017 NODS 96 PADALARANG - CIANJUR 1996 1,553 7,364 4,235 1,241 64 1,315 2,890 2,304 563 30 5 106 20,011 21,564 21,670 26,995
Survey 22017 NODS-7day Cianjur - Padalarang 1991 747 5,326 1,732 3,383 1,353 2,239 255 50 2 46 14,340 15,087 15,133
22017 ATC 1997 2,226 10,556 606 1,779 92 1,885 4,143 3,303 807 43 7 23,220 25,446
22017 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,800 6,265 44.544 1999 1,264 3,564 3,286 1,424 88 748 1,072 714 190 56 17 211 11,159 12,423 12,634 12,949 18,604
22018 NODS 96 BANDUNG - PADALARANG 1996 279 2,398 932 273 13 260 1,469 566 154 8 1 6 6,074 6,353 6,359 59,211
22018 Capex1/IRMS Jl Sudirman (Bandung) - Padalaran 1991 48,142
22018 K1 NODS 96 JL. SUKARNO HATTA (BYPASS) 1996 159 1,287 540 158 4 545 642 131 7 1 4 3,315 3,474 3,478
22018 K2 NODS 96 JL. RAJAWALI 1996 34 275 201 59 2 197 248 99 5 1 2 1,087 1,121 1,123
22018 K3 NODS 96 JL.ELANG(SUDIRMAN) 1996 177 1,736 730 214 12 249 735 804 184 10 2 10 4,676 4,853 4,863 56,247
22018 K4 NODS 96 JL. CIBEUREUM 1996 13,066 17,335 1,568 12,162 239 1,343 5,439 5,799 3,218 245 37 23 47,385 60,451 60,474 56,659
22018 N A NDLea-IRMS 409 1,800 13.971 1999 18,057 7,310 12,790 2,956 896 954 1,113 742 196 31 1,323 26,988 45,045 46,368 20,408 44,990
22018 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 1,800 3,646 18.460 1999 11,666 11,339 5,048 1,796 251 563 723 482 231 83 75 2,595 20,591 32,257 34,852 29,947 34,322
22018 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 3,646 3,776 1.300 1999 12,266 11,464 14,567 2,962 205 101 426 284 47 9 1,361 30,065 42,331 43,692 33,494 50,114
22018 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 3,776 3,806 0.300 1999 12,514 7,831 13,795 4,769 535 629 941 627 500 47 20 2,126 29,694 42,208 44,334 21,138 49,497
22018 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 3,806 3,946 1.355 1999 16,915 6,753 15,331 3,534 1,109 611 1,357 905 260 49 4 2,654 29,913 46,828 49,482 42,574 49,860
22019 NODS 96 BANDUNG - CILEUNYI 1996 3,110 11,701 802 6,218 234 1,315 3,318 4,074 10,175 775 117 4 38,729 41,839 41,843 46,122
22019 K1 NODS 96 JL.JEND. SUDIRMAN 1996 8,550 8,139 118 912 25 141 1,538 1,253 291 22 3 39 12,442 20,992 21,031 32,582
22019 K2 NODS 96 JL. JEND.ACHMAD YANI (BANDUNG) 1996 14,950 23,552 1,718 13,324 351 1,970 6,775 6,841 3,111 237 36 80 57,915 72,865 72,945 32,822
22019 K3 NODS 96 JL. ASIA AFRIKA BARAT (BANDUNG) 1996 6,175 4,128 307 2,379 147 824 1,647 3,221 291 22 3 7 12,969 19,144 19,151 39,787
22019 K4 NODS 96 JL. ASIA AFRIKA TIMUR (BDG) 1996 8,484 10,390 6,297 8,140 1,194 1,614 5,454 6,094 624 127 67 473 40,001 48,485 48,958 38,017
22019 N A NDLea-IRMS 610 1,845 12.350 1999 12,282 6,632 8,708 2,167 236 749 443 295 184 6 1,232 19,420 31,702 32,934 8,317 32,371
22019 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 76 409 3.330 1999 12,248 9,709 4,559 2,441 71 352 38 25 7 1,480 17,202 29,450 30,930 19,384 28,672
22019 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 73 610 5.398 1999 13,416 7,521 6,232 2,135 251 825 216 144 5 1,792 17,329 30,745 32,537 26,967 28,883
22019 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 76 0.757 1999 13,253 9,887 7,767 2,497 96 560 118 79 883 21,004 34,257 35,140 26,953 35,013
22019 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 73 0.747 1999 13,781 11,737 4,676 2,391 177 495 329 220 44 682 20,069 33,850 34,532 23,332 33,455
OD 22020 NODS 96 CILEUNYI - SUMEDANG 1996 3,283 5,728 319 4,574 80 778 2,287 3,948 608 498 18,322 21,605 22,103 17,551
Survey 22020 NODS-7day Cileunyi - Sumedang 1991 1,668 2,025 1,895 4,148 929 3,481 344 5 2 37 12,829 14,497 14,534
22020 ATC 1997 2,684 4,682 261 3,739 65 636 1,869 3,227 497 14,976 17,660
22020 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,845 4,500 26.518 1999 1,654 2,888 1,307 1,008 86 310 818 545 320 1 13 7,283 8,937 8,950 16,716 12,140
Count 22021 NODS 96 SUMEDANG - CIJELAG 1996 886 2,379 454 1,051 14 657 1,220 2,275 588 3 2 38 8,643 9,529 9,567 11,804
22021 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,500 7,500 30.001 1999 770 1,519 898 740 25 286 676 451 296 1 1 11 4,893 5,663 5,674 11,480 8,157
22022 NODS 96 CIJELAG - KADIPATEN 1996 1,370 3,730 751 1,739 11 511 1,138 1,391 56 20 9,327 10,697 10,717
22022 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,500 7,975 4.749 1999 990 1,568 876 678 77 455 756 504 517 2 1 55 5,434 6,424 6,479 11,480 9,060
(C) 22023 NODS 96 PALIMANAN - KADIPATEN 1996 1,768 2,836 725 1,635 62 605 1,697 2,241 438 23 3 553 10,265 12,033 12,586 27,254
22023 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,658 5,028 33.700 1999 3,322 2,990 2,433 1,456 239 624 1,414 943 654 175 115 763 11,043 14,365 15,128 11,216 18,405 6,089
OD 22024 K1 NODS 96 CIREBON - PALIMANAN 1996 1,622 4,976 891 2,009 89 869 2,009 2,726 319 17 2 1,574 13,907 15,529 17,103
Survey 22024 K2 NODS 96 JL. TUPAREV (CIREBON) 1996 2,712 3,425 710 1,602 41 397 1,720 3,291 119 6 1 11,836 11,312 14,024 25,860 21,777
22024 K3 NODS 96 JL. KARTINI (CIREBON) 1996 6,982 22,558 3,721 8,391 8 81 5,754 5,027 3,524 185 24 58,863 49,273 56,255 115,118
22024 K4 NODS 96 JL. VETERAN (CIREBON) 1996 8,905 18,601 4,726 10,659 9 91 5,110 2,591 690 36 5 141,419 42,518 51,423 192,842 31,862
22024 K5 NODS 96 BY PASS CIREBON 1996 9,321 16,484 5,630 12,697 2 18 7,274 2,455 385 20 3 191,519 44,968 54,289 245,808
22024 K6 NODS 96 JL. PILANG (CIREBON) 1996 4,163 15,120 1,450 3,270 11 103 3,999 1,422 597 31 4 58,108 26,007 30,170 88,278 14,109
22024 K7 NODS 96 JL. SLAMET RYADI (CIREBON) 1996 2,453 6,425 1,834 4,136 111 1,081 3,704 3,590 3,013 158 21 1,808 24,073 26,526 28,334
22024 NODS 96 JL. SILIWANGI (CIREBON) 1996 3,022 3,917 1,174 2,647 52 512 2,347 3,518 1,680 14,167 17,189 18,869
22024 Capex1/IRMS Cirebon - Palimanan 1991 32,077
22024 N A NDLea-IRMS 511 1,658 11.508 1999 3,175 2,614 2,369 1,669 201 739 881 587 737 806 422 1,658 11,025 14,200 15,858 13,710 18,380 15,610
22024 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 305 511 2.060 1999 4,899 4,076 5,345 1,508 58 229 340 227 176 49 36 2,303 12,044 16,943 19,246 5,381 20,078
22024 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 201 305 1.040 1999 6,227 5,452 4,092 1,832 14 7 57 38 3 4,774 11,495 17,722 22,496 12,137 19,164
22024 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 201 253 0.519 1999 3,401 2,747 1,454 673 12 2 59 39 8 1 1 1,957 4,996 8,397 10,354 8,705 8,331
22024 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 511 1,377 8.660 1999 5,771 3,967 4,763 2,351 799 1,662 1,112 741 703 526 198 1,532 16,822 22,593 24,125 13,979 28,039
22024 15K N A NDLea-IRMS 378 642 2.657 1999 946 646 947 574 59 151 172 115 194 147 124 709 3,129 4,075 4,784 9,794 5,215
22024 16K N A NDLea-IRMS 333 378 0.454 1999 2,953 2,050 3,140 1,004 45 464 257 171 154 73 91 2,970 7,449 10,402 13,372 11,937 12,416
22024 17K N A NDLea-IRMS 333 347 0.140 1999 3,201 2,640 2,060 728 50 57 49 33 44 108 95 3,917 5,864 9,065 12,982 4,419 9,775
(C) 22025 NODS 96 PALIMANAN - JATIBARANG 1996 736 1,291 1,060 324 517 2,202 1,508 2,451 2,903 1,155 600 298 14,011 14,747 15,045 14,789
22025 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,658 4,810 31.774 1999 1,841 1,619 703 624 440 601 595 397 581 803 338 1,435 6,701 8,542 9,977 8,029 11,171 6,848
22026 1 NODS 96 CILEGON - PASAURAN 1996 1,043 982 370 351 120 61 255 303 43 3 2 47 2,490 3,533 3,580
22026 2 NODS 96 LABUAN - PASAURAN 1996 1,639 13,164 5,957 5,651 1,903 967 1,135 23 2 21 28,802 30,441 30,462
22026 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,960 15,230 42.700 1999 1,603 1,740 2,260 874 355 152 433 289 484 198 149 94 6,934 8,537 8,631 19,674 11,186 3,900
22026 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,585 17,200 16.150 1999 977 567 1,146 526 97 51 132 88 128 79 29 230 2,843 3,820 4,050 15,611 4,587 1,991
(C) 22027 1 NODS 96 LABUHAN - SP. LABUHAN 1996 6,698 58,699 13,346 12,661 3,137 1,595 5,281 18 6 21 94,743 101,441 101,462
22027 2 NODS 96 SP. LABUHAN - SAKETI 1996 3,345 28,626 10,966 10,403 789 401 2,243 5 7 1 10 53,441 56,786 56,796
22027 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,223 15,585 3.620 1999 1,851 521 929 580 62 355 237 9 256 2,693 4,544 4,800 3,763 4,343 3,295
22027 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 13,320 15,223 19.030 1999 2,157 1,037 1,185 827 117 135 379 252 3,932 6,089 6,089 3,048 6,343 3,295
22028 NODS 96 PANDEGLANG - SAKETI 1996 3,325 13,135 3,669 3,480 9,583 4,871 2,185 34 18 1 1 149 36,977 40,302 40,451
22028 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,450 13,320 18.829 1999 945 582 967 512 113 95 277 185 2,731 3,676 3,676 3,017 4,408 6,331
(C) 22029 NODS 96 SERANG - PANDEGLANG 1996 1,576 2,601 825 2,231 31 430 1,254 1,437 78 16 8,887 10,463 10,479
22029 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 9,150 11,450 23.785 1999 1,236 1,234 1,859 784 200 213 497 330 5,117 6,353 6,353 3,579 8,258 7,943
22030 NODS 96 PANDEGLANG - RANGKASBITUNG 1996 1,495 977 478 1,044 11 276 628 744 9 33 4,167 5,662 5,695
22030 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,450 13,325 18.750 1999 1,079 532 1,056 551 367 41 281 188 2 85 3,018 4,097 4,182 4,124 4,869 3,629
(C) 22031 1 NODS 96 RANGKASBITUNG - CIGELUNG 1996 644 234 217 435 9 101 248 253 77 1 32 1,575 2,219 2,251
22031 2 NODS 96 BOGOR - CIGELUNG 1996 516 358 256 514 53 599 382 1,909 811 11 29 4,893 5,409 5,438
22031 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 13,325 17,460 41.350 1999 1,334 512 583 585 379 252 2,311 3,645 3,645 1,230 3,728 1,246
22031 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,046 11,739 56.930 1999 1,766 535 2,394 422 81 264 176 64 59 3,936 5,702 5,761 3,048 6,353 5,135
22032 NODS 96 SAKETI - SIMPANG 1996 873 204 192 537 11 126 375 560 11 26 2,016 2,889 2,915
22032 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 13,320 19,510 61.900 1999 623 264 314 147 27 71 87 58 968 1,591 1,591 2,375 1,563 1,106
22033 NODS 96 SIMPANG -MUARA BINUANGEUN 1996 8,452 2,967 1,967 5,501 23 258 1,541 349 30 37 12,636 21,088 21,125
22033 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 19,510 21,200 16.942 1999 547 269 291 219 2 167 112 35 1,060 1,607 1,642 3,034 1,713 804
22034 NODS 96 SIMPANG - BAYAH 1996 9,161 3,504 1,914 5,353 23 259 1,606 533 42 1 71 13,235 22,396 22,467
22034 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 19,510 22,850 33.736 1999 316 199 321 172 33 5 137 91 4 32 962 1,278 1,310 3,044 1,555 644
22035 NODS 96 BAYAH - CIKOTOK 1996 11,038 5,537 2,711 7,582 25 281 1,728 430 18 111 18,312 29,350 29,461
22035 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 22,850 24,225 13.750 1999 361 243 264 193 32 143 95 27 970 1,331 1,358 2,154 1,568 93
22036 NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan oleh Bina Marga 1996 11,038 5,537 2,711 7,582 25 281 1,728 430 18 111 18,312 29,350 29,461
22036 1 NODS 96 GN. MADUR - P. MANUK 1996 11,038 5,537 2,711 7,582 25 281 1,728 430 18 111 18,312 29,350 29,461
22036 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 23,390 23,830 4.400 1999 427 229 322 186 95 63 895 1,322 1,322 1,358 1,448
22037 1 NODS 96 BAGBAGAN - PEL.RATU 1996 2,439 1,885 974 2,724 14 162 985 1,411 15 14 8,170 10,609 10,623
22037 2 NODS 96 PEL. RATU - SP.KR.HAWU 1996 2,181 260 334 933 11 121 352 1,602 31 76 3,644 5,825 5,901
22037 3 NODS 96 SP.KR.HAWU - CISOLOK 1996 1,524 479 398 1,113 47 528 528 182 65 1 35 3,341 4,865 4,900
22037 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,028 15,500 4.713 1999 873 568 515 304 60 33 200 133 130 1,813 2,686 2,816 4,433 2,923 2,231
22037 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,500 16,460 9.600 1999 890 322 327 263 33 2 153 102 109 1,202 2,092 2,201 4,115 1,937 1,926
22037 3 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 16,460 16,945 4.850 1999 317 219 214 227 135 124 83 9 1,002 1,319 1,328 3,825 1,617 1,646
22038 1 NODS 96 BAGBAGAN - JAMPANG KULON 1996 759 256 344 962 13 145 461 350 140 2 5 2,673 3,432 3,437
22038 2 NODS 96 JP. KULON - UJUNG GENTENG 1996 1,220 1,352 986 2,757 104 1,167 1,019 3,459 842 11 6 11,697 12,917 12,923
22038 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,028 21,200 61.720 1999 316 237 267 131 2 136 91 864 1,180 1,180 2,411 1,397 737
22038 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 21,200 23,111 19.110 1999 348 179 247 149 8 2 120 80 785 1,133 1,133 2,159 1,268 564
22039 NODS 96 CIKEMBANG - BAGBAGAN 1996 2,889 1,068 1,821 5,093 50 561 2,016 2,148 1,081 14 16 13,852 16,741 16,757
22039 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,590 15,098 35.080 1999 547 391 544 332 199 139 154 103 1 59 1,863 2,410 2,469 4,267 3,007 2,014
22040 NODS 96 CIBADAK - CIKEMBANG 1996 3,912 640 1,200 3,356 40 450 1,995 5,616 3,434 45 267 16,776 20,688 20,955
22040 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,119 12,049 9.369 1999 562 362 662 285 222 123 167 112 69 1,933 2,495 2,564 4,965 3,119 3,351
22041 1 NODS 96 SUKABUMI - CIKEMBAR 1996 1,113 55 84 236 1 9 240 858 8 34 1,491 2,604 2,638
22041 2 NODS 96 CIKEMBAR - CIKEMBANG 1996 1,024 60 89 250 1 10 259 925 8 37 1,602 2,626 2,663
22041 K NODS 96 JL. RAYA - PEL.RATU (SUKABUMI) 1996 2,003 429 211 590 25 286 518 2,784 513 7 33 5,363 7,366 7,399
22041 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 9,702 11,239 15.370 1999 477 265 987 196 37 12 77 51 5 1 25 1,631 2,108 2,133 8,469 2,631 5,077
22041 11K P K3 NDLea-IRMS 9,340 9,742 4.020 1999 1,508 764 1,894 1,136 94 79 200 133 7 20 4,307 5,815 5,835 6,059 6,951
22041 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,239 11,590 3.510 1999 462 365 606 469 55 46 44 30 11 1,615 2,077 2,088 3,845 2,604 2,732
Count 22042 NODS 96 SUKABUMI - CIBADAK 1996 9,941 4,800 2,948 8,246 335 3,759 5,352 31,539 8,531 111 174 65,621 75,562 75,736 11,526
22042 K1 NODS 96 JL. SUDIRMAN (SUKABUMI) 1996 1,091 33 172 480 1 14 115 61 3 876 1,967 1,970 14,659
22042 K2 NODS 96 JL. ACHMAD YANI (SUKABUMI) 1996 809 132 152 425 10 113 179 517 22 7 1,550 2,359 2,366 19,345
22042 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,600 11,119 15.190 1999 550 1,612 3,247 1,292 314 324 277 185 218 22 4 65 7,495 8,045 8,110 19,971 12,494
22042 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 9,472 9,600 1.287 1999 2,037 2,039 3,742 640 165 615 410 128 179 7,739 9,776 9,955 23,233 12,900
22042 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 9,314 9,472 1.574 1999 4,051 3,730 4,004 1,468 605 404 1,273 10,211 14,262 15,535 12,508 17,024
OD 22043 NODS 96 CIAWI - CIBADAK 1996 3,595 4,784 2,287 4,354 84 861 2,508 3,088 1,029 69 33 24 19,097 22,692 22,716 11,685
Survey 22043 NODS-7day Ciawi - Cibadak 1991 957 2,139 1,444 3,823 756 2,778 254 135 27 11 11,356 12,313 12,324
22043 ATC 1997 4,506 5,997 2,867 5,458 105 1,079 3,144 3,871 1,290 86 41 23,939 28,445
22043 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,850 10,180 33.300 1999 1,593 2,684 3,840 1,249 277 325 689 459 561 128 23 115 10,235 11,828 11,943 35,142 17,060 12,343
22044 K NODS 96 SUKABUMI - SAGARANTEN 1996 3,258 1,093 428 815 9 93 576 649 90 6 3 281 3,762 7,020 7,301
22044 NODS 96 JL. OTISTA - SUKABUMI 1996 3,766 1,117 961 1,829 24 249 586 216 94 6 3 23 5,085 8,851 8,874
22044 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 9,738 14,855 47.537 1999 507 197 435 133 149 99 11 1,013 1,520 1,531 2,072 1,636 1,046
22044 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 9,340 9,738 4.000 1999 2,297 1,424 3,007 1,346 198 244 299 200 140 6 3 140 6,867 9,164 9,304 22,348 11,080 10,690
Count 22045 NODS 96 SUKABUMI - CIANJUR 1996 1,121 2,803 931 1,624 25 321 1,590 1,840 668 34 4 9 9,840 10,961 10,970 16,900
22045 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,614 9,314 27.000 1999 1,324 1,121 1,733 989 64 116 284 190 274 38 25 142 4,834 6,158 6,300 14,729 8,059 8,389
22046 1 NODS 96 CIANJUR - SUKANEGARA 1996 298 352 32 57 107 914 69 4 8 1,535 1,833 1,841
22046 2 NODS 96 SUKANAGARA - SINDANGBARANG 1996 2,984 2,424 617 1,076 17 217 1,099 2,172 677 34 4 43 8,337 11,321 11,364
22046 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,772 10,773 40.010 1999 1,414 994 696 625 136 389 259 3,099 4,513 4,513 1,205 5,001 2,716
22046 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,773 17,476 67.030 1999 215 122 174 82 2 73 49 68 502 717 785 2,321 810 504
22047 NODS 96 BANDUNG - RANCABALI 1996 622 174 69 120 1 191 15 2 38 572 1,194 1,232
22047 K1 NODS 96 JL. KOPO 1996 2,514 3,150 494 861 31 395 1,032 6,791 1,260 64 8 46 14,086 16,600 16,646
22047 K2 NODS 96 JL. PASIR KOJA 1996 328 88 18 31 62 18 199 527 545
22047 K3 NODS 96 JL. GARDUJATI 1996 13,110 8,247 8,239 14,763 144 246 9,529 4,350 407 6 13 1,847 45,944 59,054 60,901
22047 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 500 4,530 39.300 1999 4,498 2,024 2,613 992 16 92 409 275 4 54 6,425 10,923 10,977 2,859 10,371 8,229
22047 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 212 500 2.880 1999 8,061 7,848 10,880 1,433 32 254 71 49 16 4 1 1,710 20,588 28,649 30,359 25,032 31,113 12,903
22047 12 195 221 0.260 11,917 34,134
22047 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 141 182 0.410 1999 14,852 10,963 6,624 2,943 131 215 171 114 4 3,121 21,165 36,017 39,138 26,401 34,142 8,542
22048 NODS 96 BANDUNG - PANGALENGAN 1996 11,266 34,938 14,372 25,752 35,406 60,485 37,353 400,973 3,138 160 19 2,149 612,596 623,862 626,011
22048 K NODS 96 JL. KIARACONDONG (BDG) 1996 6,330 3,531 950 9,677 701 303 4,221 3,951 334 22 79 1,856 23,769 30,099 31,955
22048 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 480 4,559 40.790 1999 4,034 2,060 2,510 660 60 188 370 247 6 440 6,101 10,135 10,575 10,403 9,844 7,231
22048 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 388 798 4.119 1999 10,100 8,428 14,662 2,977 98 186 134 89 19 1 3 1,355 26,597 36,697 38,052 44,564 42,900 26,871
OD 22049 NODS 96 CILEUNYI - NAGREG 1996 15,795 7,346 1,020 10,390 6,894 2,980 4,683 2,290 378 25 89 5,962 36,095 51,890 57,852 42,997
Survey 22049 km20 CAP1 / Cons Cileunyi - Nagreg (3 days av.) 1992 4,700 9,762 5,251 6,348 1,284 2,063 418 1,738 25,126 29,826 31,564
22049 km30 CAP1 / Cons Cileunyi - Nagreg (3 days av.) 1992 4,326 6,260 2,575 6,025 1,211 3,506 302 2,036 19,879 24,205 26,241
22049 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,845 4,010 21.650 1999 3,179 7,039 3,628 2,723 338 1,612 1,534 1,023 445 46 1 56 18,389 21,568 21,624 19,078 30,656 9,983
22050 NODS 96 NAGREG - GARUT 1996 1,744 2,368 2,480 1,145 11 465 1,398 1,593 63 56 2 1,284 9,581 11,325 12,609
22050 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,010 6,129 21.190 1999 1,076 2,475 904 666 115 399 587 392 84 11 139 5,633 6,709 6,848 9,002 9,091 11,649
22051 NODS 96 GARUT - CIKAJANG 1996 535 61 104 48 85 212 1 1 151 512 1,047 1,198
22051 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,479 8,820 23.501 1999 992 671 791 562 467 311 76 2,802 3,794 3,870 2,998 4,523 4,313
22052 NODS 96 CIKAJANG - CILAUTEUREUN 1996 330 185 136 63 180 166 730 1,060 1,060
22052 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,820 15,416 65.960 1999 336 223 239 153 2 159 106 53 882 1,218 1,271 1,956 1,422 849
(C) 22054 NODS 96 GARUT - TASIKMALAYA 1996 1,344 133 719 332 20 826 690 4 927 2,724 4,068 4,995
22054 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,624 11,830 52.060 1999 2,241 617 1,609 939 30 22 504 336 4,057 6,298 6,298 4,316 6,546 4,163
22055 NODS 96 RAJAPOLAH - TASIKMALAYA 1996 1,087 1,828 1,641 1,524 96 888 1,230 1,797 373 41 2 624 9,420 10,507 11,131
22055 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 9,300 10,570 12.712 1999 2,141 1,732 2,023 828 11 460 462 308 60 10 6 102 5,900 8,041 8,143 6,795 9,837
Count 22056 NODS 96 NAGREG - RAJAPOLAH 1996 868 2,848 1,016 1,312 101 880 1,175 1,715 465 23 5 17 9,540 10,408 10,425 10,290
22056 ATC 1997 1,049 3,440 1,227 1,585 122 1,063 1,419 2,072 562 28 6 11,524 12,573
22056 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,010 9,300 52.900 1999 1,784 1,354 1,227 574 112 292 247 164 185 29 13 219 4,197 5,981 6,200 9,925 6,995
22057 NODS 96 RAJAPOLAH - ANCOL 1996 622 932 451 583 1 12 392 1,095 23 1 14 3,490 4,112 4,126
22057 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,297 10,620 13.230 1999 373 249 333 263 60 170 113 1,188 1,561 1,561 11,200 1,982
22058 NODS 96 TASIKMALAYA - ANCOL 1996 2,977 2,913 431 2,163 153 893 1,914 1,771 398 92 226 625 10,954 13,931 14,556
22058 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 10,570 10,960 3.900 1999 2,601 2,428 1,901 1,140 221 421 458 306 110 64 505 7,049 9,650 10,155 7,353 11,749 8,456
22059 NODS 96 TASIKMALAYA - CIPATUJAH 1996 1,910 3,644 639 3,209 1 5 3,248 35 114 26 65 415 10,986 12,896 13,311
22059 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,044 18,090 70.460 1999 608 425 421 445 49 48 237 158 1,783 2,391 2,391 2,743 2,879 1,804
22059 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,570 10,815 2.450 1999 1,768 1,475 1,378 842 160 302 454 302 94 13 3 115 5,023 6,791 6,906
22059 2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,815 10,980 1.650 1999 1,768 1,475 1,378 842 160 302 454 302 94 13 3 115 5,023 6,791 6,906
22059 3K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,980 11,044 0.640 1999 1,768 1,475 1,378 842 160 302 454 302 94 13 3 115 5,023 6,791 6,906
22060 NODS 96 ANCOL - CIAMIS 1996 1,622 1,475 24 121 377 1,030 1,997 3,619 4,649 14,427
22060 ATC 1997 7,824 7,115 116 584 1,818 9,632 17,456 5,549 8,375
22060 N A NDLea-IRMS 10,960 12,200 12.441 1999 1,768 1,475 1,378 842 160 302 454 302 94 13 3 115 5,023 6,791 6,906 11,351 8,375 9,412
22061 NODS 96 CIAMIS - BANJAR 1996 1,693 2,339 592 2,971 2 2,754 18 57 13 32 222 8,778 10,471 10,693 14,066
22061 N A NDLea-IRMS 12,200 14,660 24.692 1999 1,498 1,234 991 698 178 392 430 287 110 49 17 127 4,386 5,884 6,011 6,818 7,311 4,343
22062 NODS 96 BANJAR - BTS.JATENG 1996 1,211 875 233 410 42 311 958 1,217 204 106 3 270 4,359 5,570 5,840
22062 N A NDLea-IRMS 14,660 15,270 6.100 1999 854 471 356 340 48 93 356 238 41 21 167 1,964 2,818 2,985 6,528 3,278
22063 NODS 96 BANJAR - PANGANDARAN 1996 715 151 69 122 14 104 117 355 6 932 1,647 1,653
22063 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 14,660 21,100 64.400 1999 1,027 388 672 478 106 118 270 180 2 146 2,214 3,241 3,387 4,387 3,570 2,056
(C) 22064 NODS 96 CIAMIS - CIKIJING 1996 410 380 242 342 23 157 592 616 82 14 14 2,448 2,858 2,872
22064 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 12,323 17,129 48.060 1999 712 414 445 402 30 355 237 50 1,883 2,595 2,645 2,656 3,037 2,734
22064 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 12,203 12,323 1.200 1999 873 455 528 330 54 4 401 267 185 2,039 2,912 3,097
(C) 22065 NODS 96 KUNINGAN - CIKIJING 1996 920 670 530 686 5 162 837 576 68 14 1 23 3,549 4,469 4,492
22065 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,585 5,566 19.810 1999 873 455 528 330 54 4 401 267 185 2,039 2,912 3,097 3,119 3,288 4,768
22065 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,315 3,505 1.900 1999 668 337 514 343 89 93 211 141 113 1,728 2,396 2,509
22065 2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,505 3,585 0.800 1999 668 337 514 343 89 93 211 141 113 1,728 2,396 2,509
(C) 22066 NODS 96 KUNINGAN - LOSARI 1996 1,292 291 286 451 7 111 412 506 181 4 2 1,583 2,251 3,543 5,126
22066 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,496 8,170 46.940 1999 668 337 514 343 89 93 211 141 113 1,728 2,396 2,509 5,195 2,789 4,768
22066 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,316 3,496 1.600 1999 1,300 1,103 1,231 634 160 291 322 215 153 50 48 112 4,207 5,507 5,619
Count 22067 NODS 96 CIREBON - KUNINGAN 1996 1,615 2,542 477 1,291 7 524 1,381 1,158 175 15 6 84 7,576 9,191 9,275
22067 K1 NODS 96 JL.KANGRAKSAN / P.SUDIRMAN (CRB) 1996 1,417 361 315 497 8 121 179 597 128 3 1 1,441 2,210 3,627 5,068
22067 K2 NODS 96 JL KESAMBI (CRB) 1996 746 179 678 1,069 9 144 278 897 133 3 1 385 3,391 4,137 4,522
22067 K3 NODS 96 JL LAWANGGADA (CIREBON) 1996 484 211 133 210 4 59 118 275 52 1 1 633 1,064 1,548 2,181
22067 K4 NODS 96 JL PULASARAN (CRB) 1996 645 285 317 500 7 107 210 458 132 3 1 408 2,020 2,665 3,073
22067 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 490 3,315 28.250 1999 1,300 1,103 1,231 634 160 291 322 215 153 50 48 112 4,207 5,507 5,619 9,023 6,786 9,415
22067 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 407 490 0.900 1999 3,649 2,381 3,728 1,689 154 295 539 359 373 30 12 1,982 9,560 13,209 15,191 17,247 15,424 19,924
22067 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 186 407 2.210 1999 4,183 2,986 4,750 1,544 23 30 72 48 36 2 1 4,218 9,492 13,675 17,893 18,275 15,312 9,243
22067 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 164 186 0.213 1999 4,056 3,426 3,874 2,324 28 43 278 185 5 11 7 6,827 10,181 14,237 21,064 5,946 16,437
22067 14K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 92 164 0.720 1999 2,184 1,270 2,342 844 397 407 242 161 303 301 236 3,708 6,503 8,687 12,395 13,866 10,489 12,354
22068 NODS 96 MAJALENGKA - CIKIJING 1996 507 1,529 287 778 5 387 785 1,054 133 11 5 17 4,974 5,481 5,498
22068 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,150 8,425 32.750 1999 895 662 584 492 73 432 288 246 2,531 3,426 3,672 2,884 4,084 3,588
Count 22069 NODS 96 MAJALENGKA - KADIPATEN 1996 2,133 3,092 442 1,197 7 511 1,352 1,069 137 12 5 66 7,824 9,957 10,023
22069 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,552 6,445 8.997 1999 1,045 626 1,021 389 43 122 148 99 47 8 2 265 2,505 3,550 3,815 13,532 4,041 6,615
22069 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,150 5,340 1.900 1999 565 358 345 236 6 133 89 397 1,167 1,732 2,129
22069 2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,340 5,552 2.120 1999 565 358 345 236 6 133 89 397 1,167 1,732 2,129
22070 NODS 96 KADIPATEN - JATIBARANG 1996 625 662 122 969 29 148 906 334 17 3 3,190 3,815 3,815
22070 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,927 9,138 42.110 1999 565 358 345 236 6 133 89 397 1,167 1,732 2,129 1,773 1,881 1,945
Count 22071 NODS 96 CIPUTAT - BOGOR 1996 585 53 57 454 275 7 846 1,431 1,431
22071 K1 NODS 96 JL. OTISTA (BOGOR) 1996 1,246 756 159 1,260 30 153 918 238 17 3 3,534 4,780 4,780
22071 K2 NODS 96 JL. IR.H.JUANDA (BGR) 1996 1,340 460 26 206 1 3 354 5 1,055 2,395 2,395
22071 K3 NODS 96 JL. KAPT.MUSLIHAT (BGR) 1996 1,347 280 118 936 1 407 4 1,746 3,093 3,093
22071 K4 NODS 96 JL. MERDEKA (BGR) 1996 798 382 158 1,254 2 12 173 40 2 2,023 2,821 2,821
22071 K5 NODS 96 JL. DR. SEMERU (BOGOR) 1996 2,308 687 68 541 2 286 17 1,601 3,909 3,909
22071 ATC 1997 10,717 971 1,044 8,317 5,038 128 15,499 26,216
22071 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,995 5,629 36.340 1999 3,639 2,516 4,010 1,506 685 380 617 411 268 36 1 112 10,430 14,069 14,181 17,625 17,388 13,461
22071 21K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 71 0.657 1999 2,972 3,218 5,249 1,409 92 55 96 64 1 92 10,184 13,156 13,248 25,649 16,975
22071 22K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 189 1.890 1999 3,007 3,328 7,613 1,910 70 63 150 100 61 1 1 351 13,297 16,304 16,655 25,649 22,163
22071 23K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 65 0.602 1999 2,903 4,525 6,835 1,375 128 89 44 29 2 140 13,027 15,930 16,070 17,672 21,718
22071 24K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 153 1.426 1999 1,545 1,309 2,663 396 19 5 26 17 146 4,435 5,980 6,126 14,040 7,394
22071 25K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 5,629 5,871 2.444 1999 3,154 3,541 4,894 1,225 12 10 211 141 40 335 10,074 13,228 13,563 14,040 16,792
Count 22072 NODS 96 INDRAMAYU - LOHBENER 1996 9,005 11,571 729 6,064 202 669 3,408 1,312 739 23 17 445 24,734 33,739 34,184
22072 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 5,624 6,533 9.090 1999 1,034 536 660 499 55 362 241 377 2,353 3,387 3,764 2,858 3,927 4,780
22073 NODS 96 KARANGAMPEL - INDRAMAYU 1996 9,495 8,039 650 5,409 79 262 2,094 607 295 9 7 900 17,451 26,946 27,846
22073 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,213 5,623 23.100 1999 1,076 616 651 461 226 280 311 208 308 2,753 3,829 4,137 4,256 4,591 3,577
22074 NODS 96 CIJELAG - CIKAMURANG 1996 23,494 13,161 1,454 12,098 216 716 4,915 1,353 658 20 15 3,869 34,606 58,100 61,969
22074 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,490 9,620 21.300 1999 437 250 308 185 182 122 16 60 1,063 1,500 1,560 2,222 1,716 1,415
Count 22075 NODS-7day Bandung - Subang 1991 524 1,470 830 1,488 96 446 32 3 27 9 4,392 4,916 4,925
22075 NODS 96 BANDUNG - SUBANG 1996 2,168 4,988 2,119 2,290 146 45 1,990 886 58 4 3 126 12,529 14,697 14,823
22075 K1 NODS 96 JL. SETIABUDI / SUKAJADI (BDG) 1996 25,987 14,190 1,391 11,572 187 620 3,939 1,797 784 24 18 1,838 34,522 60,509 62,347
22075 K2 NODS 96 JL. GARDUJATI 1996 50,289 19,347 1,344 11,176 201 667 4,137 1,140 600 19 14 4,157 38,645 88,934 93,091
22075 K3 NODS 96 JL. SUKAJATI 1996 11,503 12,156 1,073 8,927 193 639 3,462 1,789 887 28 20 669 29,174 40,677 41,346
22075 K4 NODS 96 JL. PASIR KALIKI 1996 2,988 5,532 1,075 8,946 206 681 3,346 1,302 717 22 16 33 21,843 24,831 24,864
22075 K5 NODS 96 JL. ASTANA ANYAR 1996 2,954 6,069 1,080 8,988 163 541 3,451 1,238 728 23 17 32 22,298 25,252 25,284
22075 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,092 5,685 45.930 1999 2,890 1,871 3,008 1,193 35 71 420 280 58 4 164 6,940 9,830 9,994 5,921 11,197 4,774
22075 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 492 1,092 6.000 1999 5,480 7,266 5,937 1,526 60 212 267 178 22 1 106 15,469 20,949 21,055 23,628 24,954 15,029
22075 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,092 1,349 2.576 1999 6,418 9,088 10,013 2,782 124 215 537 358 27 7 745 23,151 29,569 30,314 20,653 26,477 22,218
22075 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,349 1,567 2.180 1999 16,026 11,199 7,428 3,495 125 218 188 125 2 3,613 22,780 38,806 42,419 43,635 37,342 21,679
22075 14K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,567 1,608 0.410 1999 1,076 363 945 291 7 16 270 180 5 1 177 2,078 3,154 3,331 30,480 36,746
Count 22076 NODS 96 PAMANUKAN - SUBANG 1996 5,550 3,895 739 6,131 580 164 1,403 874 130 7 15 1,300 13,938 19,488 20,788
22076 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 14,046 17,314 32.680 1999 1,076 363 945 291 7 16 270 180 5 1 177 2,078 3,154 3,331 6,066 3,351 3,815
22076 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 17,314 17,574 2.600 1999 2,141 791 822 445 2 67 434 290 203 2,851 4,992 5,195
22076 2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 17,574 17,704 1.300 1999 2,141 791 822 445 2 67 434 290 203 2,851 4,992 5,195
(C) 22077 NODS 96 SADANG - SUBANG 1996 1,118 994 919 701 25 57 512 625 34 13 6 66 3,886 5,004 5,070
22077 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,790 14,228 34.380 1999 2,141 791 822 445 2 67 434 290 203 2,851 4,992 5,195 1,487 4,605 4,812
22077 1K-6K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 14,228 15,000 7.720 1999 994 1,235 806 494 183 329 429 286 308 139 121 217 4,330 5,324 5,541
22078 NODS-7day Purwakarta - Padalarang 1991 471 855 555 1,370 250 1,825 268 51 17 8 5,191 5,662 5,670
22078 1 NODS 96 PURWAKARTA - CISOMANG 1996 1,564 1,502 1,238 944 11 26 1,026 379 48 19 9 89 5,202 6,766 6,855 17,124
22078 1 ATC 1997 4,561 4,380 3,610 2,753 32 76 2,992 1,105 140 55 26 15,169 19,730
OD 22078 2 NODS 96 CISOMANG - PADALARANG 1996 401 685 401 523 8 65 1,891 879 495 91 252 21 5,290 5,691 5,712 18,995
Survey 22078 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 11,520 13,762 22.420 1999 994 1,235 806 494 183 329 429 286 308 139 121 217 4,330 5,324 5,541 18,382 7,221
22078 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,800 4,260 24.600 1999 1,538 1,774 1,954 1,301 351 497 712 475 568 224 254 381 8,110 9,648 10,029 21,413 13,517
22079 NODS 96 SADANG-PURWAKARTA 1996 351 442 254 332 19 157 2,698 2,768 1,418 261 722 8 9,071 9,422 9,430 20,833
22079 N A NDLea-IRMS 10,790 11,164 3.740 1999 2,303 3,109 3,519 1,099 210 407 664 442 362 255 264 103 10,331 12,634 12,737 22,577 17,222 21,227
OD 22080 NODS 96 CIKAMPEK - SADANG 1996 1,906 5,271 1,538 1,974 391 1,010 1,758 3,895 1,372 102 390 39 17,701 19,607 19,646 34,387
Survey 22080 NODS-7day Cikampek - Sadang 1991 1,519 2,297 1,426 3,493 1,603 3,327 433 186 59 431 12,824 14,343 14,774
22080 ATC 1997 2,967 8,204 2,394 3,072 609 1,572 2,736 6,059 2,135 159 607 27,547 30,514
22080 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,510 10,790 12.914 1999 1,822 2,717 3,393 1,306 441 669 973 649 671 302 403 151 11,524 13,346 13,497 27,400 19,208 14,725
22081 1 NODS 96 PANGANDARAN - KELAPA GENEP 1996 2,318 3,365 2,915 1,515 334 4,454 2,141 4,001 2,975 1,443 1,142 1,245 24,285 26,603 27,848
22081 2 NODS 96 CIMERAK - KALAPAGENEP 1996 2,470 1,656 3,734 1,941 201 2,685 3,564 2,546 689 334 264 4,047 17,614 20,084 24,131
22081 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 21,100 24,352 32.520 1999 474 270 308 256 23 36 169 112 2 125 1,176 1,650 1,775 2,218 1,901 950
22081 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 24,352 26,285 19.330 1999 324 221 176 212 143 95 46 847 1,171 1,217 2,056 1,368 208
22082 NODS 96 CIKANDE - RANGKASBITUNG 1996 860 556 139 804 6 218 350 809 71 1 55 2,954 3,814 3,869
22082 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,280 8,498 22.180 1999 892 483 768 447 415 113 76 78 2,302 3,194 3,272 3,756 3,716 3,121
22082 1K-2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,498 9,030 5.320 1999 453 257 275 174 112 75 171 893 1,346 1,517
22083 1 NODS 96 CIKAJANG - SAMUDRA 1996 18,830 6,148 395 259 1,483 3,783 2,565 978 50 56 34,547 34,547 34,547
22083 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,385 3,194 8.090 1999 453 257 275 174 112 75 171 893 1,346 1,517 1,703 1,442 667
22084 NODS 96 CIMAUNG - MALABAR 1996 37,268 7,152 459 199 1,138 6,132 1,459 414 21 24 54,266 54,266 54,266
22084 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,385 3,194 8.090 1999 385 231 260 180 128 86 47 885 1,270 1,317 2,211 1,429 945
22087 NODS 96 SP. KARANGHAWU - CIKOTOK 1996 589 1,470 1,080 619 5 80 576 717 361 13 13 16 4,934 5,523 5,539
22087 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 16,460 21,321 48.798 1999 327 207 257 203 7 122 81 2 877 1,204 1,206 3,060 1,415 124
Count 22091 NODS 96 BEKASI - NAROGONG 1996 922 2,748 2,597 1,488 18 282 1,959 1,542 277 10 10 53 10,931 11,853 11,906
22091 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,020 4,713 6.930 1999 8,854 5,287 6,573 2,496 579 837 2,052 1,368 1,056 887 1,505 982 22,640 31,494 32,476 14,298 36,521 9,847
22091 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,281 4,020 7.390 1999 2,411 1,698 2,925 1,280 604 725 707 472 1,084 697 746 237 10,938 13,349 13,586
Count 22092 NODS 96 NAROGONG - CIBINONG 1996 9,914 850 166 4 48 908 260 12 2 2 12,166 12,166 12,166
22092 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,713 7,250 25.370 1999 2,411 1,698 2,925 1,280 604 725 707 472 1,084 697 746 237 10,938 13,349 13,586 21,939 17,644 9,707
22092 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,250 7,500 2.500 1999 831 234 477 208 1 157 105 1,182 2,013 2,013
22093 NODS 96 SP. LABUAN - CIBALIUNG 1996 9,473 719 140 3 34 506 277 10 2 2 11,166 11,166 11,166
22093 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,223 20,180 49.570 1999 831 234 477 208 1 157 105 1,182 2,013 2,013 1,845 1,911 687
22094 NODS 96 PURWAKARTA - JATI LUHUR 1996 84 87 17 18 206 206 206
22094 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,571 12,252 6.796 1999 1,388 940 992 632 60 5 291 195 81 3,115 4,503 4,584 1,200 5,039 4,284
Count 22095 1 NODS 96 SULANJAMBE - CILENGSI 1996 2,896 469 92 1 15 229 475 3 1 1 4,182 4,182 4,182
22095 2 NODS 96 CIBUBUR - CILEUNGSI 1996 6,341 1,984 52 242 815 1,814 1,904 571 128 226 14,077 14,077 14,077
22095 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,267 12,992 74.289 1999 3,585 2,759 2,068 2,003 25 32 1,831 1,222 822 10,762 14,347 14,347 5,168 17,364 2,532
22095 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 843 8.430 1999 2,043 2,224 1,262 901 20 1 848 565 26 50 5,847 7,890 7,940 11,989 9,433 9,420
22096 NODS 96 SAWANGAN - CIMANGGIS 1996 193,766 12,419 326 2 27 9,076 117 6 1 1 215,741 215,741 215,741
22096 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 4,556 4,959 4.210 1999 4,264 2,671 4,762 2,164 856 585 569 379 314 11 2 355 12,313 16,577 16,932 18,001 19,864 10,303
22096 1K-4K P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,408 4,556 11.300 1998 6,233 3,904 6,961 3,163 1,252 855 831 554 460 17 4 520 18,001 24,234 24,754
22097 NODS 96 TANJUNG PURA - BATU JAYA 1996 194,025 5,789 152 2 29 12,016 153 7 1 1 212,175 212,175 212,175
22097 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 6,737 10,290 35.530 1999 787 405 888 365 20 232 155 22 325 2,087 2,874 3,199 6,620 3,368 2,350
22097 1K P K3 NDLea-IRMS 10,290 10,439 1.490 1999 5,210 4,612 3,488 1,152 63 56 219 146 43 992 9,779 14,989 15,981
22098 NODS 96 PONDOKGEDE - JATIASIH 1996 32,218 12,068 174 18 4 5,524 4,970 2,318 818 668 58,780 58,780 58,780
22098 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,168 2,933 7.825 1999 5,210 4,612 3,488 1,152 63 56 219 146 43 992 9,779 14,989 15,981 13,155 15,774 10,844
22098 4K P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,933 3,353 4.200 1999 836 142 176 107 48 32 505 1,341 1,341
22099 NODS 96 CIBALIUNG - SUMUR 1996 92,467 79,172 1,142 24 5 13,453 3,351 2,358 832 679 193,483 193,483 193,483
22099 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 20,128 22,150 20.312 1999 836 142 176 107 48 32 505 1,341 1,341 888 815 232
22100 NODS 96 CIPUTAT - CILEDUG 1996 39,252 46,901 676 31 7 11,782 1,791 2,212 780 637 104,069 104,069 104,069
22100 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,311 2,706 3.950 1999 3,055 2,047 2,842 1,125 36 42 127 85 207 1 2 457 6,514 9,569 10,026 11,601 10,510
22100 1K-4K P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,706 3,814 11.080 1999 5,607 4,663 6,723 3,503 1,499 1,059 961 640 1,105 620 378 339 21,151 26,758 27,097
Count 22101 NODS 96 TANGGERANG - SERPONG - PARUNG 1996 1,725 2,054 154 1,269 51 173 1,390 2,102 160 25 8 42 7,386 9,111 9,153
22101 NODS-7day Serpong - Tangerang 1991 1,399 2,506 997 3,282 1,110 2,506 1,728 104 54 123 12,287 13,686 13,809
22101 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,401 6,054 26.530 1999 5,607 4,663 6,723 3,503 1,499 1,059 961 640 1,105 620 378 339 21,151 26,758 27,097 27,451 34,120 12,565
22101 1K-2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,570 3,401 8.310 1999 4,584 1,841 4,948 1,722 188 159 1,265 843 544 157 154 746 11,821 16,405 17,151
22102 NODS 96 SP. BITUNG - CURUG 1996 7,215 17,297 1,695 5,016 281 530 3,697 5,120 845 66 53 502 34,600 41,815 42,317
22102 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,600 4,100 5.018 1999 4,584 1,841 4,948 1,722 188 159 1,265 843 544 157 154 746 11,821 16,405 17,151 14,224 19,074 7,434
22103 NODS 96 KREO - CILEDUG - TANGERANG 1996 3,991 13,148 856 2,534 363 685 2,707 1,457 986 77 62 105 22,875 26,866 26,971
22103 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,040 2,644 16.109 1999 5,643 3,563 5,454 1,295 202 146 136 91 11 402 10,898 16,541 16,943 18,099 17,579
22104 NODS 96 CIPUTAT - SERPONG 1996 8,566 15,906 1,363 4,033 390 735 4,196 748 702 55 44 1,214 28,172 36,738 37,952
22104 NODS-7day Parung - Serpong 1991 1,370 885 1,040 1,233 109 1,479 80 38 8 131 4,872 6,242 6,373
22104 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,059 3,447 3.880 1999 4,080 2,477 3,918 1,101 308 264 800 534 100 58 2 513 9,562 13,642 14,155 11,721 15,429 11,325
22104 1K-2K P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,456 3,059 6.030 1999 264 136 288 102 98 65 689 953 953
22105 NODS 96 CIKEMBAR - JP.TENGAH 1996 7,738 5,022 3,580 1,064 3,854 3,310 1,976 1,696 336 270 946 28,846 28,846 29,792
22105 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,239 12,940 17.010 1999 264 136 288 102 98 65 689 953 953 2,474 1,111 747
22106 NODS 96 SUMEDANG - JL. CAGAK 1996 9,441 7,982 5,690 1,762 6,383 14,474 6,377 993 52,109 52,109 53,102
22106 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 608 4,400 37.920 1999 400 252 221 241 27 161 107 65 1,009 1,409 1,474 3,061 1,630 1,590
22106 1K-3K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 608 6.080 1999 1,382 453 554 471 435 290 203 2,203 3,585 3,788
22107 NODS 96 PURWAKARTA - JALAN CAGAK 1996 11,808 15,784 11,252 1,596 5,781 24,748 79,669 4,876 966 776 1,556 157,256 157,256 158,812
22107 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,702 15,737 40.350 1999 1,382 453 554 471 435 290 203 2,203 3,585 3,788 1,341 3,555 1,469
22107 1K-2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,483 11,702 2.100 1999 182 121 129 103 92 61 29 506 688 717
22108 NODS 96 CIKAMURANG - JANGGA 1996 5,942 12,348 8,802 21,363 77,381 30,479 255,712 56,604 11,214 9,011 344 488,856 488,856 489,200
22108 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 3,700 37.000 1999 182 121 129 103 92 61 29 506 688 717 2,351 816
22109 NODS 96 SUMBER - TIGASONG 1996 6,158 5,659 4,034 20,948 75,876 15,211 98,531 25,228 4,998 4,016 217 260,659 260,659 260,876
22109 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 3,000 30.000 1999 1,448 866 1,124 831 705 470 267 3,996 5,444 5,711 2,927 6,446 4,057
22110 NODS 96 CARATAS - SUMBER 1996 7,291 2,879 2,052 25,918 93,881 41,031 48,412 46,746 9,261 7,442 878 284,913 284,913 285,791
22110 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 1,500 15.000 1999 373 302 443 126 96 64 155 1,031 1,404 1,559 2,704 1,664 1,254
22111 NODS 96 OLECED - CIBINGBIN 1996 10,320 9,331 6,652 30,823 111,646 28,288 81,465 48,336 9,576 7,695 434 344,132 344,132 344,566
22111 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 2,600 26.000 1999 455 250 332 232 194 129 73 1,137 1,592 1,665 2,349 1,834 1,351
22112 NODS 96 CIBINGBIN - BANTARHARJA 1996 6,268 8,689 6,194 30,224 109,478 19,736 71,405 57,876 11,466 9,214 179 330,550 330,550 330,729
22112 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 400 4.000 1999 201 123 161 98 92 61 37 535 736 773 2,440 862 113
22115 NODS 96 CIBALIUNG - CIKEUSIK - MA. BINAUNG 1996 10,007 6,918 4,931 27,980 101,348 50,023 45,987 57,346 11,361 9,129 2,303 325,030 325,030 327,333
22115 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 3,876 37.132 1999 381 16 23 167 107 69 382 763 763 49 639 210
Count 22118 NODS 96 SUMEDANG - WADO - MALANGBONG 1996 4,051 5,081 3,622 62,045 224,736 18,875 30,987 40,916 8,106 6,514 209 404,933 404,933 405,142
22118 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 4,900 49.000 1999 485 330 469 244 45 219 146 45 1,453 1,938 1,983 2,629 2,344 2,416
22119 1 NODS 96 CISOLOK - CIBARENOK - BAYAH 1996 1,403 3,780 2,695 27,365 99,120 17,621 58,561 65,402 12,957 10,412 378 299,316 299,316 299,694
22119 2 NODS 96 CISOLOK - CIBARENOK - BAYAH 1996 4,205 4,157 2,964 765 2,770 12,857 7,096 5,300 1,050 844 1,220 42,008 42,008 43,228
22119 NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan olek Bina Marga 1996 6,868 5,233 3,731 47,631 172,527 50,234 94,129 97,626 19,341 15,542 688 512,862 512,862 513,550
22119 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 22,705 26,204 34.990 1999 518 224 259 192 117 78 870 1,388 1,388 506 1,410 140
24001 NODS 96 PEJAGAN - LOSARI 1996 983 1,089 1,644 972 119 2,002 1,653 3,024 1,332 9 5 599 11,849 12,832 13,431
24001 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,308 10,243 9.350 1999 100 3,342 1,962 2,685 6 1,556 613 408 10 423 44 2,659 11,049 11,149 13,808 14,988 11,851 6,326
24002 NODS 96 BREBES - PEJAGAN 1996 24,257 5,720 5,036 2,977 207 4,356 4,369 10,689 3,223 22 12 560 36,611 60,868 61,428
24002 ATC 1998 8,227 1,940 1,708 1,010 70 1,477 1,461 3,625 1,093 7 4 12,396 20,623
24002 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,528 9,308 17.800 1999 6,917 3,922 3,583 2,301 1,013 286 190 322 307 52 3,638 11,976 18,893 22,531 16,023 12,352 9,821
24003 NODS 96 TEGAL - BREBES 1996 4,609 2,015 1,680 1,690 78 1,642 1,835 3,030 1,307 93 18 2,369 13,388 17,997 20,366 19,146
24003 NODS-7day Brebes - Tegal 1991 3,689 1,484 1,478 2,863 1,698 2,547 577 1,207 18 2,894 11,872 15,561 18,455
24003 K1 NODS 96 JL. KOL. SUGIONO TEGAL 1996 24,013 9,753 8,192 4,843 151 3,187 4,344 7,280 1,337 9 5 2,633 39,101 63,114 65,747
24003 K2 NODS 96 JLN. MAYJEND. SUTOYO TEGAL 1996 15,922 5,321 2,378 1,406 120 2,516 3,424 6,738 1,637 11 6 1,756 23,557 39,479 41,235
24003 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,648 7,528 8.800 1999 9,042 5,248 3,105 2,795 974 248 166 305 364 41 2,719 13,246 22,288 25,007 17,286 13,657
24003 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 6,521 6,648 1.270 1999 14,445 5,117 3,709 2,166 182 1,556 1,334 889 639 436 80 4,404 16,108 30,553 34,957 26,322 16,611 11,488
24003 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 6,472 6,521 0.510 1999 16,634 6,367 2,330 1,561 197 1,525 1,341 893 534 429 101 11,880 15,278 31,912 43,792 17,456 15,752
OD 24004 NODS-7day Tegal -Pemalang 1991 1,263 1,168 1,213 1,256 1,442 2,248 506 1,080 68 895 8,981 10,244 11,139
Survey 24004 1 NODS 96 PEMALANG - TEGAL 1996 2,239 632 2,349 2,363 6 124 1,044 333 152 11 2 6,107 7,016 9,255 15,362
24004 2 NODS 96 PEMALANG - TEGAL 1996 2,176 2,985 1,336 614 39 2,382 1,857 3,252 1,654 91 19 462 14,229 16,405 16,867
24004 K1 NODS 96 JL. GAJAH MADA 1996 9,672 86,257 1,091 502 78 4,764 7,201 271 551 30 6 1,419 100,751 110,423 111,842
24004 K2 NODS 96 JLN. MT. HARYONO TEGAL 1996 14,029 106,031 751 345 59 3,573 8,185 407 2,586 119,351 133,380 135,966
24004 K3 NODS 96 JL YOS SUDARSO 1996 12,338 105,484 1,010 464 59 3,573 7,468 407 1,654 91 19 2,853 120,229 132,567 135,420
24004 K4 NODS 96 JL. MERTOLOYO 1996 5,465 27,341 3,091 1,420 10,218 624,084 4,831 147,424 229,906 12,649 2,641 726 1,063,605 1,069,070 1,069,796
24004 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,404 3,800 3.908 1999 10,408 2,641 485 855 203 965 689 459 342 243 152 1,210 7,034 17,442 18,652 35,474 7,253
24004 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,800 6,094 22.940 1999 5,262 3,865 420 1,214 160 1,237 1,025 684 430 375 92 754 9,502 14,764 15,518 17,993 9,800
24004 21K N A NDLea-IRMS 6,302 6,424 1.220 1999 15,165 5,567 1,349 1,687 282 1,622 1,213 809 557 434 171 11,462 13,691 28,856 40,318 16,344 14,117
24004 22K N A NDLea-IRMS 6,424 6,472 0.480 1999 6,866 4,585 2,501 1,965 294 713 211 141 263 268 73 2,967 11,014 17,880 20,847 14,001 11,358
24004 23K N A NDLea-IRMS 6,219 6,302 0.830 1999 7,561 6,553 2,300 2,186 376 1,059 277 186 545 331 106 2,867 13,919 21,480 24,347 12,138 14,356
24004 24K N A NDLea-IRMS 6,094 6,219 1.200 1999 19,497 7,362 663 2,069 260 2,192 1,632 1,088 765 613 145 13,625 16,789 36,286 49,911 14,480 17,313
24005 K1 NODS 96 JL GAJAH MADA PEKALONGAN 1996 602 11,435 304 140 2,886 176,268 4,119 38,347 41,901 2,305 481 121 278,186 278,788 278,909
24005 K2 NODS 96 JL HAYAM WURUK 1996 1,275 10,819 2,221 1,021 10,959 669,342 4,572 45,528 233,214 12,831 2,679 60 993,186 994,461 994,521
24005 K3 NODS 96 JL. DR. CIPTO 1996 965 8,240 844 388 1,995 2,168 33 13,635 14,600 14,633
24005 K4 NODS 96 JL. DOKTER WAHIDIN PEKALONGAN 1996 891 7,820 778 358 1,841 1,355 30 12,152 13,043 13,073
24005 K5 NODS 96 JL. PEMUDA - IMAM BONJOL - DIPONEGORO 1996 750 5,718 2,738 1,258 12,285 750,330 4,414 35,366 195,723 10,768 2,248 38 1,020,848 1,021,598 1,021,636
24005 K6 NODS 96 JL. WR. SUPRATMAN PEKALONGAN 1996 675 5,550 2,508 1,153 11,193 683,634 4,078 31,707 180,286 9,919 2,071 35 932,099 932,774 932,809
24005 NODS 96 PEKALONGAN - PEMALANG 1996 4,331 2,431 2,309 561 23 2,271 1,560 3,702 1,485 78 27 1,446 14,447 18,778 20,224 13,576
24005 N A NDLea-IRMS 232 3,404 31.720 1999 6,831 4,005 2,294 2,272 324 1,256 880 586 194 233 93 4,433 12,137 18,968 23,401 18,876 12,515
24005 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 110 1.100 1999 18,985 7,423 2,841 2,741 393 1,331 954 636 289 337 184 9,541 17,129 36,114 45,655 13,775 17,663 7,700
24005 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 84 0.840 1999 11,737 3,629 1,006 706 13 8 6 8,040 5,368 17,105 25,145 8,962 5,533
24005 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 55 0.550 1999 11,065 2,525 1,412 1,475 2 21 14 6 13,894 5,455 16,520 30,414 5,722 5,624
24005 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 125 1.250 1999 8,330 5,131 1,558 1,044 1 35 93 62 19 8 17,634 7,951 16,281 33,915 5,907 8,200
24005 15K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 19 0.190 1999 15,348 4,339 1,747 1,052 1 257 171 7 6 4 14,887 7,584 22,932 37,819 12,671 7,985 5,667
24005 16K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 19 49 0.300 1999 5,015 764 871 1,012 16 10 9 7,197 2,682 7,697 14,894 4,613 2,825 1,973
24005 17K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 49 149 1.000 1998 8,619 1,313 1,498 1,740 28 18 15 12,371 4,612 13,231 25,602
24005 18K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 280 2.800 1998 8,619 1,313 1,498 1,740 28 18 15 12,371 4,612 13,231 25,602
Count 24006 K1 NODS 96 JL. DOKTER SUTOMO PEKALONGAN 1996 1,707 1,924 736 179 44 4,345 510 2,361 514 27 9 114 10,649 12,356 12,470
24006 K2 NODS 96 JL. SETIA BUDI 1996 2,941 3,402 1,339 325 70 6,912 905 3,729 790 41 14 201 17,527 20,468 20,669
24006 K3 NODS 96 JL. JEND. SUDIRMAN PEKALONGAN 1996 18,441 6,360 7,713 1,874 251 24,734 2,644 11,535 1,934 102 35 17,052 57,182 75,623 92,675
24006 K4 NODS 96 JLN. KH. MAS MANSYUR PEKALONGAN 1996 7,203 4,856 2,178 529 98 9,627 1,845 6,653 1,666 88 30 6,114 27,570 34,773 40,887
24006 NODS 96 PEKALONGAN - BATANG 1996 4,748 2,228 2,345 1,552 77 1,481 2,020 3,537 1,632 77 23 2,182 14,972 19,720 21,902
24006 N A NDLea-IRMS 349 854 5.050 1999 6,585 4,734 1,679 2,715 349 1,256 736 491 288 188 134 9,071 12,570 19,155 28,226 13,149 12,962 8,084
24006 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 41 0.410 1999 11,045 5,730 3,643 2,964 521 1,354 1,048 698 300 352 199 10,073 16,809 27,854 37,927 12,264 17,335
24006 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 23 0.230 1999 8,584 5,060 2,379 2,947 427 1,173 1,034 689 552 325 181 7,331 14,767 23,351 30,682 10,927 14,607
24006 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 155 1.550 1999 8,943 5,137 2,359 2,915 463 1,151 1,179 786 715 417 240 7,232 15,362 24,305 31,537 15,873 15,840
24006 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 110 1.100 1999 21,770 5,448 2,910 4,629 224 777 897 598 392 339 370 16,222 16,584 38,354 54,576 8,273 17,102
Count 24007 NODS-7day Batang - Waleri 1991 1,184 909 980 1,792 1,252 2,666 541 989 75 344 9,204 10,388 10,732
24007 1 NODS 96 BATANG - WELERI (PKL TIMUR) 1996 1,497 1,763 640 460 21 1,214 2,027 3,401 1,679 116 11 10 11,332 12,829 12,839 13,017
24007 2 NODS 96 WELERI - BATANG (SMG BARAT) 1996 12,896 8,653 3,342 2,402 90 5,187 3,829 1,988 347 24 2 1,669 25,864 38,760 40,429 13,023
24007 3 NODS 96 JL. TEMBUS BARU (PLELEN) 1996 4,948 3,299 1,707 1,227 179 10,374 3,242 7,137 2,513 174 16 525 29,868 34,816 35,341
24007 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 854 5,059 42.050 1999 2,307 3,053 1,379 1,860 535 922 804 536 695 400 291 48 10,475 12,782 12,830 13,017 10,802
24007 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,557 4,840 2.830 1999 2,980 2,531 1,712 2,134 902 827 543 362 663 457 282 864 10,413 13,393 14,257 13,010 10,739 8,168
24007 3 N A NDLea-IRMS 0 175 1.750 1999 1,059 1,045 1,020 615 71 155 226 151 56 24 8 3,371 4,430 4,430 2,453 3,483
24008K K NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan olek Bina Marga 1996 1,880 1,321 395 284 11 607 1,540 934 197 14 1 323 5,304 7,184 7,507
24008 NODS 96 KENDAL - WELERI 1996 1,721 1,245 367 263 6 331 1,435 742 139 10 1 291 4,539 6,260 6,551 15,622
24008 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,850 4,557 17.070 1999 3,319 3,225 2,060 2,506 336 1,524 658 438 786 465 348 1,138 12,346 15,665 16,803 17,159 12,730
24008 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 78 0.780 1999 2,665 1,019 1,277 1,426 202 584 383 255 243 183 92 997 5,664 8,329 9,326 7,863 5,843
OD 24009 NODS-7day Semarang - Kendal 1991 3,143 1,942 1,985 2,941 1,439 2,396 367 633 63 562 11,766 14,909 15,471
Survey 24009 K1 NODS 96 JL. IMAM BONJOL SEMARANG 1996 1,580 1,052 316 227 7 386 1,328 455 139 10 1 270 3,921 5,501 5,771
24009 K2 NODS 96 JL. INDRAPRASTA 1996 1,405 723 477 343 781 144 88 2,468 3,873 3,961
24009 K3 NODS 96 JL. JENDRAL SUDIRMAN SEMARANG 1996 1,515 785 530 381 843 168 93 2,707 4,222 4,315
24009 K4 NODS 96 JL.SILIWANGI 1996 4,563 3,153 1,812 1,302 385 22,238 3,328 11,281 3,555 246 23 532 47,323 51,886 52,418
24009 K5 NODS 96 JL. WALISONGO 1996 2,982 2,408 959 689 199 11,478 3,140 6,227 3,717 257 24 373 29,098 32,080 32,453
24009 NODS 96 SEMARANG - KENDAL 1996 5,191 4,210 3,430 1,613 25 1,980 3,493 2,803 1,750 92 25 903 19,421 24,612 25,515 16,389
24009 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,700 2,850 11.500 1999 5,706 3,953 1,215 3,864 632 1,058 730 488 787 407 185 896 13,319 19,025 19,921 21,602 13,742
24009 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 196 1.960 1999 6,605 4,576 1,407 4,474 732 1,225 846 565 911 472 214 1,038 15,422 22,027 23,065 14,341 15,910
24009 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 196 296 1.000 1999 6,793 4,706 1,447 4,601 754 1,260 870 581 937 485 220 1,068 15,861 22,654 23,722 10,660 16,362
24009 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 296 511 2.150 1999 21,738 15,062 4,631 14,723 2,411 4,032 2,784 1,859 2,999 1,553 706 3,416 50,760 72,498 75,914 17,776 52,359
24009 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 511 761 2.646 1999 14,095 9,766 3,003 9,547 1,564 2,614 1,805 1,205 1,945 1,007 458 2,215 32,914 47,009 49,224 17,977 33,950
24009 15K N A NDLea-IRMS 761 1,900 11.390 1999 10,684 7,402 2,276 7,236 1,185 1,982 1,369 913 1,473 763 347 1,679 24,946 35,630 37,309 11,578 25,733
24009 16K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 90 0.900 1999 49,079 28,001 4,199 3,388 1,537 573 185 124 65 9 3,217 38,081 87,160 90,377 36,150 39,265
24009 17K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 150 1.500 1999 22,311 12,651 1,327 1,218 593 164 12 8 8 1 1,349 15,982 38,293 39,642 32,706 16,476
24009 18K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 160 1.600 1999 10,616 7,897 588 531 426 109 7 4 5 3 2 661 9,572 20,188 20,849 38,153 9,867
24009 19K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 240 2.400 1999 7,109 4,737 438 461 174 81 4 3 4 2 3 53 5,907 13,016 13,069 21,204 6,090
24009 1AK N A NDLea-IRMS 0 200 2.000 1999 16,238 9,614 920 958 182 157 8 5 7 3 73 11,854 28,092 28,165 19,477 12,223
OD 24010 K1 NODS 96 JL. WIDOHARJO 1996 6,425 5,600 5,651 2,657 26 2,024 3,643 2,697 934 49 13 129 23,294 29,719 29,848
Survey 24010 K2 NODS 96 JL. DR. CIPTA 1996 11,801 11,411 6,298 2,962 26 2,067 4,282 1,661 646 34 9 705 29,396 41,197 41,902
24010 K3 NODS 96 JL. KOMPOL MAKSUM 1996 20,291 24,111 16,789 7,895 90 7,126 8,079 2,779 1,521 80 22 2,100 68,492 88,783 90,883
24010 K4 NODS 96 JLN. MT. HARYONO SEMARANG 1996 4,271 3,185 1,382 650 9 696 997 318 135 7 2 773 7,381 11,652 12,425
24010 K5 NODS 96 JLN. DR. WAHIDIN SEMARANG 1996 17,518 19,271 13,228 6,221 76 5,994 6,827 2,014 1,004 53 14 930 54,702 72,220 73,150
24010 K6 NODS 96 JLN. TEUKU UMAR SEMARANG 1996 2,240 859 408 192 1,372 318 194 10 3 761 3,356 5,596 6,357
24010 K7 NODS 96 JLN. SETIA BUDHI SEMARANG 1996 7,308 6,603 7,928 3,728 48 3,797 14,138 1,661 887 47 13 753 38,850 46,158 46,911
24010 NODS 96 SEMARANG - BAWEN 1996 6,268 8,629 3,823 1,370 179 1,803 4,049 4,260 806 31 19 64 24,969 31,237 31,301 25,753
24010 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,714 3,393 16.790 1999 13,376 13,204 1,507 2,411 862 1,817 2,320 1,546 519 302 287 146 24,775 38,151 38,297 30,688 25,549 22,875
24010 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 40 0.400 1999 7,581 5,981 803 742 1,192 861 64 44 67 17 10 3,196 9,781 17,362 20,558 6,731 10,091
24010 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 280 2.800 1999 23,532 14,428 3,494 2,693 951 738 64 44 72 30 22 4,824 22,536 46,068 50,892 19,245 23,236
24010 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 65 0.650 1999 21,089 9,714 3,291 2,426 1,693 967 281 188 52 30 2,474 18,642 39,731 42,205 13,780 19,224
24010 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 90 0.900 1999 40,067 18,505 5,908 4,300 3,081 1,677 494 329 92 36 1,985 34,422 74,489 76,474 28,168 35,490
24010 15K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 230 2.300 1999 23,808 11,560 2,527 2,244 870 462 451 301 21 2 176 18,438 42,246 42,422 29,489 19,011
24010 16K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 110 1.100 1999 45,755 32,480 3,126 4,207 1,765 862 815 543 32 4 87 43,834 89,589 89,676 60,280 45,194
24010 17K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 890 8.900 1999 22,304 22,997 2,149 2,784 922 178 205 137 20 5 4 130 29,401 51,705 51,835 48,984 30,311
Count 24011 1 NODS 96 BAWEN - PRINGSURAT 1996 3,203 8,407 2,648 949 165 1,665 3,225 5,160 1,451 56 34 1 23,760 26,963 26,964 14,579
24011 2 NODS 96 PRINGSURAT - BAWEN 1996 5,213 12,581 3,483 1,248 372 3,744 3,402 39,864 5,181 199 122 14 70,196 75,409 75,423
24011 CAP1 / Cons Bawen - Pringsurut (3 days av.) 1992 3,477 3,891 1,713 3,527 1,217 1,765 175 98 12,288 15,765 15,863
24011 1 NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan olek Bina Marga 1996 8,487 5,565 4,696 1,683 219 2,201 5,272 4,502 449 17 11 93 24,615 33,102 33,195
24011 1K NODS 96 JL. PINGIT LAMA 1996 925 2,357 1,138 408 7 75 975 5,749 530 20 12 4 11,271 12,196 12,200
24011 2 NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan olek Bina Marga 1996 946 2,363 1,139 408 1 13 965 5,922 518 20 12 4 11,361 12,307 12,311
24011 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,390 5,100 16.191 1999 7,380 5,848 1,747 1,860 295 702 1,003 669 213 61 38 188 12,436 19,816 20,004 13,942 12,830
24011 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,487 2,420 10.263 1999 3,202 3,740 478 1,507 96 511 501 334 266 28 38 67 7,499 10,701 10,768 13,747 7,738
24011 3 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,205 2,325 1.200 1999 694 589 127 344 23 16 1,083 1,777 1,793 4,988 1,141
Count 24012 K1 NODS 96 JLN. DIPONEGORO SALATIGA 1996 5,484 14,709 4,021 1,441 101 1,015 4,252 3,914 1,197 46 28 28 30,724 36,208 36,236
24012 NODS 96 BAWEN - SALATIGA 1996 5,499 14,727 4,019 1,440 104 1,048 4,247 3,879 1,186 46 28 27 30,724 36,223 36,250 12,949
24012 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,393 4,355 9.620 1999 5,545 5,247 1,991 1,926 447 1,220 1,042 695 307 123 114 129 13,112 18,657 18,786 9,656 13,523
24012 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 4,355 4,675 3.200 1999 8,920 7,689 1,940 2,240 617 1,309 1,132 756 329 146 102 308 16,260 25,180 25,488 17,455 16,769
24013 NODS 96 SECANG - PRINGSURAT 1996 2,184 3,961 1,567 257 64 1,013 1,799 2,213 649 2 2 28 11,527 13,711 13,739 10,799
24013 CAP1 / Cons Pringsurut - Secang (3 days av.) 1992 1,555 2,107 1,488 2,480 842 1,604 178 74 8,699 10,254 10,328
24013 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,011 1,487 4.760 1999 3,525 3,035 1,245 2,188 304 428 354 236 233 37 41 185 8,101 11,626 11,811 11,085 8,353 8,330
24014 K1 NODS 96 JLN. A. YANI 1996 745 2,911 847 139 191 3,016 1,562 3,548 1,664 5 5 10 13,888 14,633 14,643
24014 K2 NODS 96 JL. ELO SURABAYAN MAGELANG 1996 742 3,552 890 146 196 3,107 1,823 4,321 2,047 6 6 12 16,094 16,836 16,848
24014 K3 NODS 96 JLN. CANGUK MERTOYUDAN 1996 469 2,818 1,374 225 199 3,152 1,017 4,145 815 3 3 13,751 14,220 14,220
24014 km3,2 CAP1 / Cons Mertoyudan - Cancuk (3 days av.) 1992 2,915 1,143 901 3,316 2,047 2,107 191 601 9,705 12,620 13,221
24014 CAP1 / Cons Secang - Magelang (3 days av.) 1992 6,191 3,118 2,272 4,381 1,920 1,634 224 1,132 13,549 19,740 20,872
24014 km2,0 CAP1 / Cons Secang - Magelang (3 days av.) 1992 7,766 3,546 2,470 5,685 1,855 1,550 267 1,900 15,373 23,139 25,039
24014 NODS 96 MAGELANG - SECANG 1996 555 2,676 1,405 230 193 3,062 1,137 5,374 499 2 2 14,580 15,135 15,135 17,122
24014 N A NDLea-IRMS 505 1,011 5.060 1999 8,041 6,115 2,186 3,094 464 487 371 246 277 36 55 562 13,331 21,372 21,934 18,255 13,750 20,503
24014 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 520 5.252 1999 14,416 8,564 3,172 2,585 1,082 425 1,425 950 280 30 22 1,844 18,535 32,951 34,795 20,735 19,114
24014 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 168 434 2.660 1999 3,711 2,628 3,860 1,777 122 744 265 177 81 40 45 716 9,739 13,450 14,166 11,040 10,046
24014 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 260 2.626 1999 4,114 2,346 2,058 1,025 1,700 817 1,459 972 238 30 34 308 10,679 14,793 15,101 29,175 11,015
Count 24015 1 NODS 96 SALATIGA - BOYOLALI (SMG BARAT) 1996 866 941 961 158 479 7,586 1,408 8,430 3,561 11 11 9 23,546 24,412 24,421 18,936
24015 1K NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan olek Bina Marga 1996 195 67 138 23 281 70 1 579 774 775
24015 2 NODS 96 BOYOLALI - SALATIGA (SKA BARAT 1996 2,974 4,421 1,179 580 26 1,754 1,871 2,663 573 41 3 83 13,111 16,085 16,168 12,776
24015 K1 NODS 96 JLN. JEND. SUDIRMAN 1996 17,694 286,536 12,773 6,283 290 4,592 9,116 5,726 449 1 1 46 325,767 343,461 343,507
24015 1 ATC 1998 501 544 555 91 277 4,385 814 4,873 902 6 6 12,454 12,955
24015 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,973 5,936 9.623 1999 7,088 5,105 2,527 2,232 303 1,129 1,079 719 259 169 101 398 13,623 20,711 21,109 13,840 14,048 13,496
24015 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 4,660 4,973 3.130 1999 12,863 6,060 1,053 955 29 59 40 888 8,196 21,059 21,947 22,304 8,454
24015 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,875 4,093 12.180 1999 6,183 4,638 2,308 1,980 394 1,072 974 649 233 143 104 690 12,495 18,678 19,368 13,883 12,882 11,927
(C) 24016 K1 NODS 96 JL. PEMUDA 1996 24,526 300,904 18,359 9,031 946 14,970 7,298 11,276 4,659 14 14 4,120 367,471 391,997 396,117
24016 K2 NODS 96 JL. JEND. SUDIRMAN 1996 23,066 335,582 16,141 7,940 247 3,917 14,305 12,751 1,098 3 3 67 391,987 415,053 415,120
24016 NODS 96 MAGELANG - KEPREKAN 1996 3,329 4,974 1,544 760 1,493 172 8,771 12,100 12,272 16,711
24016 km11 CAP1 / Cons Magelang - Keprekan (3 days av.) 1992 8,405 4,292 2,422 3,649 1,154 1,957 103 1,768 13,577 21,982 23,750
24016 N A NDLea-IRMS 314 1,146 8.404 1999 15,766 6,478 1,353 1,917 850 523 1,499 999 183 45 17 840 13,864 29,630 30,470 26,895 14,293 15,882
24016 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 77 0.770 1999 7,363 5,361 1,348 1,028 16 11 1 1,998 7,765 15,128 17,126 24,038 8,005
24016 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 200 2.000 1999 21,400 11,338 3,373 2,748 12 16 28 18 5 2,858 17,538 38,938 41,796 20,821 18,083
OD 24017 NODS 96 KEPREKAN - BTS. DIY 1996 7,807 3,170 686 700 112 886 2,345 1,360 363 30 3 36 9,655 17,462 17,498 14,921
Survey 24017 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,146 2,371 12.372 1999 13,328 4,952 1,155 2,199 238 544 1,209 805 167 66 11 1,679 11,346 24,674 26,353 20,402 11,699 10,253
OD 24018 NODS 96 KLATEN - PRAMBANAN 1996 14,816 6,387 924 1,465 35 1,224 2,431 2,898 585 28 2 6,148 15,979 30,795 36,943 15,946
Survey 24018 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,357 4,925 14.389 1999 8,812 5,937 858 1,289 92 547 918 612 113 56 12 1,329 10,434 19,246 20,575 20,765 10,758
24019 NODS 96 KARTOSURO - KLATEN 1996 8,459 5,880 875 1,070 22 1,469 2,309 3,035 517 24 2 1,859 15,203 23,662 25,521 16,326
24019 ATC 1998 9,850 6,847 1,019 1,246 26 1,711 2,689 3,534 602 28 2 17,704 27,554
24019 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,110 3,357 22.470 1999 9,968 5,235 1,431 2,391 233 1,011 2,893 1,928 225 117 47 1,046 15,511 25,479 26,525 20,048 15,998
OD 24020 NODS 96 KARTASURA - BOYOLALI 1996 8,961 6,178 606 927 120 2,073 2,330 2,289 554 25 7 2,215 15,109 24,070 26,285 15,324
Survey 24020 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,110 2,875 17.650 1999 8,244 4,917 1,084 2,139 313 888 1,010 672 243 124 67 961 11,457 19,701 20,662 15,945 11,815
24021 K1 NODS 96 JL. SLAMET RIYADI 1996 25,230 8,845 1,191 1,822 1 18 6,046 2,377 3,020 20,300 45,530 48,550
24021 K2 NODS 96 JLN. A YANI SURAKARTA 1996 16,963 29,202 1,349 2,064 4 153 7,844 4,402 49 2 45,069 62,032 62,032
24021 K3 NODS 96 JLN. TENTARA PELAJAR SURAKARTA 1996 18,187 31,599 1,458 2,230 5 175 7,780 4,798 54 3 48,102 66,289 66,289
24021 K4 NODS 96 JL. ADI SUCIPTO SURAKARTA 1996 97,755 116,876 3,454 5,284 9 316 17,331 6,119 44 2 12,183 149,435 247,190 259,373
24021 NODS 96 SURAKARTA - KARTOSURO 1996 63,339 39,397 2,489 3,808 3 97 6,534 1,937 17 1 5,638 54,283 117,622 123,260
24021 N A NDLea-IRMS 560 1,110 5.796 1999 15,996 9,201 1,569 1,682 1,533 2,009 947 631 346 280 19 1,620 18,217 34,213 35,833 23,403 18,788 13,868
24021 21K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 615 6.150 1999 20,896 9,469 1,435 2,040 1,267 2,034 955 635 355 301 26 2,654 18,517 39,413 42,067 8,509 19,100
24021 22K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 490 4.900 1999 9,586 5,595 1,190 904 1,026 1,120 222 147 100 11 1,432 10,315 19,901 21,333 3,713 10,645
24021 23K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 90 0.900 1999 5,320 1,730 469 794 565 1,059 1,136 757 330 261 8 595 7,109 12,429 13,024 6,725 7,330
24021 24K N A NDLea-IRMS 6 1,000 9.990 1999 14,485 5,896 754 1,694 519 83 322 214 157 24 5 2,791 9,668 24,153 26,944 10,826 9,969
OD 24022 NODS-7day Surakarta - Palur 1991 12,136 2,895 2,932 2,571 2,662 2,886 241 492 17 5,305 14,696 26,832 32,137
Survey 24022 K1 NODS 96 JL. KALIBARU / JL. SUTARTO SURA 1996 69,341 42,537 2,720 4,160 5 158 7,086 2,245 18 1 6,393 58,930 128,271 134,664
24022 K2 NODS 96 JLN. SUTAMI SURAKARTA 1996 33,986 59,248 2,346 3,589 8 292 12,318 6,647 39 2 7,350 84,489 118,475 125,825
24022 NODS 96 SURAKARTA - PALUR 1996 70,116 35,279 1,973 3,018 7,394 792 12 1 7,753 48,469 118,585 126,338 30,420
24022 Capex1/IRMS Surakarta - Palur 1991 46,231
24022 N A NDLea-IRMS 440 580 1.400 1999 35,339 10,824 4,992 6,941 2,037 1,728 587 392 422 274 33 3,484 28,230 63,569 67,053 32,494 29,108 17,227
24022 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 130 1.300 1999 12,531 3,971 958 1,238 623 370 144 96 88 57 14 1,180 7,559 20,090 21,270 25,458 7,794
24022 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 180 1.800 1999 29,173 9,582 2,186 3,110 1,879 1,462 516 344 322 210 28 2,169 19,639 48,812 50,981 25,303 20,249
(C) 24023 NODS 96 PALUR - SRAGEN 1996 7,803 3,207 903 404 31 1,420 1,777 2,048 509 26 5 2,869 10,330 18,133 21,002 14,586
24023 N A NDLea-IRMS 580 3,007 24.270 1999 10,718 3,938 1,949 2,567 632 1,135 222 148 265 233 32 5,098 11,121 21,839 26,937 23,436 11,468 10,916
24024 NODS 96 SRAGEN - MANTINGAN 1996 16,981 5,085 1,297 580 51 2,313 2,444 4,369 473 24 5 10,077 16,641 33,622 43,699
24024 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,007 4,615 16.080 1999 4,621 1,746 1,498 1,901 229 382 115 77 135 110 16 736 6,209 10,830 11,566 10,313 6,402
(C) 24025 NODS 96 PEJAGAN - KETANGGUNGAN 1996 582 517 475 19 11 169 371 705 84 1 1,335 2,352 2,934 4,269
24025 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 9,308 10,100 7.990 1999 1,339 464 1,135 618 77 81 31 21 42 16 16 2,020 2,501 3,840 5,860 4,076 2,636 3,382
24026 NODS 96 SLAWI - KETANGGUNGAN 1996 2,496 321 395 442 6 8 475 605 36 2,807 2,288 4,784 7,591
24026 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,705 10,589 28.840 1999 2,491 466 711 409 91 68 30 20 21 13 19 2,475 1,848 4,339 6,814 2,887 1,949 2,447
Count 24027 K1 NODS 96 JL. SUDIRMAN 1996 9,188 754 596 667 1 1 676 13 170,255 2,708 11,896 182,151
24027 K2 NODS 96 JL. AR. HAKIM 1996 6,738 418 403 451 2 2 231 17 1 399,134 1,525 8,263 407,397
24027 K3 NODS 96 JL. SULTAN AGUNG 1996 4,804 243 747 836 13 17 441 305 74 123,076 2,676 7,480 130,556
24027 NODS 96 TEGAL - SLAWI 1996 5,262 375 458 513 13 18 454 176 79 155,141 2,086 7,348 162,489
24027 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 6,626 7,705 10.790 1999 9,624 2,301 2,489 641 48 419 333 222 26 72 1 8,053 6,552 16,176 24,229 12,849 6,755 7,952
24027 11K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 6,472 6,508 0.360 1999 12,344 5,255 398 1,635 17 1 2 2 3 1 5,033 7,314 19,658 24,691 13,294 7,542
24027 12K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 6,472 6,617 1.450 1999 8,880 5,751 685 1,984 1 3 2 7,018 8,426 17,306 24,324 28,951 8,686
24027 13K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 78 0.780 1999 12,159 3,913 3,554 667 98 424 367 244 71 58 10 7,962 9,406 21,565 29,527 20,156 9,699
Count 24028 NODS 96 KETANGGUNGAN - PRUPUK 1996 3,220 121 345 386 1 256 7 2 150,714 1,118 4,338 155,052
24028 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,041 12,911 28.700 1999 701 446 582 762 70 66 48 32 30 17 22 992 2,075 2,776 3,768 3,588 2,187 1,579
Count 24029 NODS 96 SLAWI - PRUPUK 1996 2,938 111 306 342 1 240 6 143,481 1,006 3,944 147,425
24029 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 7,705 10,503 27.980 1999 3,437 541 1,172 908 98 290 101 68 105 38 64 2,986 3,385 6,822 9,808 5,677 3,492 4,067
Count 24030 1 NODS 96 PEMALANG - RANDUDONGKAL 1996 4,013 123 240 269 2 2 358 21 2 99,109 1,017 5,030 104,139
24030 2 NODS 96 RANDUDONGKAL- MOGA 1996 1,329 50 26 29 102 4 111,956 211 1,540 113,496
24030 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,400 6,430 30.300 1999 1,155 568 699 736 212 845 2,215 3,370 4,215 4,744 2,333 2,680
24030 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,430 7,538 11.080 1999 1,525 609 834 756 80 686 2,279 3,804 4,490 3,532 2,400 1,992
OD 24031 1 NODS 96 PRUPUK - AJIBARANG (PKL. BARAT) 1996 799 1,081 842 276 11 1,116 1,127 1,696 228 25 5 160 6,407 7,206 7,366
Survey 24031 2 NODS 96 PRUPUK (BMT) - AJIBARANG 1996 1,389 1,373 249 470 15 790 931 1,076 415 24 3 201 5,346 6,735 6,936
24031 1 ATC 1998 1,265 1,712 1,333 437 17 1,767 1,784 2,685 361 40 8 10,144 11,409
24031 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 10,503 14,006 35.030 1999 1,783 795 899 1,085 119 461 225 150 178 63 119 440 4,094 5,877 6,317 5,236 4,226
24031 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,505 4,560 10.550 1999 1,497 765 540 1,000 401 424 243 161 126 75 364 1,275 4,099 5,596 6,871 4,160 4,228
(C) 24032 NODS 96 AJIBARANG - WANGON 1996 1,608 1,502 280 529 17 903 1,057 1,287 571 33 4 375 6,183 7,791 8,166
24032 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,505 4,820 13.150 1999 1,005 643 543 889 351 27 89 60 31 29 135 610 2,797 3,802 4,412 3,815 2,886
OD 24033 1 NODS 96 WANGON - BTS. JAWA BARAT (BMT) 1996 3,509 2,005 362 682 24 1,264 3,571 2,844 1,362 79 10 7,229 12,203 15,712 22,941
Survey 24033 2 NODS 96 WANGON (BMT) - BTS. JAWA BARAT 1996 802 1,059 197 144 34 406 692 1,067 312 15 2 74 3,928 4,730 4,804
24033 1 ATC 1998 1,858 1,061 192 361 13 669 1,891 1,506 721 42 5 6,460 8,318
24033 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,460 5,623 21.630 1999 1,706 720 682 834 105 126 65 44 51 24 42 1,187 2,693 4,399 5,586 4,476 2,779 3,155
24033 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 5,623 10,719 50.960 1999 1,319 677 629 831 284 122 95 63 42 38 128 1,209 2,909 4,228 5,437 4,389 3,001
(C) 24034 NODS 96 PURWOKERTO - AJIBARANG 1996 6,616 3,548 1,283 938 59 710 1,659 1,217 133 6 1 1,213 9,554 16,170 17,383
24034 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,798 3,505 17.070 1999 5,774 2,062 1,301 2,155 223 325 296 198 33 30 16 3,463 6,639 12,413 15,876 9,631 6,993 6,697
24035 NODS 96 MANGANTI - WANGON 1996 1,586 1,723 1,325 969 46 550 478 639 52 2 222 5,784 7,370 7,592
24035 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 2,300 3,460 11.600 1999 1,415 923 650 1,197 275 136 107 71 47 45 143 1,147 3,594 5,009 6,156 7,554 3,707 5,164
Count 24036 1 NODS 96 WANGON - GUMILAR 1996 7,841 8,884 1,260 921 111 1,324 2,971 6,966 1,386 67 9 1,166 23,899 31,740 32,906
24036 2 NODS 96 WANGON (BMT) - GUMILAR 1996 6,552 5,352 1,175 859 101 1,209 1,915 6,152 1,562 75 10 953 18,410 24,962 25,915
24036 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,460 3,961 5.010 1999 2,373 857 799 932 73 38 45 30 58 22 48 692 2,902 5,275 5,967 5,285 2,994 2,833
24036 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,968 5,811 18.430 1999 1,442 650 603 791 261 22 53 36 36 30 95 783 2,577 4,019 4,802 5,288 2,657
24037 NODS 96 SUMILAR - CILACAP 1996 1,171 674 95 217 22 251 556 768 341 12 6 518 2,942 4,113 4,631 10,322
24037 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,811 5,320 5.090 1999 9,975 3,432 1,893 1,462 169 97 38 25 26 14 20 5,528 7,176 17,151 22,679 10,362 7,402
24038 NODS 96 SLARANG - GUMILAR 1996 2,040 1,265 208 475 60 681 1,697 1,771 991 35 17 490 7,200 9,240 9,730
24038 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,827 4,811 9.840 1999 5,633 1,577 1,104 1,453 117 145 245 164 94 34 49 2,472 4,982 10,615 13,087 11,413 5,139
24039 1 NODS 96 MANGANTI - KASUGIHAN 1996 3,089 4,503 678 1,549 57 654 1,029 808 716 25 13 925 10,032 13,121 14,046
24039 2 NODS 96 MANGANTI - KASUGIHAN 1996 1,982 954 319 728 21 237 342 374 30 1 1 442 3,007 4,989 5,431
24039 3 NODS 96 KASUGIHAN - SLARANG 1996 18,606 18,161 1,523 3,479 33 377 1,510 433 95 3 2 1,973 25,616 44,222 46,195
24039 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,300 2,818 5.250 1999 799 427 314 486 125 11 10 7 6 4 2 651 1,392 2,191 2,842 2,922 1,467 1,544
24039 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,818 3,538 7.200 1999 946 507 407 592 176 14 7 5 5 5 8 857 1,726 2,672 3,529 2,985 1,815 2,149
24039 3 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,538 3,827 2.911 1999 1,116 546 393 501 25 10 6 740 1,481 2,597 3,337 2,892 1,530
24040 1 NODS 96 BUNTU - SELARANG 1996 21,522 18,320 1,789 4,087 34 388 1,962 337 106 4 2 4,023 27,029 48,551 52,574
24040 2 NODS 96 BUTU (BMB) -SLARANG 1996 1,391 274 309 479 11 293 475 293 29 397 2,163 3,554 3,951
24040 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 859 946 0.890 1999 1,371 352 408 351 56 8 5 395 1,180 2,551 2,946 1,911 1,241
24040 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 946 2,962 20.160 1999 806 301 332 358 137 3 2 2 472 1,135 1,941 2,413 3,188 1,196
24041 NODS 96 RAWALO - MANGANTI 1996 64 3 20 32 8 491 80 57 634 698 755
24041 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 2,050 2,300 2.500 1999 3,401 1,248 1,275 1,446 176 331 201 134 151 51 86 1,555 5,099 8,500 10,055 9,101 5,262
Count 24042 1 NODS 96 RAWALO - SAMPANG 1996 73 37 177 274 71 1,882 2,004 7,955 10,197 28 22,597 22,670 22,698
24042 2 NODS 96 SAMPANG - BUNTU 1996 63 16 39 61 6 162 441 734 750 54 2,209 2,272 2,326
24042 1 NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan oleh Bina Marga 1996 60 11 43 66 1 23 1,052 299 160 44 1,655 1,715 1,759
24042 2 NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan oleh Bina Marga 1996 69 37 178 276 71 1,881 1,573 7,269 10,643 25 21,928 21,997 22,022
24042 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,740 2,150 4.100 1999 1,762 990 830 1,372 362 161 155 103 66 48 323 1,708 4,410 6,172 7,880 1,077 4,549
24042 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 859 1,720 8.610 1999 2,036 1,019 794 1,304 108 149 137 91 156 56 94 1,474 3,908 5,944 7,418 7,258 4,033 4,122
24043 NODS 96 PATIKRAJA - RAWALO 1996 253 41 113 175 26 683 1,648 2,439 4,437 273 9,562 9,815 10,088
24043 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,135 2,050 9.187 1999 2,234 1,151 934 1,104 440 164 68 46 14 14 84 522 4,019 6,253 6,775 5,884 4,146
24044 NODS 96 PATIKRAJA - PURWOKERTO 1996 188 19 119 184 4 111 880 556 602 34 2,475 2,663 2,697
24044 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,235 1,899 6.640 1999 5,920 1,934 1,607 1,687 278 184 91 61 52 20 26 1,052 5,940 11,860 12,912 8,227 6,129
Count 24045 K1 NODS 96 JL. GERILYA - VET PURWOKERTO 1996 104 36 149 231 46 1,235 1,573 6,470 10,919 49 20,659 20,763 20,812
24045 K2 NODS 96 MONUMEN GATOT SUBROTO 1996 239 36 183 283 7 196 1,520 953 598 96 3,776 4,015 4,111
24045 NODS 96 SUKARAJA - PURWOKERTO 1996 65 3 30 47 1 18 345 115 102 10 661 726 736
24045 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 848 1,798 9.500 1999 7,839 3,857 2,364 1,542 277 466 107 72 66 24 29 1,190 8,804 16,643 17,833 10,522 9,266 5,969
24045 21K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 493 4.930 1999 6,638 4,007 3,422 1,910 1,475 685 153 103 93 97 22 2,632 11,967 18,605 21,237 12,893 12,600 6,575
24045 22K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 493 725 2.250 1999 1,309 520 410 441 165 27 12 8 4 4 1,200 1,591 2,900 4,100 1,314 1,677 1,032
24045 23K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,270 1,379 1.190 1998 1,080 429 339 364 137 22 10 7 4 3 990 1,315 2,395 3,385
24045 24K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,379 1,540 1.710 1998 2,372 943 744 799 311 48 22 15 8 7 2,169 2,897 5,269 7,438
24045 25K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,540 1,780 2.500 1998 1,080 429 339 364 137 22 10 7 4 3 990 1,315 2,395 3,385
24045 26K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,780 1,975 2.270 1998 2,372 943 744 799 311 48 22 15 8 7 2,169 2,897 5,269 7,438
24046 NODS 96 KALIORI - PAATIKRAJA 1996 62 2 26 40 1 18 302 112 98 7 599 661 668
24046 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 268 1,135 8.670 1999 1,234 289 116 677 5 10 10 6 32 2 2 1,375 1,149 2,383 3,758 1,629 1,214 1,298
24047 NODS 96 KALIORI - SUKARAJA 1996 93 2 73 113 1 17 173 130 87 32 596 689 721
24047 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 268 851 5.830 1999 3,121 1,509 927 1,445 312 291 47 30 47 23 6 216 4,637 7,758 7,974 6,614 4,882 6,401
24048 NODS 96 BANYUMAS - KALIORI 1996 187 32 64 100 33 887 1,503 3,880 3,099 51 9,598 9,785 9,836
24048 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 268 2.680 1999 3,715 1,533 992 1,399 255 286 50 34 31 25 2 2,223 4,607 8,322 10,545 7,234 4,852 5,951
(C) 24049 NODS 96 BANYUMAS - BUNTU 1996 277 17 107 167 18 489 1,373 1,512 3,411 142 7,094 7,371 7,513
24049 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 859 8.590 1999 2,711 1,314 684 1,052 352 344 43 28 45 28 1 53 3,891 6,602 6,655 5,881 4,016 4,728
OD 24050 1 NODS 96 KEBUMEN - BUNTU 1996 50 3 44 68 15 410 949 832 1,816 56 4,137 4,187 4,243
Survey 24050 2 NODS 96 KEBUMEN - BUNTU 1996 1,505 1,314 1,097 784 81 683 1,072 1,721 425 26 2 263 7,205 8,710 8,973
24050 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 8,532 11,590 30.580 1999 4,642 1,901 1,171 2,210 121 501 151 102 340 125 14 1,651 6,636 11,278 12,929 8,247 6,842
24050 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 859 2,790 19.310 1999 2,241 1,711 1,016 1,851 164 518 209 139 245 202 22 1,074 6,077 8,318 9,392 6,965 6,267
OD 24051 1 NODS 96 BANYUMAS - KLAMPOK (BMU) 1996 873 437 155 600 64 412 470 572 89 1 230 2,800 3,673 3,903
Survey 24051 2 NODS 96 BANYUMAS (BMT) - KLAMPOK 1996 1,167 1,429 228 884 1,462 9,409 1,389 9,799 1,085 12 255 25,697 26,864 27,119
24051 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 825 8.275 1999 942 432 524 720 1 8 12 8 46 31 100 1,782 2,724 2,824 3,558 1,837
24051 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 825 1,823 9.980 1999 969 449 542 724 1 5 15 10 49 31 115 1,826 2,795 2,910 6,736 1,884
24052 1 NODS 96 SOKARAJA - PURBALINGGO (BMT) 1996 434 486 85 330 560 3,603 317 4,222 232 3 53 9,838 10,272 10,325
24052 2 NODS 96 SOKARAJA (BMO) - PURBOLINGGO 1996 2,940 1,861 276 356 62 1,145 1,141 665 70 2 1,192 5,578 8,518 9,710
24052 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 848 1,346 4.980 1999 3,414 1,824 1,853 1,731 312 263 161 107 117 14 4 1,750 6,386 9,800 11,550 7,620 6,725 6,557
24052 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,346 1,924 5.797 1999 4,684 2,320 1,373 1,866 428 177 62 42 63 40 1,454 6,371 11,055 12,509 7,233 6,708 7,223
24053 NODS 96 PURBALINGGA - BOBOTSARI 1996 3,876 2,582 242 313 87 1,608 1,443 830 181 5 2,226 7,291 11,167 13,393
24053 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,925 2,925 10.000 1999 3,695 1,027 1,611 1,568 136 6 54 37 1 188 4,440 8,135 8,323 3,063 4,678 5,536
24054 NODS 96 KLAMPOK - PURBALINGGA 1996 1,280 420 221 226 111 440 1,013 940 196 1 112 3,568 4,848 4,960
24054 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,823 3,330 15.070 1999 2,317 887 423 1,111 238 110 16 10 24 30 1 1,489 2,850 5,167 6,656 3,973 3,004 2,780
24055 NODS 96 KLAMPOK - BANJARNEGARA 1996 1,705 456 196 200 301 1,191 1,244 826 193 4,414 6,119 6,312
24055 ATC 1998 3,118 834 358 366 550 2,178 2,275 1,511 8,072 11,190
24055 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,823 4,940 31.170 1999 1,968 1,190 1,048 829 206 110 399 266 38 21 1 91 4,108 6,076 6,167 7,242 4,235 4,830
(C) 24056 1 NODS 96 BANJARNEGARA - SELOKROMO (BMU) 1996 901 271 55 56 499 90 81 971 1,872 1,953
24056 2 NODS 96 BANJARNEGARA (KDU) - SELOKROM 1996 935 1,009 145 368 6 476 1,035 953 71 3 79 4,066 5,001 5,080
24056 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 4,939 6,610 16.710 1999 3,212 1,635 1,332 663 161 26 118 79 13 1,990 4,027 7,239 9,229 6,880 4,153 4,597
24056 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 7,313 7,408 0.950 1999 2,065 1,016 539 941 267 169 552 368 36 35 3,888 5,953 5,988 5,202 4,010 5,740
Count 24057 NODS 96 PREMBUN - KEBUMEN 1996 627 1,391 152 385 153 605 1,131 2,877 3,724 19 81 10,437 11,064 11,145
24057 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,852 8,532 16.801 1999 2,508 952 1,339 1,418 302 386 178 117 270 186 243 2,132 5,391 7,899 10,031 4,683 5,562
24058 1 NODS 96 PREMBUN - SELOKROMO 1996 2,433 138 112 85 7 70 562 433 1 1,462 1,408 3,841 5,303
24058 2 NODS 96 PREMBUN - SELOKROMO 1996 4,071 183 357 271 18 178 1,176 822 1,943 3,005 7,076 9,019
24058 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,852 8,508 16.560 1999 298 122 125 160 121 407 705 826 1,164 428 619
24058 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,508 12,332 38.240 1999 256 112 97 106 44 33 22 92 414 670 762 1,534 437 703
24059 NODS 96 WONOSOBO - SELOKROMO 1996 850 39 95 72 1 8 675 150 1 394 1,041 1,891 2,285
24059 ATC 1998 4,301 197 481 364 5 40 3,416 759 5 5,268 9,569
24059 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 6,153 7,313 11.600 1999 3,405 1,608 1,139 1,398 548 120 115 77 21 355 5,026 8,431 8,786 4,020 5,186
(C) 24060 NODS 96 KUTOARJO - PREMBUN 1996 2,372 1,706 1,223 1,079 69 768 1,170 1,456 443 28 2 947 7,944 10,316 11,263
24060 N A NDLea-IRMS 5,590 6,852 12.652 1999 3,167 1,876 1,616 747 20 531 802 534 199 70 18 882 6,413 9,580 10,462 6,562 6,615 6,815
Count 24061 NODS 96 KERTEK - WONOSOBO 1996 9,526 8,650 3,011 2,657 3,229 35,942 2,646 5,404 3,433 217 16 3,195 65,205 74,731 77,926
24061 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 5,330 6,153 8.353 1999 2,789 1,922 1,506 1,191 145 92 53 36 45 21 4,990 7,779 7,800 3,896 5,148 8,151
24062 1 NODS 96 KUTOARJO - KEPIL 1996 17,702 13,956 5,421 4,783 3,333 37,094 3,536 7,084 2,049 130 9 2,561 77,395 95,097 97,658
24062 2 NODS 96 KUTOARJO - KEPIL 1996 195 87 15 302 15 45 420 304 74 114 1,262 1,457 1,571
24062 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 5,590 8,873 32.830 1999 392 115 178 110 79 53 240 535 927 1,167 1,160 564 196
24062 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 8,873 9,700 8.270 1999 283 147 150 151 66 44 146 558 841 987 1,914 588 367
(C) 24063 NODS 96 PURWOREJO - KUTOARJO 1996 180 93 11 229 3 8 325 76 64 745 925 989
24063 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,421 5,590 11.793 1999 3,564 1,295 2,515 691 21 548 841 562 256 168 16 739 6,913 10,477 11,216 4,780 7,133 7,916
24064 1 NODS 96 MARON - KEPIL 1996 859 551 415 549 23 165 1,071 494 617 55 11 55 3,951 4,810 4,865
24064 2 NODS 96 MARON - KEPIL 1996 245 214 104 138 15 106 405 72 7 1,054 1,299 1,306
24064 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,637 4,681 10.440 1999 942 310 227 143 80 141 93 9 3 229 1,006 1,948 2,177 1,910 1,061 1,157
24064 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,681 5,542 8.610 1999 410 141 284 139 57 18 96 64 9 8 192 816 1,226 1,418 2,166 857 1,228
Count 24065 NODS 96 KERTEK - KEPIL 1996 930 573 389 515 12 88 413 44 297 26 5 199 2,362 3,292 3,491
24065 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,330 7,211 18.810 1999 1,120 699 631 506 8 5 1,849 2,969 2,969 3,550 1,947 1,856
Count 24066 1 NODS 96 PARAKAN - KRETEK (KDT) 1996 795 896 705 301 24 458 1,149 649 33 4 4,215 5,010 5,014
24066 2 NODS 96 PARAKAN (KDU) - KRETEK 1996 726 896 953 407 29 560 848 451 25 3 4,169 4,895 4,898
24066 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,230 4,378 11.480 1999 2,393 1,525 1,118 1,295 270 105 172 114 28 1 19 4,628 7,021 7,040 4,357 4,775
24066 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 4,378 5,330 9.520 1999 896 907 892 1,151 121 73 88 59 22 7 17 84 3,337 4,233 4,317 5,518 3,445
24067 NODS 96 PERTIGAAN BULU - PARAKAN 1996 1,416 1,627 2,215 946 24 464 904 497 55 5 6,732 8,148 8,153
24067 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,117 3,230 1.130 1999 5,513 2,377 1,765 1,644 217 85 514 342 13 65 6,957 12,470 12,535 12,451 7,174
24068 1 NODS 96 WELERI - PARAKAN 1996 542 434 604 258 23 431 313 556 24 2 2,643 3,185 3,187
24068 2 NODS 96 WELERI - PARAKAN 1996 853 537 220 463 175 193 450 601 67 118 2,706 3,559 3,677
24068 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,557 7,040 24.830 1999 1,454 689 909 713 298 28 18 4 2 18 179 2,679 4,133 4,312 4,130 2,822 1,744
24068 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,230 5,517 22.870 1999 2,074 967 1,009 791 161 32 379 253 2 54 3,594 5,668 5,722 4,322 3,785 2,986
(C) 24069 NODS 96 KEDU - PERTIGAAN BULU 1996 576 660 198 417 31 34 345 635 21 69 2,341 2,917 2,986
24069 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 2,844 3,331 4.870 1999 4,268 1,740 933 1,101 217 54 267 178 16 7 4,506 8,774 8,781 9,634 4,648 4,774
24070 NODS 96 TEMANGGUNG - PERTINGAAN BULU 1996 824 862 103 217 462 509 1,606 836 30 45 4,625 5,449 5,494
24070 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,249 3,117 8.680 1999 4,657 1,585 869 917 82 54 48 3,507 8,164 8,212 4,875 3,692 3,199
24071 NODS 96 TEMANGGUNG - KEDU 1996 298 405 45 95 385 425 836 641 16 3 2,848 3,146 3,149
24071 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 2,249 2,844 5.950 1999 2,264 1,266 1,160 1,874 236 169 233 155 65 13 176 5,171 7,435 7,611 7,154 5,332 5,209
24072 NODS 96 KRANGGAN - TEMANGGUNG 1996 2,843 1,461 1,393 704 10 715 1,330 1,156 88 115 6,857 9,700 9,815
24072 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,687 2,249 5.620 1999 5,568 3,716 1,484 2,545 298 111 106 71 82 224 8,413 13,981 14,205 11,909 8,676 6,275
24073 NODS 96 PRINGSURAT - KRANGGAN 1996 1,326 530 1,496 756 3 247 393 89 28 10 3,542 4,868 4,878
24073 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,488 2,271 7.830 1999 1,075 867 445 770 87 124 2,169 3,244 3,368 3,671 2,284 1,679
OD 24074 NODS 96 SECANG - KRANGGAN 1996 877 477 483 244 4 259 333 1,273 38 22 3,111 3,988 4,010
Survey 24074 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,011 1,687 6.760 1999 3,906 2,904 901 2,044 284 115 83 55 100 147 6,486 10,392 10,539 4,761 6,691 7,654
Count 24075 K1 NODS 96 JL. TIDAR 1996 805 400 680 344 5 367 225 260 53 2,334 3,139 3,139
24075 K2 NODS 96 JL. GATOT SUBROTO 1996 532 117 519 262 235 20 14 1,153 1,685 1,699
24075 K3 NODS 96 JL. PANCA ARGA 1996 2,557 316 729 369 1 40 297 81 3 316 1,836 4,393 4,709
24075 NODS 96 MAGELANG - SALAMAN 1996 1,660 272 558 282 13 518 154 1 359 1,798 3,458 3,817
24075 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 389 1,640 12.510 1999 7,513 2,517 1,680 1,182 318 314 254 168 92 43 9 786 6,577 14,090 14,876 4,490 6,928 6,183
24075 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 60 0.600 1999 8,012 8,728 2,749 1,052 4 6 30 21 371 12,590 20,602 20,973 17,687 13,253
24075 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 260 2.600 1999 11,453 5,237 1,897 1,379 13 7 75 50 9 2,812 8,667 20,120 22,932 10,045 9,129 4,821
24075 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 245 2.450 1999 7,950 3,225 4,346 1,053 348 241 261 175 52 22 8 695 9,731 17,681 18,376 7,704 10,248 9,839
24076 1 NODS 96 MAGELANG - SALATIGA 1996 742 109 477 241 5 286 17 9 249 1,144 1,886 2,135
24076 2 NODS 96 MAGELANG (SMB) - SALATIGA 1996 610 260 286 144 8 491 3 6 221 1,198 1,808 2,029
24076 K1 NODS 96 JL. HASANUDIN 1996 570 256 301 152 6 466 6 4 221 1,191 1,761 1,982
24076 K2 NODS 96 JL. A. YANI SALATIGA 1996 767 752 885 447 13 863 112 18 3,072 3,839 3,857
24076 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 434 2,890 24.560 1999 2,065 1,521 1,422 336 88 21 5 4 226 3,397 5,462 5,688 3,920 3,577 2,387
24076 2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,058 6,325 12.670 1999 1,619 1,082 1,011 414 384 21 4 3 1 46 2,920 4,539 4,585 5,773 3,075 2,077
24076 21K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,840 5,058 2.180 1999 4,848 2,094 1,116 1,171 231 21 26 17 3 930 4,679 9,527 10,457 4,567 4,929 4,630
24076 22K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,752 4,842 0.900 1999 5,670 1,457 413 767 6 9 6 2,864 2,658 8,328 11,192 2,740 2,798 3,032
24077 NODS 96 KEPREKAN - SALAMAN 1996 1,597 210 553 279 13 392 22 189 1,469 3,066 3,255
24077 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,146 2,942 17.960 1999 3,268 989 495 865 124 202 25 17 11 3 2,077 2,731 5,999 8,076 2,078 2,880 2,954
Count 24078 1 NODS 96 SALAMAN - MARON 1996 1,428 1,279 260 473 24 425 834 604 176 5 2 57 4,082 5,510 5,567 19,066
24078 2 NODS 96 SALAMAN - MARON 1996 473 519 139 253 992 17,567 313 471 110 3 1 6 20,368 20,841 20,847
24078 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,640 2,457 8.170 1999 1,051 384 1,116 583 248 212 289 193 68 38 8 345 3,139 4,190 4,535 4,698 3,306 3,963
24078 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,457 3,637 11.800 1999 2,102 955 544 499 415 108 402 268 74 32 9 315 3,306 5,408 5,723 5,526 3,481 4,336
(C) 24079 NODS 96 MARON - PURWOREJO 1996 457 299 126 228 68 1,204 339 162 15 12 2,441 2,898 2,910
24079 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,637 4,421 7.840 1999 3,188 1,449 826 757 630 164 609 406 113 48 12 476 5,014 8,202 8,678 5,526 5,280 3,613
Count 24080 NODS 96 PURWOREJO - KARANGNONGKO 1996 533 577 92 168 168 2,975 413 206 90 4,599 5,132 5,222
24080 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,421 6,410 19.900 1999 2,319 2,168 728 1,406 205 362 186 124 123 47 73 1,007 5,422 7,741 8,748 5,731 5,594
OD 24081 K1 NODS 96 JL. YOS SUDARSO 1996 373 152 54 98 278 44 582 955 999
Survey 24081 K2 NODS 96 JL. ARTERI 1996 753 1,528 163 296 316 5,596 245 250 37 1 9 8,432 9,185 9,194
24081 K3 NODS 96 JL. USMAN JANATIN 1996 264 355 55 101 256 4,533 69 1,812 27 7,181 7,445 7,472
24081 K4 NODS 96 RONGGOWARSITO 1996 557 729 219 398 535 1 1,881 2,438 2,439
24081 K5 NODS 96 PENGAPON 1996 75 124 46 83 88 1,558 194 118 1 2,211 2,286 2,287
24081 K6 NODS 96 JL. KALI GAWE 1996 82 47 5 10 16 283 280 103 29 1 774 856 856
24081 NODS 96 SEMARANG - DEMAK 1996 17,520 6,328 3,730 3,463 20 2,832 3,851 3,831 1,709 44 4 7,663 25,812 43,332 50,995
24081 N A NDLea-IRMS 800 2,634 18.340 1999 5,308 3,780 2,937 3,059 267 1,008 641 428 895 291 565 3,192 13,871 19,179 22,371 9,765 14,307 9,911
24081 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 76 0.760 1999 4,251 1,488 756 2,797 977 1,087 724 1,283 528 1,716 2,578 11,356 15,607 18,185 3,596 11,715
24081 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 76 556 4.800 1999 3,079 1,229 539 2,208 790 1,435 958 1,040 450 1,347 129 9,996 13,075 13,204 3,801 10,313
24081 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 120 1.200 1999 4,659 2,176 971 1,439 1,012 1,381 922 1,840 742 1,442 2,028 11,925 16,584 18,612 2,913 12,305
24081 14K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 130 1.300 1999 5,050 2,371 658 1,427 774 1,557 1,038 1,727 613 2,545 2,667 12,710 17,760 20,427 2,845 13,120
24081 15K N A NDLea-IRMS 105 210 1.050 1999 10,875 5,027 1,023 3,570 2,371 2,970 1,983 3,883 1,937 5,922 5,700 28,686 39,561 45,261 3,113 29,601
24081 16K N A NDLea-IRMS 216 800 5.840 1999 25,275 15,392 2,601 7,990 3,058 2,198 1,065 709 1,223 786 774 7,409 35,796 61,071 68,480 31,542 36,907
Count 24082 1 NODS 96 SEMARANG - GODONG 1996 8,372 3,442 1,294 988 13 648 1,731 1,840 232 2,493 10,188 18,560 21,053
24082 K1 NODS 96 JL. BRIGJEN KATAMSO SEMARANG 1996 2,032 785 463 354 1,999 124 3,601 5,633 5,757
24082 K2 NODS 96 JL. BRIGJEN. SUDIARTO 1996 3,938 1,556 1,179 900 3,986 255 7,621 11,559 11,814
24082 K3 NODS 96 TUGUMUDA - SP.LIMA A.YANI 1996 16,468 7,214 1,519 1,159 13 648 6,432 1,104 2,355 18,089 34,557 36,912
24082 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,140 4,470 30.569 1999 2,343 941 804 1,094 280 301 67 45 11 16 38 1,723 3,597 5,940 7,663 6,103 3,787 4,127
24082 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 60 0.600 1999 38,916 21,438 5,994 3,468 581 90 320 213 47 16 2,945 32,167 71,083 74,028 38,615 33,862 18,712
24082 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 705 7.050 1999 36,847 19,223 5,493 3,017 493 60 305 203 38 10 3,426 28,842 65,689 69,115 45,282 30,364 16,272
24082 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 80 0.800 1999 40,818 28,770 2,411 2,521 443 305 17 11 17 3,706 34,495 75,313 79,019 35,898 36,314 20,245
24082 14K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 80 180 1.000 1999 1,069 349 359 614 97 8 14 10 6 3 6 865 1,466 2,535 3,400
24082 15K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 180 360 1.800 1999 1,069 349 359 614 97 8 14 10 6 3 6 865 1,466 2,535 3,400
24083 NODS 96 DEMAK - GODONG 1996 21,005 4,227 2,644 2,018 15 741 7,972 5,704 77 3,390 23,398 44,403 47,793
24083 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,634 4,630 19.960 1999 1,069 349 359 614 97 8 14 10 6 3 6 865 1,466 2,535 3,400 3,718 1,543 1,245
24084 NODS 96 DEMAK - TRENGGULI 1996 15,437 6,581 1,845 1,408 50 2,499 4,222 1,288 5,963 17,893 33,330 39,293 15,148
24084 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,634 3,260 6.200 1999 4,086 3,904 2,049 2,683 268 1,055 691 459 830 220 441 659 12,600 16,686 17,345 7,908 12,996 13,457
(C) 24085 1 NODS 96 TRENGGULI - MARGOYOSO 1996 14,302 11,097 394 300 613 920 926 13,324 27,626 28,552
24085 2 NODS 96 TRENGGULI (PTB) - MARGOYOSO 1996 1,381 552 377 317 4 285 520 729 55 895 2,839 4,220 5,115
24085 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,260 4,402 11.440 1999 3,805 1,040 1,240 1,218 96 42 28 14 6 10 1,093 3,694 7,499 8,592 5,283 3,892 1,294
24085 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,202 5,116 9.140 1999 2,716 1,074 1,185 1,283 412 28 50 34 10 9 29 1,322 4,114 6,830 8,152 6,914 4,334 3,711
24086 1 NODS 96 TRENGGULI - JATI (SMT) 1996 1,826 772 2,251 1,892 357 17,774 3,971 21,287 10,440 8,670 58,744 60,570 69,240
24086 2 NODS 96 TRENGGULI (PTB) - JATI 1996 2,739 2,026 551 641 11 826 1,816 1,891 807 57 7 859 8,633 11,372 12,231
24086 1 ATC 1998 715 302 881 740 140 6,956 1,554 8,330 4,086 22,988 23,703
24086 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,260 4,596 13.360 1999 3,773 2,926 1,197 3,209 330 1,120 716 476 1,169 380 608 857 12,131 15,904 16,761 5,527 12,514
24086 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,596 4,860 2.640 1999 2,897 2,288 974 2,482 246 839 550 367 885 290 513 685 9,434 12,331 13,016 5,594 9,732
(C) 24087 NODS 96 KUDUS - MARGOYOSO 1996 3,396 923 165 1,041 19 133 613 1,423 83 3 1 1,243 4,404 7,800 9,043
24087 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,132 6,680 15.480 1999 5,964 1,149 2,133 1,243 144 67 79 53 45 16 20 915 4,949 10,913 11,828 6,817 5,211 7,295
24088 NODS 96 JATI - KUDUS 1996 1,007 1,518 442 2,788 190 2,006 4,938 5,945 7,951 19,324
24088 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,860 5,132 2.720 1999 15,033 3,152 3,648 2,513 318 707 571 380 433 150 240 1,029 12,112 27,145 28,174 16,970 12,490
24089 NODS 96 MARGOYOSO - JEPORO 1996 788 1,331 68 431 1,769 2,333 25,754 5,932 6,720 32,474
24089 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,116 7,000 17.089 1999 6,683 2,080 2,929 1,268 227 93 91 61 65 21 29 235 6,864 13,547 13,782 7,818 7,229 9,444
(C) 24090 1 NODS 96 JEPORO - TAYU 1996 1,973 236 10 279 2 176 280 380 5 166 1,368 3,341 3,507
24090 2 NODS 96 JEPORO - TAYU 1996 7,252 2,042 136 3,786 370 4 6,334 13,586 13,590
24090 K1 NODS 96 JL.LINGKAR JEPORO 1996 7,001 2,027 134 3,747 367 4 6,275 13,276 13,280
24090 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,065 10,686 36.580 1999 2,617 432 785 696 116 29 19 16 2 16 276 2,111 4,728 5,004 1,930 2,227 3,874
24090 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,794 7,415 6.210 1999 2,014 197 1,035 249 53 5 15 10 6 1 2 542 1,573 3,587 4,129 2,793 1,657 479
24090 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,000 7,065 0.650 1999 2,349 408 779 681 104 23 14 14 5 9 298 2,037 4,386 4,684
24090 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,686 12,638 19.150 1999 2,349 408 779 681 104 23 14 14 5 9 298 2,037 4,386 4,684 2,087 2,148 1,120
(C) 24091 1 NODS 96 KUDUS - PATI (PATI BARAT) 1996 6,460 197 191 5,328 79 507 7 6,302 12,762 12,769 10,419
24091 2 NODS 96 KUDUS(PTU) - PATI 1996 3,288 3,112 495 526 20 959 1,806 4,116 936 35 3 628 12,008 15,296 15,924
24091 K1 NODS 96 JL.LINGKAR SELATAN 1996 3,608 7,978 179 190 13,109 597 21,456 25,064 25,661
24091 K2 NODS 96 JL.LINGKAR UTARA PATI 1996 2,882 7,469 169 179 11,132 722 18,949 21,831 22,553
24091 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 5,132 6,580 14.480 1999 6,825 1,914 2,290 2,504 217 581 308 206 628 182 291 3,429 9,121 15,946 19,375 13,176 9,406 9,818
24091 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,580 7,537 9.570 1999 4,349 1,589 2,120 1,875 345 412 241 160 253 149 238 2,177 7,382 11,731 13,908 16,382 7,612 6,204
24091 21K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,348 7,835 4.870 1999 1,427 340 1,006 1,629 168 436 147 99 195 108 142 1,245 4,270 5,697 6,942 4,646 4,501
24091 22K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,340 7,520 1.800 1999 8,185 3,578 1,728 781 203 9 5 7,499 6,304 14,489 21,988 3,660 6,639 5,583
24091 23K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,520 7,642 1.220 1999 3,468 792 1,228 1,112 161 38 37 26 44 20 20 1,652 3,478 6,946 8,598
24092 NODS 96 PATI - TAYU 1996 2,501 4,555 177 188 810 3,528 193 18,165 9,451 11,952 30,117
24092 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,535 10,147 24.280 1999 3,468 792 1,228 1,112 161 38 37 26 44 20 20 1,652 3,478 6,946 8,598 3,820 3,666 3,485
24093 NODS 96 PATI - REMBANG 1996 1,993 1,780 256 349 22 763 988 2,524 811 38 5 325 7,536 9,529 9,854
24093 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,535 11,030 34.950 1999 3,190 1,323 1,062 1,908 329 589 312 209 585 193 258 1,394 6,768 9,958 11,352 8,411 6,981
24094 NODS 96 REMBANG BULU - BTS. JATIM 1996 856 928 228 459 21 459 516 1,677 865 5 6 303 5,164 6,020 6,323
24094 ATC 1998 1,309 1,420 349 702 32 702 789 2,565 1,323 8 9 7,900 9,209
24094 N A NDLea-IRMS 11,030 15,926 48.960 1999 1,928 770 577 554 163 288 267 178 276 169 217 1,096 3,459 5,387 6,483 5,436 3,570
(C) 24095 1 NODS 96 BLORA - REMBANG 1996 1,460 3,916 367 739 668 3,488 1,225 7 9 1,456 10,419 11,879 13,335
24095 2 NODS 96 BLORA - REMBANG 1996 968 434 64 346 8 63 317 650 55 7 1 298 1,945 2,913 3,211
24095 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,030 13,599 25.690 1999 2,262 574 528 514 141 55 59 39 11 4 105 1,316 2,030 4,292 5,608 3,169 2,138 2,178
24095 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 13,599 14,637 11.003 1999 2,516 580 555 647 134 57 79 53 16 3 9 1,418 2,133 4,649 6,067 3,157 2,247 1,652
(C) 24096 NODS 96 BLORA - CEPU 1996 802 374 36 197 219 123 826 1,628 1,751
24096 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 12,715 15,960 32.450 1999 2,493 878 825 755 181 84 105 70 14 6 6 1,794 2,924 5,417 7,211 2,977 3,082 2,756
24097 NODS 96 CEPU - BTS. JATIM 1996 5,072 1,165 7 463 3 454 67 2,115 26 3 119 4,303 9,375 9,494
24097 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,960 16,009 0.490 1999 5,897 1,702 851 651 231 184 143 96 18 6 10 4,452 3,892 9,789 14,241 4,104 4,100 2,407
24098 1 NODS 96 WIROSARI - CEPU (SMT) 1996 1,296 49 17 179 16 39 151 425 12 226 888 2,184 2,410
24098 2 NODS 96 WIROSARI (PTS) - CEPU 1996 1,353 49 15 159 149 449 247 821 2,174 2,421
24098 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,410 10,828 24.180 1999 2,412 581 378 379 160 31 22 9 1,672 1,560 3,972 5,644 1,486 1,643 597
24098 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,828 15,240 44.120 1999 2,968 613 426 379 166 34 23 6 1,681 1,647 4,615 6,296 1,731 1,735 348
(C) 24099 1 NODS 96 WIROSARI - BLORA 1996 4,410 241 51 532 56 137 503 41 1,914 1,561 5,971 7,885
24099 2 NODS 96 WIROSARI - BLORA 1996 3,840 215 62 653 88 215 457 9 1,702 1,699 5,539 7,241
24099 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,410 10,012 16.020 1999 3,665 1,060 655 764 191 167 93 62 22 9 14 2,991 3,037 6,702 9,693 2,825 3,200 1,838
24099 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,012 12,715 27.030 1999 2,500 827 589 511 160 139 76 50 17 8 10 2,223 2,387 4,887 7,110 2,949 2,516 2,122
(C) 24100 NODS 96 PURWODADI - WIROSARI 1996 2,022 259 37 390 228 43 914 2,936 2,979
24100 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,280 8,410 21.300 1999 2,915 740 869 998 132 176 95 64 24 12 18 2,461 3,128 6,043 8,504 3,449 3,298 2,876
24101 1 NODS 96 JATI - PURWODADI (PTB) 1996 1,646 226 117 17 18 145 230 324 16 2,415 1,093 2,739 5,154
24101 2 NODS 96 JATI(PTS) - PURWODADI 1996 1,192 98 140 20 128 312 351 11 1,569 1,060 2,252 3,821
24101 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,860 7,730 28.700 1999 913 335 414 530 89 25 16 8 4 8 733 1,429 2,342 3,075 1,922 1,507 1,231
24101 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,730 9,070 13.400 1999 861 290 371 475 87 22 14 682 1,259 2,120 2,802 1,684 1,329 2,071
24102 NODS 96 GODONG - PURWODARI 1996 4,361 1,658 196 405 7 543 952 844 95 3,997 4,700 9,061 13,058
24102 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,470 6,280 18.100 1999 3,739 1,038 844 1,031 121 400 99 66 21 13 13 1,980 3,646 7,385 9,365 4,448 3,838 3,466
Count 24103 1 NODS 96 SURAKARTA - PURWODADI 1996 6,224 1,247 265 747 134 621 1,223 1,435 51 8 4 779 5,735 11,959 12,738
24103 1K NODS 96 JLN. TEROBOSAN/TENTARA PELAJAR 1996 7,241 1,485 1,784 5,030 2,783 5,773 11,082 18,323 24,096
24103 2 NODS 96 SURAKARTA - PURWODADI 1996 1,472 843 70 57 19 267 514 1,076 70 1 103 2,917 4,389 4,492
24103 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 519 3,965 34.460 1999 4,640 803 1,258 1,112 324 395 545 364 138 32 2 557 4,973 9,613 10,170 7,030 5,237 3,761
24103 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 195 1.950 1999 20,242 3,875 3,572 2,294 637 167 73 49 6 15,989 10,673 30,915 46,904 9,908 11,237 6,527
24103 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 318 3.180 1999 6,406 1,226 533 909 118 107 888 592 359 271 97 1,340 5,100 11,506 12,846 8,912 5,373 11,018
24103 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,460 8,717 20.676 1999 4,977 1,308 1,132 1,086 102 324 108 71 14 9 10 1,214 4,164 9,141 10,355 5,817 4,387 3,057
24104 NODS 96 PALUR - KARANGANYAR 1996 15,143 7,479 4,053 631 19 3,698 5,430 4,181 1,085 39 9 3,209 26,624 41,767 44,976
24104 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 580 1,528 9.480 1999 9,328 2,963 1,796 1,610 171 789 671 447 25 15 12 1,832 8,499 17,827 19,659 10,867 8,949 8,307
Count 24105 NODS 96 KARANGANYAR - BTS. JATIM 1996 15,612 7,016 3,845 599 5,403 1,161 1,085 39 9 4,153 19,157 34,769 38,922
24105 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,520 5,000 34.850 1999 2,918 804 797 601 105 386 118 79 10 250 2,900 5,818 6,068 2,987 3,054 1,711
Count 24106 K1 NODS 96 JL. BRIG. SUDIARTO 1996 17,191 13,193 2,698 420 4 719 6,687 232 46,059 23,953 41,144 87,203
24106 K2 NODS 96 JL. VETERAN 1996 26,618 9,575 2,722 424 14,979 1,394 1,705 61 14 4,719 30,874 57,492 62,211
24106 K3 NODS 96 JL. BAYANGKARA SURAKARTA 1996 59,932 2,559 7,508 1,169 13 2,465 15,621 3,484 377,152 32,819 92,751 469,903
24106 K4 NODS 96 JL. DR. RAJIMAN SURAKARTA 1996 45,194 4,412 4,053 631 5 1,027 17,841 2,323 474,366 30,292 75,486 549,852
24106 K5 NODS 96 JL. AGUS SALIM SURAKARTA 1996 97,448 13,943 14,222 2,214 36,780 3,484 2,790 100 23 829,432 73,556 171,004 1,000,436
24106 K6 NODS 96 JL KAPTEN MULYADI 1996 90,581 30,401 12,940 2,015 45 8,834 22,629 3,020 256,342 79,884 170,465 426,807
24106 K7 NODS 96 JL.JUANDA 1996 28,537 9,531 6,604 1,028 3 616 40,792 13,472 19,254 72,046 100,583 119,837
24106 NODS 96 SURAKARTA - SUKOHARJO 1996 30,969 3,662 4,224 658 10,459 3,020 726,367 22,023 52,992 779,359
24106 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 343 1,395 10.520 1999 18,531 5,206 447 2,764 631 486 365 243 29 2 9 4,311 10,182 28,713 33,024 13,260 10,720 11,178
24106 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 88 0.880 1999 20,617 4,451 820 3,006 844 2 93 62 7 9 8,471 9,294 29,911 38,382 9,779 9,784 10,470
24106 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 220 2.200 1999 17,770 3,632 3,388 2,807 1,464 57 311 208 17 7,337 11,884 29,654 36,991 9,032 12,513 6,060
24106 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 120 1.200 1999 18,413 5,364 2,057 2,343 1,263 24 16 5,021 11,067 29,480 34,501 4,718 11,658 10,622
24106 14K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 218 2.180 1999 36,734 7,307 4,208 3,444 2,565 5 62 43 19 7,326 17,653 54,387 61,713 3,700 18,602 249
24106 15K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 70 0.700 1999 10,283 2,529 1,019 1,149 483 713 409 273 18 6 18 2,583 6,617 16,900 19,483 3,378 6,970 2,351
24106 16K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 255 2.550 1999 43,860 17,056 2,579 4,289 2,442 12 6,175 26,378 70,238 76,413 10,882 27,772
24106 17K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 295 2.950 1999 25,063 6,535 1,607 5,030 1,247 1,102 437 290 103 18 21 13,940 16,390 41,453 55,393 5,887 17,260 11,612
24106 18K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 320 3.200 1999 5,597 2,297 1,428 1,217 200 1 209 140 37 1,809 5,529 11,126 12,935 11,382 5,819 12,036
24107 1 NODS 96 SUKUHARJO - WONOGIRI 1996 358,335 248,815 37,271 5,803 170 33,179 52,080 150,284 18,290 657 152 623,490 546,701 905,036 1,528,526
24107 2 NODS 96 SUKOHARJO (SKS) - WONOGIRI 1996 3,951 1,914 467 783 20 1,003 1,157 805 76 7 1 467 6,233 10,184 10,651
24107 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,395 2,311 9.160 1999 9,459 2,586 785 1,625 219 495 462 308 27 1 846 6,508 15,967 16,813 8,949 6,853 5,303
24107 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,310 3,214 9.040 1999 7,316 3,417 1,459 1,047 171 887 66 44 19 10 11 1,176 7,131 14,447 15,623 6,966 7,510 6,703
(C) 24108 NODS 96 WONOGIRI - BITTING 1996 570 172 216 301 7 28 341 425 6 58 1,496 2,066 2,124
24108 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,214 8,351 50.450 1999 2,295 1,441 809 439 122 308 13 9 9 3 4 74 3,157 5,452 5,526 3,029 3,328 3,800
(C) 24109 1 NODS 96 NAGADIREJO - GIRIWOYO 1996 530 164 147 205 4 18 303 365 7 53 1,213 1,743 1,796
24109 2 NODS 96 GIRIWOYO - GLONGGONG 1996 635 101 111 154 8 31 409 303 80 135 1,197 1,832 1,967
24109 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,045 7,720 36.750 1999 1,380 664 1,063 887 132 302 11 8 8 3 5 134 3,083 4,463 4,597 2,318 3,249 2,419
24109 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 7,720 8,370 6.500 1999 1,150 541 878 703 106 243 12 8 7 1 1 324 2,500 3,650 3,974 2,507 2,579
24110 NODS 96 SRUWEN - KR. GEDE 1996 1,001 120 185 268 6 170 179 109 3 28 1,040 2,041 2,069
24110 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 5,913 7,488 15.750 1999 1,101 326 642 399 106 6 4 71 1,483 2,584 2,655 1,612 1,563 1,525
24111 NODS 96 KUDUS - COLO 1996 701 81 279 404 1 17 135 1 5 918 1,619 1,624
24111 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 5,150 6,940 17.900 1999 4,026 692 841 510 81 11 11 9 10 3 3 1,045 2,171 6,197 7,242 2,395 2,287 2,030
(C) 24112 1 NODS 96 PATI - GROBOGAN 1996 416 98 205 296 7 201 190 104 9 4 1,110 1,526 1,530
24112 2 NODS 96 PATI - GROBOGAN 1996 1,310 276 97 174 2 236 223 471 21 419 1,500 2,810 3,229
24112 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,537 10,750 32.130 1999 2,090 482 859 755 137 10 6 10 1,183 2,259 4,349 5,532 1,935 2,381 1,774
24112 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,750 11,640 8.900 1999 1,508 325 580 511 99 7 5 7 829 1,534 3,042 3,871 1,773 1,618 2,093
(C) 24113 1 NODS 96 BOBOTSARI - RANDUDONGKAL 1996 1,321 281 100 180 2 240 222 490 22 426 1,537 2,858 3,284
24113 2 NODS 96 BOBOTSARI (PKT) - RANDUDONGKAL 1996 423 156 211 287 6 171 366 236 8 4 1,441 1,864 1,868
24113 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,971 9,223 13.230 1999 1,476 712 472 846 89 12 9 6 9 1 2 856 2,158 3,634 4,490 2,200 2,271 2,250
24113 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,430 7,971 15.561 1999 1,335 694 426 815 88 13 9 6 10 2 2 858 2,065 3,400 4,258 2,118 2,177 2,408
24114 NODS 96 WONOSOBO - KEJAJAR 1996 1,163 260 958 1,303 74 2,111 2,085 1,347 22 12 8,160 9,323 9,335
24114 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,153 7,705 15.520 1999 2,611 840 1,832 714 3,386 5,997 5,997 2,837 3,565 3,612
24115 NODS 96 GEMOLONG - ANDONG 1996 973 172 136 565 44 86 176 338 9 34 1,526 2,499 2,533
24115 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,045 3,065 10.200 1999 2,277 362 533 546 125 6 4 4 657 1,580 3,857 4,514 1,716 1,667 2,646
24116 NODS 96 SANGKAL PUTUNG - BOYOLALI 1996 3,600 968 133 494 42 83 582 491 12 936 2,805 6,405 7,341
24116 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,360 5,420 20.600 1999 5,437 1,061 1,137 977 130 17 11 10 2,266 3,343 8,780 11,046 3,507 3,521 3,096
24117 NODS 96 WONOGIRI - BLIMBING 1996 2,975 689 106 395 32 63 382 370 8 2,409 2,045 5,020 7,429
24117 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,210 6,560 30.585 1999 1,273 399 708 378 84 158 9 6 4 2 3 272 1,751 3,024 3,296 2,379 1,844 1,639
Count 24118 NODS 96 BATANG - BLADO 1996 3,483 1,074 118 440 26 52 691 925 30 1,585 3,356 6,839 8,424
24118 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 856 3,500 26.440 1999 1,132 322 931 407 78 3 2 5 706 1,748 2,880 3,586 2,787 1,840 1,706
24119 NODS 96 KETANGGUNGAN - BANTARSARI 1996 984 226 20 74 5 10 102 24 1 405 462 1,446 1,851
24119 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,661 9,213 15.520 1999 1,330 444 343 425 50 30 6 4 6 2 2 1,240 1,312 2,642 3,882 3,626 1,382 1,323
24120 NODS 96 WIRADESA - KALIBENING 1996 102 39 14 18 25 71 228 103 8 56 506 608 664
24120 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 690 5,930 52.400 1999 1,379 222 226 415 943 863 2,242 3,185 1,176 910 1,154
24121 NODS 96 PURWOKERTO - BATURADEN 1996 61 26 7 9 15 29 105 418 32 286 641 702 988
24121 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,600 2,900 12.594 1999 1,815 1,273 892 252 82 10 6 4 4 212 2,523 4,338 4,550 5,109 2,656 3,947
24122 NODS 96 GOMBONG - SEMPOR 1996 22 4 5 6 13 25 46 321 54 90 474 496 586
24122 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 10,781 11,588 8.070 1999 1,404 245 280 377 3 1,087 905 2,309 3,396 918 954 652
24123 NODS 96 AMBARAWA - BANDUNGAN 1996 33 5 4 5 10 19 57 194 45 158 339 372 530
24123 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,745 4,395 6.500 1999 1,636 624 902 469 76 4 11 8 4 130 2,098 3,734 3,864 3,813 2,210 2,164
24124 NODS 96 WANAYASA - KALIBENING 1996 91 39 11 14 8 16 148 37 16 176 289 380 556
24124 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,881 9,826 19.450 1999 475 191 257 241 3 1 214 693 1,168 1,382 1,019 730 700
24125 NODS 96 WANAYASA - BATUR 1996 91 39 11 14 8 16 148 37 38 174 311 402 576
24125 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,885 9,100 12.150 1999 375 149 221 279 199 649 1,024 1,223 998 685 520
24126 NODS 96 PURWANNTORO - NAWANGAN 1996 156 14 9 323 7 27 97 3 10 480 636 646
24126 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,820 9,350 14.390 1999 981 892 414 426 89 363 1,821 2,802 3,165 1,255 1,918 816
Count 24127 NODS 96 GIRIWOYO - DUWET 1996 257 28 11 402 7 13 54 46 219 9 780 1,037 1,046
24127 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 7,720 10,622 29.000 1999 889 243 500 234 66 10 5 3 4 1 310 1,066 1,955 2,265 1,725 1,099
24128 1 NODS 96 BATUR - DIENG 1996 425 276 260 509 36 372 430 757 196 1 72 2,837 3,262 3,334
24128 2 NODS 96 DIENG - KEJAJAR 1996 407 84 215 420 238 2,455 355 827 48 160 4,642 5,049 5,209
24128 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 9,264 10,485 12.210 1999 730 193 492 626 90 7 5 174 1,413 2,143 2,317 1,613 1,489 513
24128 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,705 8,700 9.950 1999 677 211 621 808 208 20 13 10 46 1,891 2,568 2,614 1,573 1,993 1,980
24129 NODS 96 ANDONG - KARANGGEDE 1996 519 405 391 766 205 2,120 374 687 36 118 4,984 5,503 5,621
24129 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,065 4,290 12.250 1999 1,663 216 527 398 199 2 1 253 1,343 3,006 3,259 2,165 1,413 1,230
24130 NODS 96 BANJARNEGARA - WANAYASA 1996 698 409 331 648 83 856 598 1,034 42 163 4,001 4,699 4,862
24130 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,940 7,885 29.450 1999 1,432 246 721 671 227 19 13 9 8 3 259 1,917 3,349 3,608 3,386 2,018 1,055
24131 NODS 96 MUNTILAN - KLANGON - BTS. DIY 1996 464 656 774 1,516 4,295 44,380 581 1,444 903 85 54,549 55,013 55,098
24131 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,522 2,466 9.550 1999 1,871 419 645 730 236 763 2,030 3,901 4,664 1,589 2,141 1,318
Count 24132 1 NODS 96 MOGA - TOWEL 1996 695 492 994 1,946 3,758 38,837 589 410 72 24 47,098 47,793 47,817
24132 2 NODS 96 MOGA(PKB) - TOWEL 1996 778 634 1,325 2,593 4,363 45,086 660 941 114 24 55,716 56,494 56,518
24132 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,538 8,551 9.894 1999 1,943 845 237 137 100 13 9 178 1,341 3,284 3,462 1,221 1,409 699
24132 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,551 9,311 7.600 1999 1,622 732 199 115 84 10 8 149 1,148 2,770 2,919 1,245 1,208 792
24133 NODS 96 SAMPANG - KASUGIHAN 1996 2,275 842 134 181 7 540 528 912 291 19 3,152 3,454 5,729 8,881
24133 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,744 3,111 13.670 1999 1,105 513 456 1,020 161 101 134 89 105 35 59 613 2,673 3,778 4,391 3,677 2,760 2,465
24134 1 NODS 96 BUMIAYU - SALEM - CILOPADANG 1996 3,730 1,387 232 313 10 736 732 1,129 521 34 5,019 5,094 8,824 13,843
24134 2 NODS 96 BUMIAYU - SALEM - CILOPADANG 1996 2,186 1,080 66 89 21 1,637 688 1,997 1,661 108 12,016 7,347 9,533 21,549
24134 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 12,920 16,805 38.850 1999 6,386 673 719 630 276 12 505 2,310 8,696 9,201 729 2,442 443
24134 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,937 9,255 13.180 1999 5,822 428 541 454 185 269 1,608 7,430 7,699 541 1,701 63
24135 NODS 96 TUWEL - SIRAMPOG - BUMIAYU 1996 4,521 1,512 404 546 12 957 2,248 847 437 29 13,467 6,992 11,513 24,980
24135 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 9,290 13,111 38.210 1999 397 138 264 62 38 103 502 899 1,002 813 530 1,377
24136 1 NODS 96 SEMPOR - MANDIRAJA 1996 3,342 1,140 285 385 15 1,187 2,045 620 315 21 12,525 6,013 9,355 21,880
24136 2 NODS 96 SEMPOR - MANDIRAJA 1996 1,901 638 168 227 12 940 1,225 451 327 21 6,349 4,009 5,910 12,259
24136 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,324 3,295 9.710 1999 194 60 79 124 23 4 3 343 293 487 830 1,153 308 493
24136 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,588 12,122 5.340 1999 193 70 48 122 29 10 9 6 437 294 487 924 725 307 239
(C) 24137 1 NODS 96 LEMAHBANG - SUMOWONO - TMG 1996 1,971 639 108 147 14 1,063 840 980 364 24 8,341 4,179 6,150 14,491
24137 2 NODS 96 LEMAHBANG - SUMOWONO - TMG 1996 2,416 1,085 76 103 7 508 1,145 5,734 3,007 196 4,610 11,861 14,277 18,887
24137 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,542 4,950 22.484 1999 1,396 1,023 580 335 92 10 6 4 29 2,050 3,446 3,475 3,015 2,161 1,859
24137 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,203 4,008 17.093 1999 1,199 920 565 314 67 8 6 26 1,880 3,079 3,105 2,923 1,980 733
24138 1 NODS 96 MGL - KALIANGKRIK - SAPUKAN 1996 876 365 25 34 2 121 501 2,170 2,158 141 5,071 5,517 6,393 11,464
24138 2 NODS 96 KALIANGKRIK - SAPURAN 1996 863 632 62 83 5 378 613 3,424 1,504 98 1,545 6,799 7,662 9,207
24138 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 2,150 19.780 1999 878 122 525 70 52 8 5 23 782 1,660 1,683 1,526 823 1,917
24138 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,150 3,690 14.384 1999 743 85 479 67 48 8 5 24 692 1,435 1,459 1,376 728 263
Count 24139 1 NODS 96 BOYOLALI - SELO - BLABAK 1996 1,348 774 95 129 4 302 1,205 641 631 41 502 3,822 5,170 5,672
24139 2 NODS 96 BOYOLALI - SELO - BLABAK 1996 1,036 266 48 64 3 200 209 1,803 121 8 488 2,722 3,758 4,246
24139 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,677 5,220 25.430 1999 854 196 229 439 78 42 942 1,796 1,838 1,765 992 1,057
24139 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 975 3,362 23.870 1999 741 164 196 380 60 44 800 1,541 1,585 1,519 843 1,011
24140 NODS 96 PURWOREJO - BTS. DIY 1996 760 429 41 55 3 211 387 1,749 1,188 78 2,847 4,141 4,901 7,748
24140 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,252 6,018 16.194 1999 300 162 69 145 12 13 9 172 410 710 882 1,304 433 5,431
24141 1 NODS 96 JUWANA - TODANAN 1996 441 232 39 53 1 41 297 1,073 5,781 1,736 2,177 7,958
24141 2 NODS 96 TODANAN - NGAWEN 1996 437 266 82 111 32 367 2,179 4,787 3,037 3,474 8,261
24141 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 8,915 11,375 24.600 1999 497 95 223 281 50 9 6 279 664 1,161 1,440 1,383 700 620
24141 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,375 13,955 25.800 1999 541 121 266 348 55 11 8 291 809 1,350 1,641 1,345 853 293
24142 NODS 96 LASEM - SALE - BTS. JATIM 1996 1,196 441 122 165 5 411 426 2,006 352 23 10,034 3,951 5,147 15,181
24142 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 12,268 15,455 31.870 1999 859 249 365 357 50 14 10 9 1 2 1,091 1,057 1,916 3,007 1,789 1,115 1,359
24143 1 NODS 96 NGRAMPAL - KUWU 1996 423 525 79 107 21 661 2,205 6,782 3,598 4,021 10,803
24143 2 NODS 96 NGRAMPAL - KUWU 1996 557 192 63 85 1 99 210 517 352 23 596 1,542 2,099 2,695
24143 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,598 5,698 19.782 1999 361 33 59 67 29 987 188 549 1,536 392 200 509
24143 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 9,115 10,820 17.050 1999 140 25 51 39 15 357 130 270 627 748 137 131
24144 NODS 96 SRAGEN - KARANGANYAR 1996 580 379 50 68 1 71 199 381 6,366 1,149 1,729 8,095
24144 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,740 4,628 28.880 1999 1,126 167 263 211 74 14 98 66 457 893 2,019 2,476 1,552 941 895
24145 1 NODS 96 KARANG ANYAR- JATIPURO 1996 435 483 75 102 1 55 298 543 5,663 1,557 1,992 7,655
24145 2 NODS 96 JATIPURO - NGADIROJO 1996 679 385 99 134 7 578 427 2,832 4,874 318 8,400 9,654 10,333 18,733
24145 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,512 4,585 30.730 1999 1,023 154 272 197 55 91 61 171 830 1,853 2,024 1,421 874 751
24145 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 4,585 5,295 7.100 1999 2,083 358 639 523 120 175 117 10 421 1,942 4,025 4,446 1,652 2,046 710
24146 NODS 96 SUKOHARJO - WIRU - WATUKELIR 1996 364 103 77 104 1 99 140 746 8,628 1,270 1,634 10,262
24146 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,264 3,558 22.940 1999 3,681 373 751 485 86 21 14 3,039 1,730 5,411 8,450 3,105 1,824 1,623
24147 NODS 96 WATUKELIR - NAWANGAN (Bts.Yogya) 1996 2,685 1,358 83 113 13 1,008 588 870 1,346 88 6,079 5,467 8,152 14,231
24147 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,558 3,855 3.000 1999 7,014 658 1,213 878 170 40 29 5,654 2,988 10,002 15,656 3,097 3,151 1,431
(C) 24148 1 NODS 96 GUBUG - KEDUNGJATI 1996 477 364 70 95 35 334 688 5,823 1,586 2,063 7,886
24148 2 NODS 96 KEDUNGJATI - SALATIGA 1996 357 179 47 63 1 76 330 734 4,389 1,430 1,787 6,176
24148 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,052 5,240 21.880 1999 1,485 158 657 405 92 242 1,312 2,797 3,039 2,115 1,381 578
24148 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,240 7,365 19.784 1999 1,382 144 655 423 75 252 1,297 2,679 2,931 2,082 1,367 976
24149 NODS 96 BANYUPUTIH - BAWANG 1996 386 193 51 68 1 82 356 793 4,742 1,544 1,930 6,672
24149 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,520 5,410 18.900 1999 499 213 558 380 82 142 1,233 1,732 1,874 1,539 1,299 732
24150 NODS 96 TEGOWANU - TANGGUNG - KAPUNG 1996 274 238 58 78 1 96 407 1,335 3,405 2,213 2,487 5,892
24150 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,322 3,485 11.630 1999 187 109 76 72 1 1 85 259 446 531 1,533 274 322
Count 24151 NODS 96 RANDUDONGKAL - SLAWI 1996 920 113 58 78 1 50 139 664 12,816 1,103 2,023 14,839
24151 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,512 8,614 21.880 1998 1,453 657 388 363 98 215 1,506 2,959 3,174
24151 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,614 9,665 10.510 1998 1,453 657 388 363 98 215 1,506 2,959 3,174
24152 NODS 96 KEB'NG -KESESI - BANTAR BOLA 1996 850 182 79 107 1 42 130 903 4,053 1,444 2,294 6,347
24152 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,370 8,565 31.770 1999 2,414 228 277 499 79 3,009 1,083 3,497 6,506 1,112 1,142 243
(C) 24153 NODS 96 WONOTUNGGAL - KEBON AGUNG 1996 870 213 74 100 1 78 134 1,036 3,827 1,636 2,506 6,333
24153 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,193 5,370 31.770 1999 1,121 165 180 409 42 1 10 7 381 814 1,935 2,316 1,705 856 990
24154 1 NODS 96 BLADO - BAWANG - BTS. KENDAL 1996 4,208 1,518 100 135 3 213 765 1,389 5,384 352 24,547 9,859 14,067 38,614
24154 2 NODS 96 SUKOREJO-BAWANG/BTS. KAB.BATAN 1996 3,238 3,497 168 227 2 181 865 1,190 752 49 10,481 6,931 10,169 20,650
24154 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,342 6,080 7.380 1999 442 276 233 200 38 5 3 2 124 757 1,199 1,323 1,566 798 879
24154 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,445 7,655 12.050 1999 446 263 226 187 40 8 6 4 103 734 1,180 1,283 1,391 773 798
24155 NODS 96 CANGKIRAN - BOJA - BLIMBING 1996 949 126 71 96 1 104 243 592 10,332 1,233 2,182 12,514
24155 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,550 6,925 33.750 1999 895 176 340 169 75 10 7 3 1 109 781 1,676 1,785 1,448 822 1,026
Count 24156 NODS 96 UNGARAN - CANGKIRAN 1996 932 99 25 33 2 125 133 217 121 8 2,892 763 1,695 4,587
24156 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,969 3,550 14.387 1999 850 208 370 215 37 5 3 137 838 1,688 1,825 1,637 883 3,212
24157 NODS 96 WATUKELIR - MANYARAN 1996 3,704 3,010 303 409 4 296 2,369 1,155 2,898 189 4,295 10,633 14,337 18,632
24157 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 193 1.930 1999 745 146 184 151 37 6 8 6 738 538 1,283 2,021 1,426 567 1,451
24157 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 220 2.200 1999 800 165 221 180 37 10 10 7 800 630 1,430 2,230 1,557 664
24158 NODS 96 WERU - CAWAS 1996 4,393 3,952 88 119 4 320 1,657 4,408 13,713 895 8,853 25,156 29,549 38,402
24158 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,365 4,088 7.230 1999 2,198 175 406 231 46 8 5 2,240 871 3,069 5,309 2,621 915 946
24159 NODS 96 KARANGWUNI - CAWAS - BTS. DIY 1996 952 135 69 93 2 127 268 657 10,925 1,351 2,303 13,228
24159 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,828 4,772 17.982 1999 3,715 453 876 627 105 2 23 15 4 2 4,140 2,107 5,822 9,962 3,046 2,222 1,941
24160 NODS 96 BLONDO - MENDUT 1996 384 125 78 105 2 181 103 790 8,774 1,384 1,768 10,542
24160 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 716 1,465 7.560 1999 4,028 903 573 743 138 16 7 4 1,094 2,384 6,412 7,506 2,436 2,510 2,797
24161 NODS 96 JERUKLEGI - SIDOREJO 1996 374 120 77 104 2 169 103 779 8,746 1,354 1,728 10,474
24161 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,815 10,900 60.850 1999 1,244 448 712 559 98 10 7 192 1,834 3,078 3,270 2,069 1,932 1,037
24162 NODS 96 SIDAREJA - PATIMISAN - BTS.JABAR 1996 390 133 72 97 2 178 119 854 8,936 1,455 1,845 10,781
24162 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,495 10,665 21.700 1999 1,067 196 242 178 41 1,229 657 1,724 2,953 1,351 691 324
26001 NODS 96 TEMPEL / SALAM - SLEMAN 1996 12,392 5,354 4,306 1,767 2,992 7,467 1,606 12,319 26,846 35,811 48,203 75,049
26001 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,200 1,918 7.180 1999 100 4,001 2,307 1,348 347 559 962 641 10 66 43 869 10,284 10,384 11,253 13,849 13,259
26002 K1 NODS 96 JL. DIPONEGORO (YGY) 1996 11,125 5,434 3,939 1,617 726 1,813 3,049 8,031 412 155 18 6,667 25,194 36,319 42,986
26002 K2 NODS 96 JL. MAGELANG (YGY) 1996 17,724 7,218 1,974 810 450 1,123 3,800 2,755 532 200 23 4,260 18,885 36,609 40,869
26002 NODS-7day Yogyakarta - Sleman 1991 11,966 3,403 1,800 2,898 1,039 1,326 48 177 8 5,593 10,699 22,665 28,258
26002 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - SLEMAN 1996 18,313 7,324 1,971 809 371 926 3,358 2,443 445 167 19 7,399 17,833 36,146 43,545
26002 N A NDLea-IRMS 411 1,200 7.890 1999 18,843 8,138 3,058 2,035 328 626 1,038 691 216 84 46 1,612 16,260 35,103 36,715 14,191 20,587 12,282
26002 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 195 261 0.660 1999 19,003 5,213 1,665 983 120 13 47 32 2 3,652 8,075 27,078 30,730 17,977 10,223
26002 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 261 411 1.500 1999 33,766 5,297 3,403 2,558 382 32 23 9,947 11,695 45,461 55,408 5,027 14,809
26003 K1 NODS 96 JL JEND. SUDIRMAN (YGY) 1996 6,559 8,025 3,680 1,511 639 1,596 2,964 5,536 342 128 15 1,038 24,436 30,995 32,033
26003 K2 NODS 96 JL. SOLO/JL.URIP SUMOHARJO (YGY) 1996 3,152 4,746 2,637 1,082 276 690 2,164 3,794 461 173 20 861 16,043 19,195 20,056
26003 K3 NODS 96 JL.LAKS. ADISUCIPTO (YGY) 1996 5,872 9,598 3,813 1,565 734 1,832 3,497 4,600 586 220 25 814 26,470 32,342 33,156
26003 NODS-7day Yogyakarta - Prambanan 1991 14,530 4,041 2,211 3,382 1,217 1,341 57 154 13 7,096 12,416 26,946 34,042
26003 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - PRAMBANAN 1996 37,561 13,689 1,388 1,193 226 1,671 5,383 3,058 293 157 31 12,551 27,089 64,650 77,201
26003 N A NDLea-IRMS 460 1,675 12.150 1999 20,210 6,904 3,260 1,904 87 770 888 593 286 158 10 5,419 14,860 35,070 40,489 29,312 18,813 13,764
26003 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 195 324 1.290 1999 89,184 16,588 1,229 1,708 375 138 93 16,043 20,131 109,315 125,358 39,353 25,492
26003 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 324 423 0.990 1999 16,680 5,942 4,855 1,483 626 36 93 62 2 5,743 13,099 29,779 35,522 18,677 16,586
26003 3K N A NDLea-IRMS 423 460 0.374 1999 16,354 5,108 5,758 1,313 574 1,159 212 141 186 130 6 5,768 14,587 30,941 36,709 21,101 18,468
26004 1 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - SENTOLO 1996 136,377 22,259 17,154 14,744 1,668 12,334 23,065 9,195 1,612 864 171 6,321,939 103,066 239,443 6,561,382 15,010
26004 2 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - SENTOLO 1996 5,679 1,771 840 599 60 659 2,186 1,026 768 113 68 190 8,090 13,769 13,959
26004 K1 NODS 96 JL.KYAI MOJO (YGY) 1996 1,830 1,217 584 417 94 1,031 1,342 227 6,812 3,650 721 17 16,095 17,925 17,942
26004 K2 NODS 96 JL. HOS COKROAMINOTO (YGY) 1996 1,830 1,217 549 391 94 1,031 1,342 227 6,812 3,650 721 16 16,034 17,864 17,880
26004 K3 NODS 96 JL. RE. MARTADINATA (YGY) 1996 8,457 1,307 754 538 115 1,267 1,028 611 11,207 6,005 1,186 24 24,018 32,475 32,499
26004 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 199 1,517 13.180 1999 12,355 3,334 1,021 1,149 283 486 1,189 792 194 182 9 1,717 8,639 20,994 22,711 12,624 10,939
26004 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 261 375 1.152 1999 40,518 6,943 957 1,146 546 14 222 148 20 6 1 3,670 10,003 50,521 54,191 20,006 12,664
26004 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 144 369 2.250 1999 35,818 5,410 2,547 1,427 816 104 227 151 13 5 4,887 10,700 46,518 51,405 8,725 13,551
26004 13K N A NDLea-IRMS 99 199 1.000 1999 16,652 2,970 333 719 498 22 67 45 12 1 2,447 4,667 21,319 23,766 11,871 5,909
26004 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,517 1,608 0.910 1999 4,889 1,383 1,699 933 281 465 232 155 367 122 134 1,631 5,771 10,660 12,291 11,953 7,307
26005 NODS 96 SENTOLO - MILIR 1996 1,407 1,035 495 353 85 929 1,344 211 5,567 2,983 589 12 13,591 14,998 15,010
26005 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,608 2,440 8.320 1999 4,395 1,123 1,499 892 311 783 557 371 245 88 95 1,837 5,964 10,359 12,196 14,356 7,552
26006 NODS 96 WATES - TOYAN 1996 8,358 1,396 770 549 103 1,132 1,078 529 9,596 5,142 1,015 29 21,310 29,668 29,697
26006 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,000 3,479 4.875 1999 3,781 846 1,202 672 177 647 441 294 145 53 78 4,802 4,555 8,336 13,138 11,000 5,770 12,524
26007 NODS 96 TOYAN - KARANG NONGKO 1996 873 696 515 495 185 306 723 1,405 916 107 35 2,086 5,383 6,256 8,342
26007 ATC 1998 1,785 1,423 1,053 1,012 378 626 1,478 2,873 1,873 219 72 11,006 12,791
26007 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,479 4,470 9.885 1999 3,429 931 1,239 715 228 403 676 451 170 73 131 2,731 5,017 8,446 11,177 6,195 6,354 13,201
26008 NODS 96 SENTOLO - KALIBAWANG - KLANGON 1996 771 50 69 246 2 115 61 454 1 333 998 1,769 2,102
26008 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,608 4,246 26.380 1999 797 236 199 142 65 35 18 12 12 3 4 586 726 1,523 2,109 1,440 944 1,095
26009 K NODS 96 JL. BANTUL 1996 478 56 68 243 27 1,534 106 1,517 4 1,465 3,555 4,033 5,498
26009 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - BANTUL 1996 999 67 114 407 29 1,654 141 1,764 5 3,948 4,181 5,180 9,128
26009 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 379 1,000 6.210 1999 15,868 2,723 1,141 641 424 3 256 170 15 5 1 7,809 5,379 21,247 29,056 8,054 6,988 6,069
26009 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 236 379 1.490 1999 10,328 1,250 940 584 188 6 52 35 3 2 1 4,152 3,061 13,389 17,541 7,314 3,978 1,329
26010 NODS 96 BANTUL - SRANDAKAN 1996 950 76 91 325 29 1,661 124 1,590 5 4,557 3,901 4,851 9,408
26010 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,200 2,317 11.170 1999 3,697 308 527 327 142 409 273 12 4 5 1,781 2,007 5,704 7,485 3,395 2,609 2,867
26011 NODS 96 SRANDAKAN - TOYAN 1996 4,076 258 134 43 5 183 383 1,091 2 2 2,552 2,101 6,177 8,729
26011 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,317 3,813 14.960 1999 5,276 353 497 395 198 280 187 1 2,584 1,911 7,187 9,771 3,052 2,482 2,176
26012 K NODS 96 JL. PARANG TRITIS 1996 3,396 118 166 53 6 219 226 1,281 2 2 1,389 2,073 5,469 6,858
26012 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - PARANG TRITIS 1996 3,964 106 92 30 2 84 138 533 1 1 3,359 987 4,951 8,310
26012 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 328 2,830 25.020 1999 11,960 1,385 534 347 62 85 294 196 12 3,233 2,915 14,875 18,108 3,891 3,788 2,863
26012 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 193 328 1.347 1999 8,359 1,453 823 482 348 75 65 43 1 2,558 3,290 11,649 14,207 7,965 4,275 6,476
26013 K NODS 96 JLN. C. SIMANJUNTAK 1996 298 16 16 5 1 45 22 209 104 314 612 716
26013 NODS-7day Yogyakarta - Kaliurang 1991 22,700 5,838 1,562 3,208 296 176 2 1 1 4,474 11,084 33,784 38,258
26013 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA-KALIURANG 1996 26,216 9,096 220 913 49 217 1,398 513 8 5 3,028 12,419 38,635 41,663
26013 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 348 3,270 29.740 1999 6,828 3,620 2,100 1,937 81 25 15 10 8 2,633 7,796 14,624 17,257 9,297 10,126 7,213
26013 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 250 348 0.944 1999 10,582 2,514 644 266 213 11 7 1,518 3,655 14,237 15,755 10,122 4,749 6,894
26014 1 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - PANGGANG 1996 41,399 9,851 244 1,014 58 259 1,250 431 78 49 3,828 13,234 54,633 58,461
26014 2 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - PANGGANG 1996 1,617 111 67 64 1 134 142 218 4 1,023 741 2,358 3,381
26014 K1 NODS 96 JLN. PRAMUKA 1996 2,831 199 127 122 2 281 319 557 11 2,093 1,618 4,449 6,542
26014 K2 NODS 96 JLN. IMOGIRI 1996 4,261 268 118 113 4 502 353 672 10 2,137 2,040 6,301 8,438
26014 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 639 2,600 19.600 1999 1,029 489 181 514 2 124 82 1 475 1,393 2,422 2,897 2,550 1,810 3,397
26014 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 408 504 0.960 1999 9,406 1,072 593 147 53 17 52 34 3,547 1,968 11,374 14,921 1,175 2,562
26014 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 504 639 1.390 1999 14,513 1,537 503 393 44 28 116 78 12 4 2 5,987 2,717 17,230 23,217 5,633 3,531
26014 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,600 3,190 5.900 1999 2,470 350 183 353 133 103 69 1 374 1,192 3,662 4,036 2,266 1,551 793
26015 K1 NODS 96 JLN. GEDUNG KUNING 1996 7,756 355 222 212 3 425 508 1,063 14 8,528 2,802 10,558 19,086
26015 K2 NODS 96 JLN. KAPTEN TENDEAN 1996 7,864 355 222 212 3 425 508 1,061 14 8,531 2,800 10,664 19,195
26015 K3 NODS 96 JLN. BUGISAN 1996 8,378 401 315 301 3 453 625 1,025 20 7,009 3,143 11,521 18,530
26015 K4 NODS 96 JLN. SUGENG JERONI 1996 7,132 336 274 262 3 440 573 969 17 6,365 2,874 10,006 16,371
26015 K5 NODS 96 JLN. MT HARYONO 1996 37,431 615 311 297 1 1,017 695 30,809 2,936 40,367 71,176
26015 K6 NODS 96 JLN. MAYJEN. SUTOYO 1996 13,142 605 422 403 4 476 1,400 1,604 20 10,524 4,934 18,076 28,600
26015 K7 NODS 96 JLN KOL. SUGIYONO 1996 6,392 134 73 70 2 202 370 5,406 851 7,243 12,649
26015 K8 NODS 96 JLN. M. SUPENO 1996 6,812 465 373 356 4 531 733 1,542 21 4,746 4,025 10,837 15,583
26015 K9 NODS 96 JLN. PERINTIS KEMERDEKAAN 1996 27,837 896 643 614 4 503 1,202 1,589 23 12,639 5,474 33,311 45,950
26015 KA NODS 96 JLN. NGEKSIGONDO 1996 14,379 529 385 368 2 243 655 995 13 8,206 3,190 17,569 25,775
26015 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - PIYUNGAN 1996 10,377 1,987 696 305 30 876 1,125 1,223 61 48 19 2,921 6,370 16,747 19,668
26015 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 514 1,393 8.790 1999 9,328 1,991 814 966 130 130 442 295 60 28 1 1,450 4,857 14,185 15,635 6,400 6,151 6,574
26015 11K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 550 753 2.020 1999 9,628 2,089 248 540 861 1,200 131 88 20 5 1 1,296 5,183 14,811 16,107 9,357 6,560
26015 12K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 144 220 0.760 1999 24,849 4,347 2,038 939 643 58 119 79 13 6 3 4,651 8,245 33,094 37,745 8,850 10,445
26015 13K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 220 265 0.457 1999 23,040 3,707 1,488 1,324 645 85 282 188 21 7 1 4,920 7,748 30,788 35,708 8,416 9,810
26015 14K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 265 336 0.710 1999 7,856 1,561 818 493 357 55 88 58 10 1 1,876 3,441 11,297 13,173 5,443 4,359
26015 15K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 336 412 0.731 1999 21,411 5,156 1,634 1,221 1,311 123 126 85 15 5 3,196 9,676 31,087 34,283 10,398 12,251
26015 16K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 412 472 0.599 1999 9,588 3,394 377 377 485 916 54 54 5,333 5,657 15,245 20,578 4,926 7,296
26015 17K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 190 272 0.791 1999 25,575 5,890 1,130 1,218 1,056 187 107 71 16 5 1 4,622 9,681 35,256 39,878 14,935 12,258
26015 18K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 272 387 1.150 1999 29,620 7,294 1,372 1,404 2,390 236 137 92 15 7 1 4,023 12,948 42,568 46,591 15,140 16,395
26015 19K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 387 479 0.920 1999 10,636 3,838 1,182 601 2,347 1,029 90 61 13 6 1,293 9,167 19,803 21,096 12,629 11,609
26015 1AK N K1 NDLea-IRMS 479 550 0.740 1999 9,313 1,642 212 449 766 957 111 73 15 5 1 1,758 4,231 13,544 15,302 8,556 5,355
26016 NODS 96 PRAMBANAN - PIYUNGAN 1996 2,749 148 168 151 25 147 516 158 12 3 105 1,328 4,077 4,182
26016 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,640 2,615 9.750 1999 7,641 1,140 551 732 134 17 22 15 15 8 1 3,101 2,635 10,276 13,377 3,079 3,425 3,162
26017 1 NODS 96 PIYUNGAN - GADING 1996 4,565 956 690 576 18 742 881 1,078 38 1 15 4,980 9,545 9,560
26017 2 NODS 96 PIYUNGAN - GADING 1996 2,231 261 256 213 4 183 493 1,377 54 1 10 2,842 5,073 5,083
26017 ATC 1998 11,904 2,493 1,799 1,502 47 1,935 2,297 2,811 99 3 12,987 24,891
26017 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,393 1,813 4.200 1999 4,025 1,203 914 1,154 246 224 87 58 18 6 6 254 3,916 7,941 8,195 6,392 4,960 5,834
26017 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,813 3,189 13.760 1999 4,535 1,352 1,017 1,295 281 240 94 63 17 10 13 329 4,382 8,917 9,246 5,251 5,552 4,956
26018 NODS 96 GADING - GLEDAK 1996 1,054 468 236 197 149 6,149 720 1,018 140 4 17 9,081 10,135 10,152
26018 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,189 3,674 4.850 1999 3,059 480 502 286 99 157 239 159 12 2 4 141 1,940 4,999 5,140 3,581 2,464
OD 26019 NODS 96 GLEDAG - WONOSARI 1996 821 485 122 102 90 3,703 531 702 58 2 10 5,795 6,616 6,626
Survey 26019 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,674 3,800 1.287 1999 3,975 412 916 446 182 156 334 223 63 15 18 531 2,765 6,740 7,271 2,620 3,502
26020 1 NODS 96 PALIYAN - PANGGANG 1996 319 189 54 45 51 2,090 213 433 55 1 4 3,131 3,450 3,454
26020 2 NODS 96 PLAYEN - PALIYAN 1996 794 526 158 132 156 6,431 541 972 104 3 21 9,023 9,817 9,838
26020 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,370 6,230 18.600 1999 805 553 533 272 17 5 176 117 3 390 1,676 2,481 2,871 2,054 2,179 599
26020 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,515 4,370 8.550 1999 1,093 765 732 437 78 36 163 109 17 1 869 2,338 3,431 4,300 1,953 3,045 985
26021 NODS 96 PLAYEN - GADING 1996 601 248 161 135 81 3,334 397 563 78 2 11 4,999 5,600 5,611
26021 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,189 3,515 3.260 1999 3,884 806 1,227 539 118 20 298 199 16 5 5 1,843 3,233 7,117 8,960 5,088 4,201 1,207
26022 NODS 96 PLAYEN-GLEDAG 1996 601 248 161 135 81 3,334 397 563 78 2 11 4,999 5,600 5,611
26022 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,515 3,918 4.030 1999 949 1,260 745 538 283 189 2 1,058 3,017 3,966 5,024 1,855 3,920 1,480
26023 NODS 96 WONOSARI - SEMIN 1996 348 196 78 65 38 1,569 242 375 27 1 4 2,591 2,939 2,943
26023 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,100 6,253 22.462 1999 1,354 321 513 229 117 71 81 54 9 114 1,395 2,749 2,863 1,479 1,814 1,266
26024 NODS 96 SEMIN - BULU 1996 601 118 75 263 22 68 310 242 3 67 1,101 1,702 1,769
26024 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 6,253 7,113 8.600 1999 1,505 423 410 311 99 24 88 59 5 623 1,419 2,924 3,547 1,135 1,848 472
26025 NODS 96 SEMIN - BLIMBING 1996 238 41 9 193 4 11 20 40 2 244 320 558 802
26025 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,253 6,831 5.780 1999 1,380 869 286 722 9 154 103 3 5 391 2,151 3,531 3,922 1,323 2,802 482
OD 26026 NODS 96 MILIR - WATES 1996 979 90 19 403 5 15 27 50 4 988 613 1,592 2,580
Survey 26026 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,440 2,830 3.900 1999 1,834 946 829 955 213 515 446 297 140 56 31 703 4,428 6,262 6,965 7,357 5,608
26027 NODS 96 MILIR - DAYAAN (WATES) 1996 425 61 9 186 4 12 19 47 2 277 340 765 1,042
26027 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,440 2,800 3.596 1999 1,727 367 422 378 1 182 121 2,058 1,471 3,198 5,256 1,699 1,913 2,094
26028 NODS 96 GEDUNG KUNING - WONOCATUR 1996 421 61 9 187 4 12 19 47 2 277 341 762 1,039
26028 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 455 575 1.279 1999 10,344 3,205 792 990 234 734 410 273 68 24 29 2,490 6,759 17,103 19,593 12,918 8,780 596
26029 NODS 96 PANDAAN - CANDIREJO 1996 807 54 10 222 4 12 41 55 3 273 401 1,208 1,481
26029 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 6,335 6,688 3.654 1999 836 703 377 491 59 8 122 82 342 1,842 2,678 3,020 1,458 2,397 1,286
26030 NODS 96 WONOSARI-NGEPOSARI-BEDOYO-DUWET 1996 423 32 23 177 2 29 58 95 4 29 420 843 872
26030 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 4,100 6,930 28.300 1999 812 491 511 373 62 47 130 87 336 1,701 2,513 2,849 2,345 2,158 425
26031 NODS 96 NGEPOSARI-PAPUCAK-BEDOYO 1996 522 35 15 115 2 28 78 76 2 97 351 873 970
26031 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 4,857 5,554 6.967 1999 580 467 298 276 28 8 113 75 267 1,265 1,845 2,112 1,344 1,645 282
26032 NODS 96 SUMUR - TANGGUL - SEMULUH 1996 690 39 20 151 3 43 106 107 7 78 476 1,166 1,244
26032 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 4,652 4,901 2.490 1999 1,089 653 263 306 298 199 322 1,719 2,808 3,130 1,121 2,237 2,813
26033 NODS 96 DAWUNG - MAKAM IMOGIRI 1996 988 71 39 300 4 60 121 79 1 162 675 1,663 1,825
26033 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,575 1,730 1.588 1999 2,524 303 484 223 72 69 45 1,706 1,196 3,720 5,426 1,699 1,554 2,091
26034 NODS 96 WONOSARI - TEPUS 1996 979 70 38 296 4 51 120 79 1 162 659 1,638 1,800
26034 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,100 6,268 21.461 1999 1,364 621 461 279 62 2 145 96 2 319 1,668 3,032 3,351 1,548 2,171 585
26035 NODS 96 MULO- KEMIRI - BARON 1996 1,111 29 14 105 1 62 12 293 223 1,334 1,627
26035 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,627 6,100 14.587 1999 2,233 427 561 171 25 189 126 3 595 1,502 3,735 4,330 1,748 1,952 721
26036 1 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - NANGGULAN 1996 22,917 3,359 934 588 195 436 1,205 678 135 11 5 4,077 7,546 30,463 34,540
26036 2 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - NANGGULAN 1996 1,376 74 44 31 62 130 98 207 2 444 648 2,024 2,468
26036 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 375 1,879 15.040 1999 11,347 2,427 539 1,086 253 25 193 129 16 1,983 4,668 16,015 17,998 6,810 6,065 4,250
26036 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,880 1,960 0.800 1999 19,015 2,779 884 1,563 922 5 38 23 5 3,472 6,219 25,234 28,706 1,332 8,094 2,435
26037 1 NODS 96 PRAMBANAN - PAKEM 1996 322 11 7 5 37 78 28 196 9 310 371 693 1,003
26037 2 NODS 96 TEMPEL - PAKEM 1996 270 3 2 2 14 30 10 32 153 93 363 516
26037 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,545 3,591 20.568 1999 3,124 507 286 614 2 179 119 2 363 1,709 4,833 5,196 3,179 2,222 939
26037 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,875 3,227 13.537 1999 2,160 427 243 454 2 85 57 1 350 1,269 3,429 3,779 2,813 1,647 3,136
26038 NODS 96 JL. ARTERI UTARA 1996 1,230 9 9 7 34 71 24 116 1,782 270 1,500 3,282 15,595
26038 N A NDLea-IRMS 630 1,620 10.200 1999 14,420 8,897 1,435 1,905 382 112 86 57 40 14 5 356 12,933 27,353 27,709 14,923 16,377
26039 NODS 96 YOGYAKARTA - PULOWATU 1996 775 4 5 3 21 44 22 46 736 145 920 1,656
26039 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 557 1,616 10.590 1999 8,790 2,610 927 2,542 30 426 283 2 1,498 6,820 15,610 17,108 3,417 8,867 3,648
26040 NODS 96 KLANGON - TEMPEL 1996 427 5 7 5 8 18 13 92 455 148 575 1,030
26040 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,416 3,603 22.199 1999 638 470 127 320 49 1 81 54 2 287 1,104 1,742 2,029 7,244 1,432 1,129
26041 NODS 96 SEDAYU - PANDAK 1996 471 7 8 6 19 40 19 96 323 195 666 989
26041 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,220 2,725 15.286 1999 1,629 309 174 321 101 259 172 1 631 1,337 2,966 3,597 3,079 1,738 860
26042 NODS 96 SRANDAKAN - KRETEK 1996 275 6 3 2 33 70 12 126 441 252 527 968
26042 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,304 4,196 19.234 1999 3,232 327 263 452 215 205 136 1 1,383 1,599 4,831 6,214 2,862 2,079 859
26043 NODS 96 SENTOLO - GALUR 1996 226 5 3 2 28 59 10 101 403 208 434 837
26043 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,831 3,531 17.214 1999 2,473 246 176 183 187 278 186 1 1 1,582 1,258 3,731 5,313 1,774 1,636 494
26044 NODS 96 GALUR - CONGOT 1996 397 13 9 6 53 111 30 122 1 487 345 742 1,229
26044 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,460 4,895 24.350 1999 3,656 377 319 278 257 134 89 3 2,201 1,457 5,113 7,314 1,402 1,894 821
26045 NODS 96 DEKSO - SAMIGALUH 1996 416 19 5 4 68 143 36 186 8 576 469 885 1,461
26045 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,130 4,774 16.440 1999 1,221 477 97 494 28 1 128 85 2 175 1,312 2,533 2,708 3,390 1,706 309
26046 NODS 96 KEMBANG - TEGALSARI 1996 137 3 8 359 11 148 507
26046 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,580 4,128 15.480 1999 1,890 480 127 480 123 161 107 2 502 1,480 3,370 3,872 2,156 1,926 648
26047 NODS 96 TEGALSARI - TEMON 1996 650 25 9 6 99 207 49 212 12 723 619 1,269 1,992
26047 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 4,128 7,275 31.470 1999 1,146 453 140 445 134 1 94 62 1 383 1,330 2,476 2,859 2,773 1,728 163
26048 1 NODS 96 SAMBIPITU - NGLIPAR 1996 881 12 10 7 22 46 29 39 194 165 1,046 1,240
26048 2 NODS 96 NGLIPAR - SEMIN 1996 884 12 10 7 22 46 29 39 196 165 1,049 1,245
26048 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,680 3,701 10.210 1999 906 472 173 444 119 5 89 59 4 71 1,365 2,271 2,342 719 1,780 375
26048 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,580 5,540 19.600 1999 478 433 218 146 46 55 84 56 145 1,038 1,516 1,661 1,126 1,350 581
26049 NODS 96 WONOSARI - NGLIPAR 1996 1,632 14 16 11 10 20 38 133 1 653 243 1,875 2,528
26049 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 3,969 4,939 9.927 1999 638 514 245 326 248 88 90 60 2 34 1,573 2,211 2,245 1,197 2,046 826
26050 1 NODS 96 PARANG TRITIS-BATAS KABUPATEN 1996 1,272 49 24 17 154 323 74 389 18 431 1,048 2,320 2,751
26050 2 NODS 96 BATAS KABUPATEN-PANGGANG 1996 1,163 35 20 14 126 264 60 306 14 273 839 2,002 2,275
26050 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,810 2,817 0.070 1999 1,455 215 126 198 82 48 59 39 5 256 772 2,227 2,483 2,329 1,003
26050 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,817 4,289 14.720 1999 1,717 378 148 105 136 227 151 15 1,145 2,862 2,877 1,412 1,489 255
26051 NODS 96 TEMANGGUNG - KEMIRI 1996 4,689 135 74 52 233 488 188 1,096 34 347 2,300 6,989 7,336
26051 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,835 5,809 9.740 1999 1,026 685 167 462 266 177 116 1,757 2,783 2,899 1,313 2,286 233
26052 NODS 96 BARON - TEPUS 1996 2,533 52 53 37 136 285 84 387 13 337 1,047 3,580 3,917
26052 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 6,025 7,496 14.710 1999 1,047 551 273 216 34 32 18 11 24 1,135 2,182 2,206 433 1,476 99
26053 NODS 96 BARON - SADANG 1996 1,016 29 25 18 119 250 67 413 11 1,025 932 1,948 2,973
26053 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,725 8,444 17.190 1999 855 557 437 263 11 7 93 62 243 1,430 2,285 2,528 803 1,861 246
26054 NODS 96 JEPITU - WEDIOMBO 1996 1,153 19 10 7 54 114 30 82 1 1,123 317 1,470 2,593
26054 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,285 7,780 5.024 1999 630 333 296 407 19 8 38 25 256 1,126 1,756 2,012 771 1,467
26055 NODS 96 JERUK WUDEL - BARON 1996 575 3 5 3 9 84 653 104 679 1,332
26055 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,944 7,744 8.020 1999 1,046 615 304 409 65 83 56 290 1,532 2,578 2,868 848 1,993 1,134
26056 NODS 96 JERUK WUDEL - NGUNGKAP 1996 1,200 1 5 4 1 13 64 757 88 1,288 2,045
26056 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,744 8,100 3.680 1999 591 472 303 432 14 11 7 307 1,239 1,830 2,137 708 1,614
26057 NODS 96 JERUK WUDEL - SADENG 1996 402 5 5 3 24 50 17 161 341 265 667 1,008
26057 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 7,744 8,430 6.860 1999 1,244 773 460 405 8 5 187 1,651 2,895 3,082 629 2,149
28001 NODS 96 NGAWI - MANTINGAN 1996 1,207 1,135 440 430 112 810 1,654 1,024 780 98 7 140 6,490 7,697 7,837
28001 ATC 1999 2,419 870 2,129 861 698 2,219 800 7,577 9,996 9,996
28001 N A NDLea-IRMS 18,186 21,745 35.590 1999 3,008 1,592 2,013 842 46 1,218 965 643 582 51 661 7,952 10,960 11,621 5,147 4,972
(C) 28002 1 NODS 96 MAOSPATI - NGAWI 1996 3,727 1,667 267 582 96 877 933 1,400 944 142 8 3,240 6,916 10,643 13,883
28002 2 NODS 96 MAOSPATI - NGAWI 1996 4,648 554 110 239 4 32 406 822 211 32 2 2,726 2,412 7,060 9,786
28002 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,105 1,841 7.350 1999 5,576 1,834 2,360 1,304 61 1,926 1,376 918 624 2,563 10,403 15,979 18,542 8,176 6,507 6,788
28002 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,841 3,188 13.470 1999 4,834 1,730 2,037 1,098 58 1,909 1,224 816 968 2,229 9,840 14,674 16,903 6,634 6,153 5,353
OD 28003 K NODS 96 MADIUN - MAOSPATI 1996 1,795 274 78 169 1 7 161 558 42 6 1,518 1,296 3,091 4,609
Survey 28003 NODS 96 MADIUN - MAOSPATI 1996 4,741 2,467 420 943 56 1,615 2,041 2,094 1,072 483 29 1,423 11,220 15,961 17,384
28003 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 16,993 18,005 10.120 1999 13,483 1,824 4,802 1,981 74 1,408 750 501 482 18 4,974 11,840 25,323 30,297 8,896 7,401 7,022
28003 1K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 250 2.390 1999 29,085 5,662 3,619 2,275 93 586 390 54 21,949 12,679 41,764 63,713 9,293 7,929
28004 K NODS 96 MADIUN - CARUBAN 1996 4,241 1,816 229 513 2,218 3,126 1,227 7,902 12,143 13,370
28004 NODS 96 MADIUN - CARUBAN 1996 14,066 8,334 1,665 3,739 4 36 4,008 8,444 352 53 3 1,939 26,638 40,704 42,643
28004 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 14,827 16,529 17.020 1999 3,307 768 1,139 571 21 610 450 301 222 46 741 4,128 7,435 8,176 6,939 2,581
28004 1K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 390 3.728 1999 8,800 2,093 1,718 1,099 26 1,010 512 341 534 35 5 5,198 7,373 16,173 21,371 6,917 4,609
28005 1 NODS 96 CARUBAN - NGAWI 1996 2,682 961 754 311 70 330 763 1,444 324 6 2 3,239 4,965 7,647 10,886
28005 2 NODS 96 CARUBAN - NGAWI 1996 1,159 418 502 207 326 1,535 392 1,165 1,551 29 10 630 6,135 7,294 7,924
28005 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 14,827 15,819 9.930 1999 2,557 861 1,422 696 29 366 875 584 386 45 1,499 5,264 7,821 9,320 5,516 3,293
28005 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 15,819 18,186 23.680 1999 2,635 846 1,394 717 27 306 827 552 334 86 22 1,949 5,111 7,746 9,695 5,409 3,199
OD 28006 1 NODS 96 NGANJUK - CARUBAN 1996 1,085 223 220 91 18 86 195 1,170 798 15 5 361 2,821 3,906 4,267
Survey 28006 2 NODS 96 NGANJUK - CARUBAN 1996 1,685 1,896 1,460 585 70 1,192 1,053 2,779 941 200 29 222 10,205 11,890 12,112
28006 2 ATC 1999 1,646 872 2,256 1,031 890 2,092 1,000 8,141 9,787 9,787
28006 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 11,960 13,175 12.160 1999 6,126 1,430 2,696 1,066 74 1,275 1,234 822 720 74 763 9,391 15,517 16,280 7,913 5,875
28006 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 13,175 14,827 16.530 1999 7,355 1,558 3,010 1,139 64 1,387 1,350 901 762 30 832 10,201 17,556 18,388 6,731 6,381
Count 28007 NODS 96 KERTOSONO - NGANJUK 1996 2,852 8,885 5,295 2,122 4,865 82,844 4,260 3,830 1,186 252 37 313 113,576 116,428 116,741
28007 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,551 11,959 24.090 1999 8,498 1,947 2,382 1,264 74 1,448 1,050 699 654 46 3 1,717 9,567 18,065 19,782 5,231 5,985 8,322
28008 NODS-7day Kartosono - Jombang 1991 2,038 1,612 1,101 1,586 1,501 2,152 184 805 32 1,165 8,973 11,011 12,176
28008 1 NODS 96 JOMBANG - KERTOSONO 1996 796 1,126 957 383 35 596 760 1,902 258 5,759 6,555 6,813
28008 2 NODS 96 JOMBANG - KERTOSONO 1996 3,467 3,009 1,945 431 62 1,724 1,765 2,649 1,460 232 124 1,169 13,401 16,868 18,037 11,747
28008 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,856 9,526 16.720 1999 8,080 2,994 3,528 1,630 90 2,595 1,589 1,059 622 224 24 1,059 14,355 22,435 23,494 16,618 8,977
28008 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,526 9,551 0.250 1999 6,715 2,856 3,386 2,283 104 2,906 1,995 1,331 837 267 2 1,139 15,967 22,682 23,821 9,259 9,985
Count 28009 NODS-7day Jombang - Gemekan 1991 3,641 2,123 1,624 2,501 1,571 4,399 184 879 53 1,316 13,334 16,975 18,291
28009 1 NODS 96 GEMEKAN - JOMBANG 1996 1,725 17,954 12,751 2,825 341 9,482 3,944 3,565 876 139 74 716 51,951 53,676 54,392 15,869
28009 2 NODS 96 GEMEKAN - JOMBANG 1996 2,581 65,496 25,739 5,704 9,501 26,228 487 77 41 10,695 133,273 135,854 146,549 15,927
28009 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 5,755 6,282 5.290 1999 4,730 3,307 4,464 3,224 77 2,376 2,611 1,741 1,864 77 24 1,677 19,765 24,495 26,172 20,634 12,359
28009 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,282 7,856 15.750 1999 6,760 3,272 6,227 2,331 74 2,464 2,211 1,474 1,096 35 1,694 19,184 25,944 27,638 15,342 11,994
28010 K NODS 96 MOJOKERTO - GEMEKAN 1996 3,512 53,360 23,729 5,258 713 19,826 7,984 22,745 3,017 479 256 10,407 137,367 140,879 151,286
28010 NODS 96 MOJOKERTO - GEMEKAN 1996 3,622 286,657 61,332 13,591 1,457 40,514 19,553 48,369 31,925 5,073 2,711 14,545 511,182 514,804 529,349 26,141
28010 ATC 1999 11,638 2,632 5,460 1,694 2,330 4,660 1,254 18,030 29,668 29,668
28010 N A NDLea-IRMS 5,150 5,755 6.070 1999 37,846 5,315 6,614 6,101 94 2,341 3,915 2,611 974 34 15,392 27,999 65,845 81,237 9,049 17,512
28010 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 30 570 5.400 1999 31,850 3,029 2,458 3,179 1,184 789 18 11,603 10,657 42,507 54,110 4,460 6,662
28011 NODS 96 MLIRIP - MOJOKERTO 1996 14,197 671,408 318,310 70,536 4,232 117,663 69,235 56,986 39,517 6,279 3,356 34,680 1,357,522 1,371,719 1,406,399
28011 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,515 4,850 3.350 1999 10,846 1,370 1,594 1,669 16 1,557 1,040 170 16 5,192 7,432 18,278 23,470 5,814 4,649 13,940
OD 28012 NODS-7day Mlirip - Krian 1991 3,274 2,763 1,630 3,054 1,614 6,638 307 1,075 110 694 17,191 20,465 21,159
Survey 28012 NODS 96 MLIRIP - KRIAN 1996 7,050 5,211 2,797 1,225 69 2,659 7,361 5,131 858 282 208 340 25,801 32,851 33,191 19,582
28012 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,000 4,520 15.200 1999 7,458 3,974 5,306 2,702 110 2,856 3,790 2,526 2,275 118 854 23,657 31,115 31,969 32,598 14,790 24,012
Count 28013 NODS 96 KRIAN - TAMAN 1996 9,281 257 435 930 5 11 1,217 2,898 42 5 3 3,197 5,803 15,084 18,281
28013 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,495 3,000 15.050 1999 18,787 6,344 10,571 4,309 96 2,136 2,107 1,405 1,770 125 21 2,346 28,884 47,671 50,017 26,558 18,055 28,181
28014 NODS 96 WARU - TAMAN 1996 19,833 834 812 1,736 2 4 2,860 2,293 8 1 1 9,110 8,551 28,384 37,494 36,032
28014 NODS-7day Taman - Waru 1991 11,583 5,739 3,355 6,654 1,473 6,641 972 1,509 172 3,737 26,515 38,098 41,835
28014 N A NDLea-IRMS 55 511 4.560 1999 32,797 8,418 11,813 4,589 179 2,424 3,314 2,210 2,091 146 298 3,114 35,482 68,279 71,393 54,920 22,177
28015 K NODS 96 JLN. AHMAD YANI (SURABAYA) 1996 8,655 515 707 1,511 5 11 1,864 1,973 20 2 1 4,455 6,609 15,264 19,719
28015 NODS 96 SURABAYA - WARU 1996 4,892 89 128 274 2 4 509 3,181 22 3 2 2,736 4,214 9,106 11,842 86,074
28015 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,173 1,255 0.820 2000 67,909 35,971 27,826 10,784 133 2,204 4,668 3,113 2,894 338 114 4,551 88,045 155,954 160,505
28015 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 520 5.200 2000 152,296 62,449 105,579 28,987 177 5,025 3,043 2,028 1,388 156 152 6,837 208,984 361,280 368,117
Count 28016 NODS 96 WARU - SIDOARJO 1996 25,748 11,887 4,230 7,732 265 2,242 6,477 7,226 1,772 214 177 1,243 42,222 67,970 69,213 37,660
28016 NODS-7day Waru - Sidoarjo 1991 21,941 10,714 4,747 11,184 1,524 5,565 644 570 171 5,643 35,119 57,060 62,703
28016 km13 CAP1 / Cons Waru - Sidoarjo (3 days av.) 1992 25,721 17,465 6,134 10,613 457 5,609 1,307 4,150 41,585 67,306 71,456
28016 km18 CAP1 / Cons Waru - Sidoarjo (3 days av.) 1992 18,008 7,416 4,081 7,715 150 5,257 630 2,645 25,249 43,257 45,902
28016 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,255 2,416 11.610 1999 62,533 6,710 25,974 5,070 11 243 3,758 2,504 1,251 58 6 5,730 45,585 108,118 113,848 36,754 28,495
28017 NODS 96 SIDOARJO - GEMPOL 1996 3,334 1,615 737 1,347 77 652 720 418 8 5,566 8,900 8,908 27,565
28017 ATC 1999 24,752 4,050 8,630 53 3,548 3,782 1,009 21,072 45,824 45,824
28017 N A NDLea-IRMS 2,416 3,400 9.840 1999 13,189 7,043 9,605 6,670 106 66 2,290 1,525 2,653 429 294 4,302 30,681 43,870 48,172 31,748 19,179
OD 28018 K1 NODS 96 GEMPOL - PASURUAN 1996 7,502 3,145 790 1,443 510 4,312 1,946 2,433 4 322 14,583 22,085 22,407
Survey 28018 NODS 96 GEMPOL - PASURUAN 1996 5,888 6,030 692 1,460 51 1,431 3,850 3,537 1,111 741 126 1,586 19,029 24,917 26,503 16,438
28018 NODS-7day Gempol - Pasuruan 1991 2,595 2,478 1,491 2,728 785 2,758 219 803 81 1,110 11,343 13,938 15,048
28018 km40 CAP1 / Cons Gempol - Pasuruan (3 days av.) 1992 2,659 3,002 2,030 2,460 897 3,054 1,117 617 12,560 15,219 15,836
28018 km51 CAP1 / Cons Gempol - Pasuruan (3 days av.) 1992 2,115 2,851 2,105 2,606 1,011 3,072 725 502 12,370 14,485 14,987
28018 ATC 1999 8,315 4,917 3,553 1,503 2,395 3,272 1,223 16,863 25,178 25,178
28018 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,400 5,797 23.976 1999 9,491 7,376 3,952 2,957 478 1,570 2,309 1,539 925 986 334 507 22,426 31,917 32,424 21,381 14,021
28018 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 5,797 6,228 4.299 1999 17,403 7,766 5,917 4,709 952 106 1,250 834 325 266 7,365 22,125 39,528 46,893 13,848 13,834
(C) 28019 NODS-7day Pilang - Probolinggo 1991 1,351 1,945 1,318 2,130 1,094 2,367 175 807 45 1,811 9,881 11,232 13,043
28019 km91 CAP1 / Cons Pasuruan - Pilang (3 days av.) 1992 2,039 3,142 1,669 839 1,307 2,811 570 1,694 10,338 12,377 14,071
28019 1 NODS 96 PASURUAN - PILANG 1996 2,296 3,653 978 936 392 1,463 1,746 3,276 731 450 118 1,455 13,743 16,039 17,494
28019 2 NODS 96 PASURUAN - PILANG 1996 3,084 5,280 1,389 1,330 622 2,323 3,417 5,388 28,009 19,749 22,833 50,842
28019 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,228 8,265 20.370 1999 5,178 3,395 3,397 2,130 3 1,766 1,459 973 610 411 77 1,741 14,221 19,399 21,140 18,176 8,891 19,021
28019 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 8,265 9,423 11.589 1999 6,253 4,262 4,301 2,523 6 1,966 2,829 1,885 760 1,133 146 2,531 19,811 26,064 28,595 18,176 12,385 20,969
28020 K NODS 96 JLN. P. SUDIRMAN 1996 1,258 1,105 635 607 461 1,719 1,776 3,369 6,845 9,672 10,930 17,775
28020 NODS 96 PILANG - PROBOLINGGO 1996 14,805 17,344 2,741 2,623 1,548 5,779 12,071 12,638 487 300 79 137,630 55,610 70,415 208,045 12,061
28020 km97 CAP1 / Cons Pilang - Probolinggo (3 days av.) 1992 9,757 3,394 2,093 2,337 541 2,679 978 11,090 12,022 21,779 32,869
28020 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,423 9,476 0.530 1999 10,875 4,990 6,230 3,062 99 320 610 406 45 67 14 7,797 15,843 26,718 34,515 23,853 9,904 25,884
28020 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 9,476 10,077 6.010 1999 14,634 4,181 7,363 2,797 14 464 770 514 408 56 6 10,494 16,573 31,207 41,701 11,867 10,361
OD 28021 1 NODS 96 PROBOLINGGO-BUDUAN 1996 981 962 523 212 29 506 553 1,282 193 171 42 358 4,473 5,454 5,812
Survey 28021 2 NODS 96 BUDUAN - PANARUKAN 1996 1,053 822 752 305 29 510 478 1,278 185 164 40 333 4,563 5,616 5,949
28021 2 ATC 1999 5,081 2,867 3,347 775 1,570 2,377 611 11,547 16,628 16,628
28021 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 10,077 14,357 42.800 1999 4,291 2,984 1,195 1,518 13 592 1,130 754 490 189 75 1,035 8,940 13,231 14,266 2,184 5,588
28021 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 14,357 15,995 16.356 1999 2,939 1,947 762 883 26 498 1,000 667 166 133 75 1,256 6,157 9,096 10,352 4,055 3,851
Count 28022 NODS 96 MLANDINGAN - PANARUKAN 1996 961 671 746 302 59 1,030 451 1,534 1,415 1,254 308 374 7,770 8,731 9,105 10,304
28022 N A NDLea-IRMS 15,990 18,800 28.100 1999 1,851 1,078 1,846 686 18 538 680 453 922 42 453 6,263 8,114 8,567 8,633 3,916
28023 NODS 96 PANARUKAN - SITUBONDO 1996 1,513 491 1,214 492 62 1,090 490 1,259 728 645 158 617 6,629 8,142 8,759
28023 N A NDLea-IRMS 18,800 19,450 6.645 1999 6,278 1,944 2,195 898 5 358 533 355 56 90 14 1,888 6,448 12,726 14,614 8,859 4,035
Count 28024 1 NODS 96 SITUBONDO - BAJULMATI 1996 3,008 1,238 1,210 491 31 541 856 1,104 793 702 172 1,541 7,138 10,146 11,687
28024 2 NODS 96 BAJULMATI - KETAPANG 1996 1,781 923 236 400 41 478 558 1,357 167 125 45 2,501 4,330 6,111 8,612
28024 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 19,450 25,360 59.100 1999 3,014 1,059 1,130 883 43 291 693 462 168 90 22 1,261 4,841 7,855 9,116 11,565 3,030
28024 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 25,360 27,590 22.300 1999 2,219 770 992 611 6 312 1,205 803 165 10 2 918 4,876 7,095 8,013 10,585 3,049
OD 28025 NODS 96 KETAPANG - BANYUWANGI 1996 4,115 1,074 551 1,215 40 445 866 1,578 261 156 42 1,595 6,228 10,343 11,938
Survey 28025 N A NDLea-IRMS 27,590 28,800 12.383 1999 4,605 1,190 1,862 1,208 3 160 610 406 210 37 2 896 5,688 10,293 11,189 15,472 3,557 8,124
Count 28026 NODS 96 GEMPOL - PANDAAN 1996 8,870 10,563 3,433 2,959 107 1,355 3,823 5,571 1,627 246 178 711 29,862 38,732 39,443 22,533
28026 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,416 4,595 11.800 1999 12,942 5,488 9,184 7,742 666 182 1,131 755 1,586 387 146 3,691 27,267 40,209 43,900 44,200 17,046 34,843
28027 NODS 96 PANDAAN - PURWOSARI 1996 9,887 14,713 3,359 2,895 94 1,192 5,717 6,521 716 34,491 44,378 45,094 11,626
28027 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,595 6,136 15.420 1999 40,216 5,456 5,658 2,406 150 3,387 1,181 787 328 51 16 1,168 19,420 59,636 60,804 14,270 12,141 28,886
28028 NODS 96 PURWOSARI - PURWODADI 1996 27,034 64,557 8,955 7,718 256 3,245 22,051 28,498 56 33 9 1,889 135,378 162,412 164,301
28028 NODS-7day Gempol - Pandaan 1991 3,534 5,045 2,257 4,773 1,019 4,876 285 293 43 523 18,591 22,125 22,648
28028 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,136 6,502 3.660 1999 15,830 8,922 6,851 4,589 130 2,184 2,451 1,634 1,739 107 27 427 28,634 44,464 44,891 14,611 17,902 51,160
OD 28029 1 NODS 96 PURWODADI - KARANGLO 1996 35,006 21,786 6,986 6,021 425 5,379 9,711 13,525 128 77 21 2,372 64,059 99,065 101,437
Survey 28029 2 NODS 96 PURWODADI - KARANGLO 1996 11,004 13,467 1,377 3,327 145 1,794 3,894 3,444 912 418 102 500 28,880 39,884 40,384 36,530
28029 1 ATC 1999 9,911 7,535 6,750 1,705 2,940 3,070 666 22,666 32,577 32,577
28029 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,502 6,868 3.680 1999 13,619 11,568 10,078 4,712 258 2,387 2,869 1,912 1,005 88 26 1,334 34,903 48,522 49,856 27,623 21,818
28029 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,868 8,103 12.360 1999 15,861 13,525 11,936 5,440 352 2,827 3,298 2,198 1,314 131 27 1,694 41,048 56,909 58,603 28,471 25,658
28030 K1 NODS 96 JLN. BOROBUDUR (MALANG) 1996 43,375 30,416 5,713 13,804 1 7 11,212 9,784 2 1 1,594 70,940 114,315 115,909
28030 K2 NODS 96 JLN. A. YANI (MALANG) 1996 63,810 47,979 7,290 17,613 425 5,379 17,268 137,838 336 201 54 2,665 234,383 298,193 300,858
28030 NODS 96 KARANGLO - MALANG 1996 13,115 1,690 234 565 1 14 927 2,426 1,350 5,857 18,972 20,322 36,464
28030 NODS-7day Purwodadi - Karanglo 1991 8,366 4,803 3,035 6,055 1,351 2,730 155 343 23 477 18,495 26,861 27,338
28030 N A NDLea-IRMS 8,103 8,214 1.110 1999 13,038 7,101 11,171 5,558 173 1,736 2,266 1,510 949 61 11 3,283 30,536 43,574 46,857 25,988 19,087
28030 21K N A NDLea-IRMS 200 605 4.050 1999 35,709 18,349 10,904 6,222 112 40 1,310 874 54 6 9,370 37,871 73,580 82,950 9,446 23,676
28030 22K N A NDLea-IRMS 250 370 1.200 1999 24,464 17,902 34,869 2,987 11 27 26 16 3,005 55,838 80,302 83,307 9,514 34,900
OD 28031 NODS 96 TUBAN - BULU 1996 40,368 31,338 4,168 10,071 404 5,115 8,298 79,995 263 157 42 939 139,851 180,219 181,158
Survey 28031 N A NDLea-IRMS 10,314 15,067 47.530 1999 1,750 938 1,011 730 34 205 912 608 1,512 194 30 754 6,174 7,924 8,678 7,941 3,862
28032 NODS 96 PONCO - JATIROGO 1996 90,567 138,050 3,070 7,419 12 149 17,442 2,661 1 1 3,903 168,805 259,372 263,275
28032 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,780 16,045 42.650 1999 2,590 192 393 420 27 40 31 23 1,126 3,716 3,716 242 1,052 1,341
28033 NODS 96 PADANGAN - BTS.JATENG (CEPU) 1996 34,966 57,196 3,877 9,368 143 1,809 9,171 37,336 167 100 27 1,675 119,194 154,160 155,835
28033 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 14,209 14,426 2.170 1999 5,868 794 1,199 322 13 226 363 242 18 3,083 3,177 9,045 12,128 4,577 2,944 5,953
28034 NODS 96 BOJONEGORO - PONCO 1996 2,780 258 182 309 12 159 608 253 31 610 1,812 4,592 5,202
28034 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,104 11,790 6.803 1999 3,572 338 246 348 12 225 273 183 2 567 1,627 5,199 5,766 1,749 1,509 1,336
28035 NODS 96 PONCO - PAKAH 1996 2,318 233 112 190 21 277 498 223 91 914 1,645 3,963 4,877
28035 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,180 4,740 35.590 1999 2,168 421 683 465 8 99 447 298 878 2,421 4,589 5,467 2,813 2,244 2,445
28036 NODS 96 PANDANGAN - BOJONEGORO 1996 968 143 59 99 15 199 276 202 77 164 1,070 2,038 2,202
28036 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,119 14,209 30.900 1999 3,136 623 1,147 500 10 124 657 438 63 1,381 3,562 6,698 8,079 2,427 3,302 4,160
(C) 28037 1 NODS 96 PANDANGAN - NGAWI 1996 1,164 127 64 109 23 305 330 134 48 257 1,140 2,304 2,561
28037 2 NODS 96 PANDANGAN - NGAWI 1996 859 444 109 205 10 323 283 611 29 262 2,014 2,873 3,135
28037 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 300 3,298 29.980 1999 1,242 372 403 282 6 258 348 231 13 841 1,913 3,155 3,996 1,819 1,775 2,122
28037 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,298 4,065 7.690 1999 908 340 348 299 16 281 298 199 17 4 662 1,802 2,710 3,372 3,094 1,671 2,212
28038 NODS 96 BABAT - BOJONEGORO 1996 3,042 962 605 660 8 601 855 1,434 87 10 4 752 5,226 8,268 9,020
28038 ATC 1999 3,543 953 1,271 407 652 1,024 74 4,381 7,924 7,924
28038 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 7,300 11,125 38.110 1999 2,478 746 1,021 667 25 444 538 359 131 945 3,931 6,409 7,354 5,037 3,641 2,331
28039 1 NODS 96 TEMANGKAR - PAKAH 1996 5,599 967 415 452 6,936 521,067 969 36,164 32 1,845 567,002 572,601 574,446
28039 2 NODS 96 BABAT - TEMANGKAR 1996 4,604 764 331 361 11,160 838,395 847 64,037 146 1,415 916,041 920,645 922,060
28039 1 ATC 1999 1,400 1,280 1,138 841 912 2,190 1,964 8,325 9,725 9,725
28039 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 8,000 9,150 11.500 1999 1,101 918 536 707 50 618 966 643 1,174 70 10 253 5,692 6,793 7,046 7,265 3,558
28039 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 7,504 8,000 4.960 1999 389 325 186 250 22 224 326 218 384 24 3 98 1,962 2,351 2,449 6,980 1,226
28040 NODS 96 PAKAH - TUBAN 1996 2,394 308 237 259 4,064 305,308 352 47,681 31 708 358,240 360,634 361,342
28040 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,120 10,195 10.750 1999 2,842 1,590 2,416 1,384 69 949 1,683 1,122 2,971 165 38 808 12,387 15,229 16,037 9,142 7,746
Count 28041 1 NODS 96 GRESIK - SADANG 1996 1,163 170 241 263 1,880 141,235 173 25,050 8 547 169,020 170,183 170,730
28041 2 NODS 96 SADANG - KM. 93.175 1996 1,963 298 304 466 26 3 414 546 67 1 1 116 2,126 4,089 4,205
28041 3 NODS 96 KM. 93.175 - TUBAN 1996 2,681 237 279 943 4 32 661 666 55 4 19 4,488 2,900 5,581 10,069
28041 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,903 6,030 41.270 1999 17,024 2,138 3,203 1,934 238 1,152 766 493 3,069 9,924 26,948 30,017 3,205 6,205
28041 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 6,030 9,317 32.870 1999 2,880 818 1,389 883 3 91 389 259 141 514 3,973 6,853 7,367 5,183 2,485
28041 3 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 9,317 10,497 11.800 1999 2,786 1,085 2,430 1,006 5 122 834 555 373 19 1,397 6,429 9,215 10,612 7,225 4,020
28042 1 NODS 96 GRESIK - LAMONGAN 1996 10,040 5,508 2,863 2,365 192 822 6,019 3,540 1,351 440 361 631 23,461 33,501 34,132
28042 2 NODS 96 GRESIK - LAMONGAN 1996 4,019 2,471 1,394 571 177 1,107 1,172 2,100 1,457 435 258 443 11,142 15,161 15,604 16,423
28042 1 ATC 1999 11,348 3,964 3,380 1,291 2,942 2,302 2,440 16,319 27,667 27,667
28042 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,639 3,794 21.550 1999 11,619 4,181 3,462 2,765 42 1,202 1,323 883 1,262 984 30 683 16,134 27,753 28,436 16,004 10,086
28042 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 3,794 4,481 6.880 1999 9,509 4,683 3,646 3,139 61 1,744 1,246 830 1,395 992 42 816 17,778 27,287 28,103 17,082 11,114
Count 28043 K NODS 96 JLN. RAYA GRESIK (SURABAYA) 1996 6,375 3,135 1,744 714 104 650 1,503 1,063 1,150 343 204 740 10,610 16,985 17,725
28043 NODS 96 SURABAYA - GRESIK 1996 12,759 3,196 1,509 1,311 12 1,384 1,132 106 8 37 1,330 8,695 21,454 22,784 16,047
28043 NODS-7day Surabaya - Gresik 1991 6,402 4,514 2,226 4,800 1,005 3,497 394 1,000 135 342 17,571 23,973 24,315
28043 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,358 1,678 3.200 1999 48,532 6,055 9,320 4,217 152 869 1,610 1,074 650 52 5 2,297 24,004 72,536 74,833 11,695 15,438
28043 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 158 1,360 12.020 1999 37,802 5,090 6,200 3,160 45 1,355 2,125 1,418 1,502 240 26 1,638 21,161 58,963 60,601 9,940 13,229
OD 28044 1 NODS 96 LAMONGAN - WIDANG 1996 12,759 3,196 1,509 1,311 12 1,384 1,132 106 8 37 1,330 8,695 21,454 22,784 14,660
Survey 28044 2 NODS 96 WIDANG - BABAT 1996 12,759 3,196 1,509 1,311 12 1,384 1,132 106 8 37 1,330 8,695 21,454 22,784
28044 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,458 7,142 26.850 1999 4,691 1,894 3,248 1,998 45 1,410 2,398 1,600 3,141 227 46 3,154 16,007 20,698 23,852 11,038 10,010
28044 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 7,142 7,492 3.520 1999 4,653 1,483 1,685 1,093 88 590 475 315 323 35 2,315 6,087 10,740 13,055 4,131 3,808
28045 1 NODS 96 LAMONGAN - GEDEK 1996 2,352 91 132 138 192 280 23 1 2 718 859 3,211 3,929
28045 2 NODS 96 LAMONGAN - GEDEK 1996 3,293 126 190 198 276 387 35 2 3 1,030 1,217 4,510 5,540
28045 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 225 2,602 23.770 1999 3,585 189 566 283 338 226 1,201 1,602 5,187 6,388 2,041 1,484 1,435
28045 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,602 4,425 18.230 1999 3,120 329 514 279 6 294 197 23 753 1,642 4,762 5,515 2,452 1,521 1,205
OD 28046 1 NODS 96 BABAT - PLOSO 1996 1,353 348 280 335 8 202 491 1,617 85 1 1 55 3,368 4,721 4,776
Survey 28046 2 NODS 96 BABAT - PLOSO 1996 1,346 207 737 882 10 244 928 310 41 42 3,359 4,705 4,747
28046 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15 3,088 30.730 1999 3,095 573 1,413 489 13 278 388 259 43 739 3,456 6,551 7,290 2,179 3,203 2,706
28046 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,088 4,311 12.230 1999 2,258 502 984 396 14 228 648 432 44 717 3,248 5,506 6,223 3,053 3,011 4,127
28047 NODS 96 PLOSO -JOMBANG 1996 2,143 1,354 739 884 284 7,179 1,273 1,492 148 2 2 83 13,357 15,500 15,583
28047 ATC 1999 4,945 1,301 2,835 242 1,229 2,687 176 8,470 13,415 13,415
28047 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,370 5,280 9.212 1999 4,690 1,318 3,023 1,372 186 1,576 1,051 40 4 22 4,771 8,592 13,282 18,053 8,180 7,958 4,287
28048 1 NODS 96 GEDEK - KUDU 1996 2,869 432 404 527 10 294 686 1,545 145 4 734 4,047 6,916 7,650
28048 2 NODS 96 KUDU - PLOSO 1996 1,496 159 148 194 1 29 244 1,063 75 2 411 1,915 3,411 3,822
28048 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,270 6,033 7.660 1999 6,128 451 768 480 3 791 527 49 4 15 2,441 3,088 9,216 11,657 2,828 2,862 3,451
28048 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,033 7,412 13.790 1999 1,335 297 702 342 1 6 539 360 99 2 1,486 2,348 3,683 5,169 3,543 2,176 1,908
28049 1 NODS 96 PLOSO - MUNUNG 1996 1,179 34 10 36 5 105 63 23 74 276 1,455 1,529
28049 2 NODS 96 MUNUNG - KERTOSONO 1996 725 141 5 20 44 1,304 84 20 3 18 1,621 2,346 2,364
28049 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 60 900 8.221 1999 850 414 430 229 5 17 133 89 1 684 1,318 2,168 2,852 2,727 1,220 1,370
28049 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 900 3,071 21.710 1999 848 315 361 207 4 17 126 84 495 1,114 1,962 2,457 2,404 1,035 1,300
28050 NODS 96 MOJOKERTO - GEDEK 1996 516 83 3 12 26 766 61 12 2 14 965 1,481 1,495
28050 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,848 5,270 4.220 1999 8,294 897 1,421 942 26 988 659 168 2,602 5,101 13,395 15,997 5,410 4,726 6,022
28051 K NODS 96 MOJOSARI - MOJOKERTO 1996 707 581 12 44 18 530 208 134 79 10 1,606 2,313 2,323
28051 NODS 96 MOJOKERTO - MOJOSARI 1996 783 578 19 70 27 787 269 169 94 12 2,013 2,796 2,808
28051 ATC 1999 6,277 1,722 3,007 221 1,650 2,865 545 10,010 16,287 16,287
28051 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 55 1,491 14.370 1999 6,130 1,522 2,575 1,317 78 8 1,260 841 380 25 1,736 8,006 14,136 15,872 7,527 7,414 6,365
28051 2K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 200 527 3.191 1999 9,292 1,190 10,803 981 4 8 573 382 66 5 3,537 14,012 23,304 26,841 29,374 12,977
28052 1 NODS 96 KRIAN - MOJOSARI 1996 772 955 17 60 1 37 246 12 1,328 2,100 2,100
28052 2 NODS 96 KRIAN - MOJOSARI 1996 904 734 21 77 46 1,362 357 32 47 5 2,676 3,580 3,585
28052 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,000 3,756 7.560 1999 13,999 1,383 1,999 1,350 8 26 1,406 937 791 48 12 1,603 7,960 21,959 23,562 8,045 7,374 6,272
28052 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,756 4,270 5.150 1999 5,442 881 1,592 837 6 19 2,129 1,419 662 162 9 1,020 7,716 13,158 14,178 8,907 7,149 6,149
28053 NODS 96 MOJOSARI - PANDANARUM 1996 7,108 1,068 748 1,000 33 109 309 858 468 18 29 1,327 4,640 11,748 13,075
28053 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 4,270 5,577 13.080 1999 4,776 1,244 2,797 1,135 10 118 1,280 854 293 5 2,332 7,736 12,512 14,844 5,339 7,168 2,441
28054 NODS 96 GEMEKAN - PANDANARUM 1996 9,719 782 469 627 282 931 354 1,608 730 28 45 1,260 5,856 15,575 16,835
28054 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 855 2,912 20.539 1999 2,204 699 957 679 820 546 90 2 1,670 3,793 5,997 7,667 3,302 3,516 854
28055 NODS 96 PANDAN ARUM - CLAKET 1996 1,829 204 155 207 276 910 154 2,162 2,733 105 169 111 7,075 8,904 9,015
28055 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 16 836 8.200 1999 10,093 241 379 361 5 252 167 256 1,405 11,498 11,754 777 1,305 92
28056 NODS 96 PANDAN ARUM - PACET 1996 1,588 238 141 189 214 705 188 1,562 1,647 63 102 104 5,049 6,637 6,741
28056 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 5,588 6,000 4.207 1999 4,815 507 1,015 374 4 64 43 144 2,007 6,822 6,966 941 1,862 2,122
28057 1 NODS 96 LEGUNDI - MLIRIP 1996 3,949 271 265 225 5 350 329 1,395 1,445 5,394 6,789
28057 2 NODS 96 LEGUNDI - MLIRIP 1996 1,579 100 93 79 99 175 569 449 17 28 836 1,609 3,188 4,024
28057 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,800 3,846 10.480 1999 18,257 1,032 1,339 1,229 39 2,967 1,980 143 7,464 8,729 26,986 34,450 6,062 8,085 1,854
28057 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,846 4,580 7.340 1999 13,558 982 1,264 1,273 91 2,705 1,804 157 5,066 8,276 21,834 26,900 5,387 7,665 1,317
28058 NODS 96 DRIYOREJO - LEGUNDI 1996 1,579 100 93 79 99 175 572 449 17 28 835 1,612 3,191 4,026
28058 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,200 2,800 6.000 1999 7,577 2,852 3,255 1,247 70 1,227 819 382 2,442 9,852 17,429 19,871 13,986 9,124 5,004
28059 K1 NODS 96 JLN. MANGANTI (SURABAYA) 1996 3,376 285 397 337 63 483 1,722 1,498 58 93 337 4,936 8,312 8,649
28059 K2 NODS 96 JLN. KARANG PILANG (SURABAYA) 1996 8,271 1,718 1,893 1,607 91 2,189 3,865 48,653 1,871 3,015 1,333 64,902 73,173 74,506
28059 K3 NODS 96 JLN. KEDURUS 1996 8,273 357 1,028 952 353 331 14 3 1,138 3,038 11,311 12,449
28059 K4 NODS 96 JLN. GUNUNGSARI (SURABAYA) 1996 5,469 214 672 622 326 288 4 1 1,487 2,127 7,596 9,083
28059 NODS 96 WONOKROMO - DRIYOREJO 1996 7,744 912 828 928 6 8 658 2,184 375 8 9 1,367 5,916 13,660 15,027
28059 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,749 2,200 4.510 1999 25,587 5,410 6,191 4,649 13 203 4,260 2,838 3,224 112 2 6,117 26,902 52,489 58,606 10,536 24,921 5,855
28059 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,100 2,000 9.000 1999 27,791 6,601 11,760 4,094 26 9 286 191 15 3 4,397 22,985 50,776 55,173 20,825 21,286
28059 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,000 1,070 0.700 1999 24,662 6,108 6,876 4,278 39 392 1,226 816 994 81 210 3,346 21,020 45,682 49,028 17,460 19,469
28059 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 893 1,679 7.860 1999 28,332 6,651 9,347 5,247 15 222 605 403 156 12 6 3,873 22,664 50,996 54,869 42,562 20,984
28059 14K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 260 2.590 1999 126,526 10,120 12,097 9,066 44 936 910 607 81 9,510 33,861 160,387 169,897 29,264 31,356
28059 15K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 260 300 0.400 1999 24,068 1,712 2,971 2,020 29 17 1,602 1,068 217 5,929 9,636 33,704 39,633
28060 NODS 96 LEGUNDI - KRIAN 1996 2,381 588 531 596 6 7 257 961 187 4 4 248 3,141 5,522 5,770
28060 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 18 311 2.930 1999 24,068 1,712 2,971 2,020 29 17 1,602 1,068 217 5,929 9,636 33,704 39,633 6,637 8,927
28061 NODS 96 SEPANJANG - \TAMAN 1996 17,999 8,795 4,952 3,722 173 2,946 5,782 10,747 2,106 1,191 118 3,454 40,532 58,531 61,985
28061 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,415 1,600 1.850 1999 15,188 3,622 7,708 2,724 12 168 1,161 773 577 85 3 3,828 16,833 32,021 35,849 25,003 15,592
28062 NODS 96 MAGETAN - CEMORO SEWU 1996 160 138 36 83 2 1 107 29 5 401 561 561
28062 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 19,484 21,018 15.360 1999 4,328 505 789 383 24 350 181 121 14 264 2,367 6,695 6,959 2,289 2,196 1,546
28062 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 21,018 21,448 4.280 1999 5,968 727 1,429 532 39 573 394 264 43 536 4,001 9,969 10,505
28063 NODS 96 MAOSPATI - MAGETAN 1996 88 30 7 17 30 17 1 102 190 190
28063 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 18,009 19,083 10.740 1999 5,968 727 1,429 532 39 573 394 264 43 536 4,001 9,969 10,505 3,529 3,707 4,058
28064 NODS 96 PONOROGO - BITING 1996 149 48 12 27 47 29 1 164 313 313
28064 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 20,458 21,847 13.900 1999 2,603 313 401 366 4 15 227 151 15 1,406 1,492 4,095 5,501 1,949 1,384 2,064
28064 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 19,996 20,458 4.620 1999 1,312 317 760 162 16 136 120 80 24 77 1,615 2,927 3,004
28065 NODS 96 PACITAN-GLONGGONG 1996 258 89 137 193 9 85 140 213 11 1 13 878 1,136 1,149
28065 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 27,600 31,600 40.000 1999 1,312 317 760 162 16 136 120 80 24 77 1,615 2,927 3,004 2,647 1,010
28066 1 NODS 96 DENGOK - BTS.CABDIN 1996 1,469 158 169 249 3 115 211 305 1 1,076 1,211 2,680 3,756
28066 2 NODS 96 BTS. CABDIN - PACITAN 1996 2,244 198 139 205 5 178 192 219 5 4,603 1,141 3,385 7,988
28066 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 20,306 22,750 24.440 1999 1,896 69 754 170 10 78 89 58 10 652 1,238 3,134 3,786 1,735 1,146 737
28066 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 22,750 27,607 48.590 1999 1,269 41 476 102 5 41 53 35 3 423 756 2,025 2,448 1,519 700 316
(C) 28067 NODS 96 PONOROGO - DENGOK 1996 2,314 199 120 177 2 63 249 324 8 4,152 1,142 3,456 7,608
28067 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 20,100 20,306 2.060 1999 6,798 1,074 987 662 17 260 336 225 19 1,947 3,580 10,378 12,325 3,564 3,317 4,351
OD 28068 1 NODS 96 MADIUN - PONOROGO 1996 2,742 251 76 112 283 56 1 6,387 779 3,521 9,908
Survey 28068 2 NODS 96 MADIUN - PONOROGO 1996 4,834 945 767 229 63 734 856 867 71 39 6 981 4,577 9,411 10,392
28068 K1 NODS 96 MADIUN - PONOROGO 1996 3,087 1,914 2,715 811 16,947 197,446 1,443 4,547 153 84 13 694 226,073 229,160 229,854
28068 K2 NODS 96 JLN. DI. PANJAITAN (MADIUN) 1996 4,709 1,543 3,830 1,144 74,655 869,790 1,748 3,843 1,442 792 122 1,058 958,909 963,618 964,676
28068 K3 NODS 96 JLN. BASUKI RAHMAT (MADIUN) 1996 2,624 774 1,479 442 17,703 206,254 860 1,806 2,742 1,506 232 471 233,798 236,422 236,893
28068 K4 NODS 96 JLN. M. THAMRIN (MADIUN) 1996 1,607 681 1,543 461 22,806 265,708 765 3,673 573 315 48 138 296,573 298,180 298,318
28068 K5 NODS 96 JLN. MT. HARYONO (MADIUN) 1996 1,528 1,079 1,524 455 24,633 286,994 1,036 3,946 1,076 591 91 354 321,425 322,953 323,307
28068 2 ATC 1999 4,827 1,487 1,372 641 688 1,093 54 5,335 10,162 10,162
28068 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 17,124 18,891 17.680 1999 4,525 1,384 1,803 653 29 653 285 190 53 784 5,050 9,575 10,359 5,112 3,158
28068 11K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 65 800 7.350 1999 9,715 1,904 1,618 854 40 1,135 485 324 293 11 4,675 6,664 16,379 21,054 3,973 4,218
28068 12K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 200 235 0.335 1999 5,490 1,576 1,298 893 50 1,166 614 410 381 11 1,866 6,399 11,889 13,755 3,914 4,003
28068 13K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 300 550 2.390 1999 5,085 1,358 2,539 502 29 1,186 677 451 499 19 2,442 7,260 12,345 14,787 5,167 4,542
28068 14K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 400 500 1.000 1999 7,213 1,008 2,245 1,099 53 1,213 282 187 467 22 4,822 6,576 13,789 18,611 4,275 4,113
28068 15K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 500 585 0.813 1999 8,181 1,206 2,747 1,514 50 1,342 429 286 504 21 3,216 8,099 16,280 19,496 3,793 5,067
28068 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 18,891 19,691 8.020 1999 5,222 1,555 2,014 755 35 707 346 230 61 867 5,703 10,925 11,792 3,616 3,567
Count 28069 1 NODS 96 TRENGGALEK - DENGOK 1996 2,988 1,461 3,666 1,095 26,712 311,216 927 3,082 759 417 64 839 349,399 352,387 353,226
28069 2 NODS 96 TRENGGALEK - DENGOK 1996 729 299 108 80 41 131 359 272 12 1 166 1,303 2,032 2,198
28069 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10 1,785 17.760 1999 2,141 255 603 239 25 135 260 173 6 507 1,696 3,837 4,344 1,693 1,573 1,743
28069 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,785 4,622 28.380 1999 2,445 273 390 349 29 198 366 244 28 741 1,877 4,322 5,063 1,121 1,741 1,995
28070 NODS 96 TULUNGAGUNG - TR.GALEK 1996 650 329 45 34 1 2 277 8 157 696 1,346 1,503
28070 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 15,477 18,610 31.350 1999 13,232 1,853 2,070 1,914 298 422 1,288 859 133 83 2,352 8,920 22,152 24,504 11,208 5,579
Count 28071 K1 NODS 96 Belum didefinisikan oleh Bina Marga 1996 185 76 40 29 11 36 166 112 2 4 472 657 661
28071 K2 NODS 96 JLN. WAHID HASYIM 1996 450 148 26 19 1 253 5 181 452 902 1,083
28071 K3 NODS 96 JLN. JAGUNG SUPRAPTO 1996 295 273 50 37 13 41 174 98 2 62 688 983 1,045
28071 K4 NODS 96 JLN. GATOT SUBROTO (KEDIRI) 1996 554 123 70 52 2 6 207 101 97 561 1,115 1,212
28071 K5 NODS 96 JLN. NGAMPEL GAYAM (KEDIRI) 1996 102 82 34 25 156 126 423 525 525
28071 NODS 96 NGANJUK - KEDIRI 1996 3,424 860 770 534 11 545 755 1,010 112 9 1 1,557 4,607 8,031 9,588
28071 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 60 2,604 25.460 1999 5,900 883 1,164 681 33 431 703 469 247 28 2,514 4,639 10,539 13,053 3,909 4,300 5,307
28071 21K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 100 152 0.520 1999 6,191 797 1,096 591 45 30 3,580 2,559 8,750 12,330 8,234 11,335
28071 22K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 180 1.721 1999 6,191 797 1,096 591 45 30 3,580 2,559 8,750 12,330 3,320 2,371
28071 23K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 70 2.300 1999 19,732 3,223 2,300 1,076 10 41 175 117 8 12,715 6,950 26,682 39,397 2,540 6,443
28071 24K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 75 0.750 1999 19,138 2,544 3,104 1,724 33 616 1,092 729 77 12,220 9,919 29,057 41,277 4,399 9,187
28071 25K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 210 2.008 1999 2,902 96 73 87 27 18 4,495 301 3,203 7,698 227 282
OD 28072 K1 NODS 96 JLN. BRAWIJAYA (KEDIRI) 1996 1,397 702 328 228 1 5 400 439 531 2,103 3,500 4,031
Survey 28072 K2 NODS 96 JLN. P. SUDIRMAN (KEDIRI) 1996 4,543 826 578 401 5 17 450 578 1 3,487 2,856 7,399 10,886
28072 K3 NODS 96 JLN. MAYJEN. SUNGKONO 1996 8,798 2,970 1,291 895 19 61 1,289 1,071 6 11,447 7,602 16,400 27,847
28072 K4 NODS 96 JLN. MAYOR BISMO (KEDIRI) 1996 2,646 2,855 908 629 41 131 1,036 1,040 18 2 3,689 6,660 9,306 12,995
28072 NODS 96 KERTOSONO - KEDIRI 1996 4,269 1,309 873 347 15 619 842 1,313 315 318 47 1,416 5,998 10,267 11,683
28072 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 9,551 12,300 27.490 1999 5,630 1,256 2,003 1,067 40 856 824 549 981 37 3,986 7,613 13,243 17,229 5,468 4,761
28072 21K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 60 0.574 1999 30,179 6,150 1,326 1,123 18 83 56 2 19,494 8,758 38,937 58,431 4,702 5,475
28072 22K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 85 0.813 1999 10,424 2,042 2,069 1,214 22 285 190 58 11 38 8,019 5,929 16,353 24,372 5,554 3,708
28072 23K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 110 1.100 1999 36,360 6,480 10,885 3,458 24 1,197 1,373 915 562 13,896 24,894 61,254 75,150 5,841 15,565
28072 24 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 160 1.600 1999 14,826 1,566 2,968 1,106 27 757 664 443 403 8,195 7,934 22,760 30,955 3,056 4,961
Count 28073 1 NODS 96 KEDIRI - NGANTRU 1996 15,227 4,204 2,790 1,109 48 2,001 3,322 4,183 1,688 1,704 252 5,294 21,301 36,528 41,822
28073 2 NODS 96 KEDIRI - NGANTRU 1996 6,160 1,948 741 283 15 1,179 929 1,369 1,296 753 41 2,325 8,554 14,714 17,039
28073 K1 NODS 96 JLN. DOHO (KEDIRI) 1996 5,454 5,539 987 377 140 10,971 2,066 6,521 1,634 949 52 1,844 29,236 34,690 36,534
28073 K2 NODS 96 JLN. URIP SUMOHARJO (KEDIRI) 1996 3,095 812 561 214 2 162 540 683 620 2,974 6,069 6,689
28073 K3 NODS 96 JLN. SSN. SUHARMAJI (KEDIRI) 1996 3,805 516 366 140 469 496 803 1,987 5,792 6,595
28073 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 12,804 14,269 14.660 1999 13,138 2,176 2,171 1,341 38 1,533 688 459 587 16 3,726 9,009 22,147 25,873 3,638 5,637
28073 11K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 70 0.669 1999 34,973 3,944 5,523 1,931 46 5,216 11,444 46,417 51,633 3,914 7,154
28073 12K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 171 231 0.573 1999 18,669 2,790 3,512 2,344 34 997 403 270 117 13 8,746 10,480 29,149 37,895 3,498 6,551
28073 13K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 210 2.008 1999 16,067 2,251 3,406 1,442 50 1,562 768 512 368 16 6,179 10,375 26,442 32,621 2,545 6,486
28073 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 14,270 14,809 5.390 1999 10,918 1,904 1,654 1,093 34 1,198 568 379 146 3 2,803 6,979 17,897 20,700 3,490 4,364
OD 28074 NODS 96 NGANTRU - TULUNGAGUNG 1996 7,902 1,047 731 279 714 950 1,591 3,721 11,623 13,214
Survey 28074 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 14,808 15,477 6.690 1999 16,198 2,058 2,938 2,051 29 822 1,218 811 162 7,160 10,089 26,287 33,447 5,448 6,308
Count 28075 1 NODS 96 TULUNG AGUNG-BLITAR 1996 3,785 1,016 439 573 12 611 833 1,018 74 11 965 4,587 8,372 9,337
28075 1K NODS 96 JLN. CEMARA ARAH TULUNG AGUNG 1996 4,507 1,458 512 669 14 734 815 618 41 6 1,161 4,867 9,374 10,535
28075 2 NODS 96 TULUNG AGUNG - BLITAR 1996 3,310 1,047 120 289 8 505 709 768 37 14 1 879 3,498 6,808 7,687 5,133 4,311
28075 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 80 2,600 25.200 1999 7,592 1,088 1,144 1,064 128 267 704 469 101 37 1,370 5,002 12,594 13,964 5,363 3,128
28075 11K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 235 2.247 1999 8,800 2,101 2,686 992 314 285 277 186 46 8 2 3,854 6,897 15,697 19,551 5,363 4,311
28075 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 2,599 3,247 6.480 1999 7,350 1,210 925 1,056 19 285 651 434 138 11 1,424 4,729 12,079 13,503 4,619 2,956
Count 28076 NODS 96 JOMBANG - PULOREJO 1996 1,678 1,255 137 330 8 495 1,083 1,167 54 20 1 255 4,550 6,228 6,483
28076 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 47 1,681 16.350 1999 4,260 798 2,386 726 28 446 603 402 98 25 13 2,507 5,525 9,785 12,292 4,953 5,120 6,660
28077 1 NODS 96 PULOREJO - PARE 1996 2,845 567 543 505 3 21 632 787 122 12 11 1,129 3,203 6,048 7,177
28077 2 NODS 96 PULOREJO - PARE 1996 3,618 510 363 337 2 17 409 450 82 8 7 1,449 2,185 5,803 7,252
28077 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,681 1,965 2.860 1999 3,961 467 1,032 692 83 369 246 73 9 4,052 2,971 6,932 10,984 2,940 2,756 4,491
28077 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,965 2,890 9.260 1999 3,891 458 1,014 680 82 363 242 72 9 4,037 2,920 6,811 10,848 2,940 2,707 4,965
28078 K1 NODS 96 JLN. HAYAM WURUK (KEDIRI) 1996 12,897 1,625 1,989 1,849 4 28 1,461 523 76 7 7 3,577 7,569 20,466 24,043
28078 K2 NODS 96 JLN. AIRLANGGA (KEDIRI) 1996 5,713 654 772 718 2 14 669 308 15 1 1 1,349 3,154 8,867 10,216
28078 K3 NODS 96 JLN. KUSUMA BANGSA 1996 2,797 381 308 286 1 5 516 210 14 1 1 245 1,723 4,520 4,765
28078 K4 NODS 96 JLN. JEND. ACHMAD YANI (KEDIRI) 1996 2,784 348 356 331 1 5 485 231 36 4 3 386 1,800 4,584 4,970
28078 NODS 96 PARE - KEDIRI 1996 4,710 3,972 1,519 1,030 62 1,592 2,799 4,756 1,795 206 177 440 17,908 22,618 23,058
28078 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 2,060 20.620 1999 10,116 859 1,730 1,005 129 340 228 44 4,020 4,335 14,451 18,471 3,568 4,017 5,779
28078 21K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 75 0.717 1999 67,054 6,544 6,701 3,283 348 245 166 16 8 33,088 17,311 84,365 117,453 2,191 16,051
28078 22K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 35 0.335 1999 4,168 626 684 364 4 29 19 2,563 1,726 5,894 8,457 2,062 1,600
28078 23K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 80 0.765 1999 7,395 964 2,084 648 1 8 24 16 5 2,358 3,750 11,145 13,503 4,633 3,475
28078 24K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 110 1.100 1999 21,802 4,495 3,892 2,280 9 481 893 595 179 43 14,729 12,867 34,669 49,398 11,101 11,919
Count 28079 1 NODS 96 KEDIRI - SRENGAT 1996 4,781 993 164 434 16 51 689 865 168 13 3 3,233 3,396 8,177 11,410
28079 2 NODS 96 KEDIRI - SRENGAT 1996 9,972 2,786 377 997 92 293 1,546 3,618 1,316 102 24 127,919 11,151 21,123 149,042
28079 K1 NODS 96 JLN. MAYJEN. SUPRAPTO (KEDIRI) 1996 7,467 207 67 178 265 661 168 13 3 160,788 1,562 9,029 169,817
28079 K2 NODS 96 JLN. MAHONI (KEDIRI) 1996 19,638 4,336 535 1,415 170 542 2,356 3,236 3,472 269 62 275,667 16,393 36,031 311,698
28079 K3 NODS 96 JLN. DURIAN (KEDIRI) 1996 18,395 4,233 501 1,325 107 341 2,343 3,022 3,304 256 59 193,549 15,491 33,886 227,435
28079 K4 NODS 96 JLN. ARAH WATES 1996 17,088 980 213 564 119 378 800 1,908 2,156 167 39 213,162 7,324 24,412 237,574
28079 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 13,084 14,537 14.550 1999 7,055 615 1,479 706 28 629 419 126 3,784 4,002 11,057 14,841 2,825 3,708 4,509
28079 11 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 135 1.350 1999 28,597 3,918 3,945 1,436 58 500 423 282 135 45 72 10,210 10,814 39,411 49,621 5,951 10,022
28079 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 260 2.600 1999 10,332 609 1,104 623 6 49 247 164 104 1 5,097 2,907 13,239 18,336 2,407 2,694
28079 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 40 0.382 1999 5,022 363 623 343 19 144 96 57 2,492 1,645 6,667 9,159 2,997 1,526
28079 14K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 400 640 2.400 1999 5,410 384 569 447 3 15 139 93 63 3,041 1,713 7,123 10,164 2,550 1,588
28079 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 14,537 15,351 8.160 1999 9,887 2,409 1,011 774 233 512 341 132 36 684 5,448 15,335 16,019 2,712 5,051 4,321
28080 1 NODS 96 NGANTRU - SRENGAT 1996 29,063 2,404 231 611 7 21 1,229 3,613 672 52 12 514,694 8,852 37,915 552,609
28080 2 NODS 96 NGANTRU - SRENGAT 1996 7,428 243 29 78 227 1,160 168 13 3 161,866 1,921 9,349 171,215
28080 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 8 965 9.580 1999 3,269 214 410 262 541 151 102 11 4 2,148 1,695 4,964 7,112 978 1,573 1,678
28080 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 965 1,985 10.220 1999 3,134 206 403 255 300 141 94 30 2,064 1,429 4,563 6,627 843 1,327 2,089
28081 1 NODS 96 MOJOSARI-GEMPOL (WIL. PASURUAN 1996 24,289 935 250 662 1 3 684 4,284 1,568 121 28 410,807 8,536 32,825 443,632
28081 2 NODS 96 MOJOSARI-GEMPOL (WIL. SURABAYA 1996 3,982 1,180 871 1,145 11 19 1,049 1,386 140 7 4 254 5,812 9,794 10,048
28081 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 210 620 4.100 1999 1,788 2,593 2,131 2,843 397 147 313 210 276 423 75 878 9,408 11,196 12,074 8,459 8,714 7,844
28081 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 620 2,052 14.320 1999 3,086 3,431 1,919 2,719 342 123 308 205 224 208 56 980 9,535 12,621 13,601 7,709 8,832 6,287
28082 NODS 96 PANDAAN - TRETES 1996 3,556 1,108 1,405 1,847 12 21 1,170 623 284 14 8 188 6,492 10,048 10,236
28082 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 4,596 5,561 9.660 1999 4,235 2,116 1,240 552 77 12 649 433 319 5,079 9,314 9,633 2,984 4,707 3,865
28083 NODS 96 KARANGLO - PENDEM 1996 3,682 447 468 616 3 5 569 811 28 1 1 200 2,949 6,631 6,831
28083 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,003 3,030 10.280 1999 6,517 2,568 2,341 1,847 164 6 559 373 125 10 640 7,993 14,510 15,150 9,282 7,406 8,120
28084 K NODS 96 JLN. PANJAITAN (MALANG) 1996 4,172 1,259 302 397 4 8 529 393 85 4 2 277 2,983 7,155 7,432
28084 NODS 96 MALANG-PENDEM 1996 4,904 1,344 754 991 25 44 1,045 1,557 440 22 13 200 6,235 11,139 11,339
28084 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 607 1,130 5.358 1999 10,403 4,199 3,988 3,093 489 70 933 622 384 51 1,025 13,829 24,232 25,257 10,625 12,809 17,550
28084 1K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 100 465 3.489 1999 29,780 8,289 13,503 4,874 51 1,234 1,442 961 173 11 3 2,019 30,541 60,321 62,340 34,691 28,282 17,087
Count 28085 1 NODS 96 PENDEM - KANDANGAN 1996 2,894 392 906 1,191 1 1 606 424 22 1 1 59 3,545 6,439 6,498
28085 2 NODS 96 PENDEM - KANDANGAN 1996 4,595 481 1,230 1,617 687 545 37 2 1 254 4,600 9,195 9,449
28085 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,130 6,463 53.360 1999 2,093 1,522 1,608 1,224 559 9 309 206 104 8 123 5,549 7,642 7,765 9,661 5,139 3,697
28085 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,763 3,965 2.030 1999 2,107 1,551 1,595 1,197 274 151 287 192 30 1 55 5,278 7,385 7,440 8,465 4,888 2,925
28086 NODS 96 KANDANGAN - PARE 1996 3,646 700 624 290 60 480 704 710 27 1 1,008 3,596 7,242 8,250
28086 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 3,965 5,099 11.350 1999 4,086 586 1,030 743 77 2 405 270 37 4,285 3,150 7,236 11,521 3,216 2,920 3,934
28087 1 NODS 96 PULOREJO - KANDANGAN 1996 1,790 153 377 175 307 323 641 1,335 3,125 3,766
28087 2 NODS 96 PULOREJO - KANDANGAN 1996 2,691 451 372 284 13 373 656 1,125 264 4 2 900 3,544 6,235 7,135
28087 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,681 2,568 8.870 1999 1,805 286 454 335 346 444 296 44 5 3,128 2,210 4,015 7,143 2,459 2,047 2,699
28087 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,568 2,928 3.600 1999 1,973 311 478 380 349 447 298 39 3 3,190 2,305 4,278 7,468 2,292 2,137 4,983
28088 NODS 96 MALANG - TUREN 1996 2,175 96 225 171 3 99 370 459 35 1 1,234 1,459 3,634 4,868
28088 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 9,519 11,515 20.653 1999 6,941 2,135 2,430 1,150 69 238 550 366 102 33 18 607 7,091 14,032 14,639 9,284 6,570 10,004
OD 28089 K1 NODS 96 JLN. BENGAWAN SOLO 1996 740 159 125 95 8 226 222 433 248 4 2 51 1,522 2,262 2,313
Survey 28089 K2 NODS 96 JLN. P. SUDIRMAN 1996 3,788 178 174 133 11 415 676 104 2 1 898 1,694 5,482 6,380
28089 K3 NODS 96 JLN. MARTADINATA 1996 2,623 181 155 118 8 387 617 103 2 1 843 1,572 4,195 5,038
28089 K4 NODS 96 JLN. KOL. SUGIONO 1996 4,190 314 230 176 10 443 558 84 1 1 1,593 1,817 6,007 7,600
28089 K5 NODS 96 JLN. KS. TUBUN 1996 4,147 244 162 123 9 245 498 725 122 2 1 736 2,131 6,278 7,014
28089 K6 NODS 96 JLN. S. SUPRIYADI (MALANG) 1996 5,974 19 192 147 171 179 3,518 708 6,682 10,200
28089 NODS 96 MALANG - KEPANJEN 1996 2,064 27 108 83 153 259 23 771 653 2,717 3,488
28089 ATC 1999 9,229 2,966 3,280 495 1,599 1,451 92 9,883 19,112 19,112
28089 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 9,431 10,751 13.200 1999 9,502 3,691 3,750 2,112 146 586 1,034 688 194 62 14 992 12,277 21,779 22,771 3,330 7,675
28089 11K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 90 0.860 1999 9,874 8,690 6,776 6,134 98 651 2,826 1,885 686 307 32 1,312 28,085 37,959 39,271 29,315 17,556
28089 12K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 179 1.790 1999 19,421 6,878 6,942 5,394 22 341 445 296 307 290 34 2,358 20,949 40,370 42,728 22,953 13,095
28089 13K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 85 0.813 1999 19,379 6,424 9,694 5,360 62 496 2,814 1,878 381 562 72 10,584 27,743 47,122 57,706 23,253 17,343
28089 14K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 540 900 3.600 1999 16,605 5,854 17,533 4,885 74 590 3,635 2,424 293 576 77 9,333 35,941 52,546 61,879 14,350 22,466
28089 15K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 105 1.050 1999 10,685 4,882 4,930 4,651 139 1,477 1,570 1,046 1,021 24 1,795 19,740 30,425 32,220 27,208 12,337
28089 16K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 1,163 1,588 4.250 1999 16,051 9,326 9,184 3,408 158 179 622 416 34 3 5,621 23,330 39,381 45,002 26,850 14,584
Count 28090 1 NODS 96 KEPANJEN - GUNUNG WETAN 1996 5,408 195 228 174 15 438 442 752 62 1 1,836 2,307 7,715 9,551
28090 2 NODS 96 GONDANGLEGI - TUREN 1996 4,492 16 151 115 12 276 345 1,632 915 5,407 7,039
28090 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 51 900 8.490 1999 6,541 1,069 1,206 613 120 38 310 206 13 1,221 3,575 10,116 11,337 6,984 2,236
28090 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 900 1,654 7.560 1999 9,082 1,488 1,144 755 176 27 461 307 29 1,614 4,387 13,469 15,083 6,037 2,745
28091 1 NODS 96 KEPANJEN - BLITAR 1996 4,536 1,443 1,120 1,621 21 566 1,244 1,232 42 16 562 7,305 11,841 12,403
28091 2 NODS 96 KEPANJEN - BLITAR 1996 4,644 13,320 1,361 1,970 468 12,626 1,865 1,310 30 684 32,950 37,594 38,278
28091 K1 NODS 96 JLN. MAWAR (BLITAR) 1996 5,303 5,735 1,281 1,855 836 509 966 10,216 15,519 16,485 5,672 4,957
28091 K2 NODS 96 JLN. TANJUNG (BLITAR) 1996 5,148 19,055 1,203 1,741 657 17,720 1,760 1,609 25 444 43,770 48,918 49,362 5,672 3,457
28091 K3 NODS 96 JLN. MERDEKA (BLITAR) 1996 3,809 24,161 4,462 6,458 465 12,539 1,276 2,993 33 1 191 52,388 56,197 56,388 5,672 6,875
28091 K4 NODS 96 JLN. P. SUDIRMAN (BLITAR) 1996 1,044 28,564 3,380 4,892 192 5,181 1,932 3,471 1 74 47,613 48,657 48,731
28091 K5 NODS 96 JLN. JAGUNG SUPRAPTO (BLITAR) 1996 713 11,988 2,617 3,788 220 5,921 819 1,924 70 27,277 27,990 28,060
28091 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 10,751 12,461 17.120 1999 7,315 3,200 3,054 1,568 397 630 816 544 555 56 2 914 10,822 18,137 19,051 5,672 6,768
28091 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 12,461 16,629 41.700 1999 7,986 2,334 3,613 1,611 210 573 923 616 165 32 493 10,077 18,063 18,556 3,239 6,301
28091 21K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 16,957 17,015 0.580 1999 13,032 2,741 4,813 1,614 373 408 429 286 93 54 7,613 10,811 23,843 31,456 4,703 6,760
28091 22K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 17,000 17,127 1.243 1999 16,176 1,965 2,922 1,245 258 251 691 461 83 43 6 7,445 7,925 24,101 31,546 7,777 4,955
28091 23K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 110 1.052 2000 7,043 939 755 726 90 59 4 3,582 2,573 9,616 13,198 2,572 4,957
28091 24K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 50 0.478 2000 13,867 2,328 1,317 938 72 48 4,944 4,703 18,570 23,514 4,703 3,457
28091 25K N K1 NDLea-IRMS 0 60 0.574 1999 22,086 6,035 1,578 1,715 238 237 619 413 110 50 8,408 10,995 33,081 41,489 5,218 6,875
28092 K1 NODS 96 JLN. CEPAKA (BLITAR) 1996 2,030 13,616 2,936 4,249 305 8,229 1,605 3,090 29 121 34,059 36,089 36,210
28092 K2 NODS 96 JLN. TANJUNG ARAH KEDIRI (BLIT 1996 852 18,944 1,391 2,013 236 6,357 1,614 2,658 15 205 33,228 34,080 34,285
28092 NODS 96 BLITAR - SRENGAT 1996 1,496 225 31 79 1 254 173 181 11 4 920 959 2,455 3,375
28092 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 15,414 16,294 10.160 1999 9,080 2,037 972 906 345 630 419 143 27 818 5,479 14,559 15,377 5,779 5,074 5,729
28092 11K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 35 0.335 1999 6,016 1,714 3,624 1,207 294 206 262 175 194 14 3,645 7,690 13,706 17,351 8,490 7,124
28092 12K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 125 1.250 1999 9,178 2,025 999 1,151 285 83 702 468 215 65 1,241 5,993 15,171 16,412 5,002 5,554
28092 13K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 16,294 16,430 1.360 1999 3,051 1,362 1,290 1,007 77 230 765 510 125 25 1,862 5,391 8,442 10,304
28093 NODS 96 PURWOSARI - KEJAYAN 1996 1,842 140 37 93 1 368 147 158 1,003 944 2,786 3,789
28093 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 629 2,525 18.960 1999 3,051 1,362 1,290 1,007 77 230 765 510 125 25 1,862 5,391 8,442 10,304 8,887 4,993 7,159
28094 K1 NODS 96 JLN. POH JENTREK (PASURUAN) 1996 1,544 113 32 81 1 285 121 130 868 763 2,307 3,175
28094 K2 NODS 96 JLN. P. SUDIRMAN (PASURUAN) 1996 4,706 156 18 46 1 194 113 116 12 3,481 656 5,362 8,843
28094 K3 NODS 96 JLN. NUSANTARA (PASURUAN) 1996 2,866 115 63 161 114 139 1,357 592 3,458 4,815
28094 K4 NODS 96 JLN. NIAGA (PASURUAN) 1996 2,304 91 52 132 7 94 123 3 1,111 502 2,806 3,917
28094 NODS 96 PASURUAN-KEJAYAN 1996 1,570 32 24 61 15 68 61 548 261 1,831 2,379
28094 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,329 6,629 3.060 1999 7,393 2,010 2,154 1,051 77 302 285 190 113 21 3,359 6,203 13,596 16,955 7,069 5,747 7,697
28094 21K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 100 240 1.338 1999 10,162 2,710 3,069 1,308 69 422 374 249 187 22 5,563 8,410 18,572 24,135 6,509 7,789
28094 22K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 130 1.243 1999 11,018 1,354 3,024 930 25 188 448 298 327 10 6,835 6,604 17,622 24,457 6,801 6,117
28094 23K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 300 356 0.535 1999 9,322 1,474 890 833 5 26 17 8,175 3,245 12,567 20,742 3,139 2,682
28094 24K P K2 NDLea-IRMS 400 443 0.411 1999 10,049 1,602 995 935 5 33 22 7,426 3,592 13,641 21,067 6,640 3,327
28095 NODS 96 KEJAYAN - TOSARI 1996 1,354 51 20 52 1 164 73 58 35 1 440 455 1,809 2,249
28095 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 6,629 10,178 35.490 1999 4,104 438 767 455 38 375 249 13 2 473 2,337 6,441 6,914 5,041 2,166 1,538
28096 NODS 96 PURWODADI - NONGKOJAJAR 1996 379 169 4 9 25 21 167 228 607 774
28096 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 2,094 20.997 1999 3,026 833 635 473 46 319 212 36 6 423 2,560 5,586 6,009 3,519 2,372 1,393
28097 NODS 96 TUREN - SENDANGBIRU 1996 1,124 15 39 2 19 777 75 1,199 1,976
28097 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,657 6,853 41.970 1999 4,094 440 703 633 531 354 362 2,661 6,755 7,117 2,317 2,465 929
Count 28098 1 NODS 96 TUREN - BTS.CABDIN 1996 934 97 67 218 7 84 126 300 53 899 1,833 1,886
28098 2 NODS 96 BTS. CABDIN - LUMAJANG 1996 728 143 71 229 1 252 69 565 234 1,330 2,058 2,292
28098 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 15 3,736 37.220 1999 1,925 282 557 304 125 595 397 107 2,260 4,185 4,292 6,689 1,412
28098 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 3,736 9,343 56.100 1999 2,538 328 686 349 110 763 509 106 2,745 5,283 5,389 6,365 1,717
28099 NODS 96 WONOREJO - LUMAJANG 1996 954 20 28 93 21 172 657 334 1,288 1,945
28099 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 13,825 14,500 6.884 1999 2,968 1,384 2,016 1,059 774 749 499 525 78 1,565 7,084 10,052 11,617 3,683 4,430
28100 NODS 96 GROBOGAN - WONOREJO 1996 665 16 39 127 11 443 386 636 1,301 1,687
28100 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 13,085 13,825 7.650 1999 2,469 1,376 1,952 1,307 232 965 691 461 726 136 42 1,787 7,888 10,357 12,144 2,964 4,934
Count 28101 1 NODS 96 PROBOLINGGO - GROBOGAN 1996 1,639 2,101 332 688 18 879 1,123 1,443 227 122 59 300 6,992 8,631 8,931
28101 2 NODS 96 PROBOLINGGO - GROBOGAN 1996 1,018 8,149 256 531 5 246 2,964 1,084 212 13,235 14,253 14,465
28101 K1 NODS 96 JLN. HASAN GENG. (PROBOLINGGO) 1996 1,065 8,659 281 583 2,955 1,002 220 13,480 14,545 14,765
28101 K2 NODS 96 JLN. ARTERI SELATAN (PROB'GO) 1996 4,047 1,592 61 127 1,059 1,134 2,286 3,973 8,020 10,306
28101 2 ATC 1999 7,623 1,183 1,862 759 859 924 699 6,286 13,909 13,909
28101 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 10,232 11,815 15.850 1999 7,611 1,347 2,566 1,011 208 611 651 435 731 90 11 6,360 7,661 15,272 21,632 4,978 4,790 6,033
28101 11K N A NDLea-IRMS 9,994 10,232 2.400 1999 4,050 1,286 1,834 1,075 26 318 918 613 318 400 110 4,090 6,898 10,948 15,038 2,484 4,313
28101 12K N A NDLea-IRMS 9,423 10,570 11.470 1999 6,507 3,646 1,608 1,950 2,379 1,323 883 715 1,214 269 3,858 13,987 20,494 24,352 10,780 8,746
28101 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 11,815 13,085 12.700 1999 2,797 8,296 960 378 78 226 262 174 278 54 6 2,211 10,712 13,509 15,720 4,105 6,698 6,548
28102 NODS 96 PILANG - SUKAPURA 1996 2,224 13,667 341 707 508 24,788 8,349 9,528 311 57,888 60,112 60,423
28102 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 9,755 11,776 20.270 1999 1,347 184 442 294 8 121 119 79 67 33 46 623 1,393 2,740 3,363 3,295 1,291 914
28103 1 NODS 96 GROBOGAN - PONDOKDALEM 1996 1,948 15,874 160 331 464 22,643 8,588 9,698 260 57,758 59,706 59,966
28103 2 NODS 96 GROBOGAN - PONDOKDALEM 1996 2,497 1,485 811 353 26 26 100 146 14 5 23 1,378 2,989 5,486 6,864
28103 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 285 2,381 20.980 1999 1,769 147 588 279 197 132 11 2 777 1,356 3,125 3,902 4,548 1,255 790
28103 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,381 3,303 9.230 1999 1,819 348 602 279 194 130 6 3 812 1,562 3,381 4,193 2,603 1,448 1,000
OD 28104 1 NODS 96 WONOREJO - PONDOKDALEM 1996 1,291 999 212 339 18 549 819 842 327 11 1 830 4,117 5,408 6,238
Survey 28104 2 NODS 96 WONOREJO - PONDOKDALEM 1996 1,177 974 185 296 22 663 1,600 858 693 4,598 5,775 6,468
28104 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 13,825 15,580 17.550 1999 7,624 614 2,520 1,168 816 544 80 14 3,515 5,756 13,380 16,895 6,363 3,602
28104 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 15,580 16,419 8.410 1999 1,755 1,026 910 901 5 821 894 595 478 38 1,475 5,668 7,423 8,898 8,863 3,545
28105 NODS 96 P. DALEM - TANGGUL 1996 1,630 580 120 191 20 618 864 792 809 3,185 4,815 5,624
28105 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 16,419 16,720 3.010 1999 8,147 1,437 1,843 1,062 16 750 1,056 704 304 19 4,227 7,191 15,338 19,565 8,121 4,496
28106 NODS 96 TANGGUL - GEMBIRONO 1996 2,140 51,270 2,134 3,413 2,120 64,645 29,785 16,668 432 170,035 172,175 172,607
28106 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 16,720 17,390 6.612 1999 5,035 1,462 2,814 1,366 66 890 1,194 795 432 32 2 803 9,053 14,088 14,891 8,343 5,664
Count 28107 NODS 96 GEMBIRONO - RAMBIPUJI 1996 369 2,417 96 154 16 480 2,870 256 2 6,289 6,658 6,660
28107 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 17,390 18,512 11.051 1999 9,523 2,274 2,795 1,344 32 1,328 925 614 262 27 2,451 9,601 19,124 21,575 8,750 6,004
28108 NODS 96 RAMBIPUJI - MANGLI 1996 863 1,332 283 453 9 275 1,848 418 443 4,618 5,481 5,924
28108 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 18,512 19,120 6.043 1999 11,088 2,224 4,514 1,586 117 869 1,058 706 237 40 2 3,270 11,353 22,441 25,711 10,792 7,095 13,161
28109 NODS 96 MANGLI - JEMBER 1996 2,344 10,446 378 605 43 1,304 5,808 1,720 650 20,304 22,648 23,298
28109 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 19,120 19,731 6.068 1999 18,062 4,696 9,142 2,766 40 718 731 488 64 10 3 3,440 18,658 36,720 40,160 28,514 11,667 17,111
OD 28110 NODS 96 ARJOSO - JEMBER 1996 530 999 177 283 1,465 127 20 3,051 3,581 3,601
Survey 28110 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 2,520 3,247 7.282 1999 6,699 1,179 3,269 1,112 308 38 470 313 30 1,007 6,719 13,418 14,425 7,406 6,225 7,054
28111 1 NODS 96 MAESAN - ARJASA 1996 21,115 181,078 8,268 13,222 993 30,287 50,973 5,565 1,688 290,386 311,501 313,189
28111 2 NODS 96 MAESAN - ARJASA 1996 2,230 988 592 833 12 460 747 336 21 2 155 3,991 6,221 6,376
28111 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,380 1,590 2.120 1999 4,196 1,349 893 745 9 184 159 106 16 190 3,461 7,657 7,847 4,856 3,205 3,121
28111 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,590 2,520 9.320 1999 4,101 1,354 923 778 11 188 170 113 17 205 3,554 7,655 7,860 5,041 3,293 2,926
28112 NODS 96 BONDOWOSO - MAESAN 1996 825 417 198 279 7 254 273 180 14 1 76 1,623 2,448 2,524
28112 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 1,380 14.200 1999 3,219 1,412 1,255 1,050 18 193 330 220 105 1,163 4,583 7,802 8,965 5,528 4,247 3,083
(C) 28113 NODS 96 BONDOWOSO - MLANDINGAN 1996 821 415 245 302 19 61 395 209 40 3 271 1,689 2,510 2,781
28113 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 15,990 19,100 31.120 1999 1,125 413 588 390 42 179 119 41 1 1 537 1,774 2,899 3,436 2,280 1,645 1,712
(C) 28114 NODS 96 BONDOWOSO-SITUBONDO 1996 2,683 601 431 823 12 243 744 498 58 4 5 1,327 3,419 6,102 7,429
28114 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 52 3,523 34.710 1999 1,435 686 931 953 56 86 214 143 279 99 4 1,405 3,451 4,886 6,291 6,669 3,197 4,019
28115 NODS 96 PONDOK DALEM-KENCONG 1996 3,293 332 127 523 14 121 861 392 116 9 3 94 2,498 5,791 5,885
28115 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 296 1,866 16.112 1999 1,513 97 237 133 66 43 5 1,122 581 2,094 3,216 644 540 498
28116 1 NODS 96 LUMAJANG - KENCONG 1996 28,648 5,125 1,802 7,422 161 1,390 7,471 882 212 16 5 55 24,486 53,134 53,189
28116 2 NODS 96 LUMAJANG - KENCONG 1996 9,081 1,680 329 1,354 4 32 1,749 63 2 97 5,213 14,294 14,391
28116 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 1,669 16.687 1999 4,730 1,670 1,058 721 217 25 288 193 307 26 3,250 4,505 9,235 12,485 2,222 4,179 2,880
28116 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,669 2,340 6.720 1999 4,665 1,624 1,003 683 191 42 284 189 346 52 3,295 4,414 9,079 12,374 2,291 4,092 2,612
28117 NODS 96 KENCONG - KASIAN 1996 10,982 1,082 307 1,264 6 56 1,721 62 2 295 4,500 15,482 15,777
28117 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,340 3,876 15.380 1999 3,863 269 559 342 172 5 349 232 29 5 1,516 1,962 5,825 7,341 2,737 1,821 2,975
28118 NODS 96 TANGGUL-SEMBOKO 1996 3,147 248 117 480 1 474 90 288 1,410 4,557 4,845
28118 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 21 570 5.490 1999 4,682 314 524 328 26 662 442 40 8 2,995 2,344 7,026 10,021 2,912 2,175
28119 NODS 96 GEMBIRONO-KASIHAN 1996 3,795 831 120 493 1 7 815 41 25 2,308 6,103 6,128
28119 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 9 1,477 14.680 1999 1,604 45 116 122 81 54 2 1,989 420 2,024 4,013 488 391
28120 NODS 96 KASIHAN - PUGER 1996 21,677 4,268 738 3,039 10 88 2,788 289 25 2 1 50 11,248 32,925 32,975
28120 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 76 805 7.290 1999 4,925 184 620 350 2 509 339 35 5 2,659 2,044 6,969 9,628 2,482 1,895 1,774
28121 NODS 96 BALUNG - KASIHAN 1996 12,997 1,246 387 1,595 12 108 1,127 378 29 2 1 44 4,885 17,882 17,926
28121 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 5 725 7.302 1999 7,231 947 1,145 686 9 224 637 424 96 1,929 4,168 11,399 13,328 4,126 3,862 4,100
28122 NODS 96 BALUNG - RAMBIPUJI 1996 9,896 1,076 339 1,396 16 135 2,186 497 45 4 1 55 5,695 15,591 15,646
28122 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 5 1,065 10.636 1999 6,805 833 1,810 703 143 5 510 340 111 18 1,497 4,473 11,278 12,775 4,933 4,143 5,013
28123 NODS 96 BALUNG - AMBULU 1996 5,252 560 211 870 18 157 1,282 693 57 4 1 68 3,853 9,105 9,173
28123 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 5 1,400 13.951 1999 4,669 387 485 407 54 3 297 198 40 3 1,905 1,874 6,543 8,448 2,286 1,739 2,700
28124 NODS 96 MANGLI - AMBULU 1996 13,806 2,479 485 1,997 9 74 2,951 322 29 2 1 89 8,349 22,155 22,244
28124 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 1,889 18.890 1999 6,081 1,045 442 505 51 16 143 96 19 1 2,133 2,318 8,399 10,532 3,180 2,149 3,561
28125 NODS 96 JEMBER - MAYANG 1996 17,047 2,794 630 2,596 7 64 4,389 352 34 3 1 82 10,870 27,917 27,999
28125 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 19,731 20,899 11.680 1999 4,115 1,480 3,205 1,186 13 400 1,077 717 99 11 2 1,536 8,190 12,305 13,841 7,146 5,121
28126 NODS 96 ARJASA - KALISAT 1996 3,834 861 154 633 3 25 919 113 8 1 8 2,717 6,551 6,559
28126 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 19 995 10.087 1999 3,506 211 1,576 419 11 218 146 11 2 261 2,594 6,100 6,361 2,914 2,403 2,124
28127 1 NODS 96 MAESAN - KALISAT 1996 1,916 279 64 343 2 4 335 155 13 1 1,522 1,196 3,112 4,634
28127 2 NODS 96 MAESAN - KALISAT 1996 6,628 482 144 774 6 11 704 181 20 2 2,426 2,324 8,952 11,378
28127 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 79 495 4.170 1999 6,413 396 1,954 730 5 244 162 3,352 3,491 9,904 13,256 2,819 3,236 654
28127 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 495 1,784 12.885 1999 6,012 442 1,938 724 256 171 3,148 3,531 9,543 12,691 2,983 3,269 1,457
28128 NODS 96 KALISAT - SUMBERJATI 1996 1,591 209 66 354 27 54 616 143 9 1 724 1,479 3,070 3,794
28128 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,784 2,589 8.050 1999 2,134 233 1,032 325 3 230 153 4 1 683 1,981 4,115 4,798 4,372 1,837 3,221
OD 28129 NODS 96 MAYANG - SUMBERJATI 1996 1,277 108 20 107 1 277 143 13 1 1,107 670 1,947 3,054
Survey 28129 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 20,899 21,748 8.490 1999 4,374 1,211 2,494 1,141 18 419 736 490 230 16 957 6,755 11,129 12,086 10,150 4,225
28130 NODS 96 KALISAT - MAYANG 1996 2,224 298 89 479 669 208 3 3,945 1,746 3,970 7,915
28130 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 161 593 4.446 1999 1,630 407 916 447 203 135 51 8 1,018 2,167 3,797 4,815 4,896 2,006 655
28131 1 NODS 96 SUMBERJATI - GENTENG KULON 1996 680 100 20 109 1 174 150 6 1,000 560 1,240 2,240
28131 2 NODS 96 SUMBERJATI - GENTENG KULON 1996 1,072 488 479 329 9 363 508 664 306 20 276 3,166 4,238 4,514
28131 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 21,748 23,595 18.490 1999 2,350 642 763 805 267 77 510 341 142 30 141 3,577 5,927 6,068 6,713 2,238
28131 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 23,595 26,713 31.169 1999 3,670 680 1,230 923 218 75 584 389 138 37 1,016 4,274 7,944 8,960 7,559 2,673
(C) 28132 NODS 96 GENTENG KULON - WONOREKSO 1996 181 104 97 66 1 55 116 152 45 3 157 639 820 977
28132 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 26,713 28,201 14.880 1999 5,318 893 1,230 677 21 458 306 181 18 1,214 3,784 9,102 10,316 7,403 2,366 3,952
28133 NODS 96 WONOREKSO - ROGOJAMPI 1996 189 63 112 77 1 21 48 81 13 1 207 417 606 813
28133 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 28,201 28,600 3.990 1999 6,043 1,141 1,344 1,072 13 478 318 155 16 2,237 4,537 10,580 12,817 7,272 2,840 4,765
(C) 28134 NODS 96 ROGOJAMPI - BANYUWANGI 1996 135 98 104 71 1 29 65 67 7 412 442 577 989
28134 ATC 1999 9,904 1,789 2,028 472 1,490 1,276 158 7,213 17,117 17,117
28134 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 28,670 30,208 15.380 1999 7,668 1,352 1,441 1,071 19 352 525 350 132 15 823 5,257 12,925 13,748 7,624 4,872 7,758
28135 NODS 96 GENTENG - TEMUGURUH 1996 412 153 250 172 1 40 193 253 28 2 1,002 1,092 1,504 2,506
28135 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 13 1,000 9.880 1999 3,258 215 577 144 3 138 92 15 1 1,080 1,185 4,443 5,523 1,538 1,099 1,893
28136 NODS 96 TEMUGURUH - WONOREKSO 1996 181 55 176 121 19 72 127 30 2 418 602 783 1,201
28136 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,000 1,572 5.730 1999 1,767 190 508 310 2 98 66 19 2 838 1,195 2,962 3,800 2,461 1,108 2,091
28137 NODS 96 ROGOJAMPI - BENCULUK 1996 725 308 473 325 10 176 54 4 920 1,350 2,075 2,995
28137 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 1,713 17.130 1999 3,688 635 956 617 6 299 518 346 49 3 1,228 3,429 7,117 8,345 6,265 3,177 4,764
28138 1 NODS 96 BENCULUK - GUNUNG AGUNG 1996 305 111 169 116 12 97 49 7 321 561 866 1,187
28138 2 NODS 96 GUNUNG AGUNG-GRAJAGAN 1996 378 485 488 335 1 45 175 106 23 1 257 1,659 2,037 2,294
28138 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 13 1,185 12.049 1999 2,992 342 543 497 11 294 195 3 3,032 1,885 4,877 7,909 2,020 1,749 1,455
28138 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,300 1,865 5.737 1999 6,368 279 756 564 9 241 160 27 1,673 2,036 8,404 10,077 1,973 1,887
28139 NODS 96 JAJAG - BENCULUK 1996 21 17 31 21 5 188 21 32 11 1 64 327 348 412
28139 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,218 1,700 4.972 1999 5,365 580 878 397 9 268 199 133 35 8 754 2,507 7,872 8,626 3,913 2,323 3,524
28140 NODS 96 JAJAG - BANGOREJO 1996 7 8 6 4 18 9 2 8 47 54 62
28140 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,218 1,426 2.080 1999 6,032 252 636 426 6 50 32 1,792 1,402 7,434 9,226 1,794 1,300 1,673
28141 NODS 96 GENTENG KULON - JAJAG 1996 110 21 24 16 19 25 5 5 110 220 225
28141 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 104 1,218 11.427 1999 4,722 595 629 526 14 201 219 147 48 9 839 2,388 7,110 7,949 4,042 2,212 3,499
OD 28142 NODS 96 KEMAL - BANGKALAN 1996 646 270 148 30 5 30 194 226 33 903 1,549 1,582
Survey 28142 N A NDLea-IRMS 0 1,585 15.850 1999 2,488 1,968 3,766 957 45 181 680 453 96 1,518 8,146 10,634 12,152 24,432 5,092 7,449
Count 28143 1 NODS 96 BANGKALAN - TORJUN 1996 575 951 109 1,189 40 151 627 598 19 1 199 3,685 4,260 4,459
28143 2 NODS 96 BANGKALAN - TORJUN 1996 514 3,648 178 1,940 73 275 620 625 192 7,359 7,873 8,065
28143 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 1,898 6,200 43.020 1999 2,397 1,312 2,317 1,258 29 120 640 427 232 974 6,335 8,732 9,706 15,521 3,960
28143 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 6,200 7,331 11.310 1999 1,891 1,026 1,826 1,058 22 296 504 336 62 861 5,130 7,021 7,882 14,348 3,207
28144 NODS 96 TORJUN - SAMPANG 1996 704 4,338 224 2,445 125 471 1,150 2,826 79 11,579 12,283 12,362
28144 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,331 8,067 7.360 1999 2,650 1,213 2,136 686 14 141 438 293 18 3 1,246 4,942 7,592 8,838 9,641 3,091
28145 1 NODS 96 SAMPANG - PAMEKASAN 1996 1,157 414 419 738 5 141 594 695 19 1 3,055 3,026 4,183 7,238
28145 2 NODS 96 SAMPANG - PAMEKASAN 1996 1,486 369 797 1,403 7 202 829 1,024 114,103 4,631 6,117 120,220
28145 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 8,067 9,800 17.330 1999 1,386 584 1,250 653 11 138 560 373 42 6 904 3,617 5,003 5,907 8,973 2,263
28145 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,800 11,200 14.000 1999 1,570 669 1,312 707 11 157 603 402 48 6 1,077 3,915 5,485 6,562 8,988 2,450
28146 1 NODS 96 PAMEKASAN - SUMENEP 1996 1,395 544 607 1,069 9 248 735 6,228 16,442 9,440 10,835 27,277
28146 2 NODS 96 PAMEKASAN - SUMENEP 1996 1,818 356 305 805 153 214 562 484 15 1 1 477 2,896 4,714 5,191
28146 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 11,200 12,800 16.000 1999 3,120 693 1,352 715 18 150 450 299 22 5 797 3,704 6,824 7,621 5,561 2,317
28146 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 12,800 16,543 37.430 1999 3,002 654 1,240 648 8 136 395 264 18 6 814 3,369 6,371 7,185 5,347 2,108
28147 NODS 96 SUMENEP - KALIANGET 1996 754 223 122 323 311 435 1,388 335 370 3,137 3,891 4,261
28147 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 16,543 17,682 11.388 1999 1,715 372 632 354 14 8 220 147 1,390 1,747 3,462 4,852 3,193 1,620 1,628
28148 1 NODS 96 BANGKALAN - KETAPANG 1996 466 133 64 487 13 203 121 28 96 1,049 1,515 1,611
28148 2 NODS 96 BANGKALAN - KETAPANG 1996 252 70 16 124 7 136 75 57 428 680 737
28148 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1,898 6,600 47.050 1999 1,304 411 1,257 445 1 11 274 183 8 316 2,590 3,894 4,210 5,843 2,399
28148 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 6,600 8,200 16.000 1999 1,234 415 1,210 406 1 28 283 189 8 316 2,540 3,774 4,090 5,613 2,350 2,618
28149 1 NODS 96 KETAPANG - SOTABAR 1996 316 47 9 70 5 109 53 98 293 609 707
28149 2 NODS 96 KETAPANG - SOTABAR 1996 985 71 101 787 10 1 302 166 13 185 1,451 2,436 2,621
28149 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 8,200 10,600 24.000 1999 585 140 413 259 130 86 252 1,028 1,613 1,865 1,845 953 1,677
28149 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 10,600 11,228 6.280 1999 666 168 499 334 165 110 312 1,276 1,942 2,254 1,941 1,184 2,229
28150 1 NODS 96 SOTABAR - SUMENEP 1996 1,076 194 90 595 3 37 300 279 2 589 1,500 2,576 3,165
28150 2 NODS 96 SOTABAR - SUMENEP 1996 1,030 129 79 525 2 25 277 274 532 1,311 2,341 2,873
28150 1 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 11,228 12,400 11.740 1999 162 176 249 49 79 53 42 606 768 810 2,762 561 1,091
28150 2 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 12,400 16,311 39.110 1999 215 232 227 59 97 65 49 680 895 944 2,224 631 1,374
28151 NODS 96 PAMEKASAN - SOTABAR 1996 947 158 107 707 1 15 230 156 484 1,374 2,321 2,805
28151 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 1999 1,059 220 791 175 92 60 11 1,338 2,397 2,408 1,770 1,239 1,505
28152 NODS 96 SAMPANG - KETAPANG 78 4,096 40.180 1996 638 193 124 823 1 12 210 56 85 1,419 2,057 2,142
28152 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 208 4,000 37.920 1999 1,196 212 777 265 228 152 305 1,634 2,830 3,135 1,891 1,512 907
28153 NODS 96 TORJUN - RAGUNG 1996 579 143 57 377 2 270 60 108 909 1,488 1,596
28153 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,500 2,165 6.650 1999 352 52 234 48 125 83 334 542 894 1,228 2,039 503 398
28154 NODS 96 RAGUNG - SAMPANG 1996 518 51 13 84 1 150 21 71 320 838 909
28154 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 80 1,500 14.200 1999 427 192 206 159 219 146 310 922 1,349 1,659 2,266 854 775
28155 NODS 96 SAMPANG - OMBEN 1996 3,185 514 900 5,950 2 29 1,477 1,894 1,254 10,766 13,951 15,205
28155 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 33 1,365 13.320 1999 632 185 451 150 264 176 686 1,226 1,858 2,544 2,946 1,136 1,625
28156 1 NODS 96 OMBEN - PAMEKASAN 1996 4,650 584 664 4,388 2 26 1,597 1,156 1,863 8,417 13,067 14,930
28156 2 NODS 96 OMBEN - PAMEKASAN 1996 646 95 106 500 12 169 71 8 266 961 1,607 1,873
28156 1 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,400 1,800 4.000 1999 792 342 767 315 1 66 44 353 1,535 2,327 2,680 2,058 1,422
28156 2 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 1,800 3,282 14.820 1999 977 378 796 336 1 72 49 403 1,632 2,609 3,012 2,171 1,512 1,129
28157 NODS 96 ASEMBAGUS - JANGKAR 1996 1,112 59 100 470 10 192 25 585 856 1,968 2,553
28157 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 21,935 22,315 3.872 1999 3,604 132 219 233 174 117 3,070 875 4,479 7,549 889 811 277
28158 1 NODS 96 WIDANG - TEMANGKAR 1996 1,546 1,557 304 269 22 742 817 1,840 1,160 473 168 377 7,352 8,898 9,275
28158 2 NODS 96 WIDANG - TEMANGKAR 1996 553 1,356 157 139 11 364 358 851 38 3,236 3,789 3,827
28158 1 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,202 7,590 3.890 1999 1,997 434 1,450 1,141 43 798 970 646 1,605 43 579 7,130 9,127 9,706 6,812 4,459
28158 2 N A NDLea-IRMS 7,142 7,202 0.600 1999 1,974 464 1,456 1,170 62 832 962 642 1,653 74 608 7,315 9,289 9,897 7,144 4,574
28159 NODS 96 ARJOSARI - NAWANGAN 1996 199 805 104 92 7 221 259 843 33 2,331 2,530 2,563
28159 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 60 4,805 47.450 1999 876 15 719 117 11 230 152 11 1,244 2,120 2,131 1,497 1,154
28160 1 NODS 96 PANGGUL - JARAKAN 1996 181 900 96 85 11 378 242 744 32 2,456 2,637 2,669
28160 2 NODS 96 PACITAN - PANGGUL 1996 209 33 27 41 37 42 41 1 3 222 431 434
28160 1 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 225 6,335 61.100 1999 1,586 134 1,067 146 8 61 179 120 1,715 3,301 3,301 2,166 1,072
28160 2 N K1 NDLea-IRMS 155 5,900 57.450 1999 1,589 91 1,040 112 8 38 163 109 1,561 3,150 3,150 1,732 975
28161 NODS 96 BANGOREJO - PASANGGARAN 1996 20 22 24 36 5 25 112 10 234 254 254
28161 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 200 2,318 21.190 1999 2,601 97 222 113 40 2 213 141 3 579 831 3,432 4,011 1,620 772 1,236
28162 NODS 96 MLIRIP - JAMPIROGO 1996 27 22 14 21 15 80 154 28 334 361 361
28162 N A NDLea-IRMS 4,455 5,495 10.400 1999 9,608 7,472 9,374 4,749 1,165 2,795 5,235 3,491 2,514 213 21 4,709 37,029 46,637 51,346 15,311 23,148
28163 NODS 96 SUKOPURO - LAMBANGKUNING 1996 15 9 6 9 3 19 109 23 178 193 193
28163 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 11,605 12,004 3.990 1999 632 119 231 292 13 108 72 2 22 837 1,469 1,491 917 777 952
28164 NODS 96 GUNUNG AGUNG - TEGAL DLIMO 1996 10 54 9 14 7 39 144 53 1 320 330 331
28164 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 0 1,300 13.000 1999 2,323 153 429 285 85 2 112 75 2 579 1,143 3,466 4,045 1,284 1,062 661
28165 NODS 96 SRONO - MUNCAR 1996 15 19 11 17 3 14 200 25 289 304 304
28165 P K2 NDLea-IRMS 0 1,000 10.000 1999 5,969 1,108 889 521 56 602 401 108 18 1,358 3,703 9,672 11,030 4,262 3,430 2,222
28167 NODS 96 PANDANSARI - TRAWAS 1996 5 9 6 9 3 16 151 10 204 209 209
28167 P K3 NDLea-IRMS 2,445 4,105 16.600 1999 2,197 243 403 174 2 59 40 69 921 3,118 3,187 900 854 1,162
28200 K1 NODS 96 JLN. DIPONEGORO (SURABAYA) 1996 6 8 9 13 2 12 53 12 109 115 115 120,601
28200 K2 NODS 96 JLN. PASAR KEMBANG (SURABAYA) 1996 7 6 4 6 3 16 28 8 1 71 78 79 118,068
28200 K3 NODS 96 JLN. ARJUNO (SURABAYA) 1996 7 9 5 8 2 8 39 1 1 72 79 80 15,271
28200 K4 NODS 96 JLN. TIDAR (SURABAYA) 1996 6 10 6 8 5 25 35 3 92 98 98 81,599
28200 K5 NODS 96 JLN. KALIBUTUH (SURABAYA) 1996 4 4 3 5 2 12 21 4 51 55 55
28200 K6 NODS 96 JLN. DEMAK (SURABAYA) 1996 7 4 3 5 3 14 39 4 72 79 79 25,260
28200 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 290 2.772 2000 63,755 50,142 46,418 31,592 42 1,339 1,363 909 114 4,909 131,919 195,674 200,583
28200 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 75 0.717 1999 265,939 62,968 67,208 26,909 40 1,638 3,027 2,021 2,422 24,216 166,233 432,172 456,388 53,982 103,900
28200 3K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 135 1.291 2000 117,658 35,058 56,949 11,710 21 1,030 1,361 908 716 8,057 107,753 225,411 233,468
28200 4K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 180 1.721 1999 142,227 40,355 55,245 18,480 90 408 270 34 30,478 114,882 257,109 287,587 30,919 71,807
28200 5K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 80 0.765 1999 35,024 6,432 13,982 5,354 13 320 1,091 728 834 40 10 14,854 28,804 63,828 78,682 13,156 18,005
28200 6K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 250 2.390 1999 41,872 12,850 10,987 7,709 22 102 1,635 1,091 712 216 235 5,323 35,559 77,431 82,754 11,801 22,229
28201 K1 NODS 96 JLN. WONOKROMO (SURABAYA) 1996 598 471 534 811 87 465 3,206 153 2 2 5,729 6,327 6,329 117,451
28201 K2 NODS 96 JLN. DARMOKALI (SURABAYA) 1996 41 21 33 50 20 107 599 38 1 868 909 910 24,714
28201 K3 NODS 96 JLN. DINOYO (SURABAYA) 1996 44 18 31 47 14 76 623 37 1 846 890 891 36,996
28201 K4 NODS 96 JLN. KEPUTRAN (SURABAYA) 1996 26 18 22 33 17 88 207 28 1 413 439 440
28201 K5 NODS 96 JLN. KAYUN (SURABAYA) 1996 52 21 14 21 15 78 168 49 366 418 418 14,154
28201 K6 NODS 96 JLN. PEMUDA (SURABAYA) 1996 28 20 14 21 11 58 200 49 373 401 401 113,630
28201 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 600 752 1.520 1999 122,848 76,176 73,637 11,669 40 1,093 1,629 1,086 32 3 12,470 165,365 288,213 300,683 101,691 103,357
28201 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 495 653 1.521 1999 37,467 15,733 15,002 3,824 5 43 110 74 3 3,818 34,794 72,261 76,079 80,343 21,748
28201 3K N A NDLea-IRMS 500 623 1.230 1999 71,546 13,677 34,171 3,768 21 114 187 123 22 7,466 52,083 123,629 131,095 24,373 32,556
28201 4K N A NDLea-IRMS 400 450 0.500 1999 6,534 1,344 2,362 1,344 86 58 5,870 5,194 11,728 17,598 2,524 3,248
28201 5K N A NDLea-IRMS 300 400 1.000 2000 59,014 29,580 30,292 14,842 2 1 33 22 5,897 74,772 133,786 139,683
28201 6K N A NDLea-IRMS 300 455 1.528 1999 111,036 73,205 15,830 6,616 18 173 296 196 3 2,140 96,337 207,373 209,513 69,959 99,994
28202 K1 NODS 96 JLN. KENCANA 1996 25 21 16 25 15 82 137 47 343 368 368
28202 K2 NODS 96 JLN. RATNA 1996 36 18 23 35 29 152 305 38 1 600 636 637 27,697
28202 K3 NODS 96 JLN. NGAGEL 1996 15 20 13 20 9 49 161 40 312 327 327 26,003
28202 K4 NODS 96 JLN. SULAWESI 1996 12 5 4 7 3 14 77 10 120 132 132 94,909
28202 K5 NODS 96 JLN. RAYA GUBENG 1996 7 4 2 3 4 21 28 3 65 72 72 91,720
28202 K6 NODS 96 JLN. BILITON 1996 18 15 14 21 10 51 221 11 343 361 361 86,071
28202 K7 NODS 96 JLN.GUBENG STASIUN 1996 163 29 46 70 16 84 501 30 1 776 939 940
28202 K8 NODS 96 JLN. KUSUMA BANGSA 1996 8 4 5 8 1 6 70 4 98 106 106 59,542
28202 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 300 364 0.640 1999 24,285 15,053 14,557 2,307 8 216 322 214 6 2,248 32,683 56,968 59,216 59,153 20,428
28202 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 500 540 0.382 1999 37,626 11,503 20,102 3,633 8 52 1,399 933 166 8 1,367 37,804 75,430 76,797 69,256 24,373
28202 3K N A NDLea-IRMS 550 850 3.000 1999 43,346 14,470 15,598 3,701 10 74 1,456 971 317 14 1,696 36,611 79,957 81,653 51,713 22,883
28202 4K N A NDLea-IRMS 170 255 0.850 2000 176,471 75,235 94,999 31,071 26 217 4,769 3,179 421 18 6,962 209,935 386,406 393,368
28202 5 N A NDLea-IRMS 150 275 1.250 2000 107,983 71,226 22,759 8,894 8 73 1,502 1,002 42 1,304 105,506 213,489 214,793
28202 6K N A NDLea-IRMS 200 270 0.669 1999 89,231 48,170 18,471 8,190 20 119 1,031 687 97 3 2,145 76,788 166,019 168,164 43,224 75,742
28202 7K N A NDLea-IRMS 200 233 0.330 1999 44,797 12,478 11,427 7,461 6 70 552 368 32 2,680 32,394 77,191 79,871 68,226 20,249
28202 8K N A NDLea-IRMS 156 296 1.400 1999 253,226 42,310 30,208 7,936 30 264 1,757 1,171 152 18,286 83,828 337,054 355,340 34,473 52,397
28203 K1 NODS 96 JLN. RAJAWALI (SURABAYA) 1996 6 4 6 9 1 4 56 6 86 92 92 35,176
28203 K2 NODS 96 JLN. KEMBANG JEPON (SURABAYA) 1996 12 9 13 20 20 107 207 27 403 415 415
28203 K3 NODS 96 JLN. KAPASAN (SURABAYA) 1996 1,761 282 620 941 71 376 4,190 118 16 6,598 8,359 8,375
28203 K4 NODS 96 JLN. KENJERAN (SURABAYA) 1996 77 27 26 40 5 25 245 6 1 374 451 452 10,928
28203 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 130 1.243 1999 97,307 12,803 20,374 11,144 141 2,638 1,285 856 275 5,533 49,516 146,823 152,356 36,564 30,955
28203 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 75 0.717 1999 34,790 8,650 6,002 4,909 3 736 491 162 8 6,918 20,961 55,751 62,669 20,615 13,102
28203 3K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 90 0.860 1999 77,387 12,915 8,982 5,688 323 216 3 35,992 28,127 105,514 141,506 16,384 17,580
28203 4K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 530 5.067 1999 57,670 4,176 4,592 3,030 133 1,890 1,259 304 11,979 15,384 73,054 85,033 6,056 9,617
28204 K1 NODS 96 JLN. TANJUNG PERAK (SURABAYA) 1996 955 121 258 69 15 57 129 378 9 1 4 94 1,041 1,996 2,090 58,813
28204 K2 NODS 96 JLN. JAKARTA (SURABAYA) 1996 750 34 101 27 45 207 957 957
28204 K3 NODS 96 JLN. SARWOJALA (SURABAYA) 1996 614 31 69 19 80 304 27 42 60 572 1,186 1,246
28204 K4 NODS 96 JLN. HANG TUAH (SURABAYA) 1996 989 127 327 88 20 76 55 168 57 861 1,850 1,907 14,687
28204 K5 NODS 96 JLN. DANA KARYA (SURABAYA) 1996 435 59 126 34 15 57 17 221 29 529 964 993
28204 K6 NODS 96 JLN. SIDORAME (SURABAYA) 1996 563 59 151 40 20 76 27 137 59 510 1,073 1,132
28204 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 425 4.063 2000 73,570 23,877 28,912 7,754 210 1,616 6,490 4,327 4,186 420 3,986 3,501 81,778 155,348 158,849
28204 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 70 0.669 1999 15,952 3,437 1,958 1,274 11 85 776 517 414 30 64 8,211 8,566 24,518 32,729 17,964 5,355
28204 3K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 24 0.230 1999 28,451 2,578 2,544 1,734 26 213 1,202 800 882 53 24 5,826 10,056 38,507 44,333 7,339 6,288
28204 4K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 30 0.287 1999 56,949 7,342 6,283 2,517 6 192 1,923 1,282 696 170 264 20,334 20,675 77,624 97,958 14,828 12,925
28204 5K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 60 0.574 1999 34,846 6,429 5,758 3,166 11 75 1,803 1,202 997 74 7,354 19,515 54,361 61,715 27,871 12,199
28204 6K N A NDLea-IRMS 0 240 2.400 1999 20,022 1,779 2,424 1,538 93 995 664 475 6,634 7,968 27,990 34,624 8,718 4,982
28205 K1 NODS 96 JLN. RAYA RUNGKUT (SURABAYA) 1996 622 51 69 19 15 57 32 63 39 306 928 967
28205 K2 NODS 96 JLN. RUNGKUT INDUSTRI (SURABAYA) 1996 529 151 40 40 152 25 105 3 1 10 517 1,046 1,056 52,752
28205 K3 NODS 96 JLN. JEMUR ANDAYANI (SURABAYA) 1996 367 120 32 37 189 556 556 42,491
28205 1K N A NDLea-IRMS 800 1,150 3.346 1999 51,120 10,450 19,026 4,454 46 322 214 155 6 9,819 34,673 85,793 95,612 31,915 21,672
28205 2K N A NDLea-IRMS 690 904 2.140 1999 170,797 16,942 36,461 11,650 21 251 4,163 2,776 1,850 62 93 35,288 74,269 245,066 280,354 37,588 46,422
28205 3K N A NDLea-IRMS 800 1,040 2.400 1999 85,357 19,682 29,155 9,282 2 133 530 352 686 5,136 59,822 145,179 150,315 30,864 37,392
Count 28307 NODS 96 KERTOSONO - NGANJUK 1996 426 76 20 32 128 554 554
28307 N A NDLea-IRMS 9,535 9,655 1.200 1999 3,160 1,387 1,698 1,007 41 1,280 912 608 692 49 2 653 7,676 10,836 11,489 11,279 4,720

Inception Report JARNS 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inception Report JARNS 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inception Report JARNS 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTEMEN PERMUKIMAN DAN PENGEMBANGAN WILAYAH

DIREKTORAT JENDERAL PENGEMBANGAN PRASARANA WILAYAH

JAVA ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK STUDY

Citatah Losari PEMALANG PEKALONGAN Trengguli

CILACAP YOGYAKARTA WONOGIRI

Carl Bro International a|s

MVA Asia Ltd. ND. Lea Consultants Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES.....................................1-1

1.2 Study Objectives...........................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Overview of the Inception Report .................................................................................1-3

2. ROAD NETWORK CAPACITY NEEDS IN JAVA .....................................................2-1

2.1 Overview of the Java Arterial Road Network ................................................................2-1

2.2 Development of the Toll Road Network........................................................................2-2

2.3 Recent Studies ..............................................................................................................2-5

2.4 The Preliminary Screening of Inter-District Roads in Java.............................................2-8

2.5 The Transport Sector Strategy Sector ..........................................................................2-12

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page i

3. KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................3-1

3.2 How to Provide Environmentally Sustainable Arterial Road Capacity?..........................3-1

3.3 Regional Autonomy and Arterial Road Development Strategies ....................................3-3

3.4 Can Regional Development be Promoted by Road Development? .................................3-3

3.5 Funding Availability for Strategic Road Improvements .................................................3-5

4. BUILDING ON AN EXISTING BASE..........................................................................4-1

4.2 The IRMS Database......................................................................................................4-1

4.4 The Automated Road Monitoring Study (ARMS) .........................................................4-6

4.5 Enhanced Highway Information Module (EHIM)..........................................................4-7

4.7 Strategic Expenditure Planning Module ........................................................................4-8

4.8 The RIDPD Project Database......................................................................................4-12

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page ii

5. STUDY APPROACH ....................................................................................................5-1

5.2 NETWORK MODELLING AND TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING....................5-3

5.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................5-7

5.4 VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (VTTS) .........................................................5-9

5.4.1 Introduction and Objectives...................................................................................5-9

5.5 EVALUATION ISSUES ............................................................................................5-18

6. METHODOLOGY AND WORKPLAN ........................................................................6-1

6.1 General Approach.........................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Task Structures and Inter-Relationships ........................................................................6-1

6.3 Detailed Task Descriptions ...........................................................................................6-2

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page iii

7. WORK AND STAFF SCHEDULES.............................................................................. 7.1

7.1 General......................................................................................................................... 7.1

7.2 Work Schedule ............................................................................................................. 7.1

7.3 Staff Schedule............................................................................................................... 7.1

7.4 Reporting and Deliverables .......................................................................................... 7.1

7.5 Proposed Variations in Staff Allocation......................................................................... 7.1

APPENDIX A: ADAPTATION OF THE IRMS SPEED MODEL FOR USE IN TRIPS

APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF THEORY OF VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS

APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page iv

THE KEY DIMENSIONS OF THE STUDY

9. It is believed that high-quality limited access expressways providing for long-distance

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates

1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES

• The need for road capacity expansion, particularly in Java

1.2 Study Objectives

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page 1-1

• A series of 5-year implementation plans, indicating the forecast optimal timing of

• An analysis of the financial feasibility of toll roads identified as being economically

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates Page 1-2