Interim Report JARNS

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

( J A R N S )
IBRD LOAN Number 3913 - IND
INTERIM REPORT
A PRELIMINARY ROAD NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INTERIM REPORT
June 2001
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) Interim Report: A Preliminary Road Network Development Plan
JAVA ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK STUDY (JARNS)
INTERIM REPORT:
A PRELIMINARY ROAD NETWORK

DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES 1-1
1.1 Reasons for the Study 1-1
1.2 Study Objectives and Required Outputs 1-1
1.3 Objectives for the Road Network 1-2
1.4 A Role for Toll Roads? 1-2
1.5 The Need for a Plan 1-3
1.6 Overview of this Report 1-3

1.6.1 Purpose 1-3
1.6.2 Content of the Report 1-4
2. THE JAVA INTER-URBAN ROAD NETWORK 2-1
2.1 Introduction and Overview 2-1
2.2 Data Sources: The IRMS Road Inventory Database 2-1
2.3 Data Sources: Traffic Data 2-2

2.3.1 JARNS Traffic Counts 2-2
2.3.2 IRMS Traffic Data 2-2
2.3.3 Traffic Count Data from Other Sources 2-2
2.3.4 Traffic Data Synthesis 2-3
2.4 The National and Provincial Road Network 2-4
2.5 The Strategic Road Network 2-5
2.6 Summary Traffic Characteristics 2-9
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates i

2.7 Road Capacity 2-10

2.7.1 The Volume-Capacity Ratio 2-10
2.7.2 Analysis of the Current Network 2-11
2.7.3 Conclusions 2-13
2.8 Toll Roads in Java 2-13
3. ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN JAVA 3-1
3.1 Objectives 3-1
3.2 Overview of Spatial Characteristics of Java 3-1
3.3 Spatial Development Policies and Plans 3-3
3.4 Macro-Economic and Development Scenarios 3-5
3.5 Zonal Development 3-7
3.6 The Role of Roads in Development 3-9
3.7 Corridor Development Strategies and Priorities 3-11

3.7.1 Strategy for the Core Area of West Java 3-13
3.7.2 Strategy for the Core Area of East Java 3-13
3.7.3 Strategy for the Core Area of Central Java 3-14
3.7.4 Development of the Northern Corridor 3-14
3.7.5 Development of the Central Corridor 3-15
3.7.6 Development of the Southern Corridor 3-15
3.7.7 Development of North-South Corridors 3-15
3.7.8 Summary 3-16
4. REVIEW OF EXISTING ROAD CORRIDORS AND CONDITIONS 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 General Approach 4-1
4.3 Capacity Expansion Options 4-1
4.4 Preliminary Conclusions 4-2
4.5 Jakarta-Merak/West Coast (Corridor 10) 4-2
4.6 Jakarta-Surabaya/North Coast (Corridor 20) 4-5
4.7 Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung (Corridor 30) 4-12
4.8 Cikampek-Padalarang (Corridor 40) 4-15
4.9 Bandung-Cirebon (Corridor 50) 4-16
4.10 Bandung-Yogyakarta-(Malang) (Corridor 60) 4-16
4.11 Yogyakarta-Surabaya (Corridor 70) 4-20
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates ii

4.12 Semarang-Surakarta (Corridor 80) 4-23
4.13 Surabaya-Malang/East Coast (Corridor 90) 4-24
5. OTHER TRANSPORT MODES – PORTS, SHIPPING AND RAIL IN JAVA 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Ports and Shipping 5-1

5.2.1 Introduction and Scope of the Analysis 5-1
5.2.2 Ports in Java 5-1
5.2.3 Port Traffic 5-2
5.2.4 Future Development 5-4
5.3 Rail Transport in Java 5-4

5.3.1 Introduction 5-4
5.3.2 The Rail System 5-5
5.3.3 Plans and Commitments for Rail Network Upgrading 5-6
5.3.4 Rail Traffic and Trends 5-7
5.3.5 Rail Futures 5-8
5.4 Conclusions 5-10
6. SCREENING NETWORK DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 6-1
6.1 The Need for an Initial Screening of Network Improvement Options 6-1
6.2 Capacity Expansion Options 6-1

6.2.1 Identifying an Optimum Capacity Expansion Path 6-1
6.2.2 Representative Links 6-2
6.3 Development of a Screening Methodology 6-2

6.3.1 Overview 6-2
6.3.2 The Strategic Corridor Evaluation Model (SCEM) 6-3
6.3.3 New Estimates of Value of Time 6-4
6.4 Screening Analysis 6-4

6.4.1 Overview 6-4
6.4.2 Results of the Screening Analysis 6-5
6.4.3 The Effect of Value of Time 6-7
6.4.4 Review of Screening Results 6-9
6.4.5 Evolution of the Network 6-10
6.4.6 Conclusions 6-11
6.5 Estimating Funding Availability for Major Road Development: The Strategic
Expenditure Planning Module (SEPM) 6-12
6.5.1 Objectives 6-12
6.5.2 SEPM and its Current Role in Highway Planning 6-12
6.5.3 Results From the Application of SEPM 6-14
6.6 Conclusions 6-18
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates iii

7. TOWARDS THE IDENTIFICATION OF A STRUCTURED ROAD NETWORK

DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RNDP) FOR JAVA 7-1
7.1 Introduction: The Need for Structure 7-1
7.2 Objectives for the Future Road Network 7-1
7.3 Issues to be Addressed 7-2

7.3.1 Existing Needs for Network Improvement 7-2
7.3.2 Development Needs and Priorities 7-3
7.3.3 Integration with Other Modes 7-4
7.3.4 Funding Needs and Constraints, and Implications of Regional Autonomy 7-5
7.4 A Proposed Structure for the Java Road Network 7-6

7.4.1 Overview of the Proposed Structure 7-6
7.4.2 The Main Trunk Network 7-6
7.4.3 The Secondary Trunk Network 7-7
7.4.4 Main Trunk Connectors 7-7
7.4.5 The Strategic Collector Network 7-8
7.5 Developing the Road Network 7-8
8. A TOLL ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8-1
8.1 Overview 8-1
8.2 Toll Roads in the Jakarta-Bandung Corridor 8-1
8.3 Toll Roads in Jabotabek 8-2
8.4 Toll Roads in Greater Surabaya 8-3
8.5 New Toll Roads as Part of the Main Trunk Network 8-3
8.6 Policy and Institutional Matters 8-3
8.7 Key Messages 8-4
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates iv

9. NEXT STEPS 1
9.1 Analysis and Evaluation of Network Development Strategies 1
9.2 Network Modelling 1

9.2.1 Overview of the Approach 1
9.2.2 Develop Base Year Model 1
9.2.3 Develop Demand Forecasting Relationships 2
9.2.4 Define Road Networks for Options Testing and Evaluation 2
9.3 Testing and Evaluation 3
9.4 Development of Recommended Road Network Development Plan 5
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: COMPOSITE TRAFFIC DATA USED IN JARNS
APPENDIX B: THE STRATEGIC CORRIDOR EVALUATION MODEL

(SCEM)
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF VALUE OF TIME RESEARCH

UNDERTAKEN IN JARNS
APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF THE SCREENING ANALYSIS
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. OVERVIEW
JARNS will prepare 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 is
to 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
There is a pressing need for a strategic road network development plan for Java, and a need to
examine future road requirements in the context of an interactive network. Until now, there
has been only very limited assessment of land transport needs in Java as a whole, and little
review of the most appropriate means of providing for expected growth. There has been only
limited assessment of likely spatial development, or of how most appropriately to provide
roads that support development aspirations.
There is a strong belief that toll roads in Java are immediately needed, and financially
attractive to the private sector. This belief may not be fully justified, because financial
viability of a purely BOT toll road scheme depends on high traffic volumes in the early years
of operation, and in turn this requires even higher volumes on the corridor. There may not be
many inter-urban road corridors in Java where traffic levels are sufficiently high to support a
toll road in the short- to medium-term. On the approaches to major cities, on the other hand,
where corridor traffic volumes are much higher, toll roads are more likely to be viable
options.
There are major needs for a co-ordinated and prioritised development plan for the road
network in Java, that will provide for economic and regional growth and development. The
purpose of this report is to give a preliminary indication of the extent of development needs,
and to present a “vision” of the road network development plan that is likely to be produced
by the Study.
2. THE EXISTING ROAD NETWORK
The primary inter-urban arterial and collector road network in Java covers some 11,350 km,
of which about 4,150 km are National roads, and 7,200 are Provincial. Of the National roads,
2,750 km (24% of the total) are classified as Arterial roads, and 1,400 km (12% of the total)
are Primary Collectors.
For the purposes of JARNS, it is unnecessary to consider the whole of the National and
Provincial road network. While the Terms of Reference call for the preparation of an Arterial
Road Network Development Plan, it is in fact necessary for analytical purposes to examine
this within a larger framework. For this purpose, an inter-urban Strategic road network has
been defined, so as to provide an analysis network that includes the essential connections
between the important centres throughout Java.
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates ES - 1

The arterial road network component of the Strategic network totals around 2,500 km of inter-
urban roads, of which 34% are less than 7 metres in width, 34% are between 7 and 10 metres
wide, and 32% are greater than 10 metres wide. The average width is 10.1 metres. The non-
arterial component includes 4,800 km of inter-urban primary and secondary collector roads,
with average widths of 7.1 metres and 6.3 metres respectively. The width characteristics of
the network are shown below.
Road Type by Width
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% > 10 metres
50% 7 - 10 metres
40%
< 7 metres
30%
20%
10%
0%
Arterial Primary Other
Collector Strategic
Average arterial road traffic AADT is 19,000 veh. per day, of which 31% are motorcycles,
32% private cars and pickups, 18% bus and 19% trucks. Flows on the primary and secondary
collectors are 12,400 and 8,100 veh. per day, with slightly more motorcycles in the vehicle
stream.
With an average width of only 10.1 metres, it is clear that the arterial road network has only
limited capacity, and this is confirmed by an analysis of the Volume Capacity Ratio of the
network. This shows that 51% of the network is currently relatively uncongested, and 49%
suffers from moderate to significant congestion. Rather more importantly, by 2010 only 6%
will be uncongested, and 40% will be significantly congested. As shown in the diagram
below, congestion levels on the remainder of the strategic network are lower, but by 2010
55% of the non-arterial strategic road network will require additional capacity. Overall, a
substantial program of capacity expansion will be required to properly provide for traffic and
continuing economic development.
Congestion Levels, 2000 and 2010
100%
90%
80%
70% High congestion
60% Significant congestion
50%
40% Moderate congestion
30% No congestion
20%
10%
0%
2000 2010 2000 2010
Arterial Arterial Non-Arterial Non-Arterial

3. ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
A detailed data collection and analysis program has been undertaken, to develop a
comprehensive database of information about the spatial, regional and economic development
of Java. The major tasks to be addressed by this work include:
• The development of a capability to forecast population and economic growth at a

zonal level
• To identify preferred directions and the likely pace of regional and economic
development, and the extent and likely influence of spatial planning policies at
the national or provincial level
• To examine the possibility that major road improvement might lead to significant
changes in development
Population and Economic Forecasting
Macro-economic forecasts for Java were developed for high, low and central growth
scenarios, based on differing expectations of economic development, and the results of
forecasts by GOI, the World Bank, the IMF, as well as the expectations of other recent
studies. The economic strategies have implications for urban development, and therefore
impact on zonal population forecasts. The results for each scenario are summarised below:
Macro-Economic Growth Scenarios for Java: average annual growth in GDP
2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20

Optimistic 6.6% 7.4% 7.6% 7.9%
Central 4.9% 5.5% 5.6% 5.7%
Pessimistic 2.8% 3.2% 3.6% 3.7%
Scenarios for Medium-Term Population Growth (annual growth rates)
Java Region: Optimistic Central Pessimistic

Metropolitan areas 2% 1.5% 1%
Buffer urban areas 4-5% 2-3% 2%
Other urban areas 4% 2% 1%
Total urban population 3% 1.5-2% 1-1.5%
Rural areas -1.5% to -2% 0% to -0.5% 0% to 0.5%
Total population 0.5-0.8% 0.5-0.8% 0.5-0.8%
Forecasts of zonal development are related to these macro-economic forecasts through their
likely effects on GDP. A systematic process of corridor and zone assessment was carried out
to assist in the prediction of possible spatial variations in development under the three broad
scenarios outlined above. A spreadsheet model was developed to assist in projecting spatial
variations of each main development scenario at zone level, and to test the sensitivity of
development to major changes in access conditions. These forecasts will be used for
forecasting future traffic demands.
Spatial and Regional Development Plans
A review of national and provincial spatial and regional development plans and policies was
undertaken. Because the forms and structures of government are in a state of flux,
development policies and strategies have not been fully formulated, though general
development aspirations have been articulated.

By and large, the major engine of regional growth and development is market-led, and
operates through locational decisions that affect the location of industry and other
development. While these decisions can be influenced through economic factors, they are not
general amenable or responsive to “strategic plans” formulated by government, unless these
are accompanied by implementing instruments.
The Role of Roads in Development
Despite the hopes expressed for JARNS, it is not realistically possible to predicate a causal
relationship between road building and development, even though it is known in general that
one may exist in particular favourable circumstances.
An alternative approach was tried, using the spatial development model developed in the
study, which incorporates “access” factors that measure the extent to which zonal GDP might
be affected by major road improvements. This showed that changes of the order of +/- 5% –
10% of GDP over 15-20 years might result from such improvements, but that overall, no net
gain is derived.
Where circumstances are more favourable, development impacts may well be significant, but
they are not automatic, and cannot be formally included in evaluation.
4. OTHER MODES
Brief reviews have been undertaken of the likely “futures” for rail and ports and shipping in
Java. The findings are of interest, and provide useful information for the development of an
overall road development strategy. However, they do not directly affect decisions or priorities
about road development as such. Particular matters are summarised below:
Ports and Shipping
• Major growth in the period may be expected at Tanjung Priok, Tanjung Perak,
Gresik and Semarang, and at the ferry ports of Merak and Banyuwangi.
Significant growth impacting significantly on the road network is not expected at
other ports, but this may change as new developments emerge
• Future development of Bojonegara is possible but not yet committed. It would
have the potential to promote additional development in the Serang-Tangerang
corridor, which would place some additional transport demands on the network.
• Port developments at other locations are not considered likely
• The extent to which coastal shipping within Java would be able to achieve any
significant diversion of traffic away from road is effectively negligible
Growth in cargo places considerable demands on the local road network, and adequate
capacity and network connectivity is vital to the efficient functioning of the road system.
However, this is a local rather than a Java-wide planning issue.
Rail
Sea transport and land transport are mainly complementary; rail and road transport are to
some extent substitutes. There is, therefore, a greater degree of potential interaction between
rail and road than between sea traffic and road, and in Java, the future of rail impacts more
directly on the road network. The major findings of the review were:

• Rail freight is not very significant, at only 5 million tonne p.a., and is declining.
There is therefore unlikely to be any significant switch of freight traffic away
from road to rail.
• The rail passenger task is significant, at 69 million passenger journeys per year in
2000. This is around 5-10% of road passengers (all modes), and has grown at
around 7% p.a. over the last decade
• Much of this task (45%) is local economy travel, which is artificially high
because of artificially low (and uneconomic) fares. Intercity economy accounts
for 35%, and higher quality passengers total 20%, but are growing rapidly
• The financial state of PT KAI could not be described as strong, and the quality of
all components of the track and rolling stock is poor. Heavy investment is
required to restore the system to an adequate level, such that it could respond
positively to the significant growth opportunities in passenger transport in Java.
• There are a number of existing capacity constraints on the passenger rail system.
Substantial additions of capacity beyond those already programmed will be
needed if the future growth potential is to be achieved. It is not clear that the
financial capability exists for these major investments to be made
• Additional rail capacity is critically needed on the eastern approaches to Jakarta,
and it may be expected that system capacity in Jakarta will become a constraint
as the number of trains increase. If rail capacity can not be provided, a
potentially significant volume of passengers will be diverted to road in this
critical corridor
• Rail is not an economically viable substitute for road in Java, and investment in
rail will not attract significant passengers from road to rail. The challenge for PT
KAI is to provide the capacity and service quality necessary to continue to
provide for its existing market share
5. SCREENING NETWORK DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
5.1 Estimate of Road Capacity Expansion Needs
The major purpose of this Interim Report is to identify, in indicative terms, the Road Network
Development Plan most likely to emerge from JARNS. As part of this, there is a need to
identify the type and extent of likely future road improvement needs, and their expected costs.
For this purpose, a “screening” methodology has been developed, that allows the
identification of the optimum capacity expansion path for any road link, based on its existing
level of traffic and its width or traffic capacity. The capacity expansion options considered
were:
• 2U7 – 2 lane undivided (U) 7 metre road on existing alignment

• 4UE - 4-lane undivided road on Existing (E) alignment
• LAN – limited access arterial on new alignment (4-lane)
One of the important questions to be addressed is whether capacity expansion is best provided
by means of incremental additions to capacity as needed, or by major investment in new
facilities as early as possible. This question is easily answered by economic analysis of the
capacity expansion alternatives over a long period of time, and in the screening analysis, a 30-
year time horizon has been adopted.

5.2 Results of the Analysis
The results of the Screening Study are tabulated below. They identify very substantial needs
for road capacity expansion over the study period and beyond.
As part of JARNS, estimates of current applicable Values of Time were made, based on
detailed surveys and updates of previous work. These new results are substantially higher than
values previously used in Indonesia. As a consequence, there was some concern that the high
estimates of future capacity expansion needs were generated by high values of time, and the
analysis was repeated using VOT estimates that were 50% of those used initially, to check
this possibility.
The effect of this was to produce a time program of economically warranted expenditures that
differs only marginally from that produced initially. It was concluded, therefore, that the
overall conclusions were not dependent on the values of time used in the analysis.
Estimated Cost of Economically Warranted Road Upgrading Program, by

Administrative Status
Road Type Cost of Road Upgrading Program (Billion Rp.) Total:

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial
To U7 351 - - - - - 351
To 4UE 7,929 2,475 467 374 - - 11,245
To LAN - - - 19,685 15,546 5,170 40,400
Total: 8,279 2,475 467 20,059 15,546 5,170 51,996
Primary Collector
To U7 545 - 55 41 - - 640
To 4UE 3,310 1,792 128 1,094 654 - 6,977
To LAN - - - 4,625 5,494 2,683 12,801
Total: 3,854 1,792 183 5,760 6,147 2,683 20,418
Other Strategic
To U7 2,893 118 224 263 - - 3,497
To 4UE 3,407 2,446 2,055 3,993 4,475 - 16,376
To LAN - - - 4,463 7,469 1,596 13,528
Total: 6,300 2,563 2,279 8,718 11,944 1,596 33,401
Total
To U7 3,789 118 279 304 0 0 4,488
To 4UE 14,646 6,713 2,650 5,461 5,129 0 34,598
To LAN 0 0 0 28,773 28,509 9,449 66,729
Total: 18,433 6,830 2,929 34,537 33,637 9,449 105,815

Economically Warranted Road Capacity Expansion Program for Strategic Road

Network
Total Network - Cost
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Billion Rp in Period
To LAN
20,000 To 4UE
To U7
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period
5.3 Summary
The conclusions to the detailed analyses summarised above are simple and powerful:
1. There has been major under investment in the road network over a long period of time,
and there are substantial immediate needs for additional road capacity, particularly for
the arterial road network
2. By the end of the study period, the whole of the arterial road network should be
developed to 4-lane standard
3. Within the next 5 years, all roads in the arterial and primary collector networks that are
less than 7-metre standard need to be widened to 7 metres. A high proportion of such
strategic collector roads also require immediate upgrading
4. Major new roads on new alignments are likely to be progressively needed from around
the end of the study period
5. There is unlikely to be needs for inter-urban toll roads within the study period, except
on the approaches to major urban areas
6. Financing needs are well in excess of past levels of funding in the road sector, and
special attention will need to be given to ways to overcoming the shortfall.

6. A NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
There is a great deal to be done in rehabilitating the network, and re-building it for the new
millennium. It is important to bring a structure and focus to the task, so that work can proceed
according to an agreed set of priorities. In essence, preparing the Plan is about establishing
these priorities, and identifying the work program that would result. A structure is proposed
that reflects the functioning of the network, and what are considered to be appropriate
national strategic considerations for its strengthening and development, and comprises four
main groups:
• Main Trunk Network

• Secondary Trunk Network
• Main Trunk Connectors
• Strategic Collectors
The Main Trunk Network
The Main Trunk Network would have the following main functions:
• Connecting the provincial capitals and other major cities

• Supporting the major industrial development areas
• Linking the main ports and ferry terminals
The Main Trunk Network would comprise the major arterial road links forming the route
Merak-Jakarta-Semarang-Yogyakarta/Solo-Surabaya-Banyuwangi, which is the backbone of
the Java road network. It would also include the route from Cikampek to Bandung and
Cirebon, as well as spurs connecting Bogor, Yogyakarta and Malang.
The Secondary Trunk Network
The Secondary Trunk Network provides additional east-west routes throughout the length of
Java, providing for inter-regional travel, and additional trunk road capacity in support of the
Main Trunk network. The Secondary Trunk Network includes the following major regional
roads:
• Proposed strengthening of the Bogor-Serang connection

• Pelabuhan Ratu – Sukabumi
• Strengthening of the NJC Indramayu – Cirebon
• Buntu-Banjarnegara-Wonosobo-Magelang
• Semarang-Surabaya, including potentially additional supporting connections
between Tuban-Gresik, and Demak-Bojonegoro-Babat
• Kamal-Sumenep
• Banyuwangi-Jember-Lumajang-Tulungagung-Pacitan-Yogya
• Yogya-Bandung
Main Trunk Connectors
The Main Trunk Connectors consist of the key access routes to the Main Trunk Network, and
connect it with the supporting Secondary Trunk Network. The Main Trunk Connectors
include mainly north-south routes providing regional access to the Trunk network, and to the
key markets and ports located along it. By providing good connections between the Main and
Secondary Trunk Networks, the Main Trunk Connectors provide the best opportunity to
promote regional development by improving accessibility to regional and sub-regional
centres.

The links included in this category are:
• Bogor-Tangerang
• Ciamis-Cirebon
• Cilacap-Tegal
• Magelang-Weleri
• Purwodadi-Solo-Ponorogo
• Cepu-Ngawi-Madiun- Ponorogo -Pacitan
• Babat-Jombang-Kertosono-Kediri-Tulungagung
• Pasuruan-Lawang
• Lumajang-Probolinggo
Strategic Collectors
The remainder of the strategic road network can be classified as Strategic Collectors, and
serve an important function in properly integrating local development into the road hierarchy,
and promoting local and regional accessibility and development.
7. TOLL ROAD DEVELOPMENT
Despite expectations to the contrary, it does not appear from preliminary analyses that there
will be significant opportunities for private sector financing of inter-urban toll roads for some
years, because:
• It is difficult to achieve financial viability for toll roads at levels of traffic less
than around 35,000 vehicles per day on opening, using a traditional BOT
approach to private sector financing
• Achieving this level of toll road traffic typically requires total corridor flows in
excess of about 70,000-80,000 per day in the opening year of the toll road, and
inter-urban corridor flows currently are not near this level
However, on the approaches to the major cities of Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung and Semarang,
and in the rapidly developing areas of Jabotabek, toll road development is likely to be feasible
immediately or in the near future. It is not possible within JARNS to identify such
opportunities in any detail, because this requires more detailed analyses of individual urban
areas than is possible in a Java-wide study.
Toll road development priorities include (but may not be limited to):
1. Cikampek – Padalarang, which is strategically very important, but likely to

require Government support of some form to ensure financial viability
2. Surabaya – Mojokerto, which may well be viable for PSP in the near future
Priorities also include:
3. Institutional strengthening and regulatory reform. These are essential to the

establishment of an appropriate public sector/private sector relationship, and vital
to creating an environment within which PSP in toll roads can be encouraged.

1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
1.1 Reasons for the Study
The Java Arterial Road Network Study (henceforth JARNS) was first conceived of in 1996,
well before the economic crisis that has so significantly 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 realisation of the need for future road capacity expansion in Java
• The belief that there was a need for toll roads provided through a high degree of
private sector participation (PSP)
• The absence of an overall road network development plan that would co-ordinate
and prioritise government’s investment programme in arterial road network
capacity provision in Java (and indeed elsewhere), and
• The relative disarray in the planning and co-ordination of the emerging
“programme” of toll road schemes available to the private sector
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 need to be taken into account:
• 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
1.2 Study Objectives and Required Outputs
The JARNS aim is to prepare 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 is to 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 any toll roads identified as being

economically justified in the first 5-year period
A range of considerations will influence the recommended strategy:
• Regional development and economic growth trends and likely outcomes, and
opportunities to promote development opportunities through road development
• The need to develop a road network that will serve Java not just for the next
twenty years, but for well into the future
• The degree of interaction that exists between road expansion options in different
corridors, and the possible need for future network densification
• Expected futures for rail and port traffics, and the need to take account of these
in the overall development strategy
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates 1-1

• The need to take into account the social and environmental implications of major
road capacity expansion
• The significant limitations on available investment funding for infrastructure
likely to be available over at least the next 10 years
Where appropriate, the arterial road development plan is to include a recommended toll road
development plan, and implementation priorities and approximate timings are to be
determined. (It might be noted that this requirement assumes that inter-urban toll roads will be
found to be feasible during the Study Period, an assumption that may prove to be not well-
founded.)
1.3 Objectives for the Road Network
The Java road network should also be seen as serving a variety of objectives. These include
economic, developmental, planning, social and environmental objectives, and the planning
task is to identify a network development plan that maximises their satisfaction.
The Road Network Development Plan will identify a program of road improvements that
address the following proposed objectives:
• To provide for long distance travel at acceptable levels of cost, convenience and
safety
• To create a network structure that supports economic development and efficient
and appropriate regional development patterns
• To provide an equitable distribution of accessibility to the strategic road network
throughout Java
• To maximise the economic benefits of major road improvement programs
• To minimise the social and environmental costs of road traffic
1.4 A Role for Toll Roads?
There are a number of powerful arguments that support the use of limited access roads on new
alignments as a way to provide an environmentally sustainable road network for the future. In
principle, in areas where both traffic volumes and roadside development density is high, new
roads on new alignments may seem to be the best way to provide for future development and
traffic growth, without substantially damaging the community and the environment. Because
such roads are very suitable for development as toll roads, and because toll roads can attract
private sector participation and financing, such an option is very appealing, particularly when
public sector funds for investment are as limited as they are in Indonesia.
In fact, the financial viability of a purely BOT toll road scheme depends on high traffic
volumes in the early years of operation, and in turn this requires even higher volumes on the
corridor. There are likely to be few if any inter-urban road corridors in Java where traffic
levels are sufficiently high to support a toll road in the short- to medium-term. On the
approaches to major cities, on the other hand, where corridor traffic volumes are much higher,
toll roads are likely to be much more attractive.
A purely PSP toll road is an economically sub-optimum way of providing new major road
capacity, for three reasons:
• The private sector costs of financing the project are likely to be higher than those
faced by the Government
• The imposition of tolls will reduce the level of economic benefits if the toll road
is not congested.

• A typical BOT toll road becomes financially feasible much later than that the
time at which a new facility is economically optimal. The difference between the
two dates is likely to be substantial.
Government support could be used to bring forward the time at which a toll road might
become financially feasible, and this may well be justified economically. Further analysis is
required to explore this, and the possibilities of more innovative ways of creating
public/private sector partnerships for toll road provision in Java.
1.5 The Need for a Plan
There is a pressing need for a strategic road network development plan for Java, and a need to
examine the future requirements in existing corridors in the context of an interactive network.
Until this time, there has been only very limited assessment of land transport needs in Java as
a whole, and no identification of the most appropriate means of providing for expected
growth. There has been only limited assessment of likely spatial development, or of how most
appropriately to provide for this.
Planning is particularly needed for toll roads. There has in the past been a significant belief
that toll roads in Java are essential, and certainly likely to be financially successful. It is
unlikely that this belief is justified. But in any event, previous attempts to attract private
sector participation to the toll road sector were not based on any real need for capacity
provision through the use of toll roads, and nor were they based on analysis of the timing by
which toll roads might be financially viable. Basically, the program was unplanned and
unprepared. There were many other problems that remain to be corrected as well, and these
will be discussed later, but the planning failure is the most important for this discussion.
Of the many lessons learnt from this and similar problems in other countries, is the need for
careful identification of project priorities based on an analysis of overall arterial road
development needs for the whole region. Within such a framework, it will be possible to
identify and examine opportunities for the development of toll roads, and to undertake a more
detailed analysis of those projects that appear to be viable in the short-term.
As has been discussed, and will be emphasised throughout the study, the study is directed at
the identification of a strategy plan that is in some way “optimum”, and combines economic,
planning, social and environmental objectives. While possible toll roads will be identified in
the context of their economic and financial feasibility, consideration will also need to be
given to this broader set of objectives.
1.6 Overview of this Report
1.6.1 Purpose
The preparation and testing of the road network development strategy will take almost to the
end of the study period, but there is a need to communicate the approach being taken, and the
likely results, to a wide audience as early as possible. This will allow account to be taken of
the reactions to and comment on the approach and preliminary findings, in further developing
and finalising the strategy.
As well as the need for communication, there is an internal need to conduct an initial
“screening” of the many alternative capacity expansion schemes that are possible with such a
large network. It is not possible to test and evaluate all possible options and their
combinations using the network model, and instead a method has been developed that allows

the identification of economically optimum expansion paths for each type of link. An initial
estimate of an appropriate development plan for the network can be made from these results.
The purpose of this report is therefore to identify this initial view of the network, in the
context of the existing condition of transport and economic development in Java. In doing so,
an overview of the work that has been undertaken is also provided, and to this extent the
report is an Interim Report, but its prime objective is to present an initial vision of the road
network development strategy that is likely to emerge from the study.
1.6.2 Content of the Report
In Section 2, an overview of the existing road network and traffic levels is provided. This
starts with an analysis of the road inventory, and the level and type of traffic using the system.
This is then used to assess the performance of the road network in providing for current traffic
demands, by assessing the volume-capacity ratio throughout the network, and the situation
likely to prevail in 2010, assuming that traffic grows uniformly over time.
A detailed review of regional spatial and economic development has been undertaken in
JARNS, to identify likely future development directions and priorities, and to determine the
possible influence of major road investment on future development, and vice versa. This
review has provided a comprehensive compilation of economic development data, and a
system developed that forecasts future development on a zonal basis. Of particular relevance
is a review of all development “corridors”, to determine the potential responsiveness of
development to major road investment. This study is briefly reviewed in Section 3.
In parallel to the development corridor review above, an engineering assessment of

opportunities and constraints in each corridor has also been undertaken, and this is reported in
Section 4.
While JARNS is primarily a road development study, the importance of other modes
(principally rail and shipping) to the road sector is fully recognised. In order to assess the
likely future level of interaction between road and other modes, a brief review of the likely
futures for rail and for ports and shipping was undertaken. The results of these reviews are
summarised in Section 5.
Section 6 summarises a preliminary screening of road capacity expansion options for the
entire network, which was designed to provide an initial estimate of the extent and cost of
current and future needs. The screening study has identified optimum expansion paths for a
set of representative road types, defined by road width and traffic level, so as to identify the
likely extent of major capacity programs. As well, an analysis of likely available levels of
funding is reported
Section 7 takes the development directions established in the preceding sections as a basis
for establishing a “vision” of the future road network structure for Java. This will provide a
base for identifying road improvement and staging strategies, and development priorities for
the overall network.
Section 8 provides a brief review of the likely future needs for toll road development, and
issues that need to be addressed in providing an appropriate institutional and regulatory
structure for toll roads in Indonesia.
Section 9 summarises the next steps, and the approach that will be taken in the remainder of
the Study to finalising the detail of the road network development plan that has been outlined
in this Interim Report.

2. THE JAVA INTER-URBAN ROAD NETWORK
2.1 Introduction and Overview
The Road Network Development Plan to be prepared in JARNS will identify a forward path
for development and capacity expansion of the existing road network, consistent with
expected growth and regional development requirements. An essential first step is therefore
the identification of existing problems and deficiencies in the road network, so that these can
be properly addressed by the Development Plan.
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief “existing conditions” summary of the road
network and its transport task, so as to identify existing and potential future deficiencies, and
likely future network development needs. These will subsequently be evaluated and
prioritised in later sections of this Report, and integrated with a larger “development vision”.
The Development Plan will address overall development aspirations, but it will also need to
satisfy existing network deficiencies, and their identification is the starting point for this
Report.
The analysis reported is very much data driven. However, the data sources are still in the
process of refinement, and the results reported in this section remain subject to minor change.
In particular, the ARMS data originally expected to be available in March remains
incomplete, and in order to complete this Interim Report, it has been necessary to revert to
using road inventory data from the 1999 IRMS database. This has delayed the completion of
the report, and also makes some of the detail liable to change. It is not expected to
significantly affect the final conclusions.
2.2 Data Sources: The IRMS Road Inventory Database
The basis of the road inventory data used in JARNS and reported in this Section, is the IRMS
database, briefly outlined below.
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 Road Management System (IRMS). The database currently contains data for
National and Provincial roads in Java, which until recently was known to be unreliable, in
particular the traffic and road condition data. During 1999/2000 efforts were made to improve
the quality of the database with an independent audit of traffic and roughness surveys, and the
collection of data by independent foreign contractors.
As part of this, the Automated Road Monitoring System (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 was completed at the end of 2000
and data for the Java road network started to become available to JARNS in April 2001.
However, there remain a number of deficiencies in certain data items that are still being
addressed, and it has not proved possible to use this data thus far. If it is possible within the
project timeframe, the JARNS inventory database will be updated with final revisions when
these are available.
Four somewhat different surveys were undertaken as part of ARMS:
• 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 JARNS team
viewed video image data for nearly all roads in Java, and manually extracted data that was not
otherwise available – side friction; level of roadside development; and road type. This data is
essential to the development of the capacity and speed-flow relationships that are essential for
network modelling.
2.3 Data Sources: Traffic Data
2.3.1 JARNS Traffic Counts
A major program of 37 roadside interview surveys (RIS) and 99 manual classified traffic
counts (MCC) (including RIS locations) was conducted as part of JARNS, throughout Java.
Traffic counts were conducted over 12 and 24 hours, so as to give a comprehensive
description of traffic composition and time-of-day variation. Roadside interview surveys
provided origin-destination information, and classified traffic counts conducted
simultaneously provided a means of sample expansion for this data.
2.3.2 IRMS Traffic Data
The reliability of IRMS traffic data has become seriously eroded over the last decade, and as a
result a program of traffic data updating was undertaken during 1999/2000 by the Consultants
working on the IIRMS project designed to upgrade the IRMS. This involved a program of
Moving Observer Counts (MOC) over the whole of the Provincial road network, and around
25% of National roads. These were used to validate and adjust IRMS traffic count data where
this was found to be significantly in error, though the process of adjustment used is unclear.
The ARMS project collected digital image data for nearly all links in the National and
Provincial road network. This data is being analysed by the IRMS Consultants to give
estimates of MOC traffic counts, but these are point estimates only, and have no statistical
reliability. They provide a source of anecdotal information that can be used alongside other
data to help assess the likely level of traffic loading on any link.
The most recent IRMS traffic data entries purport to be for 1998, but these were not the
results of field surveys, but estimated in 1999 using an average of entries in the database for
the years 1993-1997, together with “adjustment factors” derived from Moving Observer
Counts referenced above. Comparison between JARNS counts and IRMS data for the same
links showed that the IRMS data was highly variable, but significantly lower than JARNS
measurements.
For any serious analysis of road capacity, or the evaluation of road improvements, it can only
be concluded after detailed inspection of all data sources, that the IRMS traffic database is not
sufficiently reliable, and that other methods are necessary to estimate link traffic flows.
2.3.3 Traffic Count Data from Other Sources
Data collection is expensive and time consuming, and it is difficult to accumulate sufficient
reliable data for a project the size of JARNS. A number of different sources of traffic count
data are available, from different times, and it was decided to make the maximum possible
use of these data sources, to validate or to augment the traffic database. The sources used are
referenced below.

a. Jasa Marga: A number of three-day traffic counts were undertaken by Jasa Marga
in September, 2000, and results have been made available to the JARNS study team.
Many of the survey sites duplicated the JARNS traffic counts, but data from seven
locations has been included in the traffic database.
b. Bina Marga ATC Data: Bina Marga operated a number of Automated Traffic Count
Locations throughout Java, and some data from these was available for 1997 and 1998
c. CAPEX (II): A number of traffic surveys were undertaken as part of this 1998
project. Many were in urban areas, and it has not been possible to use this data, but a
number of inter-urban locations were used.
d. SURIP 1B UTS: Data from the roadside interview surveys conducted under
the concurrent SURIP 1B Urban Transport Study project being undertaken by Dorsch
Consult was made available to the JARNS project, for the cities of Probolinggo in East
Java and Pekalongan in Central Java.
e. TSSS: The Transport Sector Strategy Study completed in 2000 compiled data from a
number of different reports and studies. Reference was made to this data catalogue as
part of this review.
2.3.4 Traffic Data Synthesis
The process of synthesising data from the various sources was a manual one, and combined
field survey results where these were available with estimates based on a detailed scrutiny of
IRMS, ARMS and MOC estimates where firm data was not available. Thus a two-part
process was used:
1. AADT estimates from field surveys from the sources listed above were used
where these were available. In the event of data duplication, the following
precedence was given to data sources:
i. JARNS
ii. UTS
iii. Jasa Marga
iv. ATC
v. CAPEX
vi. TSSS
2. Where no field survey data was available, a careful scrutiny of the various forms
of IRMS data was made, and professional judgement was used to estimate the
flow band into which it was felt the link belonged. The IRMS data included:
i. IRMS data for 1993-1997
ii. Synthesised/averaged estimates for “IRMS 1998”
iii. MOC estimates for 1999 (2 separate estimates)
iv. MOC estimates from analysis of the ARMS digital data (2000)
v. Comparison of these sources with field data, to provide a continual “reality
check” of the estimates being made
The flow bands for traffic estimates are listed below, and are the same as used elsewhere for
the summarisation of traffic data. The mid-point of the range was used as the traffic volume
on the link.

Flow Band Mid-Point

0 – 1,000 500
1,000 – 3,000 2,000
3,000 – 5,000 4,000
5,000 – 7,500 6,250
7,500 – 10,000 8,750
10,000 – 12,500 11,250
12,500 – 15,000 13,750
15,000 – 20,000 17,500
20,000 – 25,000 22,500
25,000 – 30,000 27,500
30,000 + 35,000
The MOC counts and several of the other sources did not include motorcycles, and all
comparisons were based on AADT data that excluded motorcycles. The proportion of
motorcycles in the vehicle stream observed during the JARNS surveys was used for
converting AADT estimates. There was a high degree of variability in the observed
proportions, and Provincial averages were used to reduce this variability as much as possible.
These were:
Province Motorcycles as
% of 4-wheeled
vehicles
West Java 24%
Central Java 64.9%
East Java 80.6%
54.7%
Source: JARNS traffic counts
Traffic data from previous years was multiplied by a traffic growth factor. This was based on
observations of traffic using the Citarum bridge in West Java. This is a toll bridge, and
therefore reliable traffic counts are available over a long period of time, and give good
estimates of the way traffic levels have fluctuated in the region. The growth factors used
were:
1997 8.0%
1998 -3.0%
1999 –0.8%
2000 7.4%
The traffic data used in this synthesis, and the final estimates, are given in full in Appendix A
to this Report.
2.4 The National and Provincial Road Network
As of 1997, the primary inter-urban arterial and collector road network in Java covers 11,364
km, of which 2,758 km (24%) are classified as Arterial roads, and 1,397 km (12%) are
Primary Collectors. Both arterial roads and Primary Collector (K1) roads are under National
(KIMPRASWIL) jurisdiction, while the other (K2, K3) collector roads are under the
jurisdiction of the Provincial Governments.

Table 2.1: Length of Primary Arterial and Collector Roads in Java (km)
Functional Class West Java Central East Java D.I. Total

Java Yogyakarta
Arterial A 879 904 888 87 2,758
Collector K1 174 284 875 64 1,397
Collector K2 1,995 1,930 1,155 329 5,409
Collector K3 342 591 605 262 1,799
Total 3,389 3,710 3,523 742 11,364
Source for all Tables: IRMS 1999
Table 2.2: Length of Primary Arterial and Collector Road Network by AADT and
Function (km)
AADT Function: Total:

(vehs/day)* A K1 K2 K3
< 1000 54 447 132 633
1000 - 2000 537 341 878
2000 - 3000 473 321 795
3000 - 4000 112 890 184 1,187
4000 - 5000 18 7 470 210 705
5000 - 7500 68 212 819 314 1,413
7500 - 10000 138 20 409 160 727
10000 - 12500 453 346 579 77 1,456
12500 - 15000 281 148 93 10 533
15000 - 20000 716 273 409 49 1,446
20000 - 25000 444 114 123 682
25000 + 640 112 159 910
Total 2,758 1,397 5,409 1,799 11,364
* including motorcycles and excluding Non Motorised Vehicles (NMV)
Table 2.3: Length of Primary Arterial and Collector Road Network by Width and
Function (km)
Function:
Width A K1 K2 K3 Total:
< 5.0 81 911 662 1,654
>= 5.0, < 6.0 94 231 1,533 661 2,518
>= 6.0, < 7.0 500 327 1,048 408 2,283
>= 7.0, < 10.0 892 410 1,260 68 2,630
>= 10.0, < 14.0 711 290 464 1,466
>= 14.0 562 57 194 813
Total 2,758 1,397 5,409 1,799 11,364
2.5 The Strategic Road Network
For the purposes of JARNS, it is unnecessary to consider the whole of the National and
Provincial road network. While the Terms of Reference call for the preparation of an Arterial
Road Network Development Plan, it is in fact necessary for analytical purposes to examine
this within a larger framework. For this purpose, a Strategic road network has been defined,

so as to provide an analysis network that includes the essential connections between the
important centres throughout Java.
The Transport Sector Strategy Study (TSSS) defined the strategic road network for Java as
comprising:
a. All toll roads

b. All Primary Arterial roads
c. All Class 1 Collector (K1) roads
d. Other roads connecting Ibu Kota Kabupaten to this network
e. Other roads providing connections to major ports, airports and areas of national
significance
The network defined in the TSSS has been used in JARNS. Obviously, it includes all the
arterial and K1 network, but a number of other roads as well. JARNS is charged with the
responsibility of looking at least 20 years into the future, by which time it is probable that
additional network density may be required to provide needed capacity at a network level. To
facilitate such an investigation, a small number of roads that might be used to add to the
network density, and therefore its traffic capacity, have been included.
The Terms of Reference call for the preparation of an arterial road network development
plan, and this is the main focus of JARNS. However, we reserve the right to recommend the
addition of links to this network, if they are needed to provide the required capacity.
The Terms of Reference also call for the arterial road network development strategy to be
identified in the context of a strategic road network, to properly allow the effects of major
road improvements to be measured at a network level.
Thus the “strategic” road network includes a number of links which may not necessarily turn
out to be important in the future, and is defined more for ease of analysis than for reasons of
road function or status.
To help in referencing the network under consideration (see also Section 7), three separate
components are identified, as mapped in Fig. 2.1.
1. the arterial road network, as defined

2. the Primary Collector network of K1 roads
3. what is termed the ”strategic collector” road network, to give a functional
description appropriate to the role of the remainder of the strategic road network
The characteristics of the strategic road network used in JARNS are shown in Tables 2.4-2.6
below. It should be noted that the strategic road network is an inter-urban network, and urban
road links have been excluded. There are therefore some differences between the Tables that
follow and the preceding Tables 2.1-2.3.
Table 2.4: Length of Strategic Road Network by Province and Function (km)
Function:
Province A K1 K2 K3 Total:
West Java 820 162 1,042 15 2,039
Central Java 801 284 1,638 20 2,744
D.I. Yogyakarta 68 64 64 0 197
East Java 847 825 684 30 2,387
Total 2,536 1,336 3,429 66 7,367

JAKARTA
DIREKTORAT PROGRAM DAN EVALUASI

BAGIAN PROYEK PERENCANAAN DAN PENGEMBANGAN JARINGAN JALAN
LEGEND :
Arterial Roads
Primary Collector Roads
Strategic Collector Roads
Toll Roads
Fig. 2.1 : JARNS Road Network
Other Roads
Table 2.5: Length of Strategic Road Network by AADT and Function (km)
Function:
AADT A K1 K2 K3 Total:
< 1000 0 54 274 0 328
1000 - 2000 0 0 52 0 52
2000 - 3000 0 0 139 0 139
3000 - 4000 0 112 563 0 675
4000 - 5000 13 7 313 0 334
5000 - 7500 68 210 689 51 1,017
7500 - 10000 136 18 370 0 523
10000 - 12500 442 346 454 0 1,241
12500 - 15000 259 134 72 0 465
15000 - 20000 701 248 301 15 1,265
20000 - 25000 406 114 105 0 625
25000 + 512 94 96 0 701
Total 2,536 1,336 3,429 66 7,367
Average AADT 19,900 12,400 8,100 9,300 13,000
Sources:IRMS 1999; Consultants Traffic Estimates (Appendix A)
Table 2.6: Length of Strategic Road Network by Width and Function (km)
Function:
Width A K1 K2 K3 Total:
< 5.0 11 83 561 0 655
>= 5.0, < 6.0 94 297 1,302 0 1,693
>= 6.0, < 7.0 749 439 917 61 2,165
>= 7.0, < 10.0 872 388 527 5 1,792
>= 10.0, < 14.0 464 110 77 0 651
>= 14.0, < 16.0 94 6 6 0 107
>= 16.0, < 21.0 249 13 39 0 301
>= 21.0 3 0 0 0 3
Total 2,536 1,336 3,429 66 7,367
Average Width 10.1 7.1 6.3 6.3 7.8
Table 2.7: Length of Arterial Road Network by AADT and Width (km)
AADT Carriageway Width ( m ) Total

(vehs/day) < 5.0 >= 5.0, >= 6.0, >= 7.0, >= 10.0, >= 14.0, >=
< 6.0 < 7.0 < 10.0 < 14.0 < 16.0 16.0
< 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 - 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 - 3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 - 4000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4000 - 5000 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13
5000 - 7500 0 0 60 0 4 0 3 68
7500 - 10000 0 6 77 0 53 0 0 136
10000 - 12500 0 0 272 128 33 5 4 442
12500 - 15000 0 67 134 46 7 0 4 259
15000 - 20000 0 16 125 345 125 26 64 701
20000 - 25000 11 4 51 207 98 7 28 406
25000 + 0 0 29 146 131 57 149 512
Total 11 94 749 872 464 94 252 2,536

Table 2.8: Length of K1 Road Network by AADT and Width (km)

(vehs/day) < 5.0 >= 5.0, >= 6.0, >= 7.0, >= 10.0, >= 14.0, >=
< 6.0 < 7.0 < 10.0 < 14.0 < 16.0 16.0
< 1000 26 28 0 0 0 0 0 54
1000 - 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 - 3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 - 4000 27 13 70 2 0 0 0 112
4000 - 5000 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7
5000 - 7500 0 53 106 41 9 0 0 210
7500 - 10000 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 18
10000 - 12500 0 92 118 102 25 6 2 346
12500 - 15000 21 80 17 0 15 0 0 134
15000 - 20000 0 0 103 98 47 0 0 248
20000 - 25000 9 23 21 38 13 0 11 114
25000 + 0 0 4 89 1 0 0 94
Total 83 297 439 388 110 6 13 1,336
Table 2.9: Length of Strategic Collector Road Network by AADT and Width (km)

(vehs/day) < 5.0 >= 5.0, >= 6.0, >= 7.0, >= 10.0, >= 14.0, >=
< 6.0 < 7.0 < 10.0 < 14.0 < 16.0 16.0
< 1000 91 179 2 2 0 0 0 274
1000 - 2000 0 0 36 17 0 0 0 52
2000 - 3000 30 45 62 1 0 0 0 139
3000 - 4000 228 167 124 39 4 1 0 563
4000 - 5000 79 160 66 9 0 0 0 313
5000 - 7500 110 312 243 55 18 0 3 740
7500 - 10000 1 228 91 46 4 0 0 370
10000 - 12500 0 118 182 137 12 0 4 454
12500 - 15000 16 8 26 13 0 0 9 72
15000 - 20000 0 38 109 142 25 2 0 317
20000 - 25000 0 20 13 61 7 0 4 105
25000 + 7 27 22 11 7 3 19 96
Total 561 1,302 977 532 77 6 39 3,495
The network and its characteristics are shown in Figs. 2.1 – 2.3.
It is clear from the preceding Tables that the arterial, primary collector and secondary
collector roads have different characteristics and serve different functions – as implied by
their different classifications. Arterial roads provide for a substantially higher level of traffic,
and have a higher average width, than other roads – though it will be immediately noticed that
the average flow of nearly 20,000 vpd takes place on carriageways with an average width of
only 10.1 metres, which is low for roads of this class and level of traffic.
Average flow on Primary Collectors is 12,400 vpd, with average width of 7.1 metres, which is
again a relatively high average flow for relatively narrow roads. Volumes on the remainder of
the strategic network are relatively low.

DEPARTEMEN PEMUKIMAN DAN PENGEMBANGAN WILAYAH
DIREKTORAT JENDERAL PENGEMBANGAN PRASARANA WILAYAH
DIREKTORAT PROGRAM DAN EVALUASI
BAGIAN PROYEK PERENCANAAN DAN PENGEMBANGAN JARINGAN JALAN
JARNS
JAVA ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK STUDY
Strategic Roads by Road Width
<7 Fig. 2.2 : Road Width, Strategic Network
>= 7 , < 10
>= 10 , < 14 In associoation with :
MVA Asia Ltd. PT. Amythas PT. Jasa Mitra Manunggal
>= 14 ND Lea Consultants Ltd. PT. Dressa Cipta Rekayasa PT. Multi Phi Beta
fig2-3.wmf (1587x1122x24b wmf)
F ig . 2 .3 : T raf fic Le v e ls b y R o a d C la s s
A rte ria l R oad s b y A A DT - 2 0 00
> 30,00 0
20 ,00 0 to 30 ,00 0
10 ,00 0 to 20 ,00 0
< 10,00 0
S tra te gic C o lle ctor b y A A DT - 2 0 00

> 30,00 0
20 ,00 0 to 30 ,00 0
10 ,00 0 to 20 ,00 0
< 10,00 0
A rteria l R oads
The arterial road network is very much more heavily trafficked than the overall strategic road
network, but that is of course exactly as expected. For the primary and strategic collector
network, 31% of roads carry less than 5,000 vehicles per day, compared with only 1% for the
arterial road network. For the primary and strategic collector road network, low volume (less
than 5,000 vehicles/day) and low width (less than 7 metre) roads comprise 30% of the total
length, whereas there are no roads of these characteristics in the arterial road network.
With the absence of any significant length of 4-lane roads, it is clear that the road network has
somewhat limited capacity. It would therefore appear that there will be short- to medium-term
needs for capacity expansion for many sections of the arterial and strategic road network, as
will be more fully discussed in later sections.
2.6 Summary Traffic Characteristics
The average composition of the vehicle stream is shown in Table 2.10 below. The most
noteworthy aspect of this is the very high proportion of motorcycles. This is a potential
difficulty, because motorcycles are used for very short journeys, and take substantial road
capacity.
The data indicates that the composition of traffic in West Java is very different than that for
East and Central Java. In part, this appears to reflect a higher degree of affluence in West
Java, and a higher level of industrial development.
There are differences also between the traffic composition on arterial roads and other roads in
the strategic network. Arterial roads are more heavily trafficked, and carry a higher proportion
of cars and heavy vehicles, and a lower proportion of motorcycles, than other collector roads
in the network. This further indicates their strong commercial significance – and the need to
maintain adequate standards of service on the arterial road network, if economic development
is to be supported.
Table 2.10: Average Traffic Composition
Cars & Light Heavy

MC Microbus Bus TOTAL
Pickups Truck Truck
Arterial Roads
West Java 17% 33% 22% 6% 17% 5% 100%
Central Java 33% 32% 7% 8% 14% 5% 100%
East Java 41% 32% 7% 4% 11% 5% 100%
Total 31% 32% 12% 6% 14% 5% 100%
Other Roads
West Java 24% 34% 20% 5% 14% 3% 100%
Central Java 50% 25% 8% 6% 10% 1% 100%
East Java 49% 25% 8% 3% 11% 4% 100%
Total 43% 28% 11% 5% 12% 3% 100%
All Roads
West Java 19% 33% 21% 6% 16% 4% 100%
Central Java 39% 30% 8% 7% 13% 4% 100%
East Java 45% 29% 7% 3% 11% 5% 100%
Total 35% 31% 11% 5% 13% 4% 100%
Source: JARNS Traffic Counts

Figure 2.4 below shows observed distributions by time of day, for different classes of
vehicles. This clearly shows that motorcycles and microbuses (angkot), and to a lesser extent
cars and light vehicles, are used mainly during the day, whereas trucks and (large) buses are
used throughout the 24 hours. Overall, the proportion of vehicles travelling in the peak period
is around 6% of AADT in a ‘peak hour’. This is critical for the determination of road
capacity, which is typically taken as an hourly capacity.
Distribution of Observed Traffic Volumes During the Day at 35 JARNS 24-hr Survey Sites
9%
8%
%
7%
of
Ve
hic 6%
les
in 5%
1-
Ho 4%
ur
3%
2%
1%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time Period – Hr beginning:
M/C L-Veh Angkot Bus

Light Truck Heavy Truck All Vehs
2.7 Road Capacity
2.7.1 The Volume-Capacity Ratio
The traffic capacity of any link can be calculated from empirical relationships developed from
observations of traffic flow, and their variation with respect to major influences on capacity,
including:
• width of carriageway
• width of shoulder
• road type
• degree of side friction
• level of roadside development
• terrain
Such relationships have been developed for Indonesia in the Indonesian Highway Capacity
Manual, and further refined in work done in the recent review of IRMS. As part of JARNS, a
detailed inspection of the ARMS digital image data for each link has been conducted, to
determine values for the degree of side friction and level of roadside development, which are
critical to the estimation of road capacity and its speed-flow characteristics, needed for
network modelling.
The extent of existing congestion (or remaining road capacity) for any link can be estimated,
by comparing existing traffic volumes to the calculated link capacity. The Volume-Capacity
Ratio (V/C or VCR) is calculated for a peak hour, based on a standard unit of traffic called

the passenger car equivalent (pce) or more usually the passenger car unit (pcu).
Examination of the vehicle flow distribution by time of day identifies the proportion of
AADT that occurs in the peak hour. For Java, this is around 6% of traffic, and 5.5% of pcu.
Theoretically, a V/C of 1.0 should indicate that a road has no remaining capacity. In practice,
the measure is not precise, and roads can operate (very inefficiently) at traffic levels above
this, but as the V/C increases, substantial congestion throughout the day develops, and traffic
speeds drop to a crawl – conditions which are familiar throughout Java today.
In assessing the V/C throughout the network, the following band widths for V/C have been
used:
V/C Description Comment

Band
< 0.3 No significant Up to a value of 0.3, traffic flows relatively

congestion smoothly, without significant interaction between
vehicles
0.3 - 0.6 Moderate In this range, interactions between vehicles
congestion create significant delays. At this level, road
widening measures are usually justified
economically
0.6 - 0.85 Significant Congestion levels increase significantly, and
congestion speeds become unstable
0.85 + High congestion Congestion spreads beyond the peak hour, traffic
speeds low
2.7.2 Analysis of the Current Network
Current average levels of network congestion are shown in Table 2.10, and estimated levels
for 2010 are shown in Table 2.11.These results are indicated diagrammatically in Fig. 2.5, and
maps of the results at a network level are shown in Figs 2.6-2.7.
Table 2.10: Road Length by Width and Volume-Capacity Ratio, Year 2000
Carriageway Width V/C Ratio, 2000 Total

(m) 0 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.6 0.6 – 0.85 0.85 +
Arterial roads:
<7m 466 352 35 0 854
>= 7, < 10 m 271 543 47 11 872
>= 10, < 14m 323 129 12 0 464
>= 14m 243 101 2 0 346
Total 1304 1124 97 11 2536
51.4% 44.3% 3.8% 0.4% 100%
Non-arterial (strategic
collector) roads:
<7m 3151 455 45 7 3659
>= 7 and < 10 m 624 296 0 0 921
>= 10 and < 14 m 177 9 0 0 187
>= 14m 62 3 0 0 65
Total 4015 764 45 7 4831
83.1% 15.8% 0.9% 0.2% 100%

Table 2.11: Road Length by Width and Volume-Capacity Ratio, Year 2010
Carriageway Width V/C Ratio, 2000 Total

(m) 0 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.6 0.6 – 0.85 0.85 +
Arterial roads:
<7m 60 491 224 78 854
>= 7, < 10 m 0 365 227 279 872
>= 10, < 14m 18 346 51 49 464
>= 14m 69 202 57 18 346
Total 147 1404 560 425 2536
5.8% 55.4% 22.1% 16.8% 100%
Non-arterial (strategic
collector) roads:
<7m 1911 1448 183 117 3659
>= 7 and < 10 m 188 488 168 77 921
>= 10 and < 14 m 58 122 7 0 187
>= 14m 34 31 0 0 65
Total 2192 2088 357 194 4831
45.4% 43.2% 7.4% 4.0% 100%
Fig. 2.5: Congestion Levels by Road Type
Congestion Levels, 2000 and 2010
100%
90%
80%
70% High congestion
60% Significant congestion
50%
40% Moderate congestion
30% No congestion
20%
10%
0%
2000 2010 2000 2010
Arterial Arterial Non-Arterial Non-Arterial
Currently, 51% of the arterial road network and 83% of the non-arterial road network is
relatively free from congestion. By 2010, however, only 6% of the arterial network will be
relatively uncongested, with 55% suffering moderate congestion, and 39% suffering heavy
congestion. Given that at levels of V/C around 0.4 – 0.5 major road widening is usually
economically justified, it would appear that in only 10 years, almost the whole of the arterial
road network, and about half the non-arterial road network, will require substantial upgrading.

Fig. 2.6 : C ongestion Levels by Road C lass, 2000
A rt eria l Ro a ds by V / C Ratio - 2 0 00
V/C >= 0.85

0.60 < = V/C < 0 .85
0.30 < = V/C < 0 .60
V/C < 0 .3 0
S t rat egic C ollect or Ro a ds by V / C Ra tio - 2 000
V/C >= 0.85

0.60 < = V/C < 0.85
0.30 < = V/C < 0.60
V/C < 0 .3 0
A rteria l R oads
Fig. 2.7 : C ongestion Levels by Road C lass, 2010
A rt eria l Ro a ds by V / C Ratio - 2 0 10
V/C >= 0.85
0.60 < = V/C < 0.85
0.30 < = V/C < 0.60
V/C < 0 .3 0
S t rat egic C ollect or Ro a ds by V / C Ra tio - 2 010

V/C >= 0.85
0.60 < = V/C < 0.85
0.30 < = V/C < 0.60
V/C < 0 .3 0
A rteria l R oads
2.7.3 Conclusions
The conclusions are relatively obvious. While levels of congestion at this point do not appear
critical, within only 10 years the existing level of arterial road network capacity will be too
low to properly provide for traffic. As economic activity and development continue, traffic
and congestion levels will continue to rise. The inevitable consequences will include:
• substantially increased costs

• a major restraint of economic growth and development
• significant social and environmental costs
Significant investment in road capacity is obviously required if these outcomes are to be

avoided.
The greatest needs are for capacity expansion of the arterial road network, under the
responsibility of Central Government. But significant needs also exist for the non-arterial
component of the strategic road network, for which funding responsibilities remain unclear.
There is clearly a need, therefore, to address possible institutional issues in relation to funding
responsibilities and fund mobilisation, and these questions will be reviewed in a later Section.
2.8 Toll Roads in Java
As indicated in Table 2.11, there are about 516 km of toll roads in operation (or likely soon to
be in operation) in Java, of which 320 km are operated by the state owned toll road operator,
P.T.Jasa Marga, and 196 km by private operators in collaboration with Jasa Marga. A number
of other toll road concessions have been granted, but are currently “on hold” or under review
following the economic crisis. It is not known which of the currently-proposed toll roads will
proceed in the short-term, and whether they will proceed under any current concession
agreements.
The major toll roads in and around Jakarta are becoming heavily loaded, and there is currently
heavy congestion in peak hours around the toll plazas, which form the main bottlenecks.
Additional system capacity is clearly going to be needed in the short- to medium-term.
Despite the economic crisis, interest in toll road development remains high. Certainly, road
traffic conditions in the major cities of Jakarta and Surabaya have been greatly improved as
the result of the development of urban toll roads, and it may be expected that additional toll
roads in and around these cities will both improve traffic, and be financially feasible as
private-sector funded BOT projects.
Growth in toll road traffic has been significant, as shown in Fig. 2.8, and clearly indicates
their major impact on development.

Table 2.11: Existing Toll Roads
Toll Road Length Operator

(km)
Jakarta
Jakarta Inner Toll Roads
Operated by Jasa Marga 66 Jasa Marga
Private operator 31 Private Operators
Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
In operation 31 Private Operators
To be completed 43 To be determined
Jakarta – Merak 72.5 Private operator
Jagorawi 46 Jasa Marga
Jakarta - Cikampek 72 Jasa Marga
Surabaya
Surabaya – Gempol 43 Jasa Marga
Surabaya – Gresik 18.5 Private operator
Bandung
Padalarang - Cileunyi 46.5 Jasa Marga
Other
Semarang Bypass 24.5 Jasa Marga
Cirebon Bypass 22 Jasa Marga
Fig 2.8: Growth of Toll Road Traffic on Java

Source: PT Jasa Marga
250,000,000
200,000,000
Annual Traffic
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
0
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 *
Jagorawi Jakarta-Merak Jakarta-Cikampek Mojokerto B/P Surabaya-Gempol Surabaya-Gresik

Padaleunyi Citarum Camang Semarang Palikanci

3. ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN JAVA
3.1 Objectives
The Java Arterial Road Network Study (JARNS) was conceived to provide a more rational
planning context for further arterial road expansion in Java, taking full account of regional
development needs and a network-wide perspective. As part of this, a review of economic and
regional development in Java is an essential component of the study, to provide:
• A framework for establishing present and future transport demand.

• Insights into the possible interaction between road development and socio-
economic activity and, in particular, the possible role of roads in promoting
spatial planning policy.
Estimation of present and future transport demand ideally requires an understanding of the
spatial distribution of underlying socio-economic activities and likely changes over time.
JARNS seeks to make explicit links between the existing and projected levels and distribution
of socio-economic activity, on the one hand, and the observed existing and possible future
patterns of traffic, on the other. The validity of such a process depends crucially on the quality
and fineness of detail of base secondary data available at a local level; generally this is
seriously deficient for a study of this kind. Furthermore, the projection of future patterns of
socio-economic activity is peculiarly uncertain in the present conditions of economic and
political crisis facing Indonesia. It is practicable only to consider a broad range of possible
scenarios that could have widely differing implications for the future levels and patterns of
development and associated road needs.
The second objective takes the study even deeper into speculative areas. The interaction
between roads and economic development is a complex one that is not well understood even
in mature economies. Very little academic work has been undertaken in Indonesia on this
issue, on which JARNS could build, while the development of formal land/use transport
interaction models, together with the associated, comprehensive survey programmes needed
to analyse industrial location and similar issues, are well beyond the scope and resources of
the present study. The study thus has to confine itself to limited, speculative observations and
inferences derived from present patterns of economic activity. The related assessment of the
possible interaction between road development and government spatial planning policy is
further complicated by the present fluid state of spatial planning and its uncertain evolution
under increased regional autonomy.
The work that has been undertaken towards these objectives is reviewed and summarised in
this Section.
3.2 Overview of Spatial Characteristics of Java
Java is conventionally described in terms of its dominance of the Indonesian economy,

deriving traditionally from its geographical location, the inherent fertility of its soils and its
long-standing pre-eminence in political, cultural and commercial relations with other islands
of the archipelago. Java’s 120 million people still today account for almost 60% of the
nation’s population and GDP, whereas the island comprises only 7% of the national land area.
The high concentration of economic activity and population in Java masks quite wide spatial
variations that are not adequately defined in terms of province-level data. Broad spatial
variations in Java are commonly described in terms of north, central and southern corridors,
presenting differences which arise principally from Java’s physical characteristics: a strong

geographical orientation towards the north, characterised by the main areas of flat and fertile
soils and three of the four largest metropolitan areas, each associated with a major port; a
much more physically constrained central corridor dominated by a rugged, though fertile
chain of volcanic mountains running the length of Java; a southern corridor where the
potential is often limited both by rough topography and poorer soils.
Key features of the variations between north, centre and south are summarised below. The
northern corridor accounts for half of Java’s population, two thirds of its GDP, but only 35-
40% of its land area. As a result, levels of population density, urbanisation and GDP/capita in
the north are more than twice those in the south, while GDP has been growing 20% faster.
This reflects in part the preponderance of industrial activity in the north and much greater
dependence on agriculture in the south. In contrast, the central corridor enjoys a relatively
more balanced distribution of activity.
Share of Main Corridors in Java
Corridor Land Population Total GDP Industrial Agricultural

area (1995-97) GDP GDP
North 37% 48% 65% 71% 40%
Central 26% 29% 22% 23% 30%
South 36% 23% 13% 5% 31%
Java 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Consultant’s estimates based on Draft BPS Sensus 2000; PODES 99; GRDP 93-96
Index of Relative Distribution by Corridor (Java=1.00)
Corridor Population GDP/capita GDP growth Urban %

density (1995-97) (86-96)
North 1.30 1.35 1.06 1.27
Central 1.09 0.76 0.94 0.92
South 0.63 0.56 0.88 0.53
Java 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Source: Consultant’s estimates based on Draft BPS Sensus 2000; PODES 99; GRDP 93-96, SUPAS
95
However, the spatial picture is more complicated than this. Java may also be seen as made up
of three adjacent, but largely independent regions (West, Central and East), each with a core
sub-region dominated by a metropolitan city/port and buffer urban areas (Jakarta, Semarang,
Surabaya); supporting tributary corridors, extending historically north-south (Bogor/Bandung,
Solo/Yogya, Malang), but more recently also east-west along the coast (e.g.
Serang/Cikampek); while peripheral areas further to the east and west, as well as to the south,
tend to be progressively less developed and more poorly integrated with the core regions.
Aspects of the economic concentration in Java are brought out in the table below. The three
metropolitan ‘core’ areas including the buffer urban areas surrounding them account for half
of Java’s GDP; Jakarta alone (with Bekasi and Tangerang) accounts for 37%. The principal
‘tributary’ corridors account for a further quarter of the GDP. The much larger rural
‘periphery’ outside, to the east, west and south of these ‘core’ areas, also contributes a quarter
of the GDP, but accounts for half the population and two thirds of the land area; it contributes
only a tenth of the industrial output, but two thirds of the agricultural GDP.
Indicators of Concentration of Economic Activity in Java

% % % % Index Index Index
land population GDP industrial population GDP/ urban
area GDP density capita %
Metropolitan core 10% 25% 51% 58% 2.6 2.0 1.8

-Jakarta +TaBek 3% 15% 37% 39% 4.5 2.4 2.1

-Surabaya + GKS 4% 6% 10% 14% 1.8 1.7 1.5
-Semarang 3% 4% 4% 5% 1.3 1.0 1.0
Tributary corridors 24% 27% 23% 32% 1.1 0.8 1.1
Periphery 66% 48% 26% 10% 0.7 0.5 0.5
Java 100% 100% 100% 100% 1.0 1.0 1.0
95
As a result, the average GDP/capita, population density and level of urbanisation in the ‘core’
areas are roughly twice the average for Java; those for the ‘peripheral’ areas are around half
the Java average.
It is apparent from these indicators of economic concentration that there are wide disparities
in the level and growth of economic activity across Java. Rural kabupatens in the peripheral
areas, engaged mainly in agriculture, have average GDP/capita levels of less than Rp 1 mn (at
1993 prices), less than half the average for Java and roughly a quarter of those in the most
urbanised and industrialised areas. While all areas shared in the economic growth in the
decade before the crisis, average annual growth rates varied between 2-4% in slow-growing
areas and 10-15% in fast-growing areas.
Spatial disparities in the level and growth of economic activity across Java are to some extent
the outcome of the dramatic transformation of Java’s economy over recent decades, that has
tended to favour some regions over others. Over three decades the population of Java has
increased by 44 million (58%), while the urban population has almost tripled from 17 million
(22% of the total) to about 50 million (42% of the total). This reflects the rapid
industrialisation of Indonesia over this period, led by Java. The share of manufacturing in
national GDP has more than doubled, reaching 29% in Java in 1999. Over the same period the
relative share of agriculture has declined by almost two thirds, to around 11% in Java in 1999.
Employment in agriculture has also declined, but at a much slower rate, now still accounting
for about 35% of Java’s labour force, compared with 17% in manufacturing.
Long-term Trends in population, Employment and GDP Structure in Java and

Indonesia
1970** 1980 1990 2000
Population Java mn 76 91 108 120
Inter-census annual population growth 1.9% 2.0% 1.7% 1.1%
Urban population, Java. % total 22% 25% 36% 42%
Industrial GDP, Indonesia, % total Na 15% 21% 26% (29%)*
Agricultural GDP, Indonesia, % total 45% 30% 20% 17% (11%)*
Employment in agriculture, Indonesia, % 66% 61% 56% 43% (35%)*
total
* Java, data for 1999 ** census data for 1971
95
3.3 Spatial Development Policies and Plans
A formal process of regional spatial planning was established in Indonesia over the last
decade, following a broad hierarchical approach whereby a national spatial plan (and an
associated subsidiary plan for Java/Bali) provided a framework of guidance for province-level
plans, which in turn guided kabupaten level spatial plans. Each of the provinces of Java has a
legally approved spatial plan prepared or revised between 1994 and 1997. This sets out
policies for the spatial development of the province over the next 10-15 years. Indicative
zoning of land use is specified in a 1:250,000 scale map.

In general these plans tended to promote development of industrial and settlement areas in
belts radiating east and west from the main metropolitan cities, in the case of Jakarta, between
Serang and Karawang/Purwakarta; in the case of Surabaya, west between Gresik and Tuban,
and (with a bridge) east onto Madura; in the case of Semarang, west towards
Batang/Pekalongan and around Solo in the context of the Joglosemar triangle. The central and
southern hinterlands were seen primarily as agricultural support areas for the main core zones;
the southern coastal areas were seen as priority areas for environmental protection. While the
plans referred to the issue of regional imbalance, in effect they tended to support policies of
continuing concentration in the established core zones.
The officially approved spatial planning documents are in some respects no longer in accord
with evolving strategies as a result of :
• Changes in political direction

• The impact of the economic crisis
• Regional autonomy plans
• Changes in administrative boundaries (i.e. the subdivision of West Java to form
Banten province)
Thus, regional spatial planning strategies are now in a state of flux:
• Possible new strategies are still under discussion within the context of
PROPEDA and RENSTRA and have not yet been approved by the regional
assemblies; draft documents are generally not yet available, except in West Java.
• There is strong emphasis on promoting development in the southern areas of the
island, which are perceived as disadvantaged and underutilised. Although this
strategy also featured nominally in the earlier spatial plans, it is now receiving
more emphatic attention, both in the interests of equity and to relieve pressure on
the more congested and overdominant northern corridors. The main mechanisms
for achieving such a redirection of development are seen to include:
o Promotion of agro-based industry, considered to be more resilient in times of
economic depression
o Improvement of north-south cross-island links
o Development of new or expanded ports, especially on the south coast
o Development of improved roads to serve the south coast, comprising
principally radial connectors in West Java and a coastal arterial link in East
Java.
• The ‘southern’ strategy appears to be largely politically motivated; while the
underlying concerns regarding regional imbalance are understandable, the new
strategies are not yet clearly articulated and may not reflect an adequate
appreciation of the economic realities of private investor interests or the spatial
distribution of development potential in Java. There is some informal
acknowledgement of the possible ineffectiveness of such an approach and the
likelihood that economic recovery will bring a resumption of industrial
expansion principally in or close to existing areas of concentrated development.
• Land use zoning maps give a useful, indicative picture of pre-crisis intentions,
but do not yet reflect new thinking and are based on a broad ‘top-down’
representation of desired development. In reality, under present autonomy plans,
which promote a non-hierarchical administrative structure, the kabupatens and
kotamadya will have the principal responsibility for planning and enforcing local
land use zoning, within a much looser advisory framework. However, few
districts are yet in a position to define their new spatial planning ambitions.

It is doubtful, even before the crisis, how much effect spatial planning policy had in practice
on actual spatial development, even where the policy was unambiguous. Where spatial
planning policy coincided with the locational preferences of private sector investment, as in
the northern industrial belt of West Java, then it may be said to have been supportive; but,
where it diverged, as in the concern to develop more peripheral areas, it appears to have been
ineffective. In practice, there are few mechanisms available to implement spatial policies in
Java, other than vague structural concepts such as the ‘kawasan andalan’ and desirable city
hierarchies, and the negative powers of land use controls, which may be easily bypassed.
The effectiveness of spatial planning is now being further undermined by:
• Increasing ambiguity and uncertainty in objectives.

• The enhanced role of the kabupatens, which will tend to mean even less
predictability in future spatial planning policies and the likelihood of random
initiatives outside an advisory national or provincial policy framework
3.4 Macro-Economic and Development Scenarios
The continuing economic and political crisis in Indonesia means that the future pattern of
economic growth and development cannot be predicted with any confidence over the next few
years, let alone the next thirty. It is more practical in these circumstances to consider a
plausible range of scenarios with different implications for the spatial distribution and rates of
development and traffic growth. Three main macro-economic scenarios are considered for
Indonesia, taking into account past and present official expectations, short to medium term
scenarios proposed by the IMF, World Bank and ADB, and recent studies including the
Transport Sector Strategy Study:
Optimistic Scenario 1 assumes that a rapid restoration of business confidence and currency
stability leads to a recovery of the economic growth rate to 6-6.5% over the period 2003-05,
rising to an average level of around 7% thereafter, thus regaining the pre-crisis trend rate and
rapidly surpassing pre-crisis GDP levels. It is assumed that this rate of growth can be
sustained throughout the study period, as a consequence of successful corporate and banking
restructuring in the medium term and a resumption of large-scale private investment flows.
The scenario essentially follows PROPENAS (the new 5-year plan) in the short-term, moving
towards the targets in PJPII (the pre-crisis long-term plan) in the longer term. Economic
growth will be led principally by a resumption of a rapid expansion in large-scale
manufacturing, but also assumes strong performance in agriculture and the services sector. In
the longer term Java would become heavily industrialised.
Central Scenario 2 adopts a more cautious view of prospects, assuming the present recovery
continues, but with growth levelling off at a 5-6% trend rate in the medium term, more in line
with the long-term rate including the crisis and periods of weaker economic performance in
the 1980s. This scenario allows for some level of continuing constraint on economic
performance and investor confidence arising from delays and deficiencies in corporate and
bank restructuring, persistent debt problems and uncertainties associated with the evolving
processes of democratisation and decentralisation of government. While manufacturing would
also expand at a substantial rate a more balanced economic structure would result in the
longer term.
Pessimistic Scenario 3 adopts a much bleaker view of prospects, assuming that continuing
political instability and weak economic management result in a slower process of national
recovery and discourage a significant resumption of investment, suppressing average growth
rates to 2% in the short to medium term and no more than 3-4% in the longer term. Pre-crisis
GDP levels would not be regained until 2005. This would represent a return to the sort of
conditions prevailing in the first two decades of independence. Economic conditions would be

volatile and unpredictable. Principal reliance would be placed on agriculture, small-scale

manufacturing and the informal economy, while the more modern ‘urban’ sectors including
large-scale manufacturing, construction and tourism would tend to stagnate.
Macro-Economic Scenarios for Indonesia : average annual growth in GDP

2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20
Optimistic 6.2% 7.3% 7.5% 7.7%
Central 4.7% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6%
Pessimistic 2.1% 2.8% 3.6% 3.6%
Source: Consultant’s estimates based on SPADEL
The development strategies associated with these scenarios are postulated as follows:
Under the optimistic scenario, investor confidence and liquidity would be restored relatively
quickly, allowing pre-crisis rates of investment and industrial expansion to be regained within
five years. The main sectors likely to attract such large-scale investment would be the same
type of export-oriented industries, such as textiles and footwear and basic electronics, that
were the focus of expansion before the crisis, as well as industries meeting rising demand for
consumer products from the large domestic urban markets. These industries tend to favour
concentrated locations close to the major ports and metropolitan markets and services, many
benefiting from agglomeration economies. This process will tend to reinforce the spatial
distribution patterns emerging before the crisis with market-led development, tending to
concentrate in the northern corridor, radiating in belts from the main ports and metropolitan
cities. Major arterial road development could have a role in extending the geographical area
of attraction for incoming investment. Other sectors of more traditional industry, including
principally resource-oriented and agro-industrial activities and small-scale industries, both
with a more dispersed locational character, would also experience growth in line with the
economy, but are likely to attract much less investment interest. Growth in most of the central
and southern corridors would thus tend to be slower and more dependent on the agricultural
sector. This scenario would tend to imply a reinforcement of existing spatial distribution
patterns.
Under a pessimistic scenario, slow political and economic recovery would mean that much
less investment would be available for large-scale industrial expansion. A pattern of smaller-
scale, local investment is likely to emerge, with a focus on more dispersed, agro-industrial
activity, resource-oriented manufacturing and medium to small scale units. This would tend to
mean relatively more emphasis on the central and southern corridors and relatively little
growth in concentrated industry in the northern corridors. Overall industrial growth would be
substantially lower, but there would be more regional balance in the growth that materialises.
This scenario is close to the current evolution of government spatial and development
planning policy in that it would give effective priority to smaller-scale, dispersed activity
oriented to primary resources. It would lead to more even distribution of development and
lower rates of urbanisation, although economic growth rates would be lower. It would
represent a more self-sufficient, autarchic form of economic strategy, allowing the small-
scale, informal sector to make a relatively greater contribution and offering greater resilience
to economic downturns than expansion of the more formal, large-scale industrial sector.
A central scenario would involve some mix of the above two development strategies,
reflecting a steady, but partial revival of investor confidence and flows, allowing some
expansion of the concentrated industrial sector in established locations; at the same time,
continuing economic constraints would also tend to favour the small/medium scale and agro-
industry policy emphasis of the present administration, thus leading to some industrial
development of a more dispersed character. The net effect would be a more balanced pattern
of regional development, without totally losing the potential gains from expansion of larger
scale industry. Moderate urbanisation pressures would be greater than under the pessimistic

scenario, but should avoid the severe urban management problems that could arise under the
optimistic scenario. This compromise probably best reflects current spatial planning ideas, as
it acknowledges the economic realities of market led industrialisation, while still contributing
in some measure to redressing growing regional imbalances.
The projected demographic trend associated with these scenarios is not expected to vary
significantly except in respect of the rate of urbanisation. Natural population growth rates in
Java have fallen steadily since 1980, principally as a result of falling birth rates. The
estimated annual growth rate fell below 1% between 1995 and 2000 and is expected to
continue to decelerate, with the result that the projected population by 2020 (135-140 million)
would be only about 15% above its present level. Inter-island migration is expected to have a
broadly neutral impact.
The preliminary census for 2000 suggests that the rate of urban growth in Java has declined
dramatically since 1995, but this partly reflects the temporary migration back to rural areas as
a result of the economic crisis. Future rates of urban growth will be influenced both by the
rate of economic recovery and an underlying tendency for growth to slow down especially in
the bigger cities. The following demographic projections have been adopted.
Scenarios for Medium-Term Population Growth (annual growth rates)
Optimistic Central Pessimistic

Metropolitan areas 2% 1.5% 1%
Buffer urban areas 4-5% 2-3% 2%
Other urban areas 4% 2% 1%
Total urban population 3% 1.5-2% 1-1.5%
Rural areas -1.5% to - -0% to -0.5% +0% to +0.5%
2%
Total population 0.5-0.8% 0.5-0.8% 0.5-0.8%
3.5 Zonal Development
A systematic process of corridor and zone assessment was carried out to assist in the
prediction of possible spatial variations in development under the three broad scenarios
outlined above. The approach adopted used a conventional multi-factor analysis, whereby
each of some 60 selected factors was rated in turn on a score of 1 (low) to 5 (high) in
assessing to what extent specific aspects of the endowment of each corridor/zone would lead
to faster or slower development. Three broad groups of influences were considered, as
follows:
A: Spatial Planning factors

B: Access factors, which could potentially be altered by road development
C: Other factors influencing location (such as land, labour, terrain suitability,
linkages, markets), which would not be directly influenced by road
development.
Individual factor scores were finally weighted in various ways for aggregate analysis of
development potential for selected economic sectors, comprising :
• Concentrated, port/market oriented industry

• Dispersed, resource oriented industry
• Localised industry/mining
• Services including tourism
• Agriculture

A spreadsheet tool was developed to assist in projecting spatial variations of each main
development scenario at zone level and to test the sensitivity of development to major
changes in access conditions. The principal input components of this model are:
• Base data variables by zone including urban and rural population, GDP by sector
and employment by sector.
• Generalised growth rates for Java as a whole for the three macro-economic
scenarios for 5 year periods from 2000 to 2030 for each economic sector and for
total population.
• Zone development potential ratings based on the assessment process described
above for three broad groups of factors.
The model works through varying sector GDP growth rates in accordance with the zonal
ratings. Sectoral GDP growth feeds into increased employment, taking account of average
productivity in each sector and specified changes in productivity over time. Increased
employment associated with medium/large scale industry and a specified proportion of
services is assumed to generate increased urban population growth, where projected natural
growth rates are insufficient to meet demand, and proportional falls in rural population. Some
account is taken of possible capacity constraints by means of a manual reallocation of the
distribution of potential industrial growth between neighbouring zones. The main outputs
from the model are projections for each scenario over 5 year periods from 2000 to 2030 year
for:
• Rural and urban population
• GDP by main sector
• GDP per capita
• Employment by main sector
Predictions of the zonal model are illustrated below, aggregated to province and corridor
level. Over the period 2000-2020, under the central scenario, average annual GDP growth in
Java would be 5.6%, implying growth in GDP/capita of just under 5%, given population
growth rates of only 0.7%. Growth rates predicted for Java are slightly higher than those
predicted for Indonesia as a whole under the macro-economic scenarios. The fastest rates of
growth are predicted in West Java; the slowest in Central Java.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rates, 2000-2020, Central Scenario
Population Urban population GDP GDP/capita

DKI 1.5% 1.5% 5.4% 3.9%
Jabar 0.7% 2.1% 6.4% 5.7%
Jateng 0.4% 1.2% 4.8% 4.4%
DIY 0.4% 1.4% 5.1% 4.7%
Jatim 0.5% 1.6% 5.3% 4.8%
Java 0.7% 1.7% 5.6% 4..9%
Jabotabek* 1.1% 2.0% 6.3% 5.2%
North 0.8% 1.8% 6.0% 5.2%
Central 0.6% 1.7% 5.2% 4.6%
South 0.4% 1.0% 3.9% 3.5%
Java, optimistic 0.7% 2.9% 7.8% 7.1%
Java, pessimistic 0.7% 1.3% 3.8% 3.1%
* including Serang/Karawang
The model tends to predict a continuation of existing spatial development patterns. In

particular, the northern corridor and the core zones would tend to continue to grow faster than

the central/southern corridors and peripheral zones. Under the optimistic scenario this effect is
stronger, while under the pessimistic scenario it is weaker. However, none of the zonal
scenarios predicts a radical departure from present patterns of spatial development. This is
probably a realistic reflection of prevailing market-led influences on the location of economic
activity, even under conditions of relatively slow growth.
3.6 The Role of Roads in Development
A principal concern of the study is the extent to which road development could modify future
patterns of spatial development and, in particular, be harnessed as a tool of spatial planning
policy. This issue was examined from the point of view of international evidence, specific
observations in Java, and sensitivity tests using the spatial development model described
above.
A review of evidence from more developed economies suggests:
• There is an evident correlation between road development and economic growth,

but the precise relationship of cause and effect is uncertain and inherently
unpredictable.
• While transport improvements may be necessary, they are rarely, if ever, a
sufficient condition for stimulating economic activity.
• The mood of researchers in the field is that transport has little detectable effect
on the overall level of economic activity, but there is wide agreement that
transport investment could affect the location, as distinct from the overall
volume, of economic activity.
• Transport improvements may generate either increases or decreases in regional
inequalities depending on their incidence on particular regions and on the initial
level of transport costs. There is no simple rule that can be applied to predict the
regional outcomes of transport projects: the outcome will depend on a particular
set of regional and sectoral circumstances. But there are quite strong grounds for
expecting substantial effects from developments of networks.
• Evidence from major development corridors is that development interest often
spreads out from major centres along major radial routes as both firms and
people move outwards; the development of a motorway system may thus provide
a powerful stimulus for the decentralisation of urban settlement.
• The marginal impact of successive network improvements may tend to diminish
as a network matures, but conversely, by inference, initial improvements of a
sparse network may have more substantial effects.
• There is evidence that the major response to reductions in unit costs of arterial
road transport is to travel further. The average length of both passenger and
freight trips tends to increase. This strongly suggests that benefits from a
reduction in transport costs can lead to changes in patterns of industrial location
and distribution, which presumably facilitate more cost-effective forms of
production and marketing.
• Roads can significantly influence the effect of development pressures where they
remove barriers for movement between an area where land prices are relatively
high and the market is buoyant (but development is constrained) and another area
where land prices are lower and development opportunities exist.
In Java it is clear that the provision of new limited access roads is the only form of arterial
road expansion that can dramatically improve travel times and access quality so as to have a
significant potential effect on the location of economic development. On-line improvements
tend to have a more marginal effect on average speeds, merely restoring previous levels of
access quality as traffic volumes and congestion increase.

There has been an evident correlation in the extension of the toll road system out from the
main cities, especially Jakarta, and the spread of industrial and residential development. It is
impossible to say how much of this development was caused by the toll roads and how much
would have taken place anyway elsewhere. At least part of the rapid growth in traffic on some
of the tolls roads must represent a ‘development’ component, but there is no way of
disentangling these effects from normal and diverted traffic components without a major
programme of traffic monitoring and research. Traffic levels on arterial roads generally have
certainly been lower, but no clear patterns of variation emerge from an analysis of the limited
data available. However, most toll roads so far have been built close to the big cities in areas
obviously suited to rapid industrial and residential expansion. Whatever has happened on the
toll roads around Jakarta and Surabaya, it is clear that their special circumstances makes them
a poor guide to what might happen if toll roads were to be built in other parts of Java, further
away from the largest cities.
‘Modern’ sector, large and medium scale industry is located predominantly close to the major
ports and/or the big metropolitan markets and urban service centres, generally within about
one hour’s travel distance. While transport costs are a relatively small part of industry’s total
costs, most sectors have some combination of orientation and dependence on exports,
imported inputs, large urban markets and linkages with other firms (agglomeration and
localisation linkages). This orientation has a powerful locational influence which means that
most large and medium scale industry, other than that dependent on local resources, tends to
concentrate relatively close to the main ports and big markets. Cheaper labour and land costs
may attract firms away from the immediate environs of the main cities and ports, but an
effective distance limit tolerance of 50-100 km appears to apply for the majority of firms.
Major road improvement will have the effect of extending the effective time/distance bands
outwards from the main ports/cities, but their impact will be progressively reduced beyond a
100 km radius.
Most large/medium scale industrial units located beyond a given radius of the biggest
ports/cities tend to be in more traditional, resource-based sectors, including in particular
various types of agro-based processing, including sugar, rubber and tobacco. It seems unlikely
that these alone will have the capacity to support a resumption of rapid industrialisation in
Java.
Recreational tourism development on the west and south coasts of Java offers some prima
facie evidence of the potential development impact of toll roads, where a significant reduction
in travel time from toll road development (or the expectation of such a reduction in the case of
the south coast) led to a rapid development of hotels and resort facilities. However, there are
other locations with good access (such as Parangtritis south of Yogyakarta) where such
development has not occurred. The difference seems to be the presence of a large
metropolitan market within about two hours drive. Thus, the impact of road development on
recreational tourism cannot be predicted with any certainty.
Sensitivity tests were undertaken, for the central scenario, using the spatial development
model described above to assess the possible impact of road development in selected
corridors. (For the purposes of the analysis, a toll road is assumed, but more generally the
focus is on major road improvements, and not toll roads as such.) A view was taken, from the
evidence available, that any development impact would be confined to a relocation of
incremental economic activity from existing zones of concentration to zones served by the
new road, rather than a net increase in generated activity. The ‘access’ locational factors in
the model were modified to reflect the relative change in access conditions afforded by a
major new road between zones identified as likely to ‘gain’ and zones identified as likely to
‘lose’ incremental development. Under the first test - a ‘pull’ scenario - it was predicted that
typically ‘gaining’ zones might experience relative increases in GDP of 5-10% within 15

years of the road opening, and that provision of a comprehensive toll road network would lead
to the transfer of up to 2% of GDP within 15 years from areas of existing concentration to
newly served corridors. Under an alternative ‘push’ scenario, it was assumed that access
factors would cease to be an influence on location altogether in existing areas of concentration
(which might occur, for example, if they were overridden by capacity constraints and
associated high costs of land and labour). In this more extreme case, the model predicted that
about 12.5% of GDP could be transferred from ‘losing’ to ‘ gaining’ zones within about 15
years. In practice, the first test seems likely to be closer to reality than the second, in which
case the predicted impact of major roads on relocation of development would be relatively
modest. In either case, the impact is not large in the context of projected annual growth of 5-
6%.
Further tests were made to simulate a more effective impact of spatial planning on
development patterns, as an alternative to the essentially demand-led zonal scenarios
described above, by assigning greater weight to the spatial planning ratings. The ratings
attempt to assess the relative importance provincial government attaches to promoting
development in each zone and corridor by means of a subjective assessment which aims to
encapsulate both formal, documented policies and broader indications of new directions. The
results suggested that if spatial planning policies were more effectively enforced, they could
result in a better regional balance of economic development (for example, parity in corridor
growth rates) and slower urban growth. However, this could be at the cost of lower growth for
Java overall, leading to a theoretical loss of almost a quarter of potential GRDP over 20 years.
This is very much in line with the concepts in the Java/Bali Spatial Plan. However, even if it
were decided that such a policy were desirable to achieve better regional balance, there seems
to be no mechanism available for achieving it in practice.
3.7 Corridor Development Strategies and Priorities
The main conclusions from the above analysis are as follows:
• The continuing economic and political crisis means that the future rate of growth
in economic activity in Java cannot be predicted with confidence, but a range of
plausible scenarios of growth can be considered with varying implications for
traffic growth and spatial patterns of development.
• The scenarios are essentially market-led and will tend to reinforce to varying
degrees established patterns of spatial development.
• Spatial planning policy is in a state of flux and its objectives are somewhat
ambiguous; it appears not to be effective in directing spatial development except
where market-led forces coincide with its objectives; measures for increased
autonomy will tend to further weaken the impact of spatial planning and mean
greater and less predictable variation in local spatial planning policy.
• The development impact of toll roads is inherently unpredictable.
• Existing toll roads radiating from the main cities/ports are a poor guide to the
likely development impact of major roads in more peripheral areas.
• While all major road investment is likely to have at least a marginal impact on
relocating incremental activity, the effect cannot be predicted with confidence,
but in many cases may be relatively modest.
• The most significant development impacts are likely to occur where major road
facilities are extended out from major cities/ports up to a radius of about 1-1.5
hours or about 100 km distance.
• There are unlikely to be many cases where a major development impact can be
postulated with enough confidence to override the results of economic evaluation
of major road improvements

While these conclusions are essentially negative, some qualitative assessment of appropriate
development strategies and their implications for road improvement needs may be made for
the principal corridors. The table below compares for each corridor the likely relative strength
of influence on development activity of market-led forces and spatial planning policies,
distinguishing where possible between pre-crisis policies and any new emphasis in direction.
Where market-led and spatial planning policies converge, there may be a case for actively
encouraging road development; where they diverge, only demand factors should be
considered.
Relative Strength of Market-led Influences and Spatial Planning Policies on Corridor

Development Priority
Corridor Market- Pre-crisis New Development

led Spatial policy Priority for
Influences planning emphasis Major Road
policy Improvements
Jakarta-Merak 11 Strong Strong Moderate High
Jakarta-Cikampek 12 Strong Strong Moderate High
Cikampek-Cirebon 22 Moderate Moderate Strong Medium
Cirebon-Pekalongan 24 Weak Moderate Moderate Low
Pekalongan-Semarang 24 Strong Strong Strong High
Semarang-Kudus 25 Strong Strong Strong High
Kudus-Lamongan 26a Weak Moderate Moderate Low
Lamongan-Surabaya 26b Strong Moderate Moderate Medium
Tuban-Gresik 27 Strong Strong Moderate High
Semarang-Bojonegara 28 Weak Moderate Moderate Low
Surabaya-Madura 97 Strong Strong Moderate Medium
Jakarta-Bogor 31 Strong Moderate Moderate High
Cileungsi-Cianjur 32 Weak Strong Weak Low
Ciawi-Sukabumi- 33 Weak Weak Strong Low
Cianjur-Bandung
Bandung-Cikampek 41 Strong Strong Strong High
Bandung-Subang 42 Weak Weak Weak Low
Bandung-Cirebon 51 Weak Weak Strong Low
Bandung-Banjar 61 Weak Weak Strong Low
Purwokerto- 62 Weak Weak Weak Low
Temanggung
Banjar-Yogyakarta 63 Weak Weak Moderate Low
Solo-Malang- 64 Weak Moderate Strong Low
Kepanjen
Cilacap-Tegal 65 Weak Moderate Strong Low
Ponorogo-Pacitan- 66 Weak Weak Strong Low
Wonosari-Yogya
Yogyakarta-Solo 71 Strong Strong Strong High
Solo-Jombang/Kediri 72, 75, Strong Moderate Moderate High
76
Jombang/Kediri- 79 Weak Moderate Moderate Low
Madiun-Solo
Semarang-Solo 81 Strong Strong Strong High
Secang-Magelang- 82 Weak Weak Weak Low
Yogyakarta
Solo-Purwodadi 83 Weak Weak Weak Low
Surabaya- 91 Strong Strong Strong High

Pasuruan/Gempol-
Malang
Pasuruan-Banyuwangi 92 Moderate Moderate Moderate Medium
Malang-Lumajang- 95 Weak Moderate Strong Low
Banyuwangi
Source: Consultant’s estimates based on SPADEL and Provincial Structure Plans
3.7.1 Strategy for the Core Area of West Java
Depending on the relative strength of sustained economic recovery, it seems inevitable that
Jakarta, together with its hinterland, will retain a dominant position as the economic hub of
Java. The main development strategy will be to continue spreading industrial and associated
urban expansion in a belt stretching between Cilegon/Serang and Cikampek/Purwakarta,
containing further growth within Jakarta itself and, to the extent possible, in the immediately
adjacent areas of Tangerang, Bekasi and Bogor. Particularly rapid growth is likely in Serang,
part of the new province of Banten, especially if Bojonegara port is developed. The existing
toll road system will continue to form the main backbone for this development, with activity
encouraged to locate mainly to the south of the road, while irrigated sawah to the north is
conserved. The principal task for the road sector will be to ensure that at least the present
quality of toll road access is maintained and that growth is not constrained unduly by
increased congestion.
There are prospects for a modest eastwards expansion of this development belt from
Cikampek towards Pamanukan/Subang, which could be promoted by toll road extension.
Only moderate further expansion is envisaged along the Jakarta-Bogor corridor in view of
concerns over resource and environmental pressures.
The principal issue for development of the West Java core area is the provision of an
improved link between Jakarta and Bandung, which is a self-evident priority given the present
level of physical access constraint and the already strong interaction between the two cities.
There are already some water supply and other resource constraints limiting the scope for
expansion of development in the Bandung basin. Promising areas for further expansion
include the Cikampek-Purwakarta area; rapid development here would be promoted by a toll
link from Cikamepek to Padalarang, as a result of its strategic intermediate location between
two large markets, but still close enough to the main port for efficient operation. Terrain
constraints, however, will limit opportunities for development further south between
Purwakarta and Padalarang.
The alternative option of improving access in the southern Ciawi-Sukabumi-Bandung corridor

appears much less promising from the development point of view, while it would obviously
be a lower priority on demand grounds. Although the province currently regards the area as a
priority, especially for agro-industrial development, distance from the port and terrain
constraints would make it relatively unattractive for investors. A southern corridor priority
would tend to conflict with a strategy for spreading development in the northern corridor. It
would also tend to aggravate the environmental risks of diverting more development to the
Jakarta-Bogor axis. The most likely development impact would be to expand residential
development between Bogor and Sukabumi and revive recreational tourism expansion on the
south coast.
3.7.2 Strategy for the Core Area of East Java
The main pre-crisis strategy for development expansion in East Java was to extend industrial
development west of Surabaya, along the coast between Gresik and Tuban, and east onto
Madura, subject to construction of the Surabaya-Madura bridge. The intention was to contain
further growth in Surabaya itself and relieve pressure on the rapidly filling triangle formed by

Sidoarjo-Mojokerto to the south and the corridor to Malang beyond, where environmental
pressures are already evident. However, further development of the latter areas seemed to be
accepted as inevitable. Present policy directions are giving more emphasis to trying to spread
development more widely over the province, particularly in the southern corridor.
A principal objective of the road programme in East Java should be to support the
competitiveness of existing core industrial areas by sustaining at least the present level of
access quality to the port and main market and, where possible, improving it to accommodate
further expansion.
Provision of improved north coast access would support development of the Gresik-Tuban
axis and would have a higher development priority than a route via Lamongan. Assuming the
Surabaya-Madura bridge is deferred, extension of development along the coast between
Pasuruan and Probolinggo, offers a promising alternative for eastwards extension of the
industrial belt, which could be promoted by toll road development.
Road improvement in the eastern part of the Surabaya-Solo corridor is also likely to attract
more rapid development, principally on the sections between Surabaya, Mojokerto and
Jombang. However, Kediri (114 km from Surabaya) might also be brought within an
acceptable travel time radius of the main port, sufficient to attract significant investment,
given its already well established industrial base in the tobacco industry. Distance penalties
are likely to limit prospects for rapid development in areas further to the west and south.
3.7.3 Strategy for the Core Area of Central Java
Central Java’s main development opportunities are to capitalise on its central location within
Java and its potential for offering cheaper and less congested conditions for development than
rival regions. The principal strategy is to extend industrial and urban development to the west
of Semarang, around Kendari/Weleri and later towards Batang/Pekalongan, and to the east
towards Demak/Kudus, while limiting further development in Semarang itself and in the more
physically constrained areas immediately to the south of the city. Major road improvement to
the west and east of Semarang would promote these development objectives.
Additional road capacity linking Semarang to Solo and Yogyakarta, is seen as the principal
requirement for further development of the so-called Joglosemar triangle. There are already
strong commercial interactions between these cities, while the southern zones depend on
Semarang as their principal port outlet. Improved arterial access would undoubtedly support
more rapid industrial development in the Solo area, as well as emergent export orientation and
industrial linkages in the extensive small-scale/craft industrial sector around Klaten and
Yogya. For Yogyakarta improved access to Solo and its international airport is of paramount
importance for the tourist industry, even though this route would imply a greater travel
distance to reach Semarang, compared with the western route via Temanggung. There is
significant potential for future toll road development in this corridor.
Upgrading of the north-south link from Semarang to Solo and Yogyakarta appears to offer the
best opportunity for Central Java to spread development towards its more peripheral central
and southern regions.
3.7.4 Development of the Northern Corridor
The development priorities in the northern corridor in the short to medium term require
principally extension (or maintenance) of improved access routes radiating east and west for
up to 100 km from the main metropolitan/ports and cities. In the long-term, completion of
high quality, high capacity road along the entire north coast would no doubt contribute to the
economic integration of Java and, as areas closer to metropolitan cities become more

congested and more expensive, more peripheral areas could become attractive to investors.
However, for now, rapid development of these areas seems unlikely to occur. The peripheral
geographical location of Cirebon, for example, located some 250 km from both Jakarta and
Semarang, seems likely to prevent it developing into a major port or industrial centre, despite
the priority assigned to it by the province. Major road improvement is unlikely to alter this
reality. Similar observations may be made for the Tegal/Pemalang area and the
Rembang/Blora area.
3.7.5 Development of the Central Corridor
The central corridor has generally experienced a relatively balanced rate of development in
line with its population and resources. The principal requirement in the west is the provision
of improved access to Bandung. The most promising opportunities in the east would lie in
initial extension of the Surabaya-Solo corridor as far as Jombang/Kediri. In Central Java,
provision of an improved Semarang-Solo axis would probably provide the most practical
means of supporting development in the central corridor. The principal development function
of most other sections of the central corridor seems to be to support a predominantly
agricultural hinterland. Major road development seems unlikely to affect this situation.
Nevertheless, the strong policy interest in development of the southern corridor would be
materially aided by road development in the central corridor, allowing the possibility of
additional development on the northern borders of the southern corridor. If development is to
occur anywhere in the corridor, its most favourable location will initially at least, be along the
central corridor, where accessibility is at its highest.
3.7.6 Development of the Southern Corridor
Emerging spatial planning policy is giving new emphasis to development of the southern
corridor. This is an understandable reaction to the region’s relatively low average incomes
and slower growth. However, a measure of regional imbalance is probably inevitable, given
the southern corridor’s poorer land capability, unfavourable terrain and relatively remote
location with respect to the main cities and ports. The comparative advantage of the southern
region seems likely to lie in tree crop cultivation and fishing, while its natural developmental
role seems to be as an environmental and recreational reserve to serve future urban
populations located elsewhere in Java.
Appropriate levels of road improvement in the southern corridor, including access to the
coast, clearly have an important role in making the most of the development opportunities
available, notably through support of the marketing and processing of primary produce and
through better quality access to areas with good recreational potential. Such improvements in
the local road system should be consistent with the level of traffic demand. As noted above,
promotion of the development of the central corridor will provide considerable support to
development in the southern corridor.
3.7.7 Development of North-South Corridors
The principal north-south corridors with evident high development potential that would be
supported by road development are those providing links between the major centres of urban
population in existing core areas:
• Cikampek-Padalarang
• Semarang-Solo-Yogyakarta
• Surabaya-Malang
The development potential and level of priority to be accorded to the following more
peripheral north-south links is more difficult to gauge:

• Bandung-Cirebon
• Ciamis-Cirebon
• Cilacap-Tegal
Apart from Bandung, these links serve much smaller urban centres. They are located in more
peripheral areas unlikely to attract development related to the main urban centres and ports.
The existing degree of interaction between these zones does not appear to be particularly
strong, although they already have an adequate level of interlinking access. Neither Cilacap
nor Cirebon hold out much prospect of developing into major ports and industrial centres,
which has more to do with their peripheral geographical location than the quality of access.
All three links share similar characteristics of terrain constraint that limit development
potential in their central sections. This latter feature may mean that significant upgrading of
access quality on these links would be expensive.
3.7.8 Summary
The corridors and development areas where road network support seems likely to be most
effective are listed below, together with comment on the type of road development emphases
that might be most appropriate.
Road Development Emphases to Support Development
Priority Development Road Network Supporting Strategies

Area/Corridor
1. Jakarta-Jabotabek This area will remain the economic hub of Java, and the
adequacy of road provision will critically affect its
functioning, as well as the structure and direction of its
spatial development and future growth. It is clear that a
much greater level of arterial road and toll road provision
is essential to support its role. Structurally, Jabotabek
needs increased east-west road capacity, and its early
provision is critical to shaping the region. Without such
intervention, the opportunity to influence urban and
industrial development will be lost.
Merak-Jakarta It may be expected that future development in this corridor
will be significant, particularly between Serang and
Tangerang. Toll road capacity is sufficient for the medium
term, but increased capacity will be needed on the parallel
arterial road, for local and regional purposes.
Cikampek-Jakarta Capacity in this corridor is already stretched, and
additional capacity will be needed for the proposed
Bandung-Cikampek-Jakarta toll road. This corridor is
central to the development of Jabotabek
Bogor-Jakarta The Jagorawi toll road has catalysed development south
towards Bogor, and additional capacity will soon be
needed. Its dominance in shaping development can be
countered with proper planning and investment programs.
Bandung-Cikampek-Jakarta The proposed toll road is extremely strategically
important, both regionally and to reinforce the east-west
corridor emphasis necessary to proper development of
Jabotabek
Ciawi-Sukabumi-Bandung This proposed toll road is less promising, in both
feasibility and planning terms. Arterial road strengthening

in this corridor remains important, however.

2. Greater Surabaya Surabaya is the second most important economic region in
Java and Indonesia, and its importance will increase.
Excellent opportunities exist to support preferred
directions of future growth by judicious investments in
improved arterial and toll road capacity, and there is a need
to identify priorities for a number of potential toll road
corridors
Tuban-Gresik Significant industrial development potential in this
corridor, and significant road improvements have greater
development potential than the alternative corridor through
Lamongan
Surabaya-Pasuruan/ Careful planning of this rapidly growing area is needed, to
Gempol-Malang ensure that development priorities and road improvement
are matched. Urgent work is needed to identify these
priorities, in the context of reviewing priorities for toll
roads that are being promoted
Surabaya-Mojokerto (and This corridor is central to the arterial road network
west to Solo-Yogya- development in the region. It will link to the central “core”
Semarang) network. Early development to be promoted. An early toll
road connection seems appropriate.
3. Central Java The potential for development in the Semarang-Solo-
Yogya triangle is high. Development of the arterial road
corridor, and supporting connections, is central to the
Network Development Plan, and should receive a high
priorty.
Solo/Yogya - Semarang Corridor development essential. Consideration needs to be
given to a possible toll road link. Corridor improvements
will help strengthen development in the south.
Pekalongan-Semarang- Development potential is significant, and needs to be
Kudus supported by arterial road improvements and a possible
future toll road
4. Central Corridor Corridor strengthening, focussing on Bandung and
Yogya/Solo is essential. Predominantly agricultural
development potential, plus down-stream processing
possibilities with improved access. Access improvements
in this corridor will support development in the southern
corridor, which is currently of concern.
North-South connectors: North-south connectors are important to allow for possible
Solo/Yogya/-Semarang development in the corridor. It is difficult to estimate their
Cilacap-Slawi-Tegal development impact, but priority should be given to
Ciamis-Cirebon necessary improvements to support southern development
generally.

4. REVIEW OF EXISTING ROAD CORRIDORS AND CONDITIONS
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report comprises:
• a review of all road corridors from an engineering perspective

• the identification of ongoing and committed schemes that will affect the 2005
(do-minimum) network
• the highlighting of relevant traffic and congestion data
• the highlighting of physical factors liable to affect the cost of any proposed
improvements
• the brief examination of possible development options likely to influence the
development of the road network
• the identification of appropriate capacity improvements and comment on the
priority attached to such proposals
A Preliminary Review of Corridor Implications was undertaken as part of the Report on the
Preliminary Screening of Inter-District Roads in Java (PSID), the precursor for JARNS.
In PSID nine corridors were identified, for each of which an analysis of theoretical capacity
and existing (1997) traffic levels was carried out. Theoretical capacity was calculated on the
basis of current (1997) data on road width and cross-section, development levels and side
friction data available from IRMS. These data have recently been revised as a result of the
ARMS programme of data collection and additional data collected as part of the JARNS
study. Traffic levels for 2000 have been determined using previously available data and a
series of comprehensive traffic counts undertaken for the JARNS study. It should be noted
that there is still further work to be carried out in verifying the ARMS data, and figures used
in the final report may differ from those quoted in this section of the interim report. Any
revision of the values used is unlikely to affect the general conclusions put forward below.
As part of the development planning aspect of the JARNS study, a series of zones has been
identified based on the nine corridors. Some of the zones have the effect of sub-dividing the
corridors on the basis of development potential. Other zones are linked to the nine corridors
on the basis of the corridor being the closest to the zone for long distance traffic movement.
The zones and corridors are referred to repeatedly in the text. Maps showing these zones and
corridors are included at the end of this section.
4.2 General Approach
The nine corridors have been identified and subdivided on the basis of the identified planning
zones. The principal roads comprising each corridor have been identified. A general
description of the relevant physical features of the roads in each sub-corridor has been
prepared. Traffic, capacity and, where appropriate, width data have been tabulated. A brief
description of planning implications has then been given, followed by suggestions as to the
most appropriate improvement options and possible timescale.
4.3 Capacity Expansion Options
Capacity expansion options have been considered as follows:
• online widening to full 2U cross-section (7.0m carriageway)

• online widening to 4D cross-section

• offline construction of 2U cross-section (appropriate for certain bypasses)

• offline construction of 4D cross-section (at grade junctions)
• offline construction of 4D cross-section including grade separation (toll road)
• widening toll road from 4D to 6D
o All offline construction will be limited access, whether toll or not
4.4 Preliminary Conclusions
Preliminary conclusions from the exercise are as follows:
4.4.1 Primary Arterial Road Network
• for the identified primary arterial network, the first priority is to improve the
existing network to 4D cross-section throughout. Where appropriate, and as part
of the proposals, bypasses of existing urban areas should be constructed to 4D or,
if financing and economic considerations so dictate, to 2U standard.
• where the corridor contains a toll road, it is probable that the toll road is carrying
the majority of arterial traffic. Therefore, capacity expansion of such corridors
should be achieved through widening and improving the interchanges of those
toll roads.
• once an existing arterial road has been improved to 4D standard, future
improvement should be offline.
• such offline improvements should be limited access. This policy will facilitate
the optimum use of the investment.
• for the identified primary arterial road network, it could be expected that traffic
will, in the long-term, reach a level to justify grade-separation of major at-grade
junctions and possible conversion to toll road status.
• where offline improvements can be justified adjoining the end of a toll road,
consideration should be given to extending the toll road.
4.4.2 Other Parts of the Network
• for other parts of the network, the first priority should be to improve the existing
network to full (7.0m carriageway) 2U cross-section throughout. It is unlikely
that bypasses can be justified as part of this priority.
• future capacity is likely to be limited to 4D online widening and 2U bypasses as
appropriate
It is considered that implementation of the above strategy will result in a homogeneous

arterial and national road network, sensitive to the financial constraints presently experienced
by GOI. The more detailed corridor analysis is given below.
4.5 Jakarta-Merak/West Coast (Corridor 10)
This corridor links Jakarta to the ferry crossing point to Sumatra. The corridor is contained
almost exclusively within Development Planning Zone (DPZ) 11, which is served by a 103
km arterial road and a parallel 4-lane toll road, widened to six lanes within Jakarta and for a
further 14 km westwards from the Kebonjeruk interchange to Tangerang Barat. Urban
sections of the arterial route between Jakarta and Tangerang and for some 27 km west of
Tangerang are 4-lane. There are other sections of 4-lane road, comprising 12 km in total, in
the vicinity of Serang and Cilegon.

4.5.1 Jakarta-Tangerang Barat
The eastern part of the Corridor 10 has one of the densest concentrations of industrial
development in the country, which is reflected in the reported traffic levels. The four-lane
arterial road east of Tangerang Barat is urban in nature, and it is unlikely that further
significant widening could be a practical option. Similarly, the six-lane toll road runs through
a largely urban environment, and congestion at interchanges and toll plazas is a more serious
restriction on capacity than the cross-section of the carriageway itself, which should be
capable of carrying 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per hour in peak periods.
Highway capacity improvements in this area can most reasonably be obtained by extracting
additional capacity out of existing roads. In the case of the existing arterial road this could be
done by implementing relatively low cost traffic management measures or perhaps, where
possible, dualling those sections of four-lane undivided carriageway.
In the case of toll roads, a comprehensive survey of the interaction between toll plazas,
interchanges and the adjacent road network needs to be undertaken where traffic backs up
onto the toll road itself causing obvious delays to traffic and restriction of free-flow
conditions both on the toll road and adjacent roads. Redesign of these areas may be necessary
to obtain improved capacity of the toll road itself. The policy of tolling in large urban areas
should be re-examined. Capacity improvements can be obtained by restricting the physical
collection of tolls to outside the large urban areas.
It should also be noted that limiting the choices of where traffic may join or leave limited
access roads in large urban areas inevitably concentrates congestion levels at those junctions
or interchanges that provide such a choice. Although outside the remit of this study, the
completion of the Jakarta Outer Ring Road (currently the subject of tender) would provide a
wider choice for traffic to join or leave the Jakarta-Merak toll road. To provide further traffic
dispersion in the long term, linking the proposed Jakarta-Serpong toll road to the existing
Jakarta-Merak toll road between Balaraja and Bitung may be worth consideration.
4.5.2 Tangerang Barat-Pakutatan
The central part of Corridor 10 is less developed that the area to the east. Roads in the area
are low-lying in places and subject to occasional flooding. However, neither topography nor
ground conditions could be expected to provide significant constraint to either online or
offline improvement.
The obvious capacity improvement option for the existing single carriageway (2U) arterial
road is online widening to 4D standard. Nevertheless, significant frontage development,
which occurs on the arterial road in this area, would influence the overall cost of
improvement, and may be sufficient to make off-line improvement a more viable option in
places. In an earlier visual inspection of the route, particularly heavy traffic levels were noted
in the vicinity of Balaraja and near Ciruas, where local traffic adds considerably to traffic
volumes on the arterial road. Offline improvements in these areas may prove to be the best
way of catering for through traffic.
The existing Jakarta-Merak toll road is four-lane in this area. However, even if the proposed
container port at Bojonegara is developed, it is unlikely that the capacity of the road will be
exceeded during the study period.

4.5.3 Pakutatan-Serang-Cilegon-Merak
The existing Jakarta-Merak toll road is four-lane in this area. Traffic is comparatively light
and it appears that capacity problems would be most unlikely to occur on the toll road within
the study period. Additional arterial traffic demand in the corridor could be expected
The existing arterial road is basically a 2U cross-section with sections widened to 4U/4D on
the urban approaches to and through Serang, Cilegon and Merak. Widening of the Merak-
Cilegon road to 4D cross-section is currently being carried out under Heavy Loaded Road
Improvement Project 2 (HLRI 2). The urban nature of the four lane sections would make
further widening difficult, although some capacity improvement may be possible by
upgrading existing 4U sections to 4D. Further capacity improvement could be obtained by
implementation of comparatively low cost traffic management measures. Widening of the
existing 2U sections may be constrained by high levels of frontage development, which could
be sufficient to make offline improvement the preferred option in places. Topography and
ground condition are not seen as likely constraints to any improvement options.
It should be noted that the existing 2U road serving the industrial area to the west of Cilegon
(22-026) has been damaged by heavy goods traffic and is subject to congestion both because
of the poor surface and the concentration of heavy vehicles. Most industrial plants are well
set back from the road, and widening to 4D standard is unlikely to be constrained by land and
property acquisition problems.
4.5.4 Development Planning Zones 12 and 13
There are no arterial roads within DPZ 12 or 13. Collector roads linking to Corridor 10 and
the major towns of Pandeglang and Rangkasbitung are all of 2U cross-section. For most of
their length, these roads do not have high levels of frontage development. However, in
addition to Pandeglang and Rangkasbitung, urban conditions occur to the west of Bogor. It is
in these areas that significant widening is most likely to be required during the next twenty to
twenty-five years. The rolling topography to the west of Bogor could add to the cost of any
improvement options.
Table 4.1: Reported Traffic Levels in Jakarta-Merak Corridor and Adjacent Areas
Toll Road Non-Toll Non-Toll Corridor

Link No Zone (2000) AADT V/C 2000 AADT
Tangerang-Bts DKI 22-004 11 95,718 33,825 0.35 130,000
Serang-Tangerang (4U) 22-003 11 29,094 18,189 0.53 47,000
Cilegon-Serang (2U) 22-002 11 14,109 10,933 0.49 25,000
Cilegon-Serang (4U) 22-002 11 14,109 10,933 0.27 25,000
Merak-Cilegon (2U) 22-001 11 7,642 14,653 0.63 22,000
Merak-Cilegon (4U) 22-001 11 7,642 14,653 0.26 22,000
Ps Teneng-Pasauran (2U6) 22-026.1 12 - 9,192 0.56
Pandeglang-Serang (2U6) 22-029 12 - 6,840 0.31
Pandeglang-Rangkasbitung 22-030 13 - 4,411 0.18
Bunas-Bogor (2U6) 22-031.2 13 - 6,140 0.27

DPZ 10 has been identified in this study as a potential area for future expansion, and the
Tangerang-Serang corridor is being actively promoted as an industrial development area
(Kawasan Industri). Capacity within the corridor is adequate for present needs. The existing
toll road is significantly underused for most of its length, and its current spare capacity should
be sufficient to cater for even the most optimistic development scenario. Nevertheless, to
complement the capacity already provided by the toll road, and to reinforce the district
distributor function of arterial road in this zone, those sections between Tangerang and Merak
that are currently only 2U cross-section could be brought to 4D standard. Such improvement
would provide potential total corridor capacity of at least 160,000 vpd.
Even between Jakarta and Tangerang, where congestion is already experienced from time to
time, theoretical corridor capacity is at least 230,000 vpd. As noted earlier, some local
improvements to and adjacent to the toll road may be needed to realise the full capacity of the
existing carriageway. Nevertheless, improvements to the highway network in this area will
be needed over time. Such improvements should be developed as part of an overall
development plan for Jakarta.
Much of the supporting road network to the south of the main corridor is of 2U cross-section
with a 6m carriageway (2U6). Widening these roads to provide a full 7m carriageway is
likely to provide sufficient additional capacity to cater for any likely development during the
project period.
4.6 Jakarta-Surabaya/North Coast (Corridor 20)
This provides the main corridor between Jakarta and the east as far as Surabaya. Nine
development zones (DPZ 21 – DPZ 29) are associated with the corridor, the main arterial road
in the corridor passing through eight of them. DPZ 28, based on Purwodadi, Blora and
Bojonegoro, is served by east-west collector roads that form an integral part of Corridor 20.
4.6.1 Jakarta-Cikampek (DPZ 21)
This western section of Corridor 20 is also an important de facto part of the Jakarta-
Cikampek-Padalarang-Bandung Corridor (40), which could be created by the construction of
the Cikampek-Padalarang LAN.
An existing 4-lane toll road runs 72 km from Jakarta parallel to the arterial road as far as
Cikampek. The toll road is 6 lanes within Jakarta, and for a further 20km eastwards, from
Pondokgede interchange to Cibitung.
The urban area extends from the Jakarta boundary a further 10km eastwards, without obvious
break, to the east side of Bekasi. Within this area, a number of urban roads contribute to the
east-west corridor, but any capacity improvements to these roads, including the arterial road
Bekasi-Bts DKI (22-005), should be considered only within the context of overall planning
considerations for Jakarta itself, and are therefore outside the remit of this study.
To the east of Bekasi, the arterial road Bekasi-Karawang-Cikampek (22-006 and 007) forms
the alternative east-west route in Corridor 10. For 20km eastwards from Jakarta, the existing
2U road remains essentially urban in character with continuous frontage development and
high levels of side friction. The arterial road then becomes more rural in character, with little
frontage development or side friction, as far as the western outskirts of Karawang, from where
the road resumes its urban character through to Cikampek. The 2U arterial road is currently
being widened to a 4D cross-section between a point 8km east of Bekasi through to
Cikampek, under a number of contracts financed by the ADB 14 loan. The overall
improvement includes a bypass of Karawang. These improvements will therefore have the

effect of increasing the capacity of the arterial road from the point where the toll road reduces
to four lanes.
Table 4.2: Reported Traffic Levels in Jakarta-Cikampek Corridor

Bekasi-Bts DKI 22-005 21 177,787 48,802 0.64 227,000
Bekasi-Karawang (4U) 22-006 21 79,727 26,768 0.68 107,000
Karawang-Cikampek (2U) 22-007 21 38,388 15,449 0.85 54,000
Development expansion in this zone is expected to comprise the infilling of industrial zones
between Jakarta and Cikampek, together with additional urbanisation of Karawang and to the
south of the existing toll road. Although the road corridor between Jakarta and Bekasi is
already operating close to capacity and the section to Karawang could not cater even for
natural traffic growth to 2025, there is little opportunity for increasing the capacity of this
section of Corridor 20 by widening the arterial road further. Some additional capacity may be
achieved by the use of traffic management measures. There is little scope for off-line
improvements, except perhaps to the south of the toll road.
The most obvious way to cater for the substantial increased demand would be to increase the
capacity of the toll road/LAN network. Additional capacity at the eastern end of the corridor
could be achieved by widening the existing four-lane toll road to six lanes, with appropriate
improvements to interchanges. This may only become financially attractive towards the end
of the study period. At the west end, redesign of interchanges and toll plazas could achieve
some marginal increase in capacity. However, there is an immediate need for a major
increase in corridor capacity between the outskirts of Jakarta and Karawang. Such an
increase would certainly be brought about by the construction of a LAN between Jatiasih and
Karawang, approximately on the line of the proposed toll road whose construction was
postponed in 1997. For this to be effective, the completion of the Jakarta Outer Ring Road,
which is currently the subject of tendering procedures, would be required.
Although topographical and ground condition constraints would not be a significant constraint
on any construction in this area, it is clearly evident that such improvements can only be
implemented as part of an overall development plan for Jakarta/Jabotabek.
4.6.2 Cikampek-Cirebon (DPZ 22)
The principal road in DPZ 22 is the arterial road Cikampek-Cirebon (22-008, 009, 010, 025
and 024). East of Cirebon, the arterial road Cirebon-Losari (22-013) continues to the
West/Central Java boundary within DPZ 24.
The section between Cikampek and Pamanukan, approximately 45km in length, is inter-urban
in character with moderate roadside development and medium to very low side friction. The
4U cross-section was widened from its original 2U several years ago. The road condition is
generally poor, to a state where the condition has a limiting effect on capacity. In many areas,
heavy vehicles use the better condition centre lanes and faster vehicles are forced to overtake
on the nearside. Some rehabilitation of this road is necessary, and the GOI has a committed
programme for betterment.
Widening to six lanes over this section would be possible, but not advisable in view of the
existing roadside development. Improving the road to a 4D cross-section would provide
significant improvement in capacity and safety, particularly if combined with traffic
management measures.

From Pamanukan to Lohbener, a distance of approximately 55km, the arterial road is

principally 2U in cross-section. Short sections of 4U cross-section, amounting to about 13km
in total, are found in the more built-up areas. There is moderate roadside development on
average throughout the length of the road, but side friction is low. Capacity improvement
could be achieved most readily by improving the full length of road to 4D cross-section. This
proposed improvement, together with a bypass of Pamanukan, were first put forward in the
North Java Transport Corridor Study (NJTCS). These improvements, not including
Pamanukan bypass, are currently committed under HLRI 2 for completion in 2003.
Similar conditions are found on the 10km section between Lohbener and Jatibarang, where
there are short stretches of 4U cross-section in the vicinity of both towns. Improvements to
4D cross-section are currently committed under HLRI 2 for completion in 2003. The
Lohbener bypass, the need for which was first identified under NJTCS, is not included in the
proposed improvements.
From Jatibarang to Palimanan, approximately 32 km in length, the existing 2U road has little
frontage development and generally very low side friction. Improvement to 4D cross-section,
including a bypass of Jatibarang is currently being undertaken under a number of contracts
financed under the ADB 14 loan.
Upgrading of the Palimanan-Cirebon arterial road to 4D cross-section was completed in

October 2000 under the ADB 14 loan. The 4D Cirebon bypass, basically an urban scheme
(DPZ 23), was completed in October 1999 under the World Bank financed SURIP 1A project.
The arterial road between Cikampek and Cirebon will therefore be four-lane standard
throughout its length by 2004. At the eastern end the Lohbener-Indramayu-Karangampel-
Cirebon (22-072, 073 and 012) collector road, together with the link between Karangampel
and Jatibarang, may be considered as additional corridor capacity. However, the
Karangampel-Cirebon section is already 4U cross-section. Parallel collector roads 30km to
the south of the arterial road, passing through Subang, cannot be considered as part of the
corridor because of the distance involved.
Table 4.3: Reported Traffic Levels in Cikampek-Cirebon Corridor

Link No Zone AADT V/C 2000 AADT
Cikampek-Pamanukan 22-008 22 - 19,515 0.62 19,515
Pamanukan-Lohbener (2U) 22-009 22 - 20,738 1.06 20,738
Lohbener-Jatibarang 1 (2U) 22-010 22 - 6,850 0.57 18,000 1
Jatibarang-Palimanan 2 22-025 22 - 13,644 0.88 26,000 2
Palimanan-Cirebon 22-024 22 - 29,235 0.56 29,235
Cirebon-Karangampel 2 22-012 22 - 12,764 0.39
Karangampel-Indramayu 1 22-073 22 - 12,364 0.74
The development scenario for DPZ 23 envisages limited, or at best moderate, growth within
the zone, including Cirebon and Indramayu.
The arterial road experiences varying levels of congestion along its length. However,
completion of online upgrading to 4D cross-section before 2005, as presently committed, will
cater for normal traffic growth for some years. Nevertheless, further capacity expansion will
be required within the project period. Online widening of the Karangampel-Indramayu-
Lohbener road would serve to increase capacity at the eastern end of the zone.

Thereafter, significant future capacity increases in this corridor might only be achieved by
offline improvements located to the south of the existing arterial road. The partially
completed Palikanci toll road, work on which has been suspended since the economic crisis,
forms a southern bypass to Cirebon. The early completion of this road from Plumbon to
Palimanan, and its incremental extension westwards towards Jatibarang and Lohbener may be
considered as part of such a strategy.
4.6.3 Cirebon-Semarang (DPZ 24)
The west-east arterial Cirebon-Tegal-Semarang (22-013, 24-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006,
007, 008 and 009) serves DPZ 24 along the north coast of Java. Roads within Semarang
(DPZ 25) are not considered as part of this study. For the purposes of the study, the boundary
of Semarang is taken to be the Semarang Ring Road (toll). Collector roads about 10km
further south cannot be considered part of the corridor, as traffic flows are very low, perhaps
influenced by the narrow width and poor condition of the roads. North-south collectors link
the two routes and the hinterland further south.
The 28km section from Cirebon to Losari and the further 9km from Losari to Pejagan are of
4D cross-section. Frontage development is low to moderate and side friction is not a
significant problem.
From Pejagan to Brebes, a distance of some 18km, the road is predominantly 2U cross-
section. Frontage development is low to moderate and side friction is generally low.
Reconstruction of the full length to 4D standard under the ADB 14 Loan is nearing
completion.
Brebes-Tegal is approximately 9km in length, all of which is 4D cross-section. The road is

urban in nature with moderate side-friction.
On the 27km long section between Tegal and Pemalang, the road continues as four-lane
carriageway for nearly 14km before reducing to 2U cross-section for the remaining 11km of
inter-urban section. As the road approaches Pemalang, the cross-section widens to four-lane
carriageway to cater for its urban nature. The need for a bypass of Pemalang was identified in
the Strategic Urban Road Improvement Project Study, but the scheme is not currently
programmed.
The 21km inter-urban section of the 32km Pemalang-Pekalongan arterial is of 2U cross-

section, with medium to high frontage development and low to moderate side friction. The
urban approaches to the two towns are to four-lane standard.
The 5km section between Pekalongan and Batang is urban in nature throughout its length and
constructed to 4D cross-section.
The section between Batang and Weleri, 44km in length, is currently being upgraded to 4D
cross-section as part of the ADB-14 Loan. Completion is expected in late 2001. Phase 1 of
the Weleri Bypass, constructed as part of the SURIP 1A programme, is scheduled for
completion in December 2001.
Weleri-Kendal is 27km in length and of varying cross-section. It has high to medium levels
of frontage development and is sometimes urban in nature. Congestion problems occur on 2U
sections, as illustrated below. The Kendal bypass, identified under the Strategic Urban Road
Improvement Project Study, is not currently programmed.
Kendal-Semarang is over 11km in length and of varying cross-section. Congestion, which is

experienced throughout its length, is particularly severe on those lengths of 2U cross-section.

The 12km Kaliwungu Bypass, currently being constructed to 4D cross-section as part of the
SURIP 1A programme and scheduled for completion in the latter part of 2001, will provide
relief to this congestion, as will the partially completed Semarang Northern Relief Road
financed under the same WB Loan.
Table 4.4: Reported Traffic Levels in Cirebon-Semarang Corridor

Cirebon-Losari 22-013 24 - 14,156 0.33
Losari-Pejagan 24-001 24 - 25,776 0.62
Pejagan-Brebes (2U) 24-002 24 - 20,349 0.67
Brebes-Tegal 24-003 24 - 16,948 0.39
Tegal-Pemalang (W) 24-004 24 - 15,900 0.28
Tegal-Pemalang (E) 24-004 24 - 15,900 0.71
Pemalang-Pekalongan 24-005 24 - 20,429 0.77
Pekalongan-Batang 24-006 24 - 23,145 0.45
Batang-Weleri 24-007 24 - 16,880 0.35
Weleri-Kendal 24-008 24 - 16,873 0.81
Kendal-Semarang 24-009 24 - 35,607 0.98
In DPZ 24, industrial expansion is expected within the sphere of influence of Semarang. In
practice, this will result in westward expansion from Kendal. It has been assumed that there
will be no major port expansion at Cirebon and therefore significant industrial expansion in
the vicinity of Cirebon will be constrained by its distance from major port facilities.
Congestion problems are evident along the length of the Cirebon-Semarang corridor. Some
on-line widening has been carried out, and substantial improvements are in progress.
Nevertheless, there are no currently proposed improvements for approximately 70km of
existing 2U cross-section road. The initial strategy for this section of Corridor 20 would
therefore be to complete the online upgrading to 4D standard throughout its length, working
westwards from Semarang should funding so dictate. The strategy would also include
construction of the Pemalang and Kendal bypasses.
Later capacity expansion should be by means of offline construction, which would be to

limited access standard. The incremental extension of the existing toll road network
westwards from Samarang and, possibly, eastwards from Cirebon may be considered as part
of this strategy. There are no serious physical constraints to this strategy, although the coastal
plane on this section is much narrower than that between Jakarta and Cirebon. Alignment
options for any offline construction could therefore be restricted in scope, with the probability
that land and property acquisition will affect costs. Bad ground conditions can also be
experienced in the vicinity of Semarang, as well as close to the coast. This factor would
increase construction costs in the corridor in general.
4.6.4 Semarang-Gresik (DPZ 26)
The arterial Semarang-Tuban-Gresik (24-081, 084, 086, 088, 091, 093, 094, 28-031, 040, 039,
158, 044, and 042) serves DPZ 26. The route provides a more northern corridor link between
Semarang and Surabaya than the more central corridor through Surakarta (DPZ 81 and DPZ
72). The existing road, although of varying cross-section, is predominantly 2U throughout its
length. Online and offline improvements, financed by WB, ADB and JBIC, have been
recently completed or are under construction east of Semarang and west of Gresik.

The Semarang-Demak road links the Semarang Northern Relief Road with the Demak
Southern Ring Road, both schemes being constructed under the SURIP 1A programme. The
existing link is four-lane width for most of its length and inter-urban in nature, with moderate
frontage development and low side friction. Nevertheless, the relatively high traffic volumes
are beginning to cause congestion in places.
The 6.5km Demak-Trengguli road, was completed to 4D standard in December 2000, as part
of the ADB-14 Loan.
Leaving Trengguli, the inter-urban road is 4U cross-section for 4km, becoming 2U over the
remaining 9km to the outskirts of Jati. Frontage development is low, and side-friction very
low. The final 2.7km to the centre of Jati is urban in nature with variable cross-section and
high side friction. Heavy congestion is experienced, even on the inter-urban 2U section.
The Kudus South-East Bypass, currently under construction as part of the SURIP 1A
programme and programmed for completion at the end of 2001, will relieve congestion on the
Jati-Kudus-Pati road. Those sections not relieved by the bypass will remain congested close
to Kudus.
The 35km Pati-Rembang section is 2U (less than 7m width for 17km) cross-section
throughout its length. Frontage development is generally low except for a few short stretches.
Side friction is very low, except in those areas where frontage development increases.
Except for 3km in the urban area of Rembang, Rembang-Bulu continues as a 2U cross-section
over its full distance of 48km. Frontage development and side friction are generally low,
except as described above.
Bulu-Tuban is 2U throughout its 48km. Urban conditions extend nearly 3km on the
approaches to Tuban, otherwise the road is inter-urban in nature. There are isolated pockets
of moderate frontage development, but is generally low, and side friction is predominantly
very low. Nevertheless, traffic flows are reaching levels where congestion is experienced.
Tuban-Pakah is 2U throughout its 16km length. The nearly 8km on the approaches to Tuban
are urban in nature, the remainder being inter-urban with low/moderate development and very
low side friction. Serious congestion is already experienced on this link.
The 11km Pakah-Temangkar link, and the 4km link onwards to Widang are 2U in cross-
section, and inter-urban in nature with low side friction and adjoining development.
The 27km section between Widang and Lamongan is 2U in cross-section apart from 2km on
the approaches to Lamongan, which is 4U and urban in nature. Serious congestion is
experienced on the remainder of the section, which is being upgraded to 4D under the ADB
14 Loan. Completion is scheduled by the end of 2001. The Lamongan Northern Bypass,
identified under the Strategic Urban Road Improvement Project Study, is not currently
programmed.
Between Lamongan and Gresik, the road is predominantly 2U cross-section outside the urban
fringes of the two towns. The road is being upgraded to 4D under the ADB Loan for a length
of 17km to the west of the urban limits of Gresik. Completion is scheduled by the end of
2001.

Table 4.5: Reported Traffic Levels in Semarang-Gresik Corridor

Semarang-Demak 24-081 26 - 25,282 0.63
Demak-Trengguli (2U) 24-084 26 - 17,972 0.82
Trengguli-Jati 24-086 26 - 17,128 1.06
Jati-Kudus (no video) 24-088 26 - 29,235 0.44
Kudus-Pati (no video) 24-091.1 26 - 17,174 0.84
Kudus-Pati (no video) 24-091.2 26 - 12,633 0.43
Pati-Rembang 24-093 26 - 10,725 0.56
Rembang-Bulu 24-094 26 - 5,802 0.33
Bulu-Tuban 28-031 26 - 13,212 0.84
Tuban-Pakah 28-040 26 - 18,508 1.09
Pakah-Temangkar 28-039 26 - 6,361 0.47
Temangkar-Widang 28-158 26 - 9,830 0.70
Widang-Lamongan (2U) 28-044 26 - 22,292 1.23
Lamongan-Gresik (2U) 28-042 26 - 29,891 1.18
Industrial expansion in DPZ 26 is likely within the sphere of influence of Semarang. In

Kudus there is a thriving tobacco industry and in Jepara a furniture industry upon which to
build. Mainly agro-based development is expected between Kudus and Lamongan as any
industrial development is likely to be limited by the distance to major ports and markets.
Small-scale industry expansion may be expected at Babat, but otherwise expansion of
industry is expected to be concentrated in DPZ 27 rather than between Lamongan and Gresik.
Although less heavily trafficked than the Cirebon-Semarang corridor, the Semarang-Gresik
corridor nevertheless already exhibits congestion problems over much of its length. Many of
the more serious problems, close to the urban areas of Semarang and Gresik, have been or are
being addressed by online or offline improvements financed by WB and ADB loans.
The initial strategy for this section of Corridor 20 would therefore be to complete the online
upgrading to 4D standard incrementally throughout its length as congestion levels demand.
Of particular urgency would be the completion of upgrading on the Lamongan-Gresik road.
The strategy would also include construction of the Lamongan bypass, and possibly a bypass
of Tuban.
Later capacity expansion should be by means of offline construction, which would be to

limited access standard. The extension of the existing toll road network from Samarang to
Kudus and from Gresik to Tuban may be considered as part of this strategy. The alignment of
such a road between Gresik and Tuban should allow for potential development in DPZ 27.
There are no serious physical constraints to this strategy, although bad ground conditions can
be encountered in the area between Semarang and Kudus, and close to the coast. This factor
would increase construction costs in the corridor in general.
4.6.5 Gresik-Tuban (DPZ 27)
DPZ 27 is served by its principal (K1) road, which follows a route close to the coast
northwards and eastwards from Gresik. The road is S2 cross-section, and carries high levels
of traffic for over 40km to the west of Gresik. Roadside development is, however, quite low
and online widening to 4D should present few problems.

Table 4.6: Reported Traffic Levels in Gresik-Tuban Corridor
Av Width Non-Toll Non-Toll Corridor

Gresik-Tuban (E) 28-041.1 27 7.0m 15,607 0.54
Gresik-Tuban (C) 28-041.2 27 7.1m 7,381 0.26
Gresik-Tuban (W) 28-041.3 27 6.7m 9,924 0.45
The zone is expected to be a major development axis in East Java. If significant development
is to take place within this corridor, early online improvement of the whole road to four lanes
should receive priority. Later capacity expansion would involve the extension of the existing
Surabaya-Gresik toll road to Tuban. The alignment should be designed to cater for both the
development in the Gresik-Tuban corridor and also arterial traffic on the Gresik-Lamongan-
Tuban arterial road.
4.6.6 Semarang-Purwodadi-Bojonegoro (DPZ 28)
DPZ 28 covers the less developed area between Semarang and Surabaya, to the south of the
north coast corridor. A network of K2 roads, which provide an inland alternative to the east-
west north coast route and also north-south links to the principal east-west corridors in East
and Central Java, serve the area.
The roads in the zone are generally to S2 cross-section, often less than 7.0m in width. Four-
lane sections are found on the approaches to Babat/Widang, Bojonegoro, Blora and
Purwodadi, and to the east of Semarang. Congestion on these roads is not significant.
Despite relatively good rail infrastructure, little significant development of this predominantly
agricultural area is forecast. The area in the vicinity of Purwodadi is seen to have potential
for industrial overflow from Demak. The development of a cement industry at Bojonegoro is
possible.
It is unlikely that any major upgrading of the road network can be justified in the short to
medium term. The possibility of developing a LAN through the zone as the principal arterial
link between Surabaya and Semarang has been rejected in that such a link would not serve
existing development associated with the north coast corridor nor the more central corridor
between Surabaya and Surakarta.
The principal objective for road improvement in this zone during the project period is
therefore online upgrading to a good standard 7.0m 2U cross-section for K2 links 24-082,
083, 102, 100, 099, 096, 098, 097, 095, 101, 103, 112, and 28-033, 036, 038, 037 and 046, as
and when congestion levels so justify.
4.6.7 Gresik-Surabaya (DPZ 29)
DPZ 29 covers greater Surabaya, including Gresik. Roads within DPZ 29 are not considered
to be part of this study.
4.7 Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung (Corridor 30)
The Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung corridor is served principally by the Jagorawi toll road and the
national arterial road, Jakarta-Bogor-Sukabumi-Cianjur-Bandung. The corridor runs through
DPZ 31, 33 and 34, and serves DPZ 32. Corridor road traffic on the outskirts of Jakarta is
about 120,000 AADT, sixty percent of which is accounted for by the toll road. Traffic levels

on the approach to Bandung are also very high. Elsewhere in the corridor, minimum traffic
levels of about 25,000 AADT are experienced.
4.7.1 Jakarta-Ciawi (DPZ 31)
DPZ 31 encompasses what is known as the Jabotabek area, the area of development including
and surrounding Jakarta.
The principal road in the corridor comprises the four-lane Jagorawi toll road, which extends
from the south of Jakarta at the Cibubur interchange to Ciawi, 33km to the south. The
complementary arterial road in the corridor is Gandaria-Cimanggis-Cibinong-Bogor (22-014),
which runs parallel to and west of the toll road. Further west, the Ciputat-Parung-Bogor (22-
071) collector further contributes to north-south movement in this corridor. The 22-014 is
completely urban in character with high side friction and comprising about 60% four-lane
road and 40% 2U cross-section. The 22-071 is basically 2U in cross-section except in the
immediate vicinity of Ciputat, but has a high level of roadside development and high side
friction along its length. Severe congestion occurs on both of these roads, most of it caused
by local traffic.
Table 4.7: Reported Traffic Levels in Jakarta-Ciawi Corridor

Gandaria-Cimanggis 1 22-014 31 74,904 22,502 0.82 120,000 1
Cimanggis-Cibinong 2 22-014 31 71,867 22,502 0.51 115,000 2
Cibinong-Bogor 3 22-014 31 61,772 22,502 0.38 105,000 3
Ciputat-Parung 1 22-071 31 21,853 1.24
Parung-Bogor 2&3 22-071 31 21,853 1.46
Bogor-Ciawi 22-015 31 38,479 26,762 1.02 65,000
It is seen as inevitable that further industrial development and urbanisation will take place in
this zone in the future, but there are no plans to actively encourage this. Some limiting of
environmental encroachment nearer Bogor and in the Puncak area is seen as desirable.
The road providing principally for arterial traffic movements in this zone is the Jagorawi toll
road. It therefore seems logical that additional capacity for arterial traffic should be provided
by widening the toll road. Such widening should include interchange and toll plaza
improvements. The existing toll road is busy throughout its length but suffers only from
periodic congestion. However, improvements to the adjacent road system are necessary
where the toll road ends at Ciawi, where heavy congestion is frequently experienced since toll
road traffic is not easily absorbed into the surrounding arterial and collector road network.
We understand that Jasa Marga has plans to widen the road throughout its length. Tenders for
the work have been invited for June 2001. The nature of any supplementary works to be
included in the construction is thought to be minimal, and the improvements may not
therefore solve congestion problems currently experienced at Ciawi and at other interchanges.
Nevertheless, apart from this reservation, the forthcoming widening could provide sufficient
additional capacity to cater for normal growth in traffic for up to twenty years.
CAPEX studies identified the need for and feasibility of improving to 6D cross-section both
the arterial and collector road in the corridor. However, the CAPEX proposed improvements
would provide more relief to local traffic than to arterial traffic, and their implementation may
encourage more development in the area west of the Jagorawi toll road, something which
overall planning policy appears intent on discouraging. The implementation of these

proposed improvements should therefore be considered strictly in relation to overall planning

policy for this area, a matter beyond the scope of this study.
4.7.2 Ciawi-Cianjur-Selajambe (DPZ 33)
The continuation of Corridor 30 towards Bandung comprises the Ciawi-Sukabumi-Cianjur

arterial road (22-043, 042 and 045) and the Ciawi-Cianjur collector road (22-016). The two
roads merge at Cianjur, continuing to Selajambe and Padalarang as the arterial road 22-017.
Both roads are S2 cross-section throughout their length. The collector road is less than half
the length of the arterial road. However, because of environmental and physical constraints, it
is unlikely that collector road, which crosses Puncak Pass at an elevation of over 1500m, can
be widened or significantly improved. Heavy vehicles are banned from this road and have to
use the longer arterial road. Nevertheless, the road is seriously congested, particularly at
weekends when a tidal, one-directional system operates to cater for traffic arriving from
Jakarta in the morning and returning to Jakarta in the evening.
The arterial road follows approximately the line of the Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung railway as far
as Sukabumi, and remains below an elevation of 1,000m throughout its length. The road is
heavily congested and already carries well in excess of the traffic volume that would justify a
4D cross-section. Congestion is further exacerbated in places by a carriageway width of less
than 5.0m. Widening of this road to 4D cross-section would be affected by medium to high
levels of frontage development.
Table 4.8: Reported Traffic Levels in Ciawi-Selajambe Corridor

Ciawi-Cibadak 22-043 33 - 21,951 1.12
Cibadak-Sukabumi 22-042 33 - 27,722 1.76
Sukabumi-Cianjur 1 22-045 33 - 12,952 0.66
Ciawi-Cianjur 1 22-016 33 - 25,727 1.05 40,000 1
Cianjur-Selajambe 22-017 33 - 24,163 1.06 24,163
-
Relatively strong agro-industry growth is anticipated in this zone under all growth scenarios.
Growth in tourism will be dependent upon the rate of growth in other sectors. These types of
development are unlikely to result in extraordinary traffic growth.
Any capacity improvement of the arterial road must have the objective of attracting traffic
from the Ciawi-Cianjur collector. Traffic in the corridor is approximately 40,000 vpd
(Sukabumi-Cianjur plus Ciawi-Cianjur). For traffic to voluntarily use an obviously longer
route, the quality of the road must be of considerably higher standard on the longer route,
even if there is no saving in journey time. A limited access 4D off line road is more likely
than on-line widening to achieve that objective. However, the major increase in the capacity
of the Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung corridor created by such an improvement would undoubtedly
have unwelcome effects on development in the north-south axis of Jabotabek, and may delay
the economic viability of the preferred LAN between Cikampek and Padalarang. For these
reasons especially, low priority should be given to any major upgrading of corridor roads in
DPZ 33. Nevertheless, even if the construction of the Cikampek-Padalarang LAN were to be
implemented quickly, the problem of congestion on the Ciawi-Padalarang section would still
need to be addressed. At a minimum, the arterial road should be upgraded online to 4D
standard. The imposition of high tolls for the existing Ciawi-Cianjur collector road may be
considered as part of the strategy to encourage the use of the arterial road once the suggested
improvements have been implemented.

4.7.3 Selajambe-Padalarang (DPZ 34)
The S2 arterial road Selajambe-Padalarang (22-017) runs between the junction with the
Cileungsi-Selajambe collector (22-095), part of corridor 30, and the junction with the
Purwakarta-Padalarang arterial (22-078), part of corridor 40. Bandung, DPZ 39, is not
included in the scope of JARNS. For the purposes of road capacity improvement, the limits
of Bandung will be considered to be the Padalarang-Cileunyi toll road, which acts as a bypass
to the south of Bandung.
Estimated traffic on this link is 24,163 vpd, giving a V/C of 1.06. Comments above on the
implications of increasing the capacity of the Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung corridor apply equally
to this link.
4.7.4 Cileungsi-Selajambe (DPZ 32)
DPZ 32 is served by the Cileungsi-Selajambe collector (22-095), which can be seen as a

minor link in both corridor 30, and in the wider corridor between Jakarta and Bandung, whose
extremities take in both DPZ 21 and DPZ 41.
The existing S2 collector carries over 14,000 vpd with a V/C of 0.70. The inter-urban part of
the road, 75km in length, has an average carriageway width of 6.7m. A proposed toll road
between Cileungsi and Cianjur has been suggested in the past, but is no longer under active
consideration.
4.8 Cikampek-Padalarang (Corridor 40)
Corridor 40 links Bandung to Corridor 20 and thus to Jakarta, and is therefore an integral part
of the Jakarta-Cikampek-Bandung corridor. The existing arterial Cikampek-Padalarang road
(22-080, 079 and 078) is 2U cross-section throughout its length, over 50% having a
carriageway width of less than 7.0m. There is significant frontage development along the
road between Cikampek and Purwakarta, and the section between Sadang and Purwakarta is
urban in nature. However, further south, as the alignment becomes tortuous, frontage
development and side friction are low. Traffic levels at the northern and southern ends of the
corridor are high and there is significant congestion, severe between Cikampek and Sadang,
as may be seen from the table. However, traffic levels on the northern part of the Purwakarta-
Padalarang section illustrate the local nature of traffic even on arterial roads. Present traffic
uses the arterial road via Purwakarta, but some diverts to the longer but less tortuous and
congested route via collector roads through Subang.
Table 4.9: Reported Traffic Levels in Cikampek-Padalarang Corridor

Cikampek-Sadang 22-080 41 - 28,421 1.88 28,421
Sadang-Purwakarta 22-079 41 - 12,811 0.69 12,811
Purwakarta-Padalarang (N) 22-078 41 - 5,401 0.32 5,401
Purwakarta-Padalarang (S) 1 22-078 41 15,306 0.81 25,306 1
Purwakarta-Subang 22-077 42 - 5,157 0.21
Subang-Bandung 1 22-075 42 - 10,000 0.45
Development in this corridor is likely to be limited to the vicinity of Purwakarta, where

industrial expansion may be expected in addition to further agro-orientation. South of

Purwakarta, development potential is severely constrained by terrain and environmental

protection needs.
A new toll link connecting Cikampek and Padalarang to complete the northern Jakarta-
Bandung corridor has been under preparation for several years. It received authorisation to
proceed but was postponed in 1997 at the time of the economic crisis. Estimated construction
costs are high because of the rugged topography through which the route would pass.
Construction of a LAN on this route would be expected to draw Jakarta-Bandung traffic away
from Corridor 30, which provides the alternative route between the two cities. If there is no
likelihood of an early start to the construction of the toll road, a 4D online widening between
Cikampek and Purwakarta, and from Padalarang northwards for approximately 24km, is
urgently required. The terrain will lead to increased construction costs south of Purwakarta.
GOI is committed to the unspecified improvement of this route for completion in 2004.
4.9 Bandung-Cirebon (Corridor 50)
The existing 2U arterial Cileunyi-Palimanan (22-020, 021, 022 and 023) links Bandung and
Cirebon through DPZ 51. The road is urban in nature through Sumedang and Kadipaten, but
elsewhere frontage development and side friction are low. Traffic levels are sufficient to
justify improvement to four lanes for most of the route.
Table 4.10: Reported Traffic Levels in Bandung-Cirebon Corridor

Cileunyi-Sumedang 22-020 51 - 15,495 0.77
Sumedang-Cijelag 22-021 51 - 12,506 0.75
Cijelag-Kadipaten 22-022 51 - 6,500 0.43
Kadipaten-Palimanan 22-023 51 - 14,621 0.71
The main types of activity in the corridor are agriculture and agro-processing. Terrain limits
the scope for industrial development in the southern section and will also increase the cost of
road improvements in the area. Some expansion of industrial activity is likely in Palimanan.
Online widening to 4D cross-section would be the preferred option to increase capacity on

this route. GOI is committed to unspecified improvements at both ends of this route for
completion in 2004. An earlier proposal for a toll road between Tanjungsari and Dawuan is
no longer under active consideration.
4.10 Bandung-Yogyakarta-(Malang) (Corridor 60)
The Bandung-Yogyakarta corridor follows an east-west orientation through the central and
southern parts of Java, and serves DPZ 61, DPZ 62, DPZ 63 and DPZ 69.
4.10.1 Bandung-Banjar (DPZ 61)
The arterial Bandung (Cileunyi)-Banjar (22-049, 056, 057, 060, 061 and 062) runs through
the northern part of DPZ 61. The road is predominantly 2U/3U cross section, with some
widening in the vicinity of centres of population. The main function of the corridor is to serve
agricultural basins and to provide access to coastal links including tourism development at
Pangandaran.
Comparison of the traffic on the arterial link 22-057, which acts as a bypass to Tasikmalaya,
and collector link 22-058, suggests that local traffic predominates on this route.

Table 4.11: Reported Traffic Levels in Cileunyi-Banjar Corridor

Cileunyi-Nagreg 22-049 61 - 20,442 0.46
Nagreg-Rajapolah 22-056 61 - 8,765 0.36
Rajapolah-Ancol 22-057 61 - 1,590 0.05
Ancol-Ciamis 22-060 61 - 6,927 0.22
Ciamis-Banjar 22-061 61 - 5,999 0.21
Banjar-Central Java Border 22-062 61 - 7,895 0.56
Tasikmalaya-Ancol 22-058 61 - 9,850 0.42
Hilly terrain limits development potential, particularly in the border area. Nevertheless, it is
expected that there will be relatively strong development of agro-industry, with priority for
agro-processing activities, especially tree crops. Such development is not expected to result
in extraordinary traffic growth.
Except for Cileunyi-Nagreg, which should be improved to 4D cross-section, there is no

immediate need for major upgrading of this route to meet forecast traffic demand. Where
relatively high V/C values are apparent, minor betterment and widening will suffice.
4.10.2 Bts Jabar-Wates (DPZ 63)
DPZ 63 is serviced by the west-east arterial Bts Jabar-(Cilacap)- Wates (24-033, 036, (037),
038, 035, 133, 042, 050, 057, 060, 063, 080, 26-007 and 006). Contributing to this corridor is
the collector from Wangon to Sampang and the bypass of Kebumen (24-168). The road is
predominantly of S2 cross-section and, to the west of Gombong (24-050), less than 7.0m in
width.
Table 4.12: Reported Traffic Levels in Bts Jabar-Wates Corridor

Bts Jabar-Wangon 24-033 63/62 6.7m 9,571 0.40
Buntu-Gombong 24-050.2 63/62 6.4m 13,588 0.70
Kebumen-Prembun 24-057 63 > 7.0m 11,319 0.49
Purworejo-Karangnongko 24-080 63 > 7.0m 8,338 0.30
Toyan-Wates 26-006 63 6.7m 8,979 0.38
The development potential of this zone is constrained by its remote location. The port of
Cilacap offers a potential primary focus for development and the improvement of the road to
Tegal (see DPZ 65) could increase interaction with the north coast. Kebumen serves the
agricultural hinterland of the coastal plain. The most probable future development will take
the form of agro-processing and small-scale industry, especially building products for local
markets.
There is no immediate need for major upgrading of this route to meet forecast traffic demand.
Where relatively high V/C values are apparent, minor betterment and widening will initially
suffice.

4.10.3 Purwokerto-Temanggung (DPZ 62)
Agriculture, centred on the Serayu valley, is the principal activity in DPZ 62. A west-east
collector (K2 and K1) road serves the zone. The road is generally to S2 standard and, apart
from in the vicinity of Purwokerto and Temanggung, carries less than 10,000 vpd. Present
congestion is largely as a result of narrow carriageway. Online widening to 7.0m should pose
little problem.
The western end of the zone is crossed by the north-south Tegal-Cilacap road, which is
discussed under DPZ 65.
Table 4.13: Reported Traffic Levels in Purwokerto-Temanggung Corridor

Purwokerto-Sukaraja 24-045 62 > 7.0m 21,745 0.81
Klampok-Banjarnegara 24-055 62 5.2m 6,545 0.32
Selokromo-Wonosobo 24-059 62 6.8m 9,081 0.32
Kretak-Parakan 24-066 62 7.1m 5,948 0.26
Temanggung-Kranggan 24-072 62 6.2m 15,057 0.58
The potential for industrial development in this zone is constrained by its location and
agricultural priority. Any development is likely to be limited to agro-processing, although the
scale of such activity could be significant.
Except for the approaches to Purwokerto and Temanggung, there is no immediate need for
major upgrading of this route to meet forecast traffic demand. Where relatively high V/C
values are apparent, minor betterment and widening will initially suffice.
4.10.4 Cilacap-Tegal (DPZ 65)
Cilacap-Tegal is a south-north link to mainly collector (K1) standard, which passes through
DPZ 65, a relatively remote area with steep terrain and somewhat unstable mountain slopes.
The route is well trafficked in the vicinity of the two ports, but there is no evidence to show
that improving the link between the two ports would attract development to the zone, or
adjacent zones.
Table 4.14: Reported Traffic Levels in Cilacap-Tegal Corridor

Cilacap-Gumilir 24-037 63 (4D) 18,472 0.23
Gumilir-Wangon 24-036 63 6.2m 9,519 0.35
Wangon-Purwokerto 24-032 62 6.7m 4,094 0.18
Purwokerto-Prupuk 24-031 65 5.4m 6,329 0.37
Prupuk-Slawi 24-029 65 6.2m 13,977 0.62
Slawi-Tegal 24-027 24 (4U) 19,114 0.41
No development potential has been identified in this zone.
There is no immediate need for major upgrading of this route to meet forecast traffic demand.
Where relatively high V/C values are apparent, minor betterment and widening will initially
suffice.

4.10.5 Surakarta-Malang (DPZ 64)
The Surakarta-Malang route provides the principal southern corridor route. The mainly K2
designated collector serves densely populated agricultural communities. Traffic levels are
high on many of the links, and there is congestion or potential congestion at both ends of the
route.
Table 4.15: Reported Traffic Levels in Surakarta-Malang Corridor

Surakarta-Sukoharjo 24-106 71 9.4m 39,856 1.04
Sukoharjo-Wonogiri 24-107.1 64 5.8m 17,196 0.63
Wonogiri-Biting 24-108 64 5.7m 5,872 0.24
Dengok-Trenggalek 28-069 64 6.2m 14,783 0.57
Tulungagung-Blitar 28-075 64 6.7m 14,404 0.48
Kepanjen-Malang 28-089 64 8.6m 25,169 0.71
Terrain constraints and the distance to ports and markets limit the scope for the development
of large-scale industry. However, some small-scale industrial development near Surakarta-
Sukoharjo is likely and some overflow from Malang may locate at Kepanjen. Otherwise, the
main development opportunities in the zone lie in the promotion of primary resource-based
and small-scale industry.
In the vicinity of Surakarta and Malang, early widening to 4D cross-section would reduce
congestion. Elsewhere, minor betterment and widening of the 2D cross-section to full 7.0m
carriageway will suffice.
4.10.6 Yogyakarta-Wonosari-Pacitan-Ponorogo (DPZ 66)
The route provides an alternative for the southern corridor connecting Yogyakarta and
Malang. The mainly K1 designated collector passes through steep terrain with limited
development potential. Between Yogyakarta and Wonosari, the road is 2U cross-section of
varying width and moderately trafficked. There is no significant congestion. From Wonosari
to Pacitan, traffic is light and there is no congestion despite narrow road widths. Terrain
probably limits use of the direct route between Pacitan and Ponorogo (28-066), but traffic
levels on the outskirts of Pacitan and Ponorogo triangle are comparatively heavy.
Table 4.16: Reported Traffic Levels in Yogyakarta-Wonosari-Pacitan-Ponorogo

Corridor

Piyungan-Gading 26-017 66 7.2m 9,603 0.31
Wonosari-Duwet 26-030 66 6.6m 2,708 0.10
Glonggong-Pacitan 28-065 66 6.1m 3,151 0.13
Pacitan-Jarakan 28-160.1 66 5.5m 6,257 0.30
Pacitan-Dengok 28-066.2 66 5.5m 2,181 0.08
Dengok-Ponorogo 28-067 66 6.9m 11,176 0.32
Steep terrain and tortuous road geometry in this zone limit development options. There is
tourist potential in the vicinity of Pacitan, but the area suffers from poor infrastructure and its
remoteness from its main markets. Wonosari has potential for the development of small-scale
craft and resource-based industry.

There is no need for major upgrading of this route to meet forecast traffic demand. Where
relatively high V/C values are apparent, minor betterment and widening will suffice.
4.10.7 Yogyakarta (DPZ 69)
As a provincial capital, Yogyakarta is outside the scope of this study.
4.11 Yogyakarta-Surabaya (Corridor 70)
The Yogyakarta-Surabaya corridor, together with part of corridor 20 and corridor 80, forms
the principal corridor linking Jakarta with Surabaya via Semarang. Five development zones
(DPZ 71, 72, 75, 76 and 79) are associated with the corridor, but the main arterial road only
passes through DPZ 71 and DPZ 72.
4.11.1 Yogyakarta-Surakarta (DPZ 71)
DPZ 71 encompasses the most historic parts of Java and includes, in addition to the cities
themselves, the world renowned Borobodur and Prambanan temples and other historic
Buddhist and Hindu sites. The arterial road linking the towns (26-003, 24-018, 019) forms a
vital corridor in the Joglosemar triangle and carries high volumes of traffic.
The road between Yogyakarta and Kartosuro is currently being upgraded to 4D cross section
under HLRI 2. Scheduled completion of the works is December 2001. The improvements
include a 2U bypass of Klaten.
The road between Kartosuro and Surakarta is four lanes, much of it to 4D cross-section.
Table 4.17: Reported Traffic Levels in Yogyakarta-Surakarta Corridor

Yogyakarta-Prambanan 26-003 71 See Text 37,771 N/A
Prambanan-Klaten 24-018 71 See Text 38,364 N/A
Klaten-Kartosuro 24-019 71 See Text 27,441 N/A
Kartosuro-Surakarta 24-021 71 17.6 36,849 0.53
The main development potential for the area is for small-scale industry centred around Klaten
and for increased tourism to Yogyakarta and Prambanan. An international airport is
earmarked for Surakarta.
None of this development would be likely to generate an extraordinary growth in traffic.

Nevertheless, even with soon to be completed improvements to the road capacity, future
traffic levels are likely to demand the provision of additional capacity in the medium term.
This additional capacity will require offline improvement. In the overall context of corridors
70 and 80, the possibility of such an offline improvement being constructed to toll road
standard, initially without the provision of grade-separated junctions, should be considered.
4.11.2 Surakarta-Surabaya (DPZ 72)
The arterial road which serves this zone passes through the major towns of Sragen, Ngawi,
Nganjuk, Jombang and Mojokerto. Except for the approaches to Surakarta and Surabaya, the
road is basically 2U cross-section in its inter-urban sections. Between Nganjuk and Jombang,
the road is currently being strengthened under HLRI 2.

The Waru-Mojokerto section of the corridor is presently served by two parallel roads
separated by one of the branches of the Brantas River. The national arterial road comprising
links 28-011 to 28-014 follows the southern bank of the river and carries mainly local traffic.
The major crossing of the Brantas is at Mojokerto where a toll bridge operates. Normal
traffic seems to vary from about 38,000 near Waru to 21,000 AADT nearer to Krian. The
parallel provincial road north of the river from Wonokromo near Surabaya to Mlirip via
Driyorejo is reported to carry 27,000 AADT close to Surabaya, 10,000 AADT in the central
sections and 19,000 AADT close to Mlirip. Corridor traffic thus appears to be between
35,000 and 75,000 AADT. A toll road study was undertaken for Waru-Mojokerto in 1991
and the status of the project is now under review.
Table 4.18: Reported Traffic Levels in Surakarta-Surabaya Corridor

Surakarta-Palur 24-022 72 31.9 58,476 0.54
Palur-Sragen 24-023 72 6.2 23,519 0.93
Sragen-Mantingan 24-024 72 8.3 11,662 0.38
Mantingan-Ngawi 28-001 72 6.9 11,806 0.60
Ngawi-Caruban 28-005 72 7.4 8,344 0.36
Caruban-Nganjuk 28-006 72 7.1 16,855 0.76
Nganjuk-Kertosono 28-007 72 7.3 19,455 0.76
Kertosono-Jombang 28-008 72 7.0 24,164 1.07
Jombang-Gemekan 28-009 72 7.4 25,388 1.34
Gemekan-Mojokerto 28-010 72 8.8 70,914 2.17
Mojokerto-Mlirip 28-011 72 7.7 19,685 0.61
Mlirip-Krian 1 28-012 72 10.5 21,317 0.50 48,082 1
Krian-Taman 2 28-013 72 9.1 38,174 1.40 56,944 2
Mlirip-Lagundi 1 28-057.2 72 5.0 26,765 2.46
Lagundi-Driyorejo 2 28-058 72 6.8 18,770 0.72
The corridor serves an extensive wetland agricultural area west of Nganjuk. Kediri, to the
south of the zone, is dominated by the tobacco industry. Otherwise, agriculture and agro-
processing dominates commercial activity in the central part of the corridor. There is
significant existing industrial development between Mojokerto and Surabaya.
There is a possibility that overflow of industrial development in Surakarta will spread to

Sragen. There could be moderate industrial expansion between Waru and Mojokerto.
However, the principal emphasis will be on the agriculture sector and agro processing as
better opportunities for industrial expansion exist closer to Surabaya.
On the basis of the CAPEX studies, present capacity in the corridor was judged to be
sufficient until 2008 at the projected traffic growth rates. The proposed schemes for the
Krian-Jombang sections, in conjunction with existing bypasses for Krian and Mojokerto, were
considered likely to seriously affect a decision on whether or not to proceed with a separate
toll road. Upgrading of the Krian bypass would provide another alternative for longer-term
capacity expansion.
With the exception of the road between Sragen and Caruban, all roads in the corridor
presently carry sufficient traffic to justify a 4D cross-section. The upgrading of the existing
2U road to 4D should therefore be seen as a priority. Later offline capacity expansion should
be limited access to allow for possible future upgrading to toll road standard.

4.11.3 Kertosono-Tulungagung (DPZ 75)
This zone is centred on Kediri, a medium sized city presently dominated by mono-industry
(tobacco). The K1 collector road providing the main north-south corridor through the zone is
2U throughout the inter-urban sections with some limited widening in the vicinity of urban
areas. The major traffic flows in the corridor are on the Kediri-Tulungagung section, once
more serving to illustrate the high proportion of local traffic using the national road network.
Some congestion is already experienced within the corridor, even on the inter-urban sections,
as supported by relevant V/C data.
Table 4.19: Reported Traffic Levels in Kertosono-Tulungagung Corridor

Kertosono-Kediri 28-072 75 7.1 m 11,190 0.53
Kediri-Ngantru 28-073 75 7.6 m 23,607 0.83
Ngantru-Tulungagung 28-074 75 11.2 m 28,309 0.50
Development in this area is quite stagnant. This may change with the construction of a toll
road between Surabaya and Surakarta, but construction of that road is likely to be realised
only in the medium to long term.
There is a clear short to medium term need to upgrade the existing road online to 4D cross-
section. Any upgrading of the Surakarta-Surabaya corridor may bring forward the need for
improvements to the collector road serving this zone.
4.11.4 Malang-Kediri (DPZ 76)
DPZ 76 is served by a K2 collector, of 2U cross-section. The eastern section through hilly

terrain provides tributary access from Malang to a recreation/resort areas.
Table 4.20: Reported Traffic Levels in Malang-Kediri Corridor

Malang-Batu 28-084 76 8.5 26,098 0.88
Batu-Kandangan 28-085.1 76 5.9 9,584 0.47
Kandangan-Pare 28-086 76 6.5 7,793 0.26
Pare-Kediri 28-078 76 7.7 15,563 0.41
Activity in the zone is dominated by recreational and market gardening enterprises. Land use
conflicts and environmental management issues would complicate further development.
Improvement of the existing road to full 2D standard by the provincial authority would solve
any minor capacity problems even in the medium to long term.
4.11.5 Surakarta-Madiun (DPZ 79)
DPZ 79 is served by a K1/K2 collector of basically 2U cross-section, passing through rolling

and often hilly or mountainous terrain. Madiun is a railway town and service centre for the
agricultural hinterland. Magetan, to the west, is poorly developed.

Table 4.21: Reported Traffic Levels in Surakarta-Madiun Corridor

Karang Anyar-Cemorosewu 24-105 79 5.4 19,432 0.79
Cemorosewu-Magetan 28-062 79 5.6 7,210 0.28
Magetan-Maospati 28-063 79 6.6 10,736 0.36
Maospati-Madiun 28-003 79 10.1 27,273 0.75
The development options for this area are extremely limited. Limited widening and
betterment should be all that is necessary to improve the capacity of the inter-urban part of the
road.
4.12 Semarang-Surakarta (Corridor 80)
4.12.1 Semarang-Kartosuro (DPZ 81)
This corridor is a vital north-south artery providing the backbone of Joglosemar and
connections between major southern cities and the main north coast port of Semarang. The
inter-urban sections of the arterial road are basically 2U in cross-section with some widening,
particularly near Semarang and Surakarta. Present traffic volumes could justify online
upgrading to 4D.
The corridor includes the northern spur of the alternative arterial route between Semarang and
Yogyakarta. The alternative route is covered under DPZ 82.
Table 4.22: Reported Traffic Levels in Semarang-Kartosuro Corridor

Semarang-Bawen 24-010 25/81 12.5 39,115 0.88
Bawen-Salatiga 24-012 81 7.7 16,605 0.66
Salatiga-Boyolali 24-015 81 7.2 20,116 0.84
Boyolali-Kartosuro 24-020 81 11.2 26,554 0.60
Improvement of this road could stimulate further development in Boyolali. Otherwise, no

specific development options have been identified.
The short-term necessity to improve capacity in this corridor is the upgrading of the existing
road to 4D cross-section. Frontage development on the existing road is generally high and
this could affect the cost of land acquisition for such a scheme. Although there are some
relatively short hilly sections, terrain should not significantly influence construction costs.
The corridor would be the preferred route for any toll road link between Semarang and
Yogyakarta, as it would also form part of any toll road network through the central corridor of
East Java, linking Surabaya and Semarang. The construction of such a toll road would attract
traffic now using the arterial road through DPZ 82 as its preferred route between those cities.
For this reason alone, it may be possible that a Semarang-Yogyakarta toll road could be
justified in the medium term, at least as far as Boyolali.

4.12.2 Bawen-Magelang-Yogyakarta (DPZ 82)
The corridor is served by the arterial road that is, at present, the main route between
Yogyakarta and Semarang. It also provides the important tourist access to Borobodur. The
road is S2 cross-section with local widening in urban areas. There is a significant level of
frontage development along the whole route. Minor congestion is experienced along the
route, particularly in the vicinity of urban areas.
Table 4.23: Reported Traffic Levels in Bawen-Magelang-Yogyakarta Corridor

Bawen-Pringsurat 24-011.1 81 6.2 21,342 0.92
Pringsurat-Secang 24-013 62 6.7 12,520 0.53
Secang-Magelang 24-014 82 6.4 23,017 0.89
Magelang-Blabak 24-016 82 6.9 31,910 1.07
Blabak-Salam 24-017 82 12.4 33,060 0.68
Salam-Sleman 26-004 71 7.3 23,611 0.74
Sleman-Yogyakarta 26-002 71 13.7 37,806 0.63
The zone supports small-scale industry and tourism. There are no identified development
initiatives in the area.
The road is already supporting traffic levels considerably in excess of its theoretical capacity.
The online improvement of the road to 4D cross-section may clearly be justified in the short
term. Further capacity expansion by construction of offline improvements should only be
considered in the light of proposals to upgrade the Semarang-Surakarta-Yogyakarta corridor.
4.13 Surabaya-Malang/East Coast (Corridor 90)
4.13.1 Surabaya-Malang (DPZ 91)
The corridor between Surabaya and Malang comprises a north-south arterial road, supported
by a toll road between Surabaya and Gempol, forming the key north-south artery connecting a
major city to a metropolitan centre and port. The arterial road is effectively urban throughout
its length. The corridor carries very high volumes of traffic. To be able to put forward
realistic proposals for the arterial road network in this zone would require a much more
detailed study than envisaged in JARNS. This zone is therefore considered outside the scope
of the study.
Table 4.24: Reported Traffic Levels in Surabaya-Malang Corridor

Surabaya-Waru 28-015 91,304 0.80
Waru-Sidoarjo 28-016 95,436 0.87
Sidoarjo-Gempol 28-017 47,248 0.86
Gempol-Pandaan 28-026 46,772 1.14
Pandaan-Purwosari 28-027 29,202 0.71
Purwodadi-Karanglo 28-029 61,290 1.09
Karanglo-Malang 28-030 53,095 0.88

4.13.2 Pasuruan-Banyuwangi (DPZ 92)
This zone provides the route to the Bali ferry. The route, which approximately follows the
north coast, is of 2D cross-section over most of its length. The road is completely overloaded
between Pasaruan and Probolinggo. Normal traffic growth will result in congestion
elsewhere on the route in the short to medium term.
Table 4.25: Reported Traffic Levels in Pasuruan-Banyuwangi Corridor
Rd Width Non-Toll Non-Toll Corridor

Pasuruan-Pilang 28-019.2 7.3 26,124 1.39
Probolinggo-Mlandingan 28-021 7.3 13,951 0.59
Mlandingan-Panarukan 28-022 6.6 8,738 0.50
Situbondo-Ketapang 28-024 6.8 8,460 0.35
Ketapang-Banyuwangi 28-025 7.4 11,085 0.38
Expansion of the road capacity would provide options for expansion in Pasuruan and assist
the case for the proposed oil refinery at Probolinggo. Such expansion should initially be the
online upgrading to 4D cross-section between Pasuruan and Probilinggo, and widening to full
7.0m width between Mlandingan and Ketapang.
4.13.3 Malang-Banyuwangi (DPZ 95)
The main south coast corridor, comprising a K1 collector with tortuous geometry linking
Malang to Banyuwangi via Lumajang and Jember serves DPZ 95. The inter-urban sections of
the road are U2 in cross-section.
Table 4.26: Reported Traffic Levels in Malang-Banyuwangi Corridor
Rd Width Non-Toll Non-Toll Corridor

Malang-Talok 28-088 95 7.8 17,762 0.69
Talok-Lumajang 28-098.2 95 5.1 13,292 0.69
Wonorejo-Pd.Dalem 28-104.1 95 7.0 8,015 0.36
Jember-Mayang 28-125 95 6.6 13,253 0.55
Sumberjati-Gtg.Kulon 28-131 95 6.9 8,557 0.33
Rogojampi-Banyuwangi 28-134 95 8.2 13,918 0.40
Limited opportunities for development in this corridor will be reflected in the rate of traffic
growth. Nevertheless, the corridor carries significant volumes of traffic and will begin to
experience some congestion in the short term. Appropriate improvements would include
widening the carriageway to full 7.0m width and possible upgrading to 4D standard on the
approaches to Malang.

MERAK
BOJONEGORO
11
JAKARTA
10
21
CIKAMPEK
12 31 32
22
41
42
13 CIAWI
CIREBON
23
CIANJUR
PADALARANG 51 TEGAL
39 BANDUNG
34 24
33
65
61
62
PURWOKERTO
CILACAP 63

LEGEND
Arterial Roads
Collector-1 Roads
Collector-2 Roads
Collector-3 Roads JARNS
. JAVA ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK STUDY
Province Boundary
Zone Boundary Fig. 4.1(a) : JARNS STRATEGIC CORRIDORS

AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ZONES
In associoation with :

ND Lea Consultants Ltd. PT. Dressa Cipta Rekayasa PT. Multi Phi Beta
26
SEMARANG TUBAN 27
25
97
28 GRESIK
BAWEN
SURABAYA
81 83
TEMANGGUNG
82
SURAKARTA
MADIUN KERTOSONO
72
71 79 PASURUAN
91
YOGYAKARTA KEDIRI 76
92
69
96
64 MALANG
66 TULUNGAGUNG
JEMBER
BANYUWANGI
95

LEGEND
Arterial Roads
Collector-1 Roads
Collector-2 Roads
Collector-3 Roads
JARNS
.Province Boundary JAVA ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK STUDY
Zone Boundary
Fig. 4.1(b) : JARNS STRATEGIC CORRIDORS
AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ZONES
In associoation with :

ND Lea Consultants Ltd. PT. Dressa Cipta Rekayasa PT. Multi Phi Beta
5. OTHER TRANSPORT MODES – PORTS, SHIPPING AND RAIL IN

JAVA
5.1 Introduction
While the focus of JARNS is the strategic highway network, the demand for road traffic can
clearly be affected by the performance of other modes. In Java, the other modes of potential
concern are rail (passengers and freight) and sea (freight only). While air is a competitive
mode between Jakarta and Surabaya, Yogyakarta and Semarang, passenger volumes are
relatively small, and potential modal impacts are not sufficient to need formal consideration.
In a larger study, the demand for road transport might have been examined through an
integrated study that formally takes account of the roles of all modes. The JARNS Terms of
Reference sensibly adopted the view that the potential effects of other modes on road
transport could be taken account of manually where necessary, and a formal integrated
transport study was not necessary in the first instance.
Within JARNS, a review of the current performance and likely future of ports and shipping
and rail modes was undertaken, in order to identify the extent of any major interaction with
road, and – importantly – to identify any strategic planning implications for the road network
of likely future development in these sub-sectors.
For the forecasting of traffic demand, the approach being taken is that road traffic forecasts
will be identified independently of other modes, but that the likely future of other modes will
be assessed to determine the validity of the assumption. In the event that it is felt that changes
in competing modes would have a significant effect on road traffic forecasts, these effects will
be taken into account manually.
In this Section, a brief review of the analyses of the Ports and Shipping and Rail modes is
given.
5.2 Ports and Shipping
5.2.1 Introduction and Scope of the Analysis
The ports and shipping sectors interact with the highway network in two main ways:
• The movement of goods and people though ports for both domestic and
international journeys creates matching demands for inland transport of which
the majority of movements are by road. It is therefore necessary to take these
movements and their potential growth or change over time into account in the
development of the road network in relation to the routes providing access to the
ports.
• Coastal shipping provides a potential competitor to road, and in principle at least
there may be scope for diverting some road traffic to these services.
This sub-section therefore considers the extent to which these two factors are important now
and are likely to be important in the future.
5.2.2 Ports in Java
Java has thirteen ports that each handle over a million tonnes of cargo. Traffic is dominated
by two ports - Tanjung Priok (Jakarta) and Tanjung Perak (Surabaya), that together account
for more than 50% of total cargo movements. The next largest volumes are at the private

terminals at Cilacap (mainly petroleum) and Cigading / Banten (steel, cement and other bulk
cargoes handled at private industry berths). Thirdly there is a smaller general cargo/container
port at Semerang but its volumes are much lower than at Jakarta and Surabaya. Finally, there
are a few smaller ports - Cirebon, Gresik, Probolinggo and Tuban. The ports, their locations
and cargo traffic levels are shown in Table 5.1 below and Table 5.2 looks at the growth
patterns for the major ports.
There is little competition between ports in Java. They serve relatively separate catchment
areas. The three main ports are 400-500 kilometres apart, and most traffic is generated within
100 km.
Table 5.1: Major Ports in Java

Port Location 1999 Tonnage (‘000 tonnes)
Tanjung Priok Jakarta 43,436
Tanjung Perak Surabaya 31,240
Cilacap Central Java 25,231
Cigading West Java 17,179
Semarang Central Java 6,827
Merak West Java 6,096
Gresik East Java 4,346
Sunda Kelapa Jakarta (wooden ships) 3,646
Probolinggo East Java 2,696
Cinta (oil rig) 2,148
Cirebon West Java 2,009
Tuban East Java 1,338
Arjuna (oil rig) 1,105
Others 4,405
Total 152,002
Table 5.2
Traffic Patterns and Growth of Traffic at Main Ports in Java
Tanjung Tanjung Semarang Cirebon Others
Priok Perak
% of Java's port traffic 29% 21% 4% 1% 45%
% of traffic at Java's 4 general 52% 38% 8% 2%
cargo ports
Growth of total cargo 3.4% 3.5% 6.5% 5.5%
(% p.a. 1995-99)
Growth of containers 10% 17% 22%
(% p.a., 1995-99)
Sources: Tanjung Priok Pelindo II
Tanjung Perak Pelindo III and TPS
Other Ports BPS - Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistics (International)
BPS - Transportation Statistics (Domestic)
5.2.3 Port Traffic
Passenger Traffic
Passenger movements by sea can be divided into two groups:
• Ferry traffic
• Other inter-island traffic

Figure 5.1
Port Traffic in Java
90
80
70
60
Mill. Tonnes
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Int. Export Int. Import Domestic (In+out) Of which ferry traffic
The numbers using the ferry services at Merak (for Sumatra), Banyuwangi (for Bali) and
Surabaya (for Madura) are substantial, amounting to about 33 million passengers in 1999. The
majority of these passengers travel by road and providing capacity for these on the road
network is an important task. In comparison, long distance rail services carry 25-30 million
passengers p.a.
For all practical purposes, passenger movements by other inter- and intra-island shipping
services are minimal amounting to about 4 million passengers p.a. at present. Of these, the
numbers travelling on the services within Java, which potentially would represent competition
with road are very small amounting to about 50,000-100,000 per annum, and need not be
considered within JARNS.
Freight Traffic
Cargo traffic passing through the ports of Java, however, is much more significant, totalling
over 150 million tonnes in 1999. About 52% (80 million tonnes) of cargo traffic is
international, and 48% is domestic. Of the domestic traffic, 11 million tonnes is carried
through the three ferry ports at Merak, Surabaya and Banyuwangi, with the largest share 6.6
million tonnes being carried through Merak to and from Sumatra. The inland movement of
this cargo traffic within Java therefore represents a substantial task for the highway system,
and this is likely to grow strongly over the future.
The volume of coastal cargo traffic within Java is very small, even for bulk movements, and
this mode does not represent a significant competitor to road (or to rail). The cargo
movements handled by the ports are therefore almost entirely international or inter-island.
Just under 30 million tonnes (3 million TEU) of Java's international cargo traffic, and 6
million tonnes (600,000 TEU) of the inter-island traffic, were containerised in 1999. No
significant changes in shipping technology are foreseen. Containers won the battle over its
rivals - pallets, LASH and RoRo - for supremacy in long distance general cargo shipping in
the 1970s, and have maintained their position throughout the world ever since.
The growth rate for international cargo traffic averaged 11% p.a. in the period 1995-1999,
despite the "crisis". This growth is in contrast to GDP, which declined by 0.5% p.a. over the
period 1995-1999. The strongest growth was experienced for international exports, which
averaged about 20% p.a. International imports grew by about 6%, while domestic cargo

movements remained relatively constant as a result of the depressing effects of the economic
crisis.
The growth rates at the main ports, however, have not been uniform. Semarang has the
highest growth rate amongst the main general cargo ports, although from a much lower base,
with total cargo increasing almost twice as fast as at Jakarta and Surabaya. The differences
between the growth rates are attributable to different rates of growth of industry in the
hinterlands - rather than differences in port competitiveness or different rates of port
development.
5.2.4 Future Development
Examination of the current position indicates that there is a close relationship between the
major ports and their hinterlands, but that there is relatively little overlap between the
hinterlands of the different ports, possibly because of the distances between them.
Developments at the ports will be demand-led. That is to say, the timing of expansions will be
activated by traffic growth generated within the hinterlands. The government no longer
attempts to "allocate" traffic to certain selected ports. There are no plans to "pump prime"
regional economic development via port construction. The developments will therefore follow
traffic rather than influencing it. The government intends to concentrate investment at the
three main ports of Tanjung Priok, Surabaya and Semarang and the private sector may
undertake the construction of a container port at Bojonegara to relieve potential congestion in
Tanjung Priok. Providing adequate road capacity to these three or possibly four ports will
therefore be one of the components to be taken into account when developing the JARNS
strategy.
The government's port policies are likely to increase efficiency, but only a to a limited extent.
Although the government is attempting to opening up the industry to private sector
investment and operations, the application of the policy has been piecemeal and erratic.
Privatisation has been limited mainly to the international container terminals, and the
government-controlled tariffs are too low to attract private sector to invest outside containers.
Consequently, major growth of private participation and enhanced competition is unlikely in
the near future. Increases in port efficiency will be only gradual. Similarly, shipping policy is
entering a period of increased government regulation, which will probably make shipping
more expensive and less efficient in the near future.
It is not therefore possible in the current economic and political climate to identify with any
confidence the likely future pattern of port development. It may be expected that strong
growth in international trade will continue, barring major economic upsets. There is therefore
a need to maintain adequate road connections at both a strategic as well as a more immediate
local access level to ports to ensure that such growth is free of landside constraints.
5.3 Rail Transport in Java
5.3.1 Introduction
Railways are second only to road as a means of transporting people and goods between the
major centres of population and industry in Java. Therefore, the future of the rail network and
services in Java is closely linked with that of the road network and it is likely that competition
and complementarity between these two modes will continue to be important issues
confronting transport authorities well into the future. The possibility for traffic diversion
between these modes will have strong implications for the development of each. For this
reason, it has been considered essential to assess the future of rail in Java, in order to

determine the extent to which it is likely to impact upon a strategy for development of the
arterial road network for the next 20 years.
5.3.2 The Rail System
Track
Java is served by a rail network of about 3,100 route-kilometres, of which 140 route-
kilometres lie within the boundaries of Jabotabek. The operational network is a narrow gauge
predominantly single-track configuration. There is 317 route-km of track duplication, within
the Jabotabek area, between Padalarang and Kiaracondong in West Java, between Bekasi and
Cikampek in West Java, between Haurgeulis and Cirebon in West Java, and between
Surabaya Kota and Wonokromo in East Java.
The network consists of two trunk lines running the length of the island, north and south of
the central volcanic belt and connected by four north-south lines running between the two
corridors. The ferry terminals at the western and eastern extremities of Java (respectively at
Merak and Banyuwangi) are connected to the rail network, as is the terminal for the ferry to
Madura, six major ports, the capital Jakarta, and at least 13 important inland provincial cities.
The relatively dense coverage of the Java land-mass by the rail network may be gauged from
the fact that Java has 25 route kilometres of railway line per thousand square kilometres of
land area, as compared with only 17 and 8 route kilometres respectively for peninsula
Malaysia and Thailand. However, this coverage is not as dense as might be indicated by
population density, with 939 persons per square kilometre in Java, as compared with only 137
persons per square kilometre in peninsula Malaysia and 119 in Thailand.
The potential benefits of relatively dense railway coverage of the island of Java are, however,
only partially realized. Poor maintenance of track and bridges on many lines, combined with
the light standards of construction of many secondary lines, limits maximum speeds and axle
loads to levels that severely restrict both train throughput and tonnage capacity. Deferred
track maintenance results in the frequent imposition of temporary speed restrictions on both
primary and secondary lines. As a result of these factors, track capacity is significantly
constrained.
Finally, the predominant use of outmoded mechanical signalling throughout some parts of the
network is another factor reducing line capacity, by failing frequently and by extending signal
response times. During the past decade, some progress has been made in the replacement of
these systems by modern colour light automatic signalling with electronic interlocking, but
currently more than half (57 per cent) of the route network continues to be controlled by
mechanical signalling.
Rolling Stock
Age and poor maintenance combine to significantly limit the adequacy and availability of rail
rolling stock. High demand for local passenger services as a result of unrealistically low fare
levels has resulted in an under-supply of Economy Class coaches, and low levels of revenue
limit the supply of spare parts, further reducing the availability of rolling stock.
Freight wagons are typically four wheel wagons of low capacity, because of limited axle load
capacity for much of the track. Because of the persistent decline of freight volumes,
exacerbated by the recent economic crisis, there is no shortage of wagons as such, but capital
shortage and limited track axle load capacity has locked PT KAI into the operation of large
numbers of small, inefficient wagons in its bulk traffics.

5.3.3 Plans and Commitments for Rail Network Upgrading
The main thrust of existing plans for the upgrading of the Java rail network is to provide
additional line capacity in bottleneck sections. This is being achieved principally through
track duplication in critical single line sections, through progressive replacement of
mechanical with electronically interlocked automatic signalling, and on double line sections
through the installation of intermediate signals. There are many alternatives by which the
traffic throughput capacity of railway lines can be increased, including track reconstruction to
increase axle loads; the construction of additional crossing loops on single line sections;
increases in scheduled train length; and by improved maintenance of infrastructure,
locomotives and rolling stock. Many of these options are being assessed by PT KAI in the
preparation of its five-year Corporate and Forward Works Plans, since there is general
agreement that track duplication is an expensive solution to the problem of capacity shortages.
Despite this acknowledgement, track duplication remains the dominant theme in PT KAI’s
capacity expansion proposals.
Track Duplication
Track duplication works have recently been completed between Haurgeulis and Cirebon on
the main Northern Line, and are underway on four lines:
• Cikampek-Haurgeulis
• Cikampek-Padalarang
• Yogyakarta-Solo
• Kroya-Yogyakarta
Track duplication projects in the forward works plan, in order of timing, are as follows:
• Tarik – Wonokromo (30.3 km) to start in 2003

• Cirebon-Prupuk (72.3 km) to start in 2003
• Kiaracondong-Cicalengka (22.1 km) to start in 2004
• Kebasan-Kroya-Tambak (31.4 km) to start in 2004
• Gombong-Kutoarjo (48.2 km) to start in 2005
• Cirebon-Losari (35.1 km) to start in 2006
• Wonokromo-Bangil (39.2 km) to start in 2007
It should be noted that the projects listed in PT KAI’s forward works programme, while
having received government approval, have not yet received funding allocations. Collectively,
they would involve track duplication on 279 route-km at a cost estimated at about Rp. 4.6
trillion. Upon completion, these projects, combined with those already under construction, are
expected to generate line capacity increases ranging from 131 per cent to 419 per cent.
Signalling Improvements
Signalling improvement projects listed in the BAPPENAS “Blue Book” of priority projects
for the Railway Sub-sector include:
• Track improvement and modernization of railway signalling between Bandung

and Tasikmalaya on the main Southern Trans-Java line, with an estimated cost of
Rp.810 Billion (commencement date: unknown)
• Rehabilitation of track and modernization of railway signalling between

Pekalongan and Surabaya (via Pasarturi) with an estimated cost of Rp. 650
Billion (commencement date: unknown)

Both of these projects are understood to involve replacement of outmoded mechanical

signalling with modern electronically interlocked colour light signalling on route sections that
have the potential to carry heavy traffic volumes in the near future.
Other signaling projects in PT KAI’s forward works programme will involve installation of
intermediate signals on five long (9-14 km) sections of lines targeted for duplication between
Cikampek and Semarang. Installation of intermediate signals is planned to commence after
the completion of duplication works on these lines.
5.3.4 Rail Traffic and Trends
Passenger Traffic
Passenger transportation is the core business of the Java Railway, accounting for about 83 per
cent of its revenues. The importance of Java passenger traffic to PT KAI’s overall financial
performance is also demonstrated by the fact that it contributes some 75 per cent of the
organization’s total revenues.
Passenger growth over the last decade has been strong, with a 7.7% p.a. growth rate during
the period 1992-2000 (Fig. 5.2).
Executive Class passengers, while accounting for only 7.5 per cent of passenger journeys in
2000, provided nearly half of PT KAI’s non-Jabotabek passenger revenue in that year. By
contrast, Local Economy passengers with 44 per cent of all passenger trips in 2000, provided
only 2.8 percent of passenger revenue, emphasising the revenue problems created by low
economy fares.
Fig 5.2: Rail Passenger Growth 1992 - 2000
80
M illion p assenger jo urn eys
70
60 E x ecutiv e
50 B usin ess
40 E co no m y - In tercity
30 E co no m y - L ocal
20 T otal
10
0
19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00
Source: PT KAI Traffic and Revenue Reports
Freight
In marked contrast to the growth in passenger traffic, the trend in the tonnage of freight traffic
carried by rail in Java during the period 1994-1999 reveals an almost continuous decline. This
trend is summarized for total freight and for the five most important freight commodities in
terms of tonnage in Figure 5.3.

Just five commodities – Refined Petroleum, International Containers, Coal, Cement and
Fertilizer – in 1999 accounted for 85.5 per cent of all freight tonnage. Of these commodities,
only Petroleum (which accounts for just under half of all rail freight volume in Java)
sustained an increase in tonnage from 1994-1999 (averaging 10.1 per cent per annum), even
during the period of the Monetary Crisis, 1997-1999 (when growth averaged 10.5 per cent).
Fig. 5.3: Freight Growth, 1994 - 1999
6 P etroleu m
5 Int . C onta in ers

M illio nto nn esp .a.
C oa l
4
C em en t
3
F ertilis er
2 O th er
1 T ota l
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: PT KAI Traffic and Revenue Reports
5.3.5 Rail Futures
Passenger Services
It is reasonable to expect that rail passenger growth will continue in the future, if rail capacity
and standards of service can be increased to keep pace with growth in demand and rising
expectations of quality. Past performance in the rail sector must raise question marks about
the likelihood of such improved performance, but if it can be achieved, there is no reason to
expect that passenger growth will diminish significantly relative to road transport.
The implications of increased growth, on the other hand, are very significant. If rail passenger
traffic grows at the same rate as road traffic, forecast as around 6% p.a., this will require at
least a doubling of rail system capacity over the next 20 years, at huge cost to government. It
is by no means clear that such investments would be found to be economically or financially
viable, as income levels may be too low to support the fare levels that would be required to
make such heavy investment feasible.
Rail Freight Futures
By comparison, the outlook for rail freight traffic in Java is generally bleak. The proximity of
major freight traffic generating stations to ports from which staple commodities are
distributed tends to favour road as the preferred mode for inland distribution. It is highly
likely that the petroleum products pipeline distribution networks proposed by PERTAMINA
for Central and East Java will be in place by 2020, and this will mean that rail could lose half
its freight business in Java by the end of the forecast period. While there are opportunities for

rail to promote greater efficiency in the carriage of the remaining freight commodities, the
overall potential for this is limited.
Movement of freight by rail in Java is in any event small by comparison with passenger
movement. The total annual volume is below six million tonnes and freight services account
for only six per cent of PT KAI’s revenue from non-urban services in Java. Some loss of
freight traffic is expected to result from capacity shortages, but the volumes that would be
transferred to road from individual railway routes are unlikely for the most part to exceed one
million tonnes per annum and thus would have a negligible impact on road network capacity.
The Potential for Rail System Improvements to Reduce Road Traffic Demands
It is often asserted that rail service improvements have the potential to reduce the demand for
road traffic. Certainly, for some markets and services, there is a degree of competition
between road and rail, and for which rail is a substitute. However, the reality is that for most
classes of road traffic, rail is not going to be competitive, and does not constitute an
economically efficient alternative. Consider the following:
• The rail passenger task is somewhat less than 10% of total road passengers
• The rail system does not currently have the capacity to provide for future rail
passenger growth without significant capacity expansion. There are concerns
that there will be insufficient funding available to provide such needed capacity
expansion
• While no comparative costing has been undertaken in JARNS, the cost of rail
services and infrastructure are significant, and it is unlikely that transport costs
by rail are less than they are by road. It is unlikely that rail would provide an
economically efficient alternative to road
This is a very anecdotal observation to what is an important question, but the evidence
strongly suggests that the rail system is not really capable of significant expansion at this
time. Perhaps in the future this situation will change, and rail will become more competitive.
In the meantime, however, it does provide important services, and there is a strong need to
ensure that it be supported to allow this role to be maintained.
Need for a Strategic Rail Network Plan for Java
The principal conclusion from this brief study is that there is a very real need for substantial
system capacity beyond that included in the current forward programs. In particular,
additional capacity will be needed for the following lines:
• Cirebon – Semarang
• Semarang – Surabaya
• Bandung – Kroya – Cirebon
• Rangkasbitung – Jakarta
• Jakarta - Cikampek
The study has only been able to identify the need for additional line capacity, but it is clear
that the capacity of the Jabotabek and Jakarta rail system to accommodate long distance rail
demand may well be a major constraint. Similarly, system capacity in Surabaya and Bandung
may be limited, and measures to increase capacity need to be identified as early as possible,
because of their urban development and planning implications.
Given the importance of rail, and its potential contribution to land transport in Java, it is
strongly recommended that there is a major need for a proper strategic analysis of system

needs in Java. Such a study would be able to examine the range of capacity alternatives that
exist, so as to identify the optimum combination needed to provide for the growth of
passenger rail services in Java over the next 20-25 years.
5.4 Conclusions
The main conclusions which emerge from the examination of the potential interaction
between ports and shipping and the strategic highway network and railways and the strategic
highway network are:
Ports and Shipping
• International and inter-island traffic through the main ports in Java is substantial
and can be expected to grow strongly as the economy recovers. Almost all this
traffic is transported by road and this position is likely to continue into the future.
The provision of adequate road links to the main cargo ports, particularly to
Jakarta, Surabaya and Semarang, and the proposed new container port at
Bojonegara and to the main ferry ports of Merak and Banyuwangi will be
important to ensure that the capacity exists for the efficient landside transport of
this traffic.
• The Government has no plans to use the development of new ports as a means of
pump-priming regional development. In Cilacap where this has been attempted
in the past, there is little evidence that it has been successful
Railways
• The share of rail transport in the movement of passengers in Java is substantial,

and the numbers carried by rail are likely to grow strongly if sufficient capacity
can be provided for this movement. However, rail is unlikely to be able to
achieve a significant diversion of travellers away from road transport and given
likely financial constraints may be unable to maintain its current modal share.
• The movement of freight by rail has been declining and this is likely to continue
over the future. It is unlikely that there would therefore be any substantial
diversion of freight traffic away from road.
• There is an urgent need for a comprehensive study of the rail network in Java in
order to identify the needs for investment in the railway to ensure that it is able to
meet the demands for passenger movements over the medium to long term.

6. SCREENING NETWORK DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
6.1 The Need for an Initial Screening of Network Improvement Options
In Section 2, attention has already been drawn to the level of existing congestion on the
arterial road network, nearly 50% of which suffers from some degree of congestion. By 2010,
it is projected that nearly 40% of the network will be significantly congested, and a further
55% will suffer from moderate congestion. There is a substantial need for significant capacity
expansion, but it is likely that budget availability will be severely limited. There is therefore a
strong need to carefully evaluate and prioritise improvement alternatives, and identify an
“optimum” development plan.
This development plan will include a large number of network improvements, and will be
fully evaluated using a network analysis approach. This allows the identification of changes in
road traffic levels and patterns throughout the network, resulting from a major road
improvement. However, it is not possible to use this detailed modelling and evaluation
approach to directly identify the “optimum” network development strategy, for a number of
reasons:
• The strategic road network contains around 500 inter-urban (non-urban and non-
toll) links, totalling around 7,400 km
• For each link over the 20-year planning horizon, there are a number of different
possible upgrading options to be considered
• Because each improvement option has potential traffic impacts throughout the
network, an exhaustive analysis of all improvement options for all links would
require approximately 20 million separate runs of the model, for each analysis
year
A network modelling approach is therefore an infeasible way of identifying an optimum link

capacity expansion path over the planning period, because of the very large number of
different analyses that would be required. Instead, a screening methodology is necessary, to
sift all options, and identify those that warrant further study, and those that do not need to be
further considered.
6.2 Capacity Expansion Options
6.2.1 Identifying an Optimum Capacity Expansion Path
In identifying the options to be considered for strategic planning, a subset of feasible road
widening options has been selected. The approach to this rests on the view that what we are
trying to identify is the optimum timing, extent and location of additional capacity expansion
found to be appropriate for the network, not necessarily the most appropriate form of this
warranted additional capacity on each link. This then has to be determined by subsequent
more detailed feasibility study. Thus, the options examined should be those that give
substantial and cost effective capacity additions, and for simplicity of analysis, the following
are considered
• 2U7 – 2 lane undivided 7 metre road on existing alignment

• 4UE - 4-lane undivided (U) road on Existing (E) alignment
• LAAN – limited access arterial on new alignment
The set of CAPEX options to be considered can be represented as a small network of choice
possibilities, as in the diagram below. It is necessary to consider all possible choices that

might be taken over the full time horizon for the study, and beyond, so as to identify the
optimum expansion path for each link through time. Therefore there is an extremely important
time dimension that is not represented in this diagram.
2U 7
< 7 m LA N
4U E
A particular issue is not whether additional road capacity is needed, but the form in which it is
most efficiently provided. Traditional incremental widening gives high short-term economic
returns, but delays the time by which major substantial improvements to the network might be
economically feasible. Thus, if incremental widening is continually applied, the opportunities
for an economically feasible network of limited access arterial roads, on new rights-of-way
and attractive as possible private sector investments, are very limited. Such a high-quality
network is conceptually appealing for Java, because it could be economically, socially and
environmentally efficient, and would have the potential as well to encourage the mobilisation
of private sector funding.
Thus one of the important questions is: should capacity expansion be provided by means of
incremental additions to capacity as needed, or by major investment in new facilities as early
as possible?
The basic task to be performed is to identify the optimum expansion path for any type of road.
6.2.2 Representative Links
The analyses required do not need to be undertaken separately for every link. Instead, a set of
representative links is used, to represent the whole network, and these are used for
subsequent analysis.
The economic benefits of road capacity expansion depend primarily on the existing level of
traffic flow, and the width of the road. Rather than attempt the screening analysis for every
link, it is sufficient to categorise links by these dimensions, and undertake the analysis for
each category of road.
6.3 Development of a Screening Methodology
6.3.1 Overview
A screening methodology based on the foregoing considerations has been developed, as

summarised below. A number of simplifying assumptions are necessary to reduce the
dimensionality of the problem, whilst retaining a realistic representation. They are:

a. For the purposes of the screening analysis only, traffic growth over the planning period
will be assumed to be constant on all links, and not influenced by capacity
improvements on any link
b. A subset of feasible road widening options will be considered as being available for
each link, representing the main types of capacity expansion that would be considered
in any situation. For each link, the analysis should identify the economically optimum
set of capacity expansion options for the link over the full duration of the planning
period. The options to be considered are:
• Upgrade to U7, for links < 7m wide; directly to 4UE; or directly to LAN
• Upgrade from U7 and greater to 4UE; or directly to LAN
• Upgrade from 4UE to LAN
c. The analysis will be undertaken for a set of link categories, defined by road width and
AADT, rather than for individual links
d. The economic evaluation will be based on the identification of the least-cost
combination of options, including road user costs, compared with a do-minimum option
6.3.2 The Strategic Corridor Evaluation Model (SCEM)
Overview
An analysis of the economics of capacity expansion options will be undertaken for the
representative links defined by the above categories, to identify at what level of traffic it is
economically justified to provide additional road capacity. An economic evaluation model has
been developed, and is described more fully below.
To allow the rapid testing of a large number of alternative strategies for corridor development,
a new economic evaluation model (SCEM) has been developed. This builds on the key
features of the Capacity Expansion Evaluation Model (CEEM) that was developed as part of
the CAPEX study, and the subsequent improvements to the IRMS outlined in Appendix A of
the Inception Report. It also incorporates:
• Revised vehicle operating costs that take into account the changes in costs that
have occurred up to the end of 2000, and which therefore reflect the rapid
inflation that took place since their previous derivation in 1997
• Revised construction costs, developed as part of the JARNS work.
• Values of time for all vehicle types, derived from work undertaken as part of
JARNS
• The latest revisions to speed-flow curves and calculations of link free-flow
speeds and capacities as developed by IRMS.
The model has been developed as a series of Excel spreadsheets, and its operation is
summarised in Appendix B. The basic structure is set out in Figure 6.1.
The main outputs of the model are a range of measures of economic worth, including EIRR,
NPV, B/C ratios and estimates of the total user plus construction costs for a range of discount
rates for the particular upgrading option being considered.
The model has been developed in a form which allows many of the key background variables
such as traffic composition, traffic growth, vehicle operating costs, speed flow curve
parameters and values of time to be changed easily.

Figure 6.1.: Structure Of Simplified Corridor Evaluation Model (SCEM)
TRAFFIC VALUES TRAFFIC

CAPACITIES COMPOSITION OF TIME GROWTH
VEHICLE
FREE-FLOW OPERATING
SPEEDS COSTS
SUMMARY
Base traffic flows
Peak hour factors
Definitions of DM USER DS USER
strategies COSTS COSTS
Capital Costs
RESULTS OF
APPRAISALS
Key Assumptions and Model Components
SCEM incorporates a number of different relationships to take account of the influence of a

range of factors on road user costs. These are detailed in Appendix B, and include:
• Traffic composition by vehicle type

• Vehicle speeds
• Typical hour factors
• Vehicle operating costs
• Values of time
• Traffic growth
6.3.3 New Estimates of Value of Time
As noted, SCEM uses Values of Time (VOT) to compute road user benefits from road
improvements, and these are a major part of the benefits from any project. As part of JARNS,
estimates of VOT have been revised on the basis of detailed surveys, to bring previous values
used in Indonesia up-to-date and fully reflecting current economic circumstances. It should be
noted that the resultant values are now significantly greater than previous values, and this has
significant implications for the results of project evaluation, as will be discussed later.
A brief summary of the Value of Time results is given in Appendix C.
6.4 Screening Analysis
6.4.1 Overview
SCEM was run for each of the 84 representative links in the matrix defined by AADT*Road
Width, to identify the economically optimum combination of capacity expansion options, and
their timing, for that link. The detailed results of this analysis are given in Appendix D.
Given the length of road in each category, the SCEM results immediately translate into a
“warranted” expenditure program, giving cost by road upgrading type by year. If this
categorisation of road types is extended to Administrative Status, for example, then the
estimated expenditure program can be identified for roads in each status category. Thus, the
length of road in each category of AADT*Width for each of Arterial, Primary Collector and

“other” was extracted, and used with the SCEM results to produce a “warranted” expenditure
program for each type of road.
The reason for this is that Arterial and Primary Collector are both National Roads, and under
the programming and funding responsibilities of Central Government. JARNS has been
tasked with identifying an Arterial Road Network Development Plan and expenditure
program. It remains somewhat unclear as to whether “Arterial” might have been intended to
be “national”. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made for identifying a future program at a
much wider level, because all roads in the network are important assets, and equally warrant
identification of future capacity needs.
Thus we consider it to be important to identify likely future road improvement needs at a

broader level than just arterial roads, hence the results reported below.
6.4.2 Results of the Screening Analysis
The results of the screening analysis are presented in summary tables in Appendix D and
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 below, and summarised diagrammatically in Figures 6.2 – 6.5.
Table 6.1: Length of Road in Economically Warranted Road Upgrading Program, by

Road Type Length of Road (km): Total:

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial
To U7 416 416
To 4UE 1,502 484 87 73 2,146
To LAN 888 701 233 1,822
Total: 1,918 484 87 961 701 233 4,384
Primary Collector (K1)
To U7 488 0 26 28 542
To 4UE 566 337 27 200 118 0 1,249
To LAN 201 337 72 610
Total: 1,054 337 53 429 455 72 2,400
Other Strategic
To U7 2,094 107 127 181 2,510
To 4UE 572 454 383 732 819 2,960
To LAN 201 337 72 610
Total: 2,666 561 510 1,115 1,156 72 6,080

Table 6.2: Estimated Cost of Economically Warranted Road Upgrading Program, by


2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial
To U7 351 - - - - - 351
To 4UE 7,929 2,475 467 374 - - 11,245
To LAN - - - 19,685 15,546 5,170 40,400
Total: 8,279 2,475 467 20,059 15,546 5,170 51,996
Primary Collector
To U7 545 - 55 41 - - 640
To 4UE 3,310 1,792 128 1,094 654 - 6,977
To LAN - - - 4,625 5,494 2,683 12,801
Total: 3,854 1,792 183 5,760 6,147 2,683 20,418
Other Strategic
To U7 2,893 118 224 263 - - 3,497
To 4UE 3,407 2,446 2,055 3,993 4,475 - 16,376
To LAN - - - 4,463 7,469 1,596 13,528
Total: 6,300 2,563 2,279 8,718 11,944 1,596 33,401
Total
To U7 3,789 118 279 304 0 0 4,488
To 4UE 14,646 6,713 2,650 5,461 5,129 0 34,598
To LAN 0 0 0 28,773 28,509 9,449 66,729
Total: 18,433 6,830 2,929 34,537 33,637 9,449 105,815
Figure 6.2: Economically Warranted Road Capacity Expansion Program for

Strategic Road Network
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
To LAN
20,000 To 4UE
To U7
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period

Figure 6.3: Network Investment Needs by Administrative Status
Network Investment Needs in Study Period by Road Administrative Category
40,000
35,000
30,000
Billion Rp. In Period
25,000
Other Strategic Total
20,000 Primary Collector Total
Arterial Total
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Total:
Period
6.4.3 The Effect of Value of Time
The estimates of the extent of road capacity improvement that is economically warranted are
alarmingly high, and this has led to some concern about the role of the “new” Value of Time
estimates being used. It needs to be recognised that VOT used in evaluation should be
identified by Government as a policy matter. In the absence of any opportunity for a
meaningful policy review of this matter, the Study Team has used the results obtained, but we
are extremely conscious of the fact that the values may initially appear to be high.
Accordingly, there is a need to assess the sensitivity of the results to variations in the values
of time used for evaluation.
As a result of this concern, the analysis summarised above was repeated using VOT estimates
of 50% of those used to produce the results reported above. This analysis is detailed in full in
Appendix D to this report, and summarised below.
The analysis shows that the values of time used do not substantially change the estimated
timing of economically optimum road capacity expansion. The reason for the substantial road
program is the fact that there is a significant need for road capacity expansion, and while the
VOT used does affect the measure of benefit, it does not significantly change the timing of
the needed road improvement program.
Where a capacity expansion scheme is not justified immediately, use of reduced values of
time delays the optimum time of road upgrading. For roads less than 7 metres, their upgrading
to a 7 metre standard is delayed by about 5 years. For roads less than 14 metres, expansion to
4UE standard is delayed by 3-4 years. The timing of limited access arterials on new
alignments (LAN) is delayed by about 2 years.
These effects are tabulated in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 below, and indicated diagrammatically in Fig
6.4

Table 6.3: Comparison of Economically Justified Investment in the Highway

Network with Different Values of Time for Evaluation - Impact by
Administrative Type
Road Type Cost of Road Upgrading Program (Trillion Rp.) Total:

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Total with full value of time
Arterial 8.4 2.5 0.5 20.1 15.5 5.2 52.0
Primary Collector 3.9 1.8 0.2 5.8 6.1 2.7 20.4
Other Strategic 6.3 2.6 2.3 8.7 11.9 1.6 33.4
Total: 18.4 6.8 2.9 34.5 33.6 9.4 105.8
Total with reduced value of time
Arterial 7.3 1.7 2.2 0.4 33.5 5.2 50.2
Other Strategic 5.7 1.4 2.6 4.9 13.4 3.1 31.0
Total: 16.6 3.8 6.1 6.4 56.9 10.9 100.7
Over the period as a whole, the greatest impact is on the other strategic (secondary collector)
roads, where expenditure would be reduced by about 8 per cent, compared with about 2-3 per
cent for the other link types.
Halving the value of time would therefore only have a limited impact on the overall
programme that could be justified, and the main effect would be on delaying the start of the
program of construction of off-line 4 lane roads.
Table 6.4: Comparison of Economically Justified Investment in the Highway

Network with Different Values of Time for Evaluation - Impact by Road
Type

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
To U7 3.8 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 0 4.5
To 4UE 14.6 6.7 2.7 5.5 5.1 0 34.6
To LAN 0 0 0 28.8 28.5 9.4 66.7
Total: 18.4 6.8 2.9 34.5 33.6 9.4 105.8
To U7 3.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 4.5
To 4UE 13.3 3.4 6.0 6.1 1.8 3.8 34.3
To LAN 0 0 0 0 54.8 7.1 61.9
Total: 16.6 3.8 6.1 6.4 56.9 10.9 100.7

Fig. 6.4: Impact of Reduced VOT on Timing of Economically Justified Road

Capacity Expansion Program
60,000
50,000
Expenditure in Period (Rp Billion)
40,000
With Full Value of Time

30,000
With Revised Value of Time
20,000
10,000
0
2000-05 2005-10 2010-2015 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30
Period
6.4.4 Review of Screening Results
It is apparent from the previous tables and figures that a very substantial capacity expansion
program is economically justified, and this need arises from the significant levels of
congestion that currently affect the network, and that will increase with increasing traffic
growth. This is evident from the fact that estimated “needs” years for both the arterial and
strategic collector road network in the first five years are more than twice those for the next
five. This indicates the extent of “under-investment” that remains to be caught up, to return
road infrastructure capacity expansion to a reasonable balance.
The major needs for the arterial road network may be seen to be:
• Upgrading of roads currently less than 7 metres, mainly in the first five years.
It is obvious that an arterial road less than 7 metre wide is below the standard
appropriate to an arterial road system, and the results confirm this observation.
Of a total of 850 km of roads less than 7 metres in the arterial road network, 416
km need upgrading to 7 metre standard, and the remainder need immediate
upgrading to 4-lane standard in the next five years
• Major widening to 4-lane standard of dual carriageway roads that are heavily
loaded. In the first five years, the 4-laning of 1,500 km is warranted; in
subsequent periods, a further 600 km is likely to be warranted. By the end of the
study period, traffic needs are likely to be such that the whole of the arterial road
network should be to at least a 4-lane standard
• Construction of limited access arterial roads on new alignment (LAN) will
start to be justified for heavily trafficked arterial roads towards the end of the
study period (2020), and increasingly beyond. Within the study period, the major
need is for 4-laning, rather than the construction of new roads on new
alignments. In particular circumstances, however, it is likely that capacity
expansion on new alignments may be justified

Over the study period, ignoring any possible limited access arterials on new alignments, the
total cost of network upgrading is estimated to be of the order of 11.6 Trillion Rupiah, of
which 10.75 Trillion is warranted in the first ten years.
The major needs for primary collector roads and the remainder of the strategic road network
are similar, but with less concentration on 4-laning, and with significant needs to bring roads
up to a 7-metre standard.
Over the study period, the total cost of warranted network upgrading (excluding major new
roads on new alignments) is estimated to be 34 Trillion Rupiah, of which around 25.2
Trillion is warranted in the first ten years.
6.4.5 Evolution of the Network
If the identified road improvement program were to be implemented in the periods identified
as economically justified, the evolution of the mix of road types in each class of network can
be determined, and these are shown in the diagrams below.
EVOLUTION OF ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK

Length of Network in Period by
3000
2500
Limited Access
Road Type (km)
2000 4-lane
1500 7m to 10m
Less than 7 m
1000
500
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Period
EVOLUTION OF PRIMARY COLLECTOR NETWORK

Length of Network in Period
1400
1200
by Road Type
1000 Limited Access

800 4-lane
600 7m to 10m
400 Less than 7 m
200
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Period

EVOLUTION OF STRATEGIC COLLECTOR NETWORK
Period by Road Type (km) 4000

Length of Network in
3500
3000
Limited Access
2500
4-lane
2000
7m to 10m
1500
Less than 7 m
1000
500
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Period:
6.4.6 Conclusions
The total amounts estimated to be economically justified in the first ten years of the program
are extremely high, and clearly exceed the capacity of GOI to fund such remedial investment,
as discussed briefly in a later Section. But the conclusions to be drawn are very significant:
1. There is a major need for substantial additional road network capacity,

particularly for the arterial road network. This would seem to be the result of
significant under-investment in infrastructure that has contributed directly to
congested and economically inefficient traffic conditions throughout the network
2. Bringing the whole road network to an acceptable standard, with a minimum
road width of 7 metres, is a high priority, but so too is the provision of adequate
dual-carriageway roads to provide for heavy traffic flows, particularly on the
arterial road network, and to progressively lesser extents for the primary
collector network and the remainder of the strategic network
3. By the end of the study period (2020), an arterial and primary collector road
network of 4-lane standard will be needed, but major new limited access arterial
roads are not likely to be justified
4. In turn, this implies that for the major inter-city network, toll roads are also
unlikely to be justified, though the distribution of congestion clearly indicates
that special concerns need to be directed towards the arterial approaches to major
cities. Here it may be expected that significant needs for toll roads will arise
It needs to be emphasised that the preceding analysis is somewhat broad-brush, and indicates
directions rather than absolute values. So, for example, proper planning of the arterial,
primary collector and strategic collector road networks is likely to result in the improved
performance and efficiency of all, and should reduce the total budget identified above. More
detailed analysis and evaluation, using network modelling tools being developed, is likely to
give rise to somewhat different aggregate needs.
Similarly, there are many planning considerations that need to be used to identify
development priorities other than arms-length economic analyses, and these too are likely to
give different results and priorities from the preceding analysis. Nevertheless, the screening
analysis has accomplished what was required of it, which is the identification of broad levels
of need and warranted expenditures, and likely priorities for more detailed evaluation at a
later stage.

6.5 Estimating Funding Availability for Major Road Development: The

Strategic Expenditure Planning Module (SEPM)
6.5.1 Objectives
In the analyses that have been reported, a very substantial investment need for major road
improvements to the Java road network has been identified, but it is very clear that:
• The magnitude of the investment need is very much greater than any previous
estimates of investment shortfalls for road investment in Java
• Current road funding is not going to be sufficient to address such needs in the
foreseeable future
Accordingly, it is necessary to speculate about:
a. The level of funding that might be available from the roads budget
b. How investment needs for road capacity expansion might compare with road
maintenance expenditure needs, given that it in times of constrained budgets, it is
usual practice to give preference to maintenance over new construction
The analysis that follows is based on the use of the Strategic Expenditure Planning Module
(SEPM) that was developed under the recent IIRMSs project in what was Bina Marga, now
KIMPRASWIL. The overall objective for this is to:
• Estimate the likely level of availability of funding to support major road

investment in Java
• Identify the competing needs for road investment in Java
The SEPM uses a top-down approach to identify the economically warranted investment
needs under a budget constraint. The SCEM has identified economically warranted
investment needs, from a bottom-up approach, under something of a budget constraint applied
through its relatively high requirement for a project IRR of around 40%. The real objective is
to compare these results, and learn from their differences, if any.
6.5.2 SEPM and its Current Role in Highway Planning
SEPM Overview
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.
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
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. SEPM will calculate economic
indicators (NPV, EIRR) for an entire investment programme.
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 and
in Java.
Including Road Widening in the IRMS Treatment Options
As a precursor to the use of SEPM in JARNS, it was essential to include in the base IRMS the
capability of considering major road widening as a treatment option. Until now, the IRMS
only considers betterment with minor widening up to 7 metres. As has already been
demonstrated, the capacity expansion needs of the network include a very substantial amount
of major road widening. If SEPM is to identify the proportion of major road widening in Java
that is economically warranted in competition with all other road treatment options and types
of road, then robust estimates of the economic benefits of major road upgrading have to be
generated during the operation of SEPM.
The limitation that the IRMS has not until now included 4-laning as an option is a very
significant one, and we believe underlies the finding that there has been consistent and

significant under-investment in the development of road capacity throughout Indonesia. This

concern will be discussed later in this Section.
“Harmonising” IRMS With JARNS
Finally, there was a major need to adjust the analysis parameters, so that JARNS and
IRMS/SEPM results could be comparable. The adjustments needed include:
• VOT parameters need to be the same. The values used until now in IRMS are
very much less than those identified in JARNS. As has been seen, the effect of
increasing VOT is to increase the rate of return on major road improvements, and
in turn this substantially increases the relative priorities of projects whose major
benefit is travel time savings. IRMS/SEPM uses the same values as used in
JARNS for the analyses reported
• Unit construction costs and the base of economic evaluation need to be as close
as possible. Within the limits of the different formats used, SEPM has used costs
that are the same as JARNS
• JARNS has redefined traffic flows by link, and these have been used in SEPM
• Comparable road inventory data have been used in both JARNS and
IRMS/SEPM
• Motorcycles are included in measures of AADT (not usually done in IRMS), but
no measures of VOC or VOT are used for motorcycles, as per JARNS
• The economic evaluation methodology used in SCEM is based on selecting
projects when their FYRR becomes equal to 20% (giving an approximate ERR
of 40%), because of the need to “ration” available funding. This is one way of
reflecting a budget constraint, although at the above level, more funds are
admitted for road investment than are likely to be available. SEPM uses a
discount rate of 15% for internal computation, but then applies a budget
constraint directly, and so there is no way of making the results directly
comparable in this regard.
In conclusion, the very different bases may be expected to give rise to somewhat different
results, but hopefully if a start is made from approximately the same position, the results will
be comparable.
6.5.3 Results From the Application of SEPM
Method of Application
The basic objective for SEPM is to produce an estimated optimum allocation of road funds to
a road investment program in Java for the next 10 years. This will identify:
• Given a total annual road budget, what proportion is optimally allocated to road
works, by road status (National, Provincial and Kabupaten)?
• What is the allocation of these funds to Java, relative to the rest of Indonesia?
• Of the funds available to Java, what proportions are available for minor road
widening and major road widening, by class of roads?
A number of steps were required to identify funding estimates for Java over the next 10 years.
In this case, the work builds on previous recent work done for Bappenas and KIMPRASWIL,
in which it had been agreed that an appropriate budget range for investigation was Rp. 5 – 8
trillion per year, and this is the range considered in this analysis. Rp. 5 trillion represents a
severely constrained budget; Rp. 8 trillion is relatively unconstrained.

The IRMS Network Analysis Module (NAM) is first used to generate a set of “treatment
strategies” for all roads throughout Indonesia. These are a full set of possible road
improvement options, and their economic performance, for every link, and this provides the
basic information for SEPM to undertake its search for an optimum combination of
treatments. It is at this stage that the 4-laning option is considered.
SEPM is now run to select the optimum combination of treatment strategies. Strategies for
urban roads, kabupaten roads and bridge replacements had been previously generated, and are
included alongside the treatment strategies generated by the NAM for inter-urban roads
Results
Fig. 6.4: Allocation of National Budget by Road Status (Rp trillion)
4.50
4.00
Annual Allocation by Road Status (Rp trillion)
3.50
3.00
2.50 National
Regional level 1
2.00 Regional level 2
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
5 trillion 6 trillion 7 trillion 8 trillion 9 trillion
Total Annual Budget 2001 - 2010
At constrained budget levels, road improvements on the economically important National

road system receive higher priority than Provincial and kabupaten roads. As funds available
increase, the needs for Provincial and kabupaten road improvements receive higher priorities,
and little additional expenditure on the National road system is warranted.

Fig. 6.5: Allocation of National Budget by Region (Rp trillion per year)
6.00
5.00
Annual Allocation by Region (Rp trillion)
4.00
Java
3.00
Rest of Indonesia
2.00
1.00
0.00
The allocation of funds to road investment in Java falls as the available budget increases. At
low levels of budget availability, Java receives 40% of the total, but this falls to 35% as funds
increase.
Fig 6.6: Allocation of Java Budget by Road Status (Rp trillion per year)
1.40
Annual Allocation by Road Status (Rp trillion)
1.20
1.00
0.80 N ational
R egional level 1
0.60 R egional level 2
0.40
0.20
0.00
As previously, at low levels of budget, priority is given to National road improvement

projects, but the needs of the kabupaten road system begin to dominate as budget availability

increases. It may be seen that the annual allocation to National roads remains around Rp. 0.9
trillion per year, while that to Provincial roads is between about Rp. 0.6 – 0.7 trillion per year.
Fig 6.7: Allocation of Java Road Budget to Works Program
9.000
Ten Year Expenditure by Works Programme (Rp trillion)
8.000
7.000
6.000
four laning
other widening
5.000
other betterment
periodic
4.000
routine
bridges
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
5 trillion 6 trillion 7 trillion 8 trillion
National Annual Budget 2001 - 2010
The “bottom line” of the SEPM analysis is the allocation of funds to type of roadworks in
Java, and this is shown in the diagram above, for National and Provincial roads. These results
are extremely interesting, and a number of observations may be made:
• The funds allocated to 4-laning dominate, and absorb around 50% of the budget.
This increases slightly as fund availability increases, indicating that the funding
constraint is being applied primarily to 4-lane improvements, and not to
betterment or maintenance
• This result has not been found in previous SEPM analyses, and is due to the fact
that 4-laning has not been previously considered as a treatment type for IRMS or
other analyses of need. It is very clear that the analysis of future capacity needs
has been badly neglected over a very long period of time, which accounts for the
fact that so many roads in Java are already at or beyond their capacity
• Total funds allocated for road capacity expansion over the next 10 years are
estimated to be of the order of Rp. 10 trillion. This is substantially less than the
economic needs identified in the SCEM analysis (approximately Rp. 25 trillion
over the next 10 years). However, given the very different nature of the analyses,
this is not really surprising.

6.6 Conclusions
The conclusions to the very lengthy analysis summarised in this Section are simple and
powerful:
1. There has been major under investment in the road network over a long period of time,
and there are substantial immediate needs for additional road capacity, particularly for
the arterial road network
2. By the end of the study period, the whole of the arterial road network should be
developed to 4-lane standard
3. Within the next 5 years, all roads in the arterial and primary collector networks that are
less than 7-metre standard need to be widened to 7 metres. A high proportion of such
strategic collector roads also require immediate upgrading
4. Major new roads on new alignments are likely to be progressively needed from around
the end of the study period
5. There is unlikely to be needs for inter-urban toll roads within the study period, except
on the approaches to major urban areas.
6. Financing needs are well in excess of past levels of funding in the road sector, and
special attention will need to be given to ways to overcoming the shortfall.

7. TOWARDS THE IDENTIFICATION OF A STRUCTURED ROAD

NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RNDP) FOR JAVA
7.1 Introduction: The Need for Structure
In planning road networks at any level, there is a strong need to establish an appropriate
structure, within which roads are characterised by their importance to the structure, and to the
functions that they serve. In this, a road network is the same as any other structure, and must
have a well-designed road hierarchy if it is to function properly. Any building structure has
such a hierarchy of elements, and a road network has the same need for strength and
definition. Thus the principal design task is to determine the essential network structure and
hierarchy, and this is indeed provided for under Indonesian Law by the Road Law1.
The need to define a structure for the Java strategic road network reflects the need to establish
implementation priorities for the Development Plan. The structure proposed therefore reflects
the national and strategic importance is attached to the strengthening and development of the
road network. It will therefore depend on:
• The overall objectives for road network development

• The economic importance of the traffic flows provided for
• The economic and development importance of the cities and regions served by
the network elements
• Development priorities for different regions in Java
The structure that is to be developed is not intended to replace the administrative

classification of roads as “National” or “Provincial”, though any changes to current
classifications should certainly consider the JARNS recommended structures carefully,
because they will have been based on strong technical reasons and analysis.
The development issues to be addressed by the Development Plan have been identified in the
preceding Sections. These are summarised below, to provide an appropriate starting point for
the development of an appropriate Structure Plan for future road network development in
Java.
7.2 Objectives for the Future Road Network
The Java arterial road network potentially serves a variety of purposes. These include
economic, developmental, planning, and social objectives. The planning task is therefore to
identify a road network development plan that as far as possible meets these needs within the
constraints imposed.
The Road Network Development Plan aims to set out a program of road improvements that
address the following proposed objectives:
• To provide for traffic at acceptable levels of cost, convenience and safety

• To create a network structure that supports economic development and efficient
and appropriate regional development patterns, and is capable of being further
developed through the future
• To provide a reasonable level of accessibility for communities throughout Java
• To maximise the economic benefits of major road improvement programs
• To minimise the social and environmental costs of road traffic
1
Government Regulation No. 26, 1985.

• To facilitate private sector participation in the provision of road infrastructure
In the preceding Sections, a number of issues have been identified that will affect the
development of the RNDP, in terms of the problems to be addressed, the objectives to be met
and the constraints imposed. These are reviewed in the following sections, before identifying
the major elements of the strategy that will be employed.
7.3 Issues to be Addressed
7.3.1 Existing Needs for Network Improvement
Review of Network Congestion
In Section 2, an analysis of the extent of existing congestion was summarised, and estimates
presented of the likely levels of future congestion, if adequate capacity expansion was not
undertaken. The statistics are of concern:
• Nearly 50% of the existing arterial road network already operates at moderate to
high levels of congestion
• By 2010, around 40% of the arterial road network will experience significant
congestion, and a further 55% will experience moderate congestion. Only 6% of
the network will not suffer from congestion.
• In addition to problems on the arterial road network, congestion will also be
experienced in the supporting strategic collector network, 55% of which will
experience moderate to high congestion by 2010.
The analysis indicates that a program of major additional road and network capacity is
essential if severe congestion is to be avoided, starting immediately.
The Form of Additional Capacity
Having identified the need for additional capacity, the issue arises as to the form in which this
should be provided and the appropriate timing for this. In particular the issue arises as to the
extent to which it is desirable to provide additional capacity on-line, or whether off-line
improvements are appropriate.
Traditional incremental widening gives high short-term economic returns, but delays the time
by which major substantial improvements to the network might be required and economically
feasible. Thus, if incremental widening is continually applied, the opportunities for an
economically feasible network of limited access arterial roads, on new rights-of-way and
attractive as possible private sector investments, would be very limited.
A simplified evaluation process was developed to examine this issue, and to identify the
extent to which off-line improvements might be viable. The likely constraints on expenditure
were reflected in the appraisal technique. The conclusions of this were that off-line upgrading
could only be justified where very high corridor flows existed, of which there were few
instances in the inter-urban areas over the immediate future. In the great majority of cases, the
development of the arterial road network should therefore proceed with a program of on-line
widening, which would cater for traffic up to the point when off-line widening would become
justified. In general terms, this course of action would represent the maximisation of the use
of the existing infrastructure, and would minimise the need for new investment when
resources are constrained. There may be limited opportunities for the development of off-line
schemes and for toll roads, and the potential for the latter is discussed in Section 8.

The application of the model on a network-wide basis for the strategic network indicated:
• There are substantial immediate needs (over the next five years) for capacity
expansion in both the arterial road network, and the supporting network of
primary and strategic collector roads, identified using stringent economic
evaluation criteria
• Needs in the second five-year period are also significant, but reduce substantially
in the third five-year period, once the backlog of past under-investment has been
caught up
• Needs over the next 10 years include upgrading nearly 3,800 km of national
roads (Arterial and K1), 2,900 km to 4-lanes and 900 km to a 7 metre standard.
Needs for the Provincial network include 2,200 km of widening to 7 metres, and
1,000 km of 4-laning
• The costs of this over the ten-year period would amount to a total of around Rp.
16 Trillion for national roads and around Rp. 8.5 Trillion for the provincial
network. Although the main priorities would lie with the national road network,
there would be also substantial needs for the extensive supporting provincial
networks.
• Beyond the Study Period, additional needs for road capacity will likely justify a
start to the development of a limited access arterial road network, which will
involve substantial investment.
The possible level of expenditure justified is summarised in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Economically Justified Expenditures on the Strategic Road Network

(Rp. Trillions at 2000 prices)
2000- 2005- 2010- 2015- 2020- 2025- Total

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
National Roads 12.1 4.3 0.6 25.8 21.7 7.9 72.4
Provincial 6.3 2.5 2.3 8.7 11.9 1.6 33.4
Roads
Total 18.4 6.8 2.9 34.5 33.6 9.4 105.8
While the numbers in the Table indicate sharp variations in expenditure between the periods
identified, in practice it would be unlikely to be possible to implement such a massive
program immediately, and the program would be spread more uniformly over a longer period.
7.3.2 Development Needs and Priorities
A major requirement for JARNS is to identify a staged road network development plan that
will support and be supported by regional spatial and economic development. The TOR
correctly emphasise the strong inter-relationship between transport system development and
spatial development. The challenge for JARNS is to find a reasonable way to identify this
relationship, in ways that might be useful in evaluating the development benefits of different
road network development strategies.
A detailed review of spatial and economic development trends and likely futures has been
conducted in JARNS, and this work is summarised in Section 3 of this Report. This work will
provide essential input to model development and the forecasting of future travel demands,
subjects that are not reviewed in this Report because they are not yet completed. However,
there was as well a detailed review of development trends and opportunities, which forms an
important component of the RNDP. The main findings from this were:

• Major areas of industrial activity lie along the north coast particularly in the
corridor between Merak and Cikampek, in Semarang and in Surabaya. Other
major industrial areas away from the coast include Bogor, Bandung,
Yogyakarta/Solo and Malang. These activities have provided the main impetus to
economic growth before the crisis but investment has subsequently been limited
• Development away from these areas is primarily focussed on small-scale
industry, agriculture and agro-processing. These have experienced more modest
growth but are likely to be more resistant to economic shocks in the future. In
many cases, these activities would benefit from improved links to the main urban
markets and the major ports.
Within the main industrial areas, with increasing traffic levels, there is a clear need to provide
additional transport capacity to meet the needs of industry, both for domestic traffic and for
moving goods to and from the ports. As discussed earlier in Section 5 and summarised below,
it is unlikely that rail or shipping will play a significant role in this, and an expansion of the
road network will be required to provide the capacity required.
In part, this will be provided by the local road network within the main urban areas, but there
will also be a need to upgrade the strategic road network for the longer movements, such as
Bandung-Jakarta and Yogyakarta/Solo/Semarang. There is also a need to provide a good
strategic road network within the major urban areas, allowing longer movements to avoid the
local road network.
7.3.3 Integration with Other Modes
Brief reviews have been undertaken of the likely “futures” for rail and ports and shipping in
Java, and this work is summarised in Section 5. The findings are of interest, and provide
useful information for the development of an overall road development strategy. However,
they do not directly affect decisions or priorities about road development as such. Particular
matters are summarised below:
Ports and Shipping
• Major growth in the period may be expected at Tanjung Priok, Tanjung Perak,
Gresik and Semarang, and at the ferry ports of Merak and Banyuwangi.
Significant growth impacting significantly on the road network is not expected at
other ports, but this may change as new developments emerge
• Future development of Bojonegara is possible but not yet committed. It would
have the potential to promote additional development in the Serang-Tangerang
corridor, which would place some additional transport demands on the network.
• Port developments at other locations are not considered likely
• Growth in cargo places considerable demands on the local road network, and
adequate capacity and network connectivity is vital to the efficient functioning of
the whole system. However, this is a local rather than a Java-wide planning
issue.
Rail
Sea transport and land transport are mainly complementary; rail and road transport are to
some extent substitutes. There is, therefore, a greater degree of potential interaction between

rail and road than between sea traffic and road, and in Java, the future of rail impacts more
directly on the road network. The major findings of the review were:
• Rail freight is not very significant, at only 5 million tonne p.a., and is declining.
There is therefore unlikely to be any significant switch of freight traffic away
from road to rail.
• The rail passenger task is significant, running at around 5-10% of road
passengers (all modes). This has grown at around 7% p.a. over the last decade
• Much of this task (45%) is local economy travel, which is artificially high
because of artificially low (and uneconomic) fares. Intercity economy accounts
for 35%, and higher quality passengers total 20%, but are growing rapidly
• The financial state of PT KAI could not be described as strong, and the quality of
all components of the track and rolling stock is poor. Heavy investment is
required to restore the system to an adequate level, such that it could respond
positively to the significant growth opportunities in passenger transport in Java.
• There are a number of existing capacity constraints on the passenger rail system.
Substantial additions of capacity beyond those already programmed will be
needed if the future growth potential is to be achieved. It is not clear that the
financial capability exists for these major investments to be made
• Additional rail capacity is critically needed in the Cikampek corridor, and it may
be expected that system capacity in Jakarta will become a constraint as the
number of trains increase. If rail capacity can not be provided, a potentially
significant volume of passengers will be diverted to road in this critical corridor
• Rail is not an economically viable substitute for road in Java, and investment in
rail will not attract significant passengers from road to rail. The challenge for PT
KAI is to provide the capacity and service quality necessary to continue to
provide for its existing market share
7.3.4 Funding Needs and Constraints, and Implications of Regional Autonomy
The analysis set out above indicates that there is a strong economic and developmental case
for a substantial programme of work to upgrade and extend the strategic road network in Java.
On the basis of the simplified screening analysis, the total investment for which there is a
strong economic case would amount to about Rp 25 trillions over the next ten years. Even if
only national roads are considered, the total would amount to about Rp. 16 trillion.
However, preliminary analysis using SEPM has indicated that the resources likely to be
available for strategic road development in Java are much less than the total that can be
justified on the basis of the economic criteria selected. The work reported in the previous
section has suggested that the total available for investment on new or upgraded national
roads will amount to only about Rp 10 trillion, about 60-65 per cent of the desired total.
It may be that resources would be available from Provincial Governments, which could be
used to supplement the total available from Central Government, although it is likely that any
funding from these sources would be applied to Provincial Roads. A review is required of the
possible budgets available from the Provinces and the extent to which these might supplement
expenditure by central Government. However whatever the outcome of this, it is likely that
the amounts available will fall significantly short of the expenditure economically justified.

7.4 A Proposed Structure for the Java Road Network
7.4.1 Overview of the Proposed Structure
There is a great deal to be done in rehabilitating the network, and re-building it for the new
millennium. It is important to bring a structure and focus to the task, so that work can proceed
according to an agreed set of priorities. In essence, preparing the Plan is about establishing
these priorities, and identifying the work program that would result.
To address the very limited levels of resources available for investment in the strategic
highway network and to attempt to ensure that these used in a way which maximises their
benefits not only in economic, but also in strategic and developmental terms, some form of
systematic framework is required. JARNS has therefore developed a proposed structure for
the strategic road network that is intended to provide a basis for prioritising the
implementation of the RNDP in the light of resource constraints and the need to consider the
broad impacts of road improvement.
As noted, it is not intended to replace existing National and Provincial road classifications.
However, in any move to change existing classifications, consideration should be given to
classifying as National, those network plan elements identified in JARNS which are
considered to be important to the support and development of the Arterial Road Network.
It is proposed that the routes in the strategic road network would be categorised in four main
groups:
• Main Trunk Network

• Secondary Trunk Network
• Main Trunk Connectors
• Strategic Collector Network
The proposed network structure is shown in Fig. 7.1.
7.4.2 The Main Trunk Network
The Main Trunk Network would have the following main functions:
• Connecting the provincial capitals and other major cities

• Supporting the major industrial development areas
• Linking the main ports and ferry terminals
The Main Trunk Network would comprise the major arterial road links forming the route
Merak-Jakarta-Semarang-Yogyakarta/Solo-Surabaya-Banyuwangi, which is the backbone of
the Java road network. It would also include the route from Cikampek to Bandung and
Cirebon, as well as spurs connecting Bogor, Yogyakarta and Malang. Although not specific
objectives, a large proportion of the other major towns in Java would also be served directly
by this network.
The Main Trunk Network would consist of Arterial roads and where appropriate of inter-
urban toll roads.
The principle reason for identifying the Main Trunk Network is to prioritise road
development needs. It is proposed that this network would receive the highest development
priority, with capacity additions being provided at the earliest opportunity to bring it quickly

JAKARTA
n
Cilegonl
Serang
- Tangerang
l >
JAKARTAl
Bekasi Karawang. Indramayu.
-
Pandeglang - -
-
Rangkasbitung l
Depok.-
Cibinong
Purwakarta- -Subang.
l -
Bogor. Jepara.
l
Cirebon. -
- Rembang.
- Pati.
- Sumber -
- - Tegal Pekalongan Demak. Kudus.
Cianjur. Sumedang. Majalengka. - l - l- - -
l n Brebes Pemalang Batang -SEMARANG. Tuban
BANDUNG. - Kendal. -
- Sukabumi. -Slawi n Blora. -
Pel. Ratu Kuningan - -
-Soreang Kajen - Bangkalan. Sumenep.
Purwodadi. -
- Lamongan - -
- Bojonegoro - Pamekasan.
- Ungaran GresiknSURABAYA Sampang.
Garut.
- - - l
Tasikmalaya. Ciamis. Banjarnegara - Temanggung. Salatiga.
-Purbalingga. - Wonosobo. -
- -
Purwokerto. lMagelang. Sragen. Ngawi l -
Mojokerto
- Sidoarjo
- -
-Mungkid. Boyolali. l Jombang Mojosari
Surakarta-Karanganyar. l -
- Nganjuk l
- Sleman- - -Sukoharjo Magetan Madiun Pasuruan
- Kebumen. - Klaten. - -
Cilacap. Purworejo Tarokan l Situbondo
n - l Probolinggo
- YOGYAKARTA Wonogiri. - Kediri
Wates. - Ponorogo -
Bantul - Bondowoso
Wonosari. Trenggalek l
- - -Srengat Malang.
l
Tulungagung Blitar - -
- Kepanjen. Lumajang. -
Pacitan Jember.
-
Banyuwangi.
LEGEND
Main Trunk
Secondary Trunk
Main Trunk Connectors
Strategic Collectors
l Kotamadya
- Kabupaten Capital
n Province Capital
Province Boundary
Fig. 7.1 : Proposed Structure for Network Development

to a high standard, consistent with future expected demand. It is expected that future toll road
development would be actively promoted to support this network.
7.4.3 The Secondary Trunk Network
The Secondary Trunk Network comprises roads providing additional east-west connections
across the island from Serang to Banyuwangi, thereby both providing for inter-regional travel,
and providing additional trunk road capacity in support of the Main Trunk network. The
Secondary Trunk Network includes the following major regional roads:
• Proposed strengthening of the Bogor-Serang connection

• Pelabuhan Ratu – Sukabumi
• Strengthening of the NJC Indramayu – Cirebon
• Buntu-Banjarnegara-Wonosobo-Magelang
• Semarang-Surabaya, including potentially additional supporting connections
between Tuban-Gresik, and Demak-Bojonegoro-Babat
• Kamal-Sumenep
• Banyuwangi-Jember-Lumajang-Tulungagung-Pacitan-Yogya
• Yogya-Bandung
This important network provides support to the Main Trunk Network, and the north-south
Trunk Connectors (see below) will provide the support needed to promote development in the
regions served by the Secondary Trunk Network
7.4.4 Main Trunk Connectors
The Main Trunk Connectors consist of the key access routes to the Main Trunk Network, and
connect it with the supporting Secondary Trunk Network. With the Main Trunk Network as a
“Backbone” for Java providing for major east-west flows, the Main Trunk Connectors include
mainly north-south routes providing regional access to the Trunk network, and to the key
markets and ports located along it. This would extend the area of influence of the main
network and allow it to serve effectively a large proportion of the main secondary cities and
industrial areas in the island. By providing good connections between the Main and
Secondary Trunk Networks, the Main Trunk Connectors provide the best opportunity to
promote regional development by improving accessibility to regional and sub-regional
centres.
The links included in this category are:
• Bogor-Tangerang
• Ciamis-Cirebon
• Cilacap-Tegal
• Magelang-Weleri
• Purwodadi-Solo-Ponorogo
• Cepu-Ngawi-Madiun- Ponorogo -Pacitan
• Babat-Jombang-Kertosono-Kediri-Tulungagung
• Pasuruan-Lawang
• Lumajang-Probolinggo
These links would comprise a combination of roads currently classified as arterial, K1 and in
limited cases K2 roads.

7.4.5 The Strategic Collector Network
The remainder of the strategic road network would be included in the Strategic Collector
Network, and is serves an important function in properly integrating local development into
the road hierarchy, and promoting local and regional accessibility and development.
7.5 Developing the Road Network
As discussed above the proposed structure of the strategic road network would assist in
developing priorities for investment. The highest priority would be attached to the
development of the main trunk network serving the key cities, ports and development areas
within Java, and performs an important strategic function. The evaluation would recognise
these functions as well as the transport economic benefits.
In combination with the Main Trunk Network, the Trunk Connectors would also have an
important developmental function, connecting secondary development areas to the main
markets and ports mainly along the north coast. This developmental function would also be
recognised in the evaluation of proposals, although not to the same extent as the Main Trunk
Network. Where appropriate the need to support the effective functioning of the Main Trunk
Network will also be taken into account.
A similar position would apply in the case of the Secondary Trunk Network, and as noted
previously, it may be appropriate to give priority to selected road improvements on this
network, because of policies that promote local regional development objectives.
The development of minimum capacity standards for the different road types may also be
appropriate, although the speed with which these might be attained would depend on the
identified needs and the resources likely to be available, which will be investigated as the
Study progresses.
However, as an initial position it may be appropriate to consider the development of the Main
Core Network to at least an on-line 4 lane 16 metre divided road and to a higher standard
where traffic needs dictate. Opportunities for the development of toll roads ideally in
combination with the private sector would be actively pursued, although the opportunities for
these to play a significant role in the provision of inter-urban highway capacity much before
the end of the Study period appear limited.
For the Trunk Connectors and the Secondary Trunk Network a minimum road width of 7
metres would be appropriate, again with a higher standard where traffic needs are particularly
high, as they will be on sections of the North Java Corridor. For the remainder of the network
any upgrading would be in line with traffic needs and a minimum desired level of provision
would not be applied.
Consideration needs to be given to the strengthening of arterial road networks surrounding

Jakarta and Surabaya, where traffic demands are such that additional toll road schemes may
well be needed. It is important that schemes be identified and prioritised in the context of
likely future development needs and priorities, and are such as to support the Network
Development Plan.

8. A TOLL ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
8.1 Overview
One of the purposes of and major reasons for JARNS is to identify the future need for toll
roads in Java, and identify staged development priorities for these in the context of overall
development needs for the arterial road network as a whole. The proposed structure of the
road network discussed in the previous section has suggested that toll roads may ultimately
play a role in the development of the Main Core Network.
The requirements for JARNS implicitly carry with them the expectation that needs for toll
road development will be identified within the study period. This requirement, and the
expectation that financially viable inter-urban toll roads would be identified in JARNS, grew
out of the “toll road program” of 1995, when more than 2,500 km of possible toll roads were
being pursued as possible projects by a variety of private sector interests.
The reality appears to be very different from the expectations. With the exception of a number
of predominantly urban or urban fringe toll road schemes in Jakarta, Jabotabek and on the
approaches to Surabaya, it does not appear from preliminary analyses that there will be
significant demand for inter-urban toll roads for many years, because:
• It is difficult to achieve financial viability of toll roads based on a traditional

BOT approach to private sector financing at levels of traffic less than around
35,000 vehicles per day on opening
• Achieving this level of toll road traffic typically requires total corridor flows in
excess of about 70,000-80,000 per day in the opening year of the toll road
While these flows exist in the urban areas and in their approaches, they are not currently
found on inter-urban links. Considering the possible position in the future, on the basis of a 6
per cent annual growth in traffic, a flow of 75,000 vehicles per day in 2020 would be
equivalent to a present day flow of about 25,000 vehicles per day. Currently, on the basis of
the preliminary findings, there are only about 370 kms of the arterial road network and 170
kms of the strategic collector road network where such flows are experienced. In addition,
many of these are in or close to the major urban areas and the scope for long-distance inter-
urban toll roads to be implemented as private sector BOT schemes in the medium term to
2020 is therefore limited.
Because of the high corridor flows likely to be required if toll roads are to be financially
viable, substantial capacity will be required in a corridor before a toll roads is financially
feasible, if severe congestion is to be avoided. Provision of additional needed capacity will
delay the time by which a toll road can be implemented, but both a high capacity arterial road
and a toll road are necessary complements in any corridor where toll road provision is to be
contemplated.
8.2 Toll Roads in the Jakarta-Bandung Corridor
At present, there are three main routes between Jakarta and Bandung, two via Bogor/Ciawi
and the third via Cikampek. These routes each consist of a toll road section, the Jagorawi for
the first two and Jakarta-Cikampek for the third, combined with substantial sections of non-
toll road much of which is congested or in difficult terrain.

There are proposals for toll roads to complete both routes. The proposal for Cikampek-
Padalarang is fairly well advanced, and it is reported that land acquisition is virtually
complete. While the economic returns from its construction are likely to be very substantial
(earlier work reported in Technical Report No. 1 estimated this at about 35-45 per cent), the
scheme has a very high cost because of the difficult terrain. As a result, the financial returns
from early completion of the road are poor and would be below those required for successful
private sector involvement in a pure BOT scheme. From a planning perspective, the scheme
has a high priority, but its high costs are such that it is likely to need substantial financial
support from the Government if it were to be viable. In developing the proposed highway
structure for Java, the section from Cikampek to Padalarang is included in the Trunk network.
The Ciawi-Sukabumi-Bandung corridor is much less attractive as a possible toll road corridor,
for a number of reasons. It is doubtful whether there is adequate traffic demand to justify a
toll road, and it seems possible that the objectives of the earlier promoters might have been
directed more towards the profitability of associated land development than towards the
financial viability of the toll road itself. Whilst the corridor is heavily congested, much of this
is caused by local traffic, particularly buses, that would not use the toll road, and by the
almost continuous strip development along the corridor. As a main route to Bandung, the
proposed toll road would serve only trips from Bogor, while Jakarta traffic would still be
better served by the shorter route through Cikampek.
From a planning perspective, the route through Cikampek serves planning considerations for
the protection of the environmentally sensitive area to the south of Jakarta much better than a
route through Ciawi-Sukabumi. However, it will generate substantial increases in traffic on
the existing Jakarta Cikampek Toll Road as Jakarta-Bandung traffic is diverted to this route or
new trips are generated in response to the reduced journey times between the two cities.
Additional capacity will therefore need to be provided in the Jakarta-Cikampek corridor
especially at the western approaches to Jakarta.
8.3 Toll Roads in Jabotabek
The development of an appropriate arterial road and toll road network as a framework for the
future development of Jabotabek area is essential, and it should be a matter of the greatest
concern that almost no attempt has been made till recently to address this major planning
deficiency. Given that the Jabotabek region will have a population of around 30 million by
2015, a coherent development framework for land use and road development is essential.
Recently, JICA have initiated a study2 to identify future transport needs for Jabotabek, and
hopefully this and subsequent planning studies will identify future network development
needs.
It is not possible to attempt to form a preliminary view of such needs in JARNS, because it
has been necessary to limit the scope of any analysis to inter-urban travel only. More detailed
analysis would require the modelling of each urban area in Java, well beyond the scope of
what is possible or reasonable. However, JARNS will provide forecasts of future likely travel
between Jabotabek and Java. Consequently, at such time as the Jabotabek area is studied,
there will be a need for the JARNS demand forecasts of future travel between Jabotabek and
the rest of Java to be taken into account.
However, from a strategic perspective, some aspects of the future arterial and toll road
network required for Jabotabek are already apparent, from the perspective of JARNS, and
these are listed and discussed very briefly below.
2
“The Study of the Integrated Transportation Master Plan for JABOTABEK”. Pacific Consultants
International

1. As has been noted, the major directional orientation of new toll roads in and
through Jabotabek should be east-west, so as to reinforce the preferred
development directions within the area
2. The toll road network in Jakarta will be enhanced by the completion of the
Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR), which will complement the existing toll road
network. Additional routes will potentially help to relieve congestion where the
main links to the east, west and south meet the existing toll road ring.
3. Additional east-west capacity will be required, particularly if the Cikampek toll

road is extended to Bandung, and if large-scale industrial development continues
in the Merak-Cikampek corridor or further east. Such capacity should be added
to routes both to the north and south of Jakarta.
8.4 Toll Roads in Greater Surabaya
The toll road network in the Surabaya area provides a high quality north-south spine through
the city, connecting the development areas to the north and south with the city centre and the
major port at Tanjung Perak. Proposals are being considered both to extend the toll network
away from the city centre and to provide parallel routes within the city. The proposed
extension of the toll road network to Mojokerto in the south west appears to have reasonable
financial and economic returns and would form a good candidate for early implementation. Its
construction would also encourage and reinforce development in the Mojokerto-Krian-Waru
axis, and would also potentially form part of the strategic arterial link between Surabaya and
Solo, included in the Key Core Network. The Surabaya-Mojokerto corridor contains a number
of major roads running broadly parallel and so is likely to be able to generate the high flows
necessary to justify a toll road.
Other proposals exist for a new route within the city, paralleling the existing north-south axis
further east. These would again improve access to the port and support economic
development. The potential traffic flows in the corridor served by these new roads would be
high giving in principle at least the potential for acceptable financial and economic returns.
8.5 New Toll Roads as Part of the Main Trunk Network
Although in general the scope for new inter-urban toll roads is very limited, the discussion
above has identified a limited number of opportunities where these might play a role as part of
the Main Trunk Network. These would provide needed capacity through the Jabotabek area,
possibly linking Cikampek and Padalarang and Bandung, and providing a south-west link to
Surabaya through Mojokerto. The possible implementation of these links, combined with
other possible urban bypasses, could assist in promoting or invigorating a new toll road
development programme. However before this can be achieved there are a number of policy
and institutional matters that need to be addressed.
8.6 Policy and Institutional Matters
While the immediate needs for toll road investments may be limited, there are needs for
government to address a number of institutional and regulatory questions relating to managing
the future environment for Private Sector Participation (PSP), which it is hoped will provide
the substantial assistance that will be needed in financing future toll roads. A number of these
issues were separately reviewed in Technical Report No. 3.3 The Key Messages that were
identified in this work are repeated below.
3
JARNS Technical Report No. 3: “Towards a Sustainable Toll Road Development Program”. April
2001

8.7 Key Messages
1. There will be major road network development needs in Java over the next 20
years. While much of this will be met by upgrading and widening on the existing
alignment, there will be growing needs for a core network of limited access
arterial roads on new alignments beyond the Study Period. In principle, such
roads would be suited to be operated as toll roads, with private sector
participation (PSP)
2. It is likely to be difficult or impossible for government to provide the levels of

funding necessary for the needed roads infrastructure without a significant level
of private sector participation, which will provide both efficiency and funding
3. It will be difficult to attract potential investors to return to the toll road market
unless and until significant and sustainable improvements are made to the
environment within which PSP operates
4. Except on the approaches to major cities, current levels of traffic are not such as
to warrant the provision of toll roads. It will be many years before inter-urban
toll roads will be financially viable. In this context, the immediate need is for
government attention to be given to process, not to projects. New toll road
projects as such are not needed. What is needed – by investors – is the
reassurance that GOI understands the need to create an open, transparent,
competitive and accountable environment for PSP, and is intent on implementing
all measures necessary to achieve this
5. A proper framework for PSP is essential. This will require major attention to be
given to:
• Institutional reform, to put in place appropriate government structures
• Creation of an autonomous and independent Regulatory Authority
• Establishment of a proper legal framework for the operation of PSP
• Development and implementation of open, transparent and competitive
tendering and bidding processes within which PSP can be secured
• Formulation of Concession Contracts that properly provide for and
allocate risks among the parties, including: (i) the acceptance by
government of the responsibility for land acquisition; (ii) the establishment
of reasonable and acceptable toll rate setting and adjustment procedures;
(iii) the preparation and promulgation of a model form of contract
• Implementation of strategic planning procedures, and detailed project
planning and identification including detailed feasibility studies for all
projects to be tendered
6. The strategic road network serves major social, environmental, development and
economic objectives. Government needs to ensure that any PSP is such as to
preserve the balance between these and private sector financial objectives.
Government can generate significant economic benefits by providing financial
support for private sector toll roads.
7. The most important tasks to be performed involve institutional restructuring,
potentially at Ministerial level, and the creation of a Regulatory Authority. To
effect these significant changes, detailed advice needs to be prepared as to the
appropriate institutional changes required. It is strongly recommended that such
services report directly to an appropriate Minister, and not at any lower level.

9. NEXT STEPS
9.1 Analysis and Evaluation of Network Development Strategies
The analyses presented in Section 6, on which the concepts for network development outlined
in Section 7 were developed, assumed that traffic growth would be uniform across the
network throughout the Study Period, and that link flows would be unaffected by
improvements elsewhere in the network. However, these simplifying assumptions, valid for
the purposes of the screening study, are not appropriate for the more detailed analyses
required for the evaluation of road network development strategies. In reality, traffic growth
rates will vary by area, and any significant road improvement has the potential to alter traffic
flows over a significant part of the adjacent road network. The preparation and evaluation of a
network development plan has to take full account of these effects.
A major component of JARNS is the development of a road network modelling capability that
can be used to identify and evaluate the effects of road improvements on traffic flows
elsewhere in the network. This will be used to test and evaluate network development
strategies, to make sure that the proposed development plan properly allows for such effects.
As examples of the types of questions that need to be answered within a modelling context,
consider the proposed network development strategy presented in Section 7. This contained a
number of presumptions that need to be fully tested before they can be reliably used as the
building blocks of network development.
1. It was assumed the best route for the proposed Main Trunk network from
Semarang to Surabaya is through Solo/Jombang/Mojokerto, rather than around
the North Java Corridor through Demak/Tuban/Lamongan. This needs to be fully
evaluated, by comparing the performance of this route against the other options
2. A number of north-south connectors were proposed to strengthen the network.
There are a number of different options for these, and their feasibility and likely
timing need to be assessed on the basis of forecast flows. These can only be
obtained from network analysis
3. The relative priorities and timing for a number of road improvement options
depend on their effect on network flows, which can only be assessed using the
network model
While we have now identified the main network development directions and likely priorities
for road improvements in a general sense, these findings remain to be translated into a
detailed network development strategy. This can only properly be done using network
modelling and evaluation. The tools for this work are under preparation, and are briefly
outlined in the remainder of this Section.
9.2 Network Modelling
9.2.1 Overview of the Approach
The overall approach to modelling is summarised in Fig. 9.1, which outlines the main
elements.
9.2.2 Develop Base Year Model
Development of the Base Year Model includes the following major tasks:

• Preparation and coding of a detailed road network and zonal system

• Construction of base year matrices using O-D surveys, traffic counts and prior
matrices from other sources
• Preparation of network assignment methods, procedures and parameters
• Model testing and validation
Fig. 9.1: Outline of Network Modelling Approach
BASE YEAR POPULATION

DEVELOP BASE YEAR
AND ECONOMIC
MODEL
DEVELOPMENT
FORECAST YEAR
DEVELOP DEMAND
POPULATION AND
FORECASTING
ECONOMIC
RELATIONSHIPS
DEVELOPMENT
DEFINE ROAD NETWORKS

FOR OPTIONS TESTING
AND EVALUATION
FORECAST FLOWS AND

EVALUATION
ITERATIVE
IDENTIFICATION OF
OPTIMUM ROAD
NETWORK
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
9.2.3 Develop Demand Forecasting Relationships
Using the model for 2000 as a base, relationships will be developed to allow the forecasting
of traffic flows and O-D matrices in future years. For this purpose, relationships are
determined between the numbers of trips made and measures of zonal population and levels
of economic activity. Forecasts of these socio-economic characteristics by zone are made
separately, and are used to estimate future levels and origin-destination patterns of traffic.
9.2.4 Define Road Networks for Options Testing and Evaluation
Identifying appropriate network development strategies requires the iterative testing and
evaluation of a set of identified options, so that the “best” options can be identified. Once an
appropriate network structure has been identified, the preferred timing of incremental

improvements to the network can be identified, based on the forecast flows generated from
the network model.
On the basis of the initial runs of the model for the forecast years, the results of the SCEM
analysis, and an assessment of the budgetary resources likely to be available for each road
type, alternative networks would be defined. These would consist of programmes of road
improvements, based on alternative approaches including:
• Policy driven goals, such as upgrading all links on the Main Trunk Network to a
specified standard
• Measures based on the forecast reference case position at a more disaggregated
level and including road upgrades to meet specific identified capacity
deficiencies. As an example of this a minimum VC ratio could be set as a target,
and all sections with a capacity below this would be upgraded. The definition of
the links to be upgraded would be based on an analysis of the position with the
Reference Case network, and possibly with interim versions of the test networks.
• Combinations of the above
• Combinations of the above reflecting likely budgetary constraints. The results
and thresholds derived from the SCEM analysis would be used in the derivation
of these networks.
In each case, the schemes which could be regarded as committed would be included in the
Reference Case and Test Networks.
9.3 Testing and Evaluation
The future year matrices would be applied to the test networks in order to assess the
performance of the network in terms of:
• Aggregate measures by road classification such as vehicle kilometres and

average speeds
• The performance of specific links highlighting those where the V/C ratios were
high
• Journey times for key movements
Where appropriate the test networks would be updated to correct any areas where the links
did not meet desired performance levels (for example in terms of VC ratios).
The economic evaluation of the options would be undertaken by comparing the test network
with the appropriate Reference Case networks. For any year other than 2010, two possible
Reference Cases would be considered. The first would consist of the 2010 Committed
Network which includes the current network plus committed schemes only. The second base
network, the Enhanced Reference Case, would consist of the appropriate Do Something
network for the previous time period, and would therefore implicitly assume that all the
recommended schemes would in fact be constructed. This approach would allow the
marginal benefits of the additional schemes to be assessed.
This approach is summarised in Figure 9.2

Fig. 9.2: Development of Future Year Reference Networks
Existing 2000 Network
Committed Schemes
2010 Reference Case Network

Network Improvements
2010 Do Something
Networks
2020 Enhanced
Reference Case Network
Reference Case
Network Improvements
Network
2020 Do Something
Networks
The components of the economic evaluation would include:-
Benefits
• Journey time savings

• Vehicle operating cost savings
Costs
• Capital costs including land and construction
The initial economic evaluation including the examination of the specific issues would be
undertaken for a single year, to minimise the work required. When satisfactory results are
obtained from this, the analysis would then be extended to the other forecast years in order to
allow the time stream of benefits to be estimated. On the basis of this time stream of benefits
and costs, a range of measures of economic worth, including IRR, NPV and BC ratios, would
be calculated.
In addition to considering benefits in total, the results would also be considered on a sectoral
basis to allow the benefits to be assessed on a broad origin-destination basis. For this purpose
it is proposed that Java would be divided into 10-20 broad sectors reflecting province
boundaries and different areas within the provinces, particularly distinguishing between the
developed areas to the north and less developed areas to the south.

9.4 Development of Recommended Road Network Development Plan
Based on the results of the evaluations, a recommended Road Network Development Plan
would be created. This would aim to incorporate the desirable components of the various
alternatives examined in order to produce a development programme which made the best use
of the resources available, taking into consideration not only the total economic benefits but
also regional and strategic considerations.
Within the overall RNDP the possible phasing of the implementation of the components of
the strategy would be identified, and programmes for comprehensive corridor development
set out where appropriate.
The recommended RNDP would also identify any possible options for inter-urban toll road
development, although as discussed earlier in the report, the scope for these may be limited.
Where possible options are identified, the costs and potential financial returns would be
estimated, on the basis of a simple financial model.

APPENDIX A:
DETAILED REVIEW OF
LINK TRAFFIC FLOWS IN JAVA
Carl Bro International as and Associates A- 1

Table A1: Comparison of Recent Traffic Count Data (AADT Excluding M/C), and Composite Estimate
Link JARNS Jasa Pek/ CAPEX JARNS JARNS
PROP RUAS SFFX Link_ID Funct. ATC TSSS
Length Surveys Marga Prob. 1997 Est. Result
22 001 22001 12.0 A 10,779 - - - - - - 10,779
22 002 22002 18.0 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
22 003 22003 66.1 A 13,590 - 24,300 21,400 - - - 13,590
22 004 22004 7.0 A - - - - - - 27,500 27,500
22 005 22005 6.3 A - - - - - - 35,000 35,000
22 006 22006 41.3 A - - 15,850 16,600 - 18,415 - 12,788
22 007 22007 19.9 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
22 008 22008 45.4 A 16,865 26,650 - - - - - 16,865
22 009 22009 55.4 A 17,073 18,750 24,300 23,300 - - - 17,073
22 010 22010 10.5 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
22 012 22012 28.6 K1 13,884 13,700 - - - - - 13,884
22 013 22013 28.4 A 16,925 19,700 24,500 21,950 - - - 16,925
22 014 22014 26.0 A 19,053 - - - - 22,300 - 19,053
22 015 22015 5.2 A 24,962 - - - - - - 24,962
22 016 22016 48.8 K1 23,455 - 25,300 22,150 - - - 23,455
22 017 22017 44.4 A 19,034 19,350 27,500 25,450 - - - 19,034
22 018 22018 12.4 A - - - - - 33,591 35,000 28,823
22 019 22019 12.2 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
22 020 22020 28.2 A 12,741 17,750 19,050 - - - - 12,741
22 021 22021 27.5 A 11,217 - - - - - - 11,217
22 022 22022 4.8 A - - - - - - 13,750 13,750
22 023 22023 33.8 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
22 024 22024 11.3 A 30,153 - - - - - - 30,153
22 025 22025 31.6 A - 10,550 - - - - 11,250 10,562
22 026 1 220261 42.3 K2 - - 9,500 - - - 11,250 7,673
22 026 2 220262 16.6 K2 - - 9,500 - - - 4,000 4,000
22 027 1 220271 3.3 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 027 2 220272 18.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 028 22028 18.7 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
22 029 22029 23.0 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
22 030 22030 18.9 K2 - - 7,450 6,600 - - - 5,993
22 031 1 220311 41.1 K2 2,145 - - - - - - 2,145
22 031 2 220312 57.3 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
22 032 22032 61.8 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
22 034 22034 32.2 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
22 037 1 220371 4.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 037 2 220372 9.4 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 037 3 220373 4.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 039 22039 34.0 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 040 22040 9.4 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 042 22042 15.2 A 17,600 17,600 - - - - - 17,600
22 043 22043 33.8 A 19,638 15,600 30,800 28,450 - - - 19,638
22 045 22045 25.8 A 12,831 10,450 - - - - - 12,831
22 047 22047 40.4 K2 - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
22 048 22048 42.0 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
22 049 22049 21.7 A 18,268 29,750 - - - - - 18,268
22 050 22050 20.8 K2 - - 15,850 16,800 - - - 12,788
22 054 22054 52.1 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
22 055 22055 12.7 K1 - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
22 056 22056 52.6 A 8,204 - 10,550 12,550 - - - 8,204
22 057 22057 13.4 A - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 058 22058 3.9 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
22 060 22060 12.4 A - - 18,050 17,450 - - - 14,554
22 061 22061 24.6 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
22 062 22062 6.1 A 5,949 - - - - - - 5,949
22 064 22064 49.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 065 22065 22.2 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 066 22066 48.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 067 22067 25.7 K2 15,141 - - - - - - 15,141
22 068 22068 32.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 069 22069 13.0 K2 8,243 - - - - - - 8,243
22 071 22071 36.4 K1 17,905 - 27,500 - - 14,462 - 17,905
22 072 22072 7.4 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
22 073 22073 24.6 K1 - 10,000 - - - - 4,000 10,019
22 075 22075 45.9 K2 6,909 - - - - - - 6,909
22 076 22076 37.1 K2 4,164 - - - - - - 4,164
22 077 22077 42.3 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
22 078 1 220781 23.2 A - - 20,100 - - - - 16,198
22 078 2 220782 23.9 A 14,056 16,100 20,100 - - - - 14,056
22 079 22079 6.5 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
22 080 22080 12.9 A 25,451 26,650 31,850 30,500 - - - 25,451
22 091 22091 12.5 K2 18,354 - - - - 19,398 - 18,354
22 092 22092 27.9 K2 15,908 - 19,100 - - 12,667 - 15,908
22 095 1 220951 77.4 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
22 095 2 220952 9.4 K2 10,602 - - - - 34,497 - 10,602
22 096 22096 15.5 K3 - - - - - - 13,750 13,750
\Compare-Counts.xls [Table-2] Page 1 of 6 17/09/01 11:17

22 101 22101 35.0 K2 21,145 - - - - 26,536 - 21,145
22 118 22118 48.7 K2 3,893 - - - - - - 3,893
22 119 22119 44.7 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 001 24001 9.3 A 22,862 14,150 - - - - - 22,862
24 002 24002 17.8 A - - 20,950 20,600 - - - 12,133
24 003 24003 8.8 A - 11,450 - - - - 17,500 11,439
24 004 1 240041 4.2 A 16,784 13,050 - - - - - 16,784
24 004 2 240042 22.9 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
24 005 24005 31.7 A - - - - 26,000 20,579 11,250 25,999
24 006 24006 5.0 A 21,561 11,650 - - 20,800 - - 21,561
24 007 1 240071 42.5 A 16,478 12,900 - - - - - 16,478
24 007 2 240072 2.6 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
24 008 24008 17.0 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
24 009 24009 11.5 A 24,459 13,000 - - - - - 24,459
24 010 24010 16.9 A 32,270 - - - - - - 32,270
24 011 1 240111 17.1 A - - 19,850 - - - - 11,482
24 011 2 240112 9.4 A 12,312 - 19,850 - - - - 12,312
24 012 24012 9.6 A - 12,000 - - - - 13,750 12,013
24 013 24013 4.8 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 014 24014 5.1 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
24 015 1 240151 10.6 A - - 17,100 - - - - 9,910
24 015 2 240152 14.4 A - - 17,100 - - 20,841 - 9,910
24 016 24016 8.4 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
24 017 24017 18.2 A 20,873 - 16,400 - - - - 20,873
24 018 24018 15.5 A 20,019 - - - - - 17,500 20,019
24 019 24019 22.6 A - - 29,500 27,550 - - - 17,093
24 020 24020 15.4 A 16,531 - - - - 22,437 - 16,531
24 021 24021 5.5 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
24 022 24022 1.4 A 27,680 - - - - - - 27,680
24 023 24023 24.4 A - - - - - - 13,750 13,750
24 024 24024 16.1 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 025 24025 7.9 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 027 24027 10.8 K1 12,735 - - - - - - 12,735
24 028 24028 28.1 K2 3,853 - - - - - - 3,853
24 029 24029 28.0 K1 9,293 - - - - - - 9,293
24 030 1 240301 30.4 K2 5,899 - - - - - - 5,899
24 030 2 240302 11.0 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 031 1 240311 34.8 K1 - - 10,600 - - - - 6,126
24 031 2 240312 10.2 K1 8,135 - 10,600 - - - - 8,135
24 032 24032 12.8 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 033 1 240331 21.3 A 6,152 - 9,550 - - - - 6,152
24 033 2 240332 50.6 A - - 9,550 8,300 - - 4,000 5,522
24 034 24034 16.9 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 035 24035 11.5 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 036 1 240361 5.0 A 4,335 - - - - - - 4,335
24 036 2 240362 19.0 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 037 24037 5.0 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
24 038 24038 9.8 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
24 039 3 240393 2.9 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 041 24041 2.5 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 042 1 240421 4.1 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 042 2 240422 8.7 A 8,979 - - - - - - 8,979
24 043 24043 9.1 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 044 24044 7.5 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 045 24045 9.4 K2 14,759 - - - - - - 14,759
24 047 24047 5.8 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 048 24048 2.7 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 049 24049 8.5 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 050 1 240501 28.6 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 050 2 240502 19.4 A 9,841 - - - - - - 9,841
24 051 1 240511 8.2 K1 4,458 - - - - - - 4,458
24 051 2 240512 9.9 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 052 1 240521 5.0 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 052 2 240522 5.7 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 053 24053 9.8 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 054 24054 14.8 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 055 24055 31.0 K1 - - 12,050 11,200 - - - 6,981
24 056 1 240561 16.6 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 056 2 240562 0.8 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 057 24057 16.8 A 10,286 - - - - - - 10,286
24 058 1 240581 16.5 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 058 2 240582 37.7 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 059 24059 11.6 K1 - - 10,700 - - - - 6,187
24 060 24060 12.6 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 061 24061 8.2 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 063 24063 11.6 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750

24 064 1 240641 10.5 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 064 2 240642 8.6 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 065 24065 18.9 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 066 1 240661 11.5 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 066 2 240662 9.5 K1 5,451 - - - - - - 5,451
24 067 24067 1.1 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 068 1 240681 24.8 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 068 2 240682 23.6 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 069 24069 4.8 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 071 24071 6.0 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 072 24072 5.8 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 074 24074 6.7 K1 8,633 - - - - - - 8,633
24 075 24075 12.6 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 076 1 240761 24.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 076 2 240762 12.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 077 24077 17.7 K2 - - 22,900 - - - - 13,257
24 078 1 240781 8.1 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 078 2 240782 11.9 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 079 24079 8.0 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 080 24080 19.9 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 081 24081 18.3 A 19,515 10,950 - - - - - 19,515
24 082 24082 33.9 K2 11,712 - - - - - - 11,712
24 084 24084 6.3 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
24 085 1 240851 11.5 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 085 2 240852 7.0 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 086 1 240861 13.3 A - - 27,750 23,700 - - - 16,080
24 086 2 240862 2.7 A - - 27,750 - - - - 16,080
24 087 24087 16.1 K2 - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
24 088 24088 2.5 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
24 089 24089 18.6 K2 - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
24 090 1 240901 37.5 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 090 2 240902 19.1 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 091 1 240911 14.8 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
24 091 2 240912 9.6 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 092 24092 26.6 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 093 24093 34.8 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
24 094 24094 49.1 A - - 10,950 - - - - 6,352
24 095 1 240951 25.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 095 2 240952 10.4 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 096 24096 32.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 097 24097 0.8 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 098 1 240981 24.2 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 098 2 240982 44.2 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 099 1 240991 15.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 099 2 240992 27.3 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 100 24100 21.4 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 101 1 241011 29.3 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 101 2 241012 13.4 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 102 24102 18.0 K2 - - 11,550 10,700 - - - 6,698
24 103 1 241031 34.6 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 103 2 241032 24.3 K2 3,821 - - - - - - 3,821
24 104 24104 9.5 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
24 105 24105 34.9 K2 7,113 - - - - - - 7,113
24 106 24106 10.2 K2 15,104 - - - - - - 15,104
24 107 1 241071 9.3 K2 - - 18,650 - - - - 10,801
24 107 2 241072 9.6 K2 - - 18,650 - - - - 10,801
24 108 24108 51.3 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
24 109 1 241091 36.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 109 2 241092 6.6 K1 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 112 1 241121 30.4 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 112 2 241122 9.2 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 113 1 241131 13.3 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 113 2 241132 15.5 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 117 24117 33.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 118 24118 44.6 K2 1,293 - - - - - - 1,293
24 120 24120 52.4 K2 - - 1,350 - - - - 772
24 124 24124 19.8 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 127 24127 27.0 K1 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 130 24130 29.2 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 132 1 241321 10.2 K2 1,380 - - - - - - 1,380
24 132 2 241322 7.4 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 133 24133 14.0 A - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
24 135 24135 38.2 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 137 1 241371 23.9 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 137 2 241372 17.7 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 146 24146 22.8 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000

24 148 1 241481 21.6 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 148 2 241482 20.9 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
24 151 24151 31.1 K2 2,123 - - - - - - 2,123
24 152 24152 30.7 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 153 24153 31.5 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 154 1 241541 7.2 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 154 2 241542 11.4 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 155 24155 33.2 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 156 24156 15.7 K2 5,174 - - - - - - 5,174
24 157 24157 2.2 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 158 24158 7.2 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
24 159 24159 19.4 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
26 001 26001 7.2 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
26 002 26002 7.9 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
26 003 26003 12.1 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
26 004 1 260041 13.6 A - - - - - - 13,750 13,750
26 004 2 260042 1.0 A - - - - - - 13,750 13,750
26 005 26005 7.8 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
26 006 26006 4.9 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
26 007 26007 9.8 A - - 16,000 - - - - 9,265
26 009 26009 11.4 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
26 010 26010 8.8 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
26 011 26011 15.2 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
26 015 26015 8.9 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
26 017 1 260171 3.7 K1 - - 26,550 - - - 26,573 15,387
26 017 2 260172 13.8 K1 - - 26,550 - - - 26,573 15,387
26 018 26018 5.2 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
26 019 26019 2.8 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
26 023 26023 23.0 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
26 025 26025 5.8 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
26 026 26026 4.0 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
26 030 26030 29.8 K1 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
28 001 28001 35.1 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 002 1 280021 7.0 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 002 2 280022 13.8 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 003 28003 8.6 K1 - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
28 004 28004 17.0 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 005 1 280051 9.9 A 6,546 - - - - - - 6,546
28 005 2 280052 23.4 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 006 1 280061 12.2 A - - - 9,950 - 14,722 8,750 10,819
28 006 2 280062 16.5 A 10,273 - - - - 13,137 - 10,273
28 007 28007 23.8 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 008 1 280081 16.7 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
28 008 2 280082 0.3 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
28 009 1 280091 5.3 A - - - - - 24,881 17,500 15,329
28 009 2 280092 15.8 A 17,992 - - - - - - 17,992
28 010 28010 2.3 A - - - 31,250 - 13,028 17,500 17,500
28 011 28011 3.2 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 012 28012 15.2 A 10,418 - - - - 15,048 - 10,418
28 013 28013 15.6 A - 22,800 - - - - 22,500 22,813
28 014 28014 3.0 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
28 016 28016 11.7 A 39,925 - - - - - - 39,925
28 017 28017 10.0 A - - - - - - 22,500 22,500
28 018 28018 22.5 A 29,309 - - 25,750 - - - 29,309
28 019 1 280191 18.0 A - - - - - - 17,500 17,500
28 019 2 280192 11.6 A 21,075 12,800 - - - - - 21,075
28 021 1 280211 43.1 A 11,695 - - 16,950 16,900 - - 11,695
28 021 2 280212 16.2 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 022 28022 28.1 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 023 28023 6.5 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 024 1 280241 59.0 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 024 2 280242 22.8 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 025 28025 11.5 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 026 28026 12.2 A 33,596 16,750 - - - - - 33,596
28 027 28027 15.2 A - 22,750 - - - - 35,000 22,768
28 028 28028 3.7 A - - - - - - 27,500 27,500
28 029 1 280291 3.4 A - - - - - - 35,000 35,000
28 029 2 280292 12.7 A - - - 33,600 - - 35,000 36,581
28 030 28030 1.6 A 34,364 - - - - - - 34,364
28 031 28031 47.6 A 9,265 - - - - - - 9,265
28 033 28033 2.1 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 036 28036 30.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 037 1 280371 29.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 037 2 280372 7.7 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 038 28038 36.3 K2 5,837 - - 8,050 - - - 5,837
28 039 1 280391 11.3 A - - - 9,900 - - 6,250 10,776

28 040 28040 15.7 A - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 041 1 280411 43.3 K1 6,829 - - - - - - 6,829
28 041 2 280412 32.8 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 041 3 280413 11.8 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 042 1 280421 21.5 A - - - 28,250 - - 11,250 11,250
28 042 2 280422 6.8 A 11,464 - - - - - - 11,464
28 043 28043 2.8 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
28 044 1 280441 26.8 A - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
28 044 2 280442 3.2 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 046 1 280461 30.7 K2 3,381 - - - - - - 3,381
28 046 2 280462 12.2 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 047 28047 9.4 K2 - - - 13,750 - - 6,250 14,945
28 051 28051 12.7 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 052 1 280521 7.5 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 052 2 280522 5.2 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 057 1 280571 10.5 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 057 2 280572 7.3 K2 22,532 - - - - - - 22,532
28 058 28058 6.0 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 060 28060 2.9 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 062 28062 23.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 063 28063 11.4 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 064 28064 19.5 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
28 065 28065 40.3 K1 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
28 066 1 280661 24.0 K2 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
28 066 2 280662 48.1 K2 - - - - - - 500 500
28 067 28067 4.3 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 068 1 280681 16.3 K1 8,211 - - - - - - 8,211
28 068 2 280682 10.5 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 069 1 280691 17.8 K2 4,468 - - - - - - 4,468
28 069 2 280692 28.0 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 070 28070 31.4 K1 8,135 - - - - - - 8,135
28 072 28072 24.6 K1 7,047 - - - - - - 7,047
28 073 1 280731 14.6 K1 12,915 - - - - - - 12,915
28 073 2 280732 5.4 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 074 28074 6.7 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 075 1 280751 25.2 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 075 2 280752 7.9 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 076 28076 16.2 K2 5,499 - - - - - - 5,499
28 077 1 280771 2.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 077 2 280772 9.2 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 078 28078 20.9 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 079 1 280791 14.5 K2 5,081 - - - - - - 5,081
28 079 2 280792 8.1 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 081 1 280811 4.1 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 081 2 280812 14.3 K2 11,961 - - - - - - 11,961
28 084 28084 3.0 K2 - - - - - - 13,750 13,750
28 085 1 280851 52.9 K2 5,600 - - - - - - 5,600
28 085 2 280852 2.0 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 086 28086 10.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 087 1 280871 8.9 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 087 2 280872 3.6 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 088 28088 21.1 K2 8,836 - - - - - - 8,836
28 089 28089 13.2 K1 11,978 - - - - - - 11,978
28 090 1 280901 8.5 K1 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000
28 090 2 280902 7.6 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 091 1 280911 17.1 K1 10,318 - - - - - - 10,318
28 091 2 280912 48.2 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 092 28092 13.4 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 093 28093 19.1 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 094 28094 3.0 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 098 1 280981 37.1 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 098 2 280982 55.9 K1 5,961 - - - - - - 5,961
28 099 28099 7.8 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 100 28100 7.5 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 101 1 281011 13.5 K1 - - - 14,200 11,950 - 6,250 11,935
28 101 2 281012 12.7 K1 11,958 - - - - - - 11,958
28 104 1 281041 17.8 K1 5,341 - - - - - - 5,341
28 104 2 281042 8.0 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 105 28105 3.2 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 106 28106 6.7 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 107 28107 11.2 K1 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 108 28108 6.1 K1 - - - - - - 11,250 11,250
28 109 28109 5.9 K1 - - - - - - 13,750 13,750
28 110 28110 7.5 K2 - - - - - - 8,750 8,750
28 111 1 281111 2.3 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 111 2 281112 9.1 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000

28 112 28112 14.3 K2 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 113 28113 30.4 K3 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 114 28114 34.6 K2 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 125 28125 11.9 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 129 28129 8.5 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 131 1 281311 18.3 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 131 2 281312 31.1 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 132 28132 14.9 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 133 28133 4.6 K1 - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 134 28134 15.4 K1 - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 142 28142 18.9 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 143 1 281431 42.5 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 143 2 281432 11.3 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 144 28144 7.4 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 145 1 281451 17.3 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 145 2 281452 14.0 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 146 1 281461 16.3 A - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 146 2 281462 37.4 A - - - - - - 4,000 4,000
28 158 1 281581 3.5 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 158 2 281582 0.9 A - - - - - - 6,250 6,250
28 160 1 281601 58.4 K1 6,257 - - - - - - 6,257
28 160 2 281602 54.0 K1 - - - - - - 500 500
28 173 28173 25.3 A 5,652 - - - - - - 5,652

Table A2: IRMS Traffic Count Data (AADT Excluding M/C) and JARNS Estimates for Non-Urban Links
Link
Prop Ruas SFFX Link_ID Funct. AADT93 AADT94 AADT95 AADT96 AADT97 AADT98 MOC99(1) MOC99(2) MOC2000 JARNS_Est.
Length
22 001 22001 12.036 A 11,438 12,549 13,459 13,459 12,813 11,214 - - 18,643 -
22 002 22002 18.002 A 13,506 19,707 21,130 21,595 23,076 17,426 23,154 12,282 28,835 17,500
22 003 22003 66.113 A 23,742 14,475 16,192 17,538 35,526 18,915 21,620 13,764 29,517 -
22 004 22004 7.027 A 36,314 38,062 41,562 39,373 47,534 35,701 - - 27,283 27,500
22 005 22005 6.316 A 27,443 51,363 53,386 109,305 65,102 53,961 - - 28,004 35,000
22 006 22006 41.289 A 27,508 43,097 45,432 46,982 28,316 33,675 - 8,757 16,605 -
22 007 22007 19.850 A 18,230 20,350 21,816 21,816 27,433 19,298 18,277 12,524 16,295 17,500
22 008 22008 45.424 A 16,506 22,717 24,354 24,991 30,947 21,035 14,172 13,201 11,828 -
22 009 22009 55.398 A 13,052 14,631 16,376 18,953 21,257 14,831 16,000 - 16,309 -
22 010 22010 10.472 A 9,999 6,194 6,523 14,665 15,859 9,370 - - 19,871 11,250
22 012 22012 28.567 K1 5,265 5,559 5,960 6,640 10,369 5,948 11,773 - 15,845 -
22 013 22013 28.355 A 13,523 19,856 21,444 23,626 18,764 17,109 - - 12,137 -
22 014 22014 25.970 A 26,659 31,151 16,484 35,663 49,166 28,006 - - 29,624 -
22 015 22015 5.176 A 26,664 28,199 30,239 32,434 31,568 26,242 - 20,122 31,867 -
22 016 22016 48.805 K1 26,203 41,319 46,893 47,766 15,568 31,284 23,495 - 20,618 -
22 017 22017 44.351 A 15,260 19,407 22,022 22,022 26,995 18,604 22,882 - - -
22 018 22018 12.443 A 36,951 50,895 54,283 54,283 59,211 44,990 - - 30,958 35,000
22 019 22019 12.178 A 28,374 34,808 37,311 37,311 46,122 32,371 - - 20,891 22,500
22 020 22020 28.216 A 8,820 13,384 14,611 14,611 17,551 12,140 - - 17,284 -
22 021 22021 27.528 A 7,312 8,494 9,645 9,090 11,804 8,157 - - 9,216 -
22 022 22022 4.796 A 7,237 9,985 10,401 10,401 13,456 9,060 - - 13,621 13,750
22 023 22023 33.762 A 7,874 21,425 22,968 25,052 27,254 18,405 11,786 6,089 9,567 11,250
22 024 22024 11.255 A 18,273 17,992 20,429 20,429 27,307 18,380 21,327 15,610 29,314 -
22 025 22025 31.619 A 12,887 10,890 11,678 13,230 14,789 11,171 - 6,848 - 11,250
22 026 1 220261 42.307 K2 7,242 9,573 10,867 19,940 15,937 11,186 - 3,900 10,866 11,250
22 026 2 220262 16.621 K2 7,607 1,582 1,690 1,690 13,494 4,587 - 1,991 3,581 4,000
22 027 1 220271 3.306 K2 - - 4,398 4,398 6,009 4,343 - 3,295 3,852 4,000
22 027 2 220272 18.942 K2 - - 4,398 10,521 6,704 6,343 - 3,295 6,789 4,000
22 028 22028 18.718 K2 4,550 3,461 3,619 6,133 7,284 4,408 - 6,331 8,241 6,250
22 029 22029 22.967 K2 5,936 3,009 7,119 15,793 15,061 8,258 - 7,943 13,419 8,750
Page 1 of 14
Link
Length
22 030 22030 18.878 K2 5,156 5,299 5,985 5,985 5,239 4,869 - 3,629 5,322 -
22 031 1 220311 41.085 K2 1,816 1,317 1,470 1,470 15,111 3,728 - 1,246 2,838 -
22 031 2 220312 57.320 K2 2,983 819 849 15,210 16,234 6,353 - 5,135 17,123 6,250
22 032 22032 61.813 K2 1,658 972 1,011 1,861 3,380 1,563 - 1,106 2,402 2,000
22 034 22034 32.155 K2 1,215 915 957 3,958 1,791 1,555 - 644 1,194 2,000
22 037 1 220371 4.688 K2 3,295 2,897 3,030 3,746 3,638 2,923 - 2,231 7,537 4,000
22 037 2 220372 9.361 K2 1,508 2,139 2,110 3,048 2,203 1,937 - 1,926 3,968 4,000
22 037 3 220373 4.719 K2 1,347 1,513 1,694 2,574 2,061 1,617 - 1,646 2,275 4,000
22 039 22039 33.967 K2 2,723 3,094 3,237 6,055 1,977 3,007 - 2,014 3,752 4,000
22 040 22040 9.375 K2 2,802 3,184 3,596 6,219 1,920 3,119 - 3,351 3,504 4,000
22 042 22042 15.226 A 12,780 13,340 15,143 18,200 11,526 12,494 - - 27,585 -
22 043 22043 33.780 A 19,412 19,636 22,285 23,916 11,685 17,060 - 12,343 24,198 -
22 045 22045 25.796 A 6,776 7,034 7,540 7,540 16,900 8,059 - 8,389 17,572 -
22 049 22049 21.701 A 24,524 32,619 37,020 37,020 42,997 30,656 - 9,983 27,358 -
22 050 22050 20.804 K2 7,775 10,157 10,549 10,549 12,621 9,091 - 11,649 11,036 -
22 054 22054 52.145 K2 3,938 8,048 7,986 7,986 9,234 6,546 - 4,163 5,577 6,250
22 055 22055 12.686 K1 9,647 10,015 10,808 10,808 14,613 9,837 - - 12,852 11,250
22 056 22056 52.577 A 5,968 8,037 8,137 7,314 10,290 6,995 9,735 - 10,060 -
22 057 22057 13.395 A 2,291 1,971 2,054 2,316 2,629 1,982 3,582 - 5,551 4,000
22 058 22058 3.934 K1 12,898 12,232 13,110 13,110 15,406 11,749 - 8,456 9,278 8,750
22 060 22060 12.443 A 8,477 5,402 5,793 13,488 14,427 8,375 14,641 9,412 15,512 -
22 061 22061 24.583 A 6,070 6,499 6,969 7,935 14,066 7,311 - 4,343 - 8,750
22 062 22062 6.071 A 3,742 3,572 3,818 3,945 3,548 3,278 - - 6,779 -
22 064 22064 49.678 K2 3,194 2,691 3,033 3,661 4,676 3,037 2,702 2,734 4,854 4,000
22 065 22065 22.249 K2 2,711 3,449 3,688 4,748 4,084 3,288 5,268 4,768 7,192 4,000
22 066 22066 48.655 K2 2,593 2,916 2,888 3,932 3,519 2,789 - 4,768 3,008 4,000
22 067 22067 25.660 K2 5,571 7,037 7,545 8,258 10,148 6,786 8,450 9,415 12,701 -
22 068 22068 32.660 K2 3,542 4,384 4,578 5,247 5,451 4,084 2,690 3,588 6,121 4,000
22 069 22069 12.976 K2 4,643 2,660 3,018 4,944 7,694 4,041 6,978 6,615 - -
22 071 22071 36.412 K1 16,172 19,443 20,838 22,979 19,361 17,388 - 13,461 24,163 -
Page 2 of 14
Link
Length
22 072 22072 7.366 K1 3,867 4,245 4,542 4,542 5,118 3,927 - 4,780 5,105 4,000
22 073 22073 24.581 K1 4,032 3,302 3,443 8,351 6,955 4,591 - 3,577 6,545 4,000
22 075 22075 45.941 K2 12,449 14,069 15,077 15,077 6,949 11,197 - 4,774 9,543 -
22 076 22076 37.106 K2 3,184 3,395 3,834 4,658 3,968 3,351 - 3,815 6,657 -
22 077 22077 42.303 K2 4,766 4,551 5,155 5,959 5,733 4,605 - 4,812 9,015 6,250
22 078 1 220781 23.176 A 10,738 4,227 4,533 4,406 17,124 7,221 19,557 - 19,048 -
22 078 2 220782 23.926 A 9,652 14,722 16,715 16,715 18,995 13,517 13,587 - 14,444 -
22 079 22079 6.482 A 14,204 19,729 21,543 21,543 20,833 17,222 31,595 21,227 21,792 22,500
22 080 22080 12.867 A 14,493 19,164 20,547 20,547 34,387 19,208 26,567 14,725 21,926 -
22 091 22091 12.509 K2 27,001 35,527 39,937 75,722 29,321 36,521 - 9,847 16,748 -
22 092 22092 27.859 K2 18,560 16,573 18,817 19,276 27,022 17,644 - 9,707 18,554 -
22 095 1 220951 77.377 K2 - - - 34,087 5,376 17,364 - 2,532 4,614 8,750
22 095 2 220952 9.412 K2 - - 1,347 2,642 28,169 9,433 - 9,420 32,038 -
22 096 22096 15.452 K3 16,277 21,550 23,085 25,238 26,715 19,864 - 10,303 12,369 13,750
22 101 22101 34.981 K2 15,282 46,818 50,191 51,062 30,510 34,120 - 12,565 44,387 -
22 118 22118 48.709 K2 - 2,456 2,640 2,640 2,918 2,344 - 2,416 2,601 -
22 119 22119 44.742 K2 - - - - 1,602 1,410 - 140 467 500
24 001 24001 9.336 A 10,567 11,958 13,068 16,133 15,608 11,851 - 6,326 17,009 -
24 002 24002 17.781 A 11,755 13,755 15,419 13,012 16,242 12,352 - 9,821 18,869 -
24 003 24003 8.785 A 12,245 13,872 15,675 16,659 19,146 13,657 - - 16,361 17,500
24 004 1 240041 4.186 A - - - 7,843 8,640 7,253 - - 24,757 -
24 004 2 240042 22.912 A - - - 13,503 8,770 9,800 - - 21,175 17,500
24 005 24005 31.650 A 20,193 11,775 12,937 12,629 13,576 12,515 - - 9,623 17,250
24 006 24006 5.013 A 14,137 14,138 16,964 14,455 13,956 12,962 - 8,084 13,696 -
24 007 1 240071 42.495 A - - - 11,534 13,017 10,802 11,474 - 14,931 -
24 007 2 240072 2.615 A - - - 11,384 13,023 10,739 - 8,168 23,494 17,500
24 008 24008 17.037 A 11,374 13,594 16,029 15,711 15,622 12,730 - - 13,074 17,500
24 009 24009 11.483 A 15,215 13,363 17,233 15,880 16,389 13,742 - - 23,008 -
24 010 24010 16.901 A 37,146 25,842 29,603 26,820 25,753 25,549 50,628 22,875 29,825 -
24 011 1 240111 17.071 A - - - - 14,579 12,830 - - 18,801 -
Page 3 of 14
Link
Length
24 011 2 240112 9.350 A - - - - 8,793 7,738 - - 13,836 -

24 012 24012 9.585 A 9,681 18,617 19,805 15,782 12,949 13,523 - - 20,133 13,750
24 013 24013 4.754 A 8,707 8,973 9,822 9,159 10,799 8,353 - 8,330 14,877 8,750
24 014 24014 5.062 A 11,872 12,904 17,149 19,079 17,122 13,750 - 20,503 27,038 22,500
24 015 1 240151 10.587 A - - - 12,992 18,936 14,048 - 13,496 28,897 -
24 015 2 240152 14.361 A - - - 16,502 12,776 12,882 - 11,927 19,834 -
24 016 24016 8.396 A 14,042 14,556 17,338 18,564 16,710 14,293 - 15,882 21,478 17,500
24 017 24017 18.232 A 11,706 11,925 15,165 12,752 14,921 11,699 - 10,253 16,657 -
24 018 24018 15.543 A 12,234 10,547 6,782 15,614 15,946 10,758 - - 20,307 17,500
24 019 24019 22.617 A 22,782 14,365 16,950 20,477 16,326 15,998 - - 30,761 -
24 020 24020 15.410 A 11,564 11,900 13,358 14,984 15,324 11,815 - - 24,403 -
24 021 24021 5.519 A 30,458 17,464 19,389 19,256 20,185 18,788 - 13,868 37,318 22,500
24 022 24022 1.412 A 55,343 25,438 27,424 26,764 30,420 29,108 - 17,227 26,684 -
24 023 24023 24.410 A 10,295 12,386 13,071 14,820 14,586 11,468 - 10,916 17,483 13,750
24 024 24024 16.118 A 6,612 6,615 7,250 8,003 7,895 6,402 - - 10,693 8,750
24 025 24025 7.890 K2 3,967 2,402 1,488 3,488 3,631 2,636 - 3,382 7,537 6,250
24 027 24027 10.802 K1 7,339 8,054 8,557 7,196 7,236 6,755 - 7,952 12,685 -
24 028 24028 28.143 K2 3,235 1,654 2,076 2,541 2,921 2,187 4,207 1,579 5,208 -
24 029 24029 28.028 K1 3,395 3,451 3,586 4,676 4,734 3,492 - 4,067 6,749 -
24 030 1 240301 30.374 K2 3,332 2,726 - 1,649 2,899 2,333 - 2,680 6,507 -
24 030 2 240302 11.034 K2 3,548 2,710 - 1,533 3,117 2,400 - 1,992 - 4,000
24 031 1 240311 34.814 K1 6,645 3,769 - 4,536 4,258 4,226 7,718 - 5,452 -
24 031 2 240312 10.177 K1 6,694 3,769 - 4,178 4,576 4,228 - - 6,506 -
24 032 24032 12.821 K1 3,513 2,743 2,904 3,581 3,655 2,886 - - 8,305 4,000
24 033 1 240331 21.320 A - 4,585 - 1,667 3,222 2,779 - 3,155 5,581 -
24 033 2 240332 50.593 A - 3,138 - 2,920 4,174 3,001 - - 6,624 4,000
24 034 24034 16.945 K2 7,060 7,428 7,091 9,029 9,126 6,993 - 6,697 10,402 8,750
24 035 24035 11.496 K1 3,946 3,624 3,673 4,882 4,938 3,707 - 5,164 8,967 6,250
24 036 1 240361 4.990 A - - - 3,341 3,464 2,994 - 2,833 4,150 -
24 036 2 240362 19.004 A - - - 2,668 3,371 2,657 - - 5,747 6,250
Page 4 of 14
Link
Length
24 037 24037 4.996 A 6,678 7,977 8,283 8,796 10,322 7,402 - - 18,797 11,250
24 038 24038 9.795 A 6,511 5,313 5,470 5,249 6,658 5,139 - - 12,777 11,250
24 039 3 240393 2.885 A 1,711 2,383 - 1,454 1,406 1,530 - - 12,293 6,250
24 041 24041 2.467 K1 6,084 5,367 6,227 5,791 6,427 5,262 - - 9,860 8,750
24 042 1 240421 4.108 A - - - - 5,169 4,549 - - 5,307 8,750
24 042 2 240422 8.674 A - - - - 4,583 4,033 - 4,122 9,207 -
24 043 24043 9.054 A 4,786 4,221 4,680 4,686 5,184 4,146 - - - 6,250
24 044 24044 7.534 A 5,215 7,924 8,198 6,366 7,122 6,129 - - 8,900 8,750
24 045 24045 9.395 K2 9,667 9,360 9,942 11,278 12,403 9,266 - 5,969 9,626 -
24 047 24047 5.779 K2 5,772 3,051 2,269 9,964 6,682 4,882 - 6,401 9,883 6,250
24 048 24048 2.678 K2 6,063 4,329 4,799 6,067 6,308 4,852 - 5,951 12,167 6,250
24 049 24049 8.495 K1 4,896 3,552 3,911 5,009 5,452 4,016 - 4,728 6,893 6,250
24 050 1 240501 28.571 A - - - 8,132 7,418 6,842 - - 8,480 6,250
24 050 2 240502 19.413 A - - - 6,657 7,586 6,267 - - 12,159 -
24 051 1 240511 8.219 K1 - - - 1,727 2,449 1,837 - - 3,069 -
24 051 2 240512 9.912 K1 - - - 1,715 2,566 1,884 - - 4,169 4,000
24 052 1 240521 4.989 K2 - - - 7,123 8,162 6,725 8,086 6,557 11,765 8,750
24 052 2 240522 5.675 K2 - - - 7,128 8,118 6,708 - 7,223 9,913 8,750
24 053 24053 9.840 K2 6,158 4,321 4,012 5,326 6,763 4,678 5,666 5,536 10,031 8,750
24 054 24054 14.824 K2 3,567 3,312 1,822 3,987 4,379 3,004 - 2,780 6,748 4,000
24 055 24055 30.978 K1 5,174 4,183 4,408 4,585 5,714 4,235 - 4,830 11,264 -
24 056 1 240561 16.610 K1 - - - 4,066 5,372 4,153 - 4,597 7,045 6,250
24 056 2 240562 0.823 K1 - - - 4,175 4,938 4,010 - 5,740 16,992 6,250
24 057 24057 16.796 A 6,091 6,021 7,604 3,678 8,207 5,562 8,193 - 10,860 -
24 058 1 240581 16.518 K2 362 187 - 466 930 428 - 619 1,332 2,000
24 058 2 240582 37.675 K2 361 187 - 483 957 437 - 703 1,447 2,000
24 059 24059 11.631 K1 7,479 5,323 5,667 5,662 5,333 5,186 - - 8,567 -
24 060 24060 12.636 A 6,214 7,861 8,368 7,160 7,983 6,615 8,980 6,815 13,980 8,750
24 061 24061 8.179 K1 5,006 4,971 3,398 7,489 8,384 5,148 - 8,151 9,825 8,750
24 063 24063 11.647 A 8,527 9,014 9,055 9,540 4,395 7,133 10,858 7,916 13,397 8,750
Page 5 of 14
Link
Length
24 064 1 240641 10.496 K2 1,077 825 - 1,035 1,887 1,061 - 1,157 2,030 2,000
24 064 2 240642 8.558 K2 1,078 811 - 1,145 863 857 - 1,228 1,214 2,000
24 065 24065 18.878 K2 2,911 1,516 1,944 2,344 2,347 1,947 - 1,856 5,286 2,000
24 066 1 240661 11.450 K1 3,150 8,244 - 3,528 6,782 4,775 - - 12,156 6,250
24 066 2 240662 9.547 K1 3,168 4,311 - 3,712 4,470 3,445 - - 6,705 -
24 067 24067 1.114 K1 4,030 7,823 8,808 9,628 10,471 7,174 - - 17,251 6,250
24 068 1 240681 24.824 K2 2,970 2,522 - 4,542 2,794 2,822 - 1,744 4,568 4,000
24 068 2 240682 23.607 K2 2,969 3,577 - 4,971 5,686 3,785 - 2,986 6,506 4,000
24 069 24069 4.844 K1 3,932 4,829 5,401 6,134 6,113 4,648 - 4,774 6,617 6,250
24 071 24071 5.957 K1 5,152 5,429 5,767 6,507 7,442 5,332 - 5,209 10,345 6,250
24 072 24072 5.778 K1 11,415 8,406 9,462 9,637 10,376 8,676 - 6,275 7,615 8,750
24 074 24074 6.735 K1 8,437 5,547 5,890 9,537 8,607 6,691 - 7,654 8,886 -
24 075 24075 12.586 K2 8,108 6,181 6,557 9,932 8,588 6,928 - 6,183 10,360 8,750
24 076 1 240761 24.706 K2 3,578 2,577 - 4,523 5,581 3,577 - 2,387 3,909 4,000
24 076 2 240762 12.706 K2 3,387 2,579 - 4,104 3,908 3,075 - 2,077 3,485 4,000
24 077 24077 17.748 K2 2,613 2,636 3,805 4,432 2,876 2,880 - 2,954 5,994 -
24 078 1 240781 8.128 K2 3,554 2,669 - 3,727 5,076 3,306 - 3,963 6,771 6,250
24 078 2 240782 11.906 K2 3,522 2,669 - 4,160 5,472 3,481 - 4,336 6,825 6,250
24 079 24079 7.990 K2 4,969 4,960 5,547 6,481 8,045 5,280 - 3,613 5,107 6,250
24 080 24080 19.858 A 5,681 4,715 5,668 6,646 9,074 5,594 - - 9,999 6,250
24 081 24081 18.338 A 13,404 14,299 16,551 17,967 19,066 14,307 - 9,911 27,231 -
24 082 24082 33.858 K2 - 4,061 4,321 - 4,527 3,787 7,090 4,127 8,172 -
24 084 24084 6.264 A 12,036 13,326 13,812 19,520 15,148 12,996 - 13,457 17,997 17,500
24 085 1 240851 11.496 K2 - - - 4,143 4,703 3,892 - 1,294 5,443 6,250
24 085 2 240852 6.994 K2 - - - 4,313 5,536 4,334 - 3,711 6,013 6,250
24 086 1 240861 13.321 A - - - 18,666 9,776 12,514 - - 15,095 -
24 086 2 240862 2.685 A - - - 13,038 9,080 9,732 - - 9,826 -
24 087 24087 16.130 K2 4,883 5,560 5,283 7,006 6,878 5,211 - 7,295 14,452 11,250
24 088 24088 2.459 A 6,562 13,238 14,907 16,935 19,324 12,490 - - 7,773 11,250
24 089 24089 18.580 K2 5,907 7,318 7,530 11,851 8,469 7,229 - 9,444 13,119 11,250
Page 6 of 14
Link
Length
24 090 1 240901 37.537 K2 3,974 - - 1,808 1,809 2,227 - 3,874 5,826 6,250
24 090 2 240902 19.114 K2 3,980 - - 1,539 1,805 2,148 - 1,120 3,501 4,000
24 091 1 240911 14.824 A - - - 10,958 10,419 9,406 - 9,818 16,188 11,250
24 091 2 240912 9.586 A - - - 9,046 8,253 7,612 - 6,204 11,100 8,750
24 092 24092 26.593 K2 4,079 3,795 4,237 3,366 5,352 3,666 - 3,485 6,762 6,250
24 093 24093 34.845 A 5,711 6,701 7,131 11,228 8,894 6,981 - - 12,386 11,250
24 094 24094 49.050 A 3,555 4,220 4,595 3,502 4,412 3,570 - - 4,146 -
24 095 1 240951 25.709 K2 2,688 - - 2,345 2,255 2,138 - 2,178 5,153 4,000
24 095 2 240952 10.435 K2 2,042 - - 2,741 2,877 2,247 - 1,652 3,778 4,000
24 096 24096 32.875 K2 3,433 2,407 2,671 4,135 4,863 3,082 3,608 2,756 - 4,000
24 097 24097 0.826 K2 6,579 2,803 3,617 4,368 5,927 4,100 - 2,407 2,402 4,000
24 098 1 240981 24.174 K2 1,700 - - 1,505 2,396 1,643 - 597 1,973 2,000
24 098 2 240982 44.192 K2 1,703 - - 1,640 2,571 1,735 - 348 1,165 2,000
24 099 1 240991 15.891 K2 3,342 - - 2,238 5,330 3,200 2,458 1,838 4,198 4,000
24 099 2 240992 27.298 K2 3,253 - - 2,057 3,266 2,516 2,449 2,122 3,722 4,000
24 100 24100 21.361 K2 4,345 2,502 3,200 4,220 4,470 3,298 2,329 2,876 4,975 4,000
24 101 1 241011 29.297 K2 1,929 - - 1,272 1,938 1,507 - 1,231 1,737 2,000
24 101 2 241012 13.422 K2 1,932 - - 1,205 1,394 1,329 - 2,071 2,490 2,000
24 102 24102 17.983 K2 3,474 3,827 4,067 4,002 6,436 3,838 3,595 3,466 5,749 -
24 103 1 241031 34.564 K2 4,830 - - 5,898 7,124 5,237 - 3,761 8,543 8,750
24 103 2 241032 24.348 K2 5,017 - - 4,398 5,542 4,387 - 3,057 4,439 -
24 104 24104 9.458 K2 7,027 8,923 9,985 11,669 13,245 8,949 - 8,307 16,585 8,750
24 105 24105 34.854 K2 2,231 2,760 2,922 3,954 5,484 3,054 - 1,711 4,493 -
24 106 24106 10.213 K2 8,626 10,734 11,921 14,736 14,890 10,720 - 11,178 19,121 -
24 107 1 241071 9.304 K2 - - - 7,656 7,920 6,853 - 5,303 13,155 -
24 107 2 241072 9.553 K2 - - - 8,644 8,424 7,510 - 6,703 15,998 -
24 108 24108 51.254 K2 6,485 2,006 3,361 4,051 3,005 3,328 - 3,800 7,895 6,250
24 109 1 241091 36.944 K2 - - - 3,044 4,340 3,249 - 2,419 5,433 4,000
24 109 2 241092 6.551 K1 - - - 2,705 3,157 2,579 - - 3,122 2,000
24 112 1 241121 30.426 K2 3,197 - - 2,259 2,662 2,381 - 1,774 2,298 2,000
Page 7 of 14
Link
Length
24 112 2 241122 9.176 K2 3,198 - - 1,343 976 1,618 - 2,093 3,413 2,000
24 113 1 241131 13.302 K2 2,622 - - 1,799 3,321 2,271 3,783 2,250 3,434 2,000
24 113 2 241132 15.485 K2 2,375 - - 1,764 3,282 2,177 - 2,408 2,884 2,000
24 117 24117 33.659 K2 1,854 1,861 2,051 2,296 2,418 1,844 - 1,639 6,044 4,000
24 118 24118 44.581 K2 3,896 1,392 1,372 1,710 2,085 1,840 - 1,706 1,348 -
24 120 24120 52.377 K2 984 780 695 953 1,757 910 - 1,154 683 -
24 124 24124 19.789 K2 1,306 447 547 769 1,076 730 - 700 1,478 500
24 127 24127 27.036 K1 944 1,041 1,072 1,195 1,991 1,099 - - 2,339 2,000
24 130 24130 29.192 K2 3,243 1,564 2,430 2,927 1,302 2,018 - 1,055 2,328 2,000
24 132 1 241321 10.209 K2 - - - 1,105 2,098 1,409 - 699 1,483 -
24 132 2 241322 7.449 K2 - - - 1,099 1,646 1,208 - 792 2,393 2,000
24 133 24133 14.013 A 3,431 2,838 2,840 3,590 2,982 2,760 - 2,465 5,525 4,000
24 135 24135 38.210 K2 - 464 509 576 859 530 - 1,377 - 500
24 137 1 241371 23.877 K2 - - - 2,275 2,636 2,161 - 1,859 2,066 2,000
24 137 2 241372 17.654 K2 - - - 2,254 2,246 1,980 - 733 2,299 2,000
24 146 24146 22.788 K2 - 1,762 1,872 2,443 2,213 1,824 - 1,623 3,283 2,000
24 148 1 241481 21.619 K2 - - - 1,724 1,414 1,381 - 578 1,266 2,000
24 148 2 241482 20.942 K2 - - - 1,667 1,439 1,367 - 976 2,960 2,000
24 151 24151 31.107 K2 - 494 541 711 722 543 - - 2,157 -
24 152 24152 30.698 K2 - 1,067 1,125 1,535 1,465 1,142 - 243 321 500
24 153 24153 31.498 K2 - 806 839 1,169 1,079 856 - 990 710 500
24 154 1 241541 7.213 K2 - - - 935 878 798 - 879 703 500
24 154 2 241542 11.381 K2 - - - 847 909 773 - 798 - 500
24 155 24155 33.223 K2 - 718 753 1,078 1,188 822 - 1,026 - 500
24 156 24156 15.660 K2 - 752 837 1,234 1,192 883 - 3,212 2,874 -
24 157 24157 2.182 K2 - - - - - - - - - 500
24 158 24158 7.176 K2 - 852 897 1,217 1,195 915 - 946 913 500
24 159 24159 19.377 K2 - 2,104 2,075 3,204 2,716 2,222 - 1,941 4,541 2,000
26 001 26001 7.170 A 20,775 10,532 12,973 17,365 13,691 13,259 - - 25,418 17,500
26 002 26002 7.873 A 37,759 21,510 21,319 16,907 19,475 20,587 - - 23,605 22,500
Page 8 of 14
Link
Length
26 003 26003 12.144 A 44,602 12,698 16,927 20,804 11,860 18,813 - - 26,204 22,500
26 004 1 260041 13.642 A 14,472 6,682 12,854 13,136 15,010 10,939 9,274 - 19,122 13,750
26 004 2 260042 1.011 A 11,506 6,682 3,548 13,417 6,366 7,307 - - 7,825 13,750
26 005 26005 7.814 A 13,711 5,352 7,415 7,367 9,064 7,552 - - 14,849 8,750
26 006 26006 4.877 A 8,142 4,801 8,124 5,415 6,303 5,770 - - 8,666 8,750
26 007 26007 9.840 A 3,209 8,418 7,248 9,134 8,095 6,354 - - 9,430 -
26 009 26009 11.359 K2 12,445 6,942 6,629 6,788 6,903 6,988 - - 9,302 8,750
26 010 26010 8.811 K2 3,296 2,075 2,619 3,400 3,436 2,609 - - 7,690 4,000
26 011 26011 15.230 K2 2,881 2,789 2,398 2,875 3,162 2,482 - - 1,951 2,000
26 015 26015 8.882 K1 11,481 7,008 3,281 9,733 3,444 6,151 - - 10,740 6,250
26 017 1 260171 3.669 K1 6,789 6,114 3,550 5,984 5,742 4,960 - 5,834 4,980 26,573
26 017 2 260172 13.756 K1 6,936 6,114 6,620 6,668 5,207 5,552 - 4,956 9,192 26,573
26 018 26018 5.216 K1 4,203 1,793 1,865 2,947 3,190 2,464 - - 9,163 4,000
26 019 26019 2.835 K1 4,341 4,778 2,112 3,687 4,979 3,502 - - 2,916 4,000
26 023 26023 22.994 K2 1,021 1,054 3,444 2,340 2,448 1,814 - - 3,920 2,000
26 025 26025 5.785 K2 2,167 2,763 3,794 3,406 3,791 2,802 - - 417 2,000
26 026 26026 4.000 A 8,647 5,198 6,090 5,887 6,044 5,608 - - 5,762 6,250
26 030 26030 29.819 K1 2,604 2,229 2,390 2,293 2,743 2,158 - - 2,047 2,000
28 001 28001 35.074 A 5,992 5,942 3,189 5,907 7,222 4,972 - - 12,210 8,750
28 002 1 280021 6.980 K1 7,380 7,607 7,523 7,523 6,937 6,507 - 6,788 9,513 8,750
28 002 2 280022 13.847 K1 7,380 6,933 6,881 6,881 6,887 6,153 - 5,353 11,202 8,750
28 003 28003 8.608 K1 7,273 7,051 8,590 10,006 9,129 7,401 - 7,022 13,302 11,250
28 004 28004 17.030 K1 5,948 4,799 1,305 1,305 1,306 2,581 - - 9,820 4,000
28 005 1 280051 9.878 A 3,895 3,471 3,660 3,660 4,023 3,293 - - 6,864 -
28 005 2 280052 23.388 A 3,895 3,591 3,492 3,660 3,540 3,199 - - 7,908 6,250
28 006 1 280061 12.176 A 7,169 7,918 7,412 3,370 7,511 5,875 - - 12,951 8,750
28 006 2 280062 16.526 A 7,177 7,029 7,307 7,307 7,438 6,381 - - 14,538 -
28 007 28007 23.781 A 6,537 7,206 7,132 8,928 4,201 5,985 10,091 8,322 12,416 8,750
28 008 1 280081 16.693 A 10,320 10,675 11,642 12,311 6,058 8,977 - - - 11,250
28 008 2 280082 0.269 A 10,326 10,667 11,684 12,309 11,747 9,985 - - 15,019 11,250
Page 9 of 14
Link
Length
28 009 1 280091 5.270 A 12,388 13,034 14,464 14,464 15,869 12,359 20,357 - 24,179 17,500
28 009 2 280092 15.766 A 12,380 13,884 12,977 12,977 15,927 11,994 16,560 - 19,295 -
28 010 28010 2.337 A 15,525 15,925 20,954 20,954 26,141 17,512 - - 22,187 17,500
28 011 28011 3.234 A 5,320 6,121 5,834 3,411 5,729 4,649 - 13,940 10,623 6,250
28 012 28012 15.219 A 14,433 15,586 16,553 17,881 19,582 14,790 - 24,012 23,076 -
28 013 28013 15.601 A 17,035 29,075 21,149 24,820 10,507 18,055 - 28,181 29,848 22,500
28 014 28014 2.978 A 22,042 26,115 27,318 14,498 36,032 22,177 - - 36,912 22,500
28 015 28015 0.842 A 51,890 53,828 49,562 81,093 86,074 - - - 63,995 35,000
28 016 28016 11.706 A 29,814 34,876 29,776 29,776 37,660 28,495 - - 36,847 -
28 017 28017 9.998 A 19,124 23,778 22,883 15,621 27,565 19,179 - - 26,849 22,500
28 018 28018 22.455 A 17,963 14,007 18,678 12,578 16,438 14,021 - - 13,303 -
28 019 1 280191 17.981 A 16,237 13,389 6,385 6,385 8,121 8,891 - 19,021 18,061 17,500
28 019 2 280192 11.610 A 15,630 14,026 16,259 16,259 8,195 12,385 - 20,969 16,012 -
28 020 28020 0.530 A 12,499 10,660 9,968 11,087 12,061 9,904 - 25,884 13,824 17,500
28 021 1 280211 43.086 A 5,712 6,483 6,279 6,279 6,999 5,588 - - 8,900 -
28 021 2 280212 16.225 A 2,690 3,689 3,148 3,148 9,204 3,851 - - 7,706 6,250
28 022 28022 28.074 A 2,882 2,920 3,071 3,071 10,304 3,916 - - 6,710 6,250
28 023 28023 6.523 A 4,602 4,909 5,159 5,159 3,099 4,035 - - 7,130 6,250
28 024 1 280241 59.047 A 3,937 3,069 2,998 3,357 3,855 3,030 - - 5,181 6,250
28 024 2 280242 22.833 A 3,464 3,288 3,400 3,371 3,803 3,049 - - 6,959 6,250
28 025 28025 11.539 A 3,631 3,806 4,112 4,183 4,481 3,557 - 8,124 10,985 8,750
28 026 28026 12.179 A 19,028 18,281 18,505 18,505 22,533 17,046 27,775 34,843 33,895 -
28 027 28027 15.203 A 14,580 12,167 15,304 15,304 11,626 12,141 22,939 28,886 36,859 35,000
28 028 28028 3.682 A 19,931 24,366 21,531 21,531 14,357 17,902 28,075 51,160 33,050 27,500
28 029 1 280291 3.396 A 27,417 23,816 28,523 28,523 15,686 21,818 29,669 - 36,915 35,000
28 029 2 280292 12.659 A 27,417 25,367 28,517 27,955 36,530 25,658 36,520 - 45,339 35,000
28 030 28030 1.624 A 20,162 22,224 14,800 14,800 36,464 19,087 - - 30,072 -
28 031 28031 47.604 A 4,902 4,076 3,797 5,376 3,794 3,862 - - 7,185 -
28 033 28033 2.147 K2 3,102 3,061 3,571 3,571 3,425 2,944 - 5,953 3,970 4,000
28 036 28036 30.927 K2 2,404 3,571 2,899 2,899 6,991 3,302 - 4,160 4,949 4,000
Page 10 of 14
Link
Length
28 037 1 280371 29.905 K2 1,571 1,776 1,827 2,451 2,462 1,775 - 2,122 3,860 4,000
28 037 2 280372 7.653 K2 1,698 1,861 1,978 1,978 1,978 1,671 - 2,212 4,116 4,000
28 038 28038 36.332 K2 3,923 4,744 4,239 4,239 3,545 3,641 - 2,331 11,723 -
28 039 1 280391 11.251 A - 4,298 5,872 5,872 129 3,558 - - 12,558 6,250
28 040 28040 15.654 A 9,107 7,857 9,478 8,075 9,496 7,746 - - 15,205 8,750
28 041 1 280411 43.312 K1 12,531 8,722 6,549 3,295 4,159 6,205 - - 7,886 -
28 041 2 280412 32.820 K1 1,498 3,239 2,597 3,295 3,489 2,485 - - 5,023 4,000
28 041 3 280413 11.802 K1 4,920 3,280 5,109 5,109 4,421 4,020 - - 6,053 6,250
28 042 1 280421 21.488 A 12,081 11,297 11,604 14,699 7,625 10,086 - - 16,121 11,250
28 042 2 280422 6.821 A 12,144 11,507 11,536 11,536 16,423 11,114 - - 15,702 -
28 043 28043 2.788 A 17,492 18,500 17,839 17,839 16,047 15,438 - - 11,373 11,250
28 044 1 280441 26.804 A 8,938 9,789 11,032 12,455 14,660 10,010 - - 15,722 11,250
28 044 2 280442 3.247 K1 4,234 4,495 4,034 4,452 4,423 3,808 - - 7,441 6,250
28 046 1 280461 30.662 K2 4,569 4,567 2,913 2,926 3,223 3,203 3,694 2,706 6,348 -
28 046 2 280462 12.180 K2 4,580 3,622 2,596 2,920 3,392 3,011 3,745 4,127 9,490 4,000
28 047 28047 9.356 K2 8,110 7,441 9,307 9,307 11,049 7,958 4,334 4,287 6,011 6,250
28 051 28051 12.741 K2 7,455 7,889 9,238 8,614 8,928 7,414 - 6,365 11,515 8,750
28 052 1 280521 7.452 K2 7,676 8,000 8,946 5,361 11,916 7,374 - 6,272 7,036 8,750
28 052 2 280522 5.200 K2 7,747 6,540 9,542 5,570 11,221 7,149 - 6,149 9,613 8,750
28 057 1 280571 10.457 K2 3,871 4,143 4,142 4,142 29,638 8,085 - 1,854 - 4,000
28 057 2 280572 7.324 K2 3,403 3,778 3,677 3,677 29,015 7,665 - 1,317 2,461 -
28 058 28058 5.988 K2 9,809 10,971 10,495 10,495 10,071 9,124 - 5,004 13,473 8,750
28 060 28060 2.923 K2 7,110 9,176 11,350 11,350 11,733 8,927 - - 5,917 6,250
28 062 28062 23.936 K2 1,858 2,541 2,520 2,520 3,037 2,196 - 1,546 4,332 4,000
28 063 28063 11.383 K2 4,518 4,180 5,066 5,066 2,230 3,707 - 4,058 8,544 4,000
28 064 28064 19.469 K2 1,620 1,583 1,599 1,429 1,634 1,384 - 2,064 6,267 2,000
28 065 28065 40.263 K1 1,227 1,204 1,075 1,075 1,157 1,010 - - 1,333 2,000
28 066 1 280661 24.017 K2 1,646 1,118 1,045 1,650 1,053 1,146 - 737 2,619 2,000
28 066 2 280662 48.090 K2 682 765 820 820 893 700 - 316 754 500
28 067 28067 4.307 K2 3,701 3,611 3,706 4,032 3,795 3,317 - 4,351 8,356 4,000
Page 11 of 14
Link
Length
28 068 1 280681 16.302 K1 4,763 3,403 3,171 3,171 3,433 3,158 - - 12,776 -
28 068 2 280682 10.459 K1 4,756 3,692 3,348 3,348 5,125 3,567 - - - 4,000
28 069 1 280691 17.760 K2 1,724 1,629 1,859 1,859 1,866 1,573 - 1,743 3,335 -
28 069 2 280692 28.030 K2 1,724 1,926 2,081 2,081 2,081 1,741 - 1,995 3,245 4,000
28 070 28070 31.424 K1 6,636 6,567 7,316 7,316 3,864 5,579 - - 9,993 -
28 072 28072 24.570 K1 3,934 5,363 5,266 6,115 6,374 4,761 5,963 - 9,017 -
28 073 1 280731 14.627 K1 6,042 7,053 5,969 5,969 6,998 5,637 6,339 - 12,441 -
28 073 2 280732 5.439 K1 6,025 5,759 2,721 2,754 7,534 4,364 5,788 - 12,939 6,250
28 074 28074 6.700 K1 6,865 7,364 7,856 4,357 9,401 6,308 7,607 - 10,765 6,250
28 075 1 280751 25.203 K1 - - - 2,817 4,292 3,128 5,479 - 7,054 4,000
28 075 2 280752 7.856 K1 3,162 3,224 3,381 3,381 3,646 2,956 4,656 - 7,921 4,000
28 076 28076 16.249 K2 5,302 4,917 6,019 6,178 6,674 5,120 5,735 6,660 8,080 -
28 077 1 280771 2.876 K2 2,848 3,165 3,013 3,013 3,618 2,756 - 4,491 3,220 4,000
28 077 2 280772 9.223 K2 2,848 2,963 3,011 3,011 3,550 2,707 - 4,965 6,655 4,000
28 078 28078 20.931 K2 5,413 5,343 4,994 4,224 2,849 4,017 5,521 5,779 8,788 6,250
28 079 1 280791 14.483 K2 4,443 5,386 3,584 3,786 3,872 3,708 - 4,509 6,931 -
28 079 2 280792 8.134 K2 4,467 5,014 5,443 5,443 8,331 5,051 - 4,321 4,932 6,250
28 081 1 280811 4.085 K2 8,739 9,687 10,626 8,409 12,051 8,714 - 7,844 12,041 8,750
28 081 2 280812 14.337 K2 7,986 10,256 8,622 10,922 12,395 8,832 - 6,287 11,245 -
28 084 28084 2.957 K2 13,570 13,282 14,228 14,228 17,473 12,809 - 17,550 21,676 13,750
28 085 1 280851 52.930 K2 5,712 5,281 5,944 5,944 6,319 5,139 - 3,697 10,615 -
28 085 2 280852 2.029 K2 5,474 5,198 5,700 5,700 5,700 4,888 - 2,925 8,007 6,250
28 086 28086 10.948 K2 3,029 3,263 3,383 3,464 3,450 2,920 3,907 3,934 2,926 4,000
28 087 1 280871 8.891 K2 2,173 2,292 2,404 2,593 2,170 2,047 2,656 2,699 5,185 4,000
28 087 2 280872 3.574 K2 2,163 2,268 2,327 2,599 2,787 2,137 2,964 4,983 5,903 4,000
28 088 28088 21.053 K2 7,044 7,056 7,059 7,059 9,113 6,570 - 10,004 - -
28 089 28089 13.230 K1 7,672 8,662 8,188 8,188 10,896 7,675 - - 21,934 -
28 090 1 280901 8.507 K1 3,344 2,476 2,166 2,166 2,550 2,236 - - 3,534 2,000
28 090 2 280902 7.612 K1 3,344 2,716 3,481 3,481 2,575 2,745 - - 4,630 4,000
28 091 1 280911 17.120 K1 7,739 7,622 8,247 8,247 6,599 6,768 - - 11,569 -
Page 12 of 14
Link
Length
28 091 2 280912 48.198 K1 5,602 6,334 7,503 7,503 8,859 6,301 - - 9,528 8,750
28 092 28092 13.375 K2 6,084 5,616 6,313 4,553 6,265 5,074 - 5,729 8,742 6,250
28 093 28093 19.058 K2 5,032 5,507 5,419 5,419 6,990 4,993 - 7,159 9,864 6,250
28 094 28094 3.006 K2 6,269 6,517 7,157 4,272 8,441 5,747 - 7,697 16,651 8,750
28 098 1 280981 37.082 K1 1,419 1,565 1,533 1,533 1,975 1,412 - - 5,559 4,000
28 098 2 280982 55.866 K1 1,554 1,853 1,684 2,247 2,416 1,717 - - 1,669 -
28 099 28099 7.786 K1 3,815 5,218 4,127 5,669 6,344 4,430 - - 10,325 6,250
28 100 28100 7.485 K1 5,455 5,310 5,680 5,680 5,909 4,934 - - 11,514 6,250
28 101 1 281011 13.471 K1 6,582 5,523 3,822 2,385 8,903 4,790 - 6,033 9,357 6,250
28 101 2 281012 12.714 K1 6,448 7,076 8,177 8,177 8,177 6,698 - 6,548 11,225 -
28 104 1 281041 17.767 K1 4,121 3,844 4,177 4,177 4,146 3,602 - - 7,514 -
28 104 2 281042 8.023 K1 4,152 3,278 4,318 4,318 4,076 3,545 - - 7,911 6,250
28 105 28105 3.164 K1 4,897 4,834 5,046 5,046 5,725 4,496 - - 7,326 6,250
28 106 28106 6.701 K1 6,310 5,949 6,429 6,354 7,139 5,664 - - 11,102 8,750
28 107 28107 11.206 K1 4,482 5,467 7,354 7,354 9,454 6,004 - - 10,550 8,750
28 108 28108 6.062 K1 7,768 8,617 8,981 5,145 9,800 7,095 - 13,161 19,854 11,250
28 109 28109 5.894 K1 12,264 13,957 13,247 17,290 9,532 11,667 - 17,111 19,372 13,750
28 110 28110 7.510 K2 7,152 6,468 7,235 7,235 7,278 6,225 - 7,054 12,757 8,750
28 111 1 281111 2.275 K2 3,789 3,381 3,775 3,775 3,491 3,205 - 3,121 5,360 4,000
28 111 2 281112 9.118 K2 3,789 3,364 3,928 3,928 3,700 3,293 - 2,926 6,279 4,000
28 112 28112 14.330 K2 5,427 5,269 5,646 5,646 2,143 4,247 - 3,083 8,958 6,250
28 113 28113 30.442 K3 1,205 1,292 1,278 1,278 4,294 1,645 - 1,712 3,311 4,000
28 114 28114 34.639 K2 3,531 3,522 3,497 3,497 4,118 3,197 - 4,019 6,383 4,000
28 125 28125 11.872 K1 6,408 6,019 5,144 5,144 6,384 5,121 - - 9,546 6,250
28 129 28129 8.477 K1 4,193 3,355 4,529 5,798 6,133 4,225 - - 4,979 6,250
28 131 1 281311 18.346 K1 2,104 2,666 2,262 2,262 3,423 2,238 - - 4,761 4,000
28 131 2 281312 31.130 K1 3,716 3,258 2,747 2,747 2,721 2,673 - - 8,095 6,250
28 132 28132 14.855 K1 2,364 2,723 2,552 2,552 3,251 2,366 - 3,952 6,581 6,250
28 133 28133 4.624 K1 3,158 3,036 3,622 3,303 3,020 2,840 - 4,765 5,098 4,000
28 134 28134 15.426 K1 5,451 5,785 6,235 3,277 6,931 4,872 - 7,758 8,072 6,250
Page 13 of 14
Link
Length
28 142 28142 18.870 A 5,994 5,125 5,469 5,469 6,873 5,092 - 7,449 3,859 6,250
28 143 1 281431 42.465 A 4,753 3,779 4,942 4,942 4,086 3,960 - - 7,103 6,250
28 143 2 281432 11.321 A 4,515 3,245 3,165 3,165 4,134 3,207 - - 5,985 6,250
28 144 28144 7.358 A 2,659 3,205 3,507 4,092 4,100 3,091 - - 6,763 6,250
28 145 1 281451 17.345 A 2,651 2,790 2,935 2,935 1,546 2,263 - - 7,693 6,250
28 145 2 281452 14.007 A 2,516 2,788 2,736 2,736 3,144 2,450 - - 8,285 6,250
28 146 1 281461 16.295 A 2,647 2,577 2,747 2,622 2,574 2,317 - - - 4,000
28 146 2 281462 37.396 A 2,516 2,379 2,187 2,187 2,706 2,108 - - 5,354 4,000
28 158 1 281581 3.491 A 5,086 5,395 5,680 5,680 3,494 4,459 - - 15,381 6,250
28 158 2 281582 0.917 A 5,086 5,208 5,232 5,232 5,232 4,574 - - 11,873 6,250
28 160 1 281601 58.352 K1 1,084 1,225 1,233 1,233 1,316 1,072 - - 1,229 -
28 160 2 281602 53.973 K1 866 1,014 943 1,271 1,444 975 - - 734 500
28 173 28173 25.336 A - - - - - - - - - -
Page 14 of 14
Table A3: Vehicle Composition Based on JARNS Traffic Counts. 2-Way AADT - Year 2000
Vehicle Type Total Excl. Total (All
Link_ID Motorcycle Car LGV MGV HGV Angkot Bus Motorcycles Vehicles)
22001 3,874 3,767 1,102 1,092 448 3,095 1,275 10,779 14,653
22002 4,200 5,373 1,855 3,430 980 4,585 1,278 17,500 21,700
22003 5,569 3,288 1,192 4,482 1,419 2,547 662 13,590 19,159
22004 6,600 8,443 2,915 5,390 1,540 7,205 2,008 27,500 34,100
22005 8,400 10,745 3,710 6,860 1,960 9,170 2,555 35,000 43,400
22006 3,069 3,926 1,355 2,506 716 3,350 933 12,788 15,857
22007 4,200 5,373 1,855 3,430 980 4,585 1,278 17,500 21,700
22008 2,650 3,944 996 4,486 3,131 1,230 3,078 16,865 19,515
22009 5,707 5,013 1,301 4,647 2,477 820 2,815 17,073 22,780
22010 2,700 3,454 1,193 2,205 630 2,948 821 11,250 13,950
22012 2,795 3,638 1,554 2,995 1,415 2,512 1,770 13,884 16,679
22013 2,302 4,702 1,545 4,384 1,605 1,974 2,715 16,925 19,227
22014 5,169 6,376 1,598 1,793 130 8,054 1,102 19,053 24,222
22015 3,661 5,404 2,089 1,739 51 15,049 630 24,962 28,623
22016 2,272 12,029 2,152 1,788 73 6,309 1,104 23,455 25,727
22017 5,129 8,343 4,020 3,581 441 1,261 1,388 19,034 24,163
22018 6,918 8,849 3,055 5,649 1,614 7,552 2,104 28,823 35,741
22019 5,400 6,908 2,385 4,410 1,260 5,895 1,643 22,500 27,900
22020 2,754 3,465 1,682 2,713 382 3,910 589 12,741 15,495
22021 2,302 3,113 1,234 3,049 426 2,953 442 11,217 13,519
22022 3,300 4,221 1,458 2,695 770 3,603 1,004 13,750 17,050
22023 2,700 3,454 1,193 2,205 630 2,948 821 11,250 13,950
22024 7,555 7,051 3,103 6,534 1,803 7,885 3,777 30,153 37,708
22025 3,082 730 1,692 2,387 1,688 2,118 1,947 10,562 13,644
220261 1,841 2,355 813 1,504 430 2,010 560 7,673 9,514
220262 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
220271 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
220272 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22028 1,500 1,919 663 1,225 350 1,638 456 6,250 7,750
22029 2,100 2,686 928 1,715 490 2,293 639 8,750 10,850
22030 1,438 1,840 635 1,175 336 1,570 437 5,993 7,431
220311 1,396 376 240 549 55 910 15 2,145 3,541
220312 1,500 1,919 663 1,225 350 1,638 456 6,250 7,750
22032 480 614 212 392 112 524 146 2,000 2,480
22034 480 614 212 392 112 524 146 2,000 2,480
220371 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
220372 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
220373 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22039 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22040 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22042 3,797 11,760 3,208 1,519 383 28 702 17,600 21,397
22043 2,313 5,474 2,008 3,645 1,774 6,134 603 19,638 21,951
22045 1,349 2,729 1,753 2,742 607 4,442 558 12,831 14,180
22049 2,174 3,317 2,122 4,046 256 7,094 1,433 18,268 20,442
22050 3,069 3,926 1,355 2,506 716 3,350 933 12,788 15,857
22054 1,500 1,919 663 1,225 350 1,638 456 6,250 7,750
22055 2,700 3,454 1,193 2,205 630 2,948 821 11,250 13,950
22056 1,281 2,985 979 2,231 220 1,003 786 8,204 9,485
22057 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22058 2,100 2,686 928 1,715 490 2,293 639 8,750 10,850
22060 3,493 4,468 1,543 2,853 815 3,813 1,062 14,554 18,048
22061 2,100 2,686 928 1,715 490 2,293 639 8,750 10,850
22062 1,946 1,646 932 1,623 642 649 457 5,949 7,895
22064 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22065 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22066 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
JARNS-Traffic-Count-Final.xls 17/09/01
Best Estimate by Vehicle Type Page 1 of 8 11:30
22067 3,280 6,082 1,915 3,199 374 2,677 894 15,141 18,421
22068 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22069 5,884 2,506 1,153 1,225 26 3,200 133 8,243 14,127
22071 5,584 5,924 2,391 2,744 252 5,801 793 17,905 23,489
22072 960 1,228 424 784 224 1,048 292 4,000 4,960
22073 2,345 3,261 988 2,300 803 1,004 1,663 10,019 12,364
22075 3,091 2,127 1,371 802 22 2,487 100 6,909 10,000
22076 4,844 1,318 1,039 890 50 798 69 4,164 9,008
22077 1,500 1,919 663 1,225 350 1,638 456 6,250 7,750
220781 3,887 4,973 1,717 3,175 907 4,244 1,182 16,198 20,085
220782 1,250 3,769 1,448 4,047 1,659 2,437 696 14,056 15,306
22079 5,400 6,908 2,385 4,410 1,260 5,895 1,643 22,500 27,900
22080 2,970 9,772 1,631 6,064 2,583 3,746 1,655 25,451 28,421
22091 5,455 5,161 1,733 3,348 1,570 3,930 2,612 18,354 23,809
22092 4,283 1,437 1,325 3,100 1,854 6,215 1,977 15,908 20,191
220951 2,100 2,686 928 1,715 490 2,293 639 8,750 10,850
220952 2,746 2,920 1,195 3,822 436 1,818 411 10,602 13,348
22096 3,300 4,221 1,458 2,695 770 3,603 1,004 13,750 17,050
22101 6,976 9,144 1,871 4,683 371 4,675 401 21,145 28,121
22118 2,148 1,397 591 585 14 1,200 106 3,893 6,041
22119 120 154 53 98 28 131 37 500 620
24001 2,904 4,334 1,830 5,378 3,018 4,755 3,547 22,862 25,766
24002 8,821 4,247 1,687 2,524 740 1,505 1,432 12,133 20,954
24003 5,509 3,139 1,441 1,602 2,667 153 2,437 11,439 16,948
240041 2,002 4,330 1,576 4,631 3,079 523 2,645 16,784 18,786
240042 12,723 6,125 2,433 3,640 1,068 2,170 2,065 17,500 30,223
24005 19,543 8,921 3,323 4,119 2,482 4,654 2,499 25,999 45,542
24006 8,693 7,835 2,001 4,853 2,361 2,829 1,682 21,561 30,254
240071 5,307 5,651 1,740 4,458 2,032 557 2,040 16,478 21,785
240072 12,723 6,125 2,433 3,640 1,068 2,170 2,065 17,500 30,223
24008 12,723 6,125 2,433 3,640 1,068 2,170 2,065 17,500 30,223
24009 11,153 8,894 2,866 5,561 3,030 1,009 3,099 24,459 35,612
24010 13,202 16,356 3,678 5,022 1,210 2,585 3,419 32,270 45,472
240111 8,347 4,019 1,596 2,388 700 1,424 1,355 11,482 19,829
240112 2,736 5,153 1,966 3,527 639 379 648 12,312 15,048
24012 4,592 3,949 2,013 1,981 599 2,338 1,133 12,013 16,605
24013 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24014 16,358 7,875 3,128 4,680 1,373 2,790 2,655 22,500 38,858
240151 7,205 3,469 1,378 2,061 605 1,229 1,169 9,910 17,115
240152 7,205 3,469 1,378 2,061 605 1,229 1,169 9,910 17,115
24016 12,723 6,125 2,433 3,640 1,068 2,170 2,065 17,500 30,223
24017 12,187 7,854 2,750 4,305 585 3,539 1,840 20,873 33,060
24018 18,345 9,201 2,799 3,611 711 2,391 1,306 20,019 38,364
24019 12,427 5,983 2,376 3,555 1,043 2,120 2,017 17,093 29,520
24020 10,023 6,380 2,666 2,364 746 2,602 1,773 16,531 26,554
24021 16,358 7,875 3,128 4,680 1,373 2,790 2,655 22,500 38,858
24022 30,796 10,379 5,061 2,610 384 5,424 3,822 27,680 58,476
24023 9,996 4,813 1,911 2,860 839 1,705 1,623 13,750 23,746
24024 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24025 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24027 9,972 2,834 1,415 2,611 291 4,075 1,509 12,735 22,707
24028 862 739 281 1,719 148 714 252 3,853 4,715
24029 6,381 2,206 1,118 3,099 328 342 2,200 9,293 15,674
240301 4,845 1,310 954 1,383 49 1,241 962 5,899 10,744
240302 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240311 4,453 2,144 851 1,274 374 760 723 6,126 10,579
240312 3,694 2,160 1,233 1,952 686 570 1,534 8,135 11,829
24032 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240331 3,419 1,429 939 2,140 229 791 624 6,152 9,571
240332 4,015 1,933 768 1,149 337 685 652 5,522 9,537
24034 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24035 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240361 4,850 1,302 812 1,369 267 248 337 4,335 9,185
240362 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24037 8,179 3,938 1,564 2,340 686 1,395 1,328 11,250 19,429
24038 8,179 3,938 1,564 2,340 686 1,395 1,328 11,250 19,429
240393 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24041 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
240421 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
240422 3,761 1,466 1,099 3,529 363 1,828 694 8,979 12,740
24043 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24044 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24045 9,163 6,234 2,206 1,731 240 1,379 2,969 14,759 23,922
24047 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24048 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24049 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240501 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240502 3,747 2,932 1,389 2,204 928 1,103 1,285 9,841 13,588
240511 2,672 986 796 1,119 167 568 822 4,458 7,130
240512 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240521 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
240522 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24053 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24054 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24055 5,076 2,444 970 1,452 426 866 824 6,981 12,057
240561 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240562 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24057 3,908 2,875 1,438 2,634 664 1,362 1,313 10,286 14,194
240581 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
240582 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24059 4,498 2,166 860 1,287 377 767 730 6,187 10,686
24060 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24061 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24063 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
240641 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
240642 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24065 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
240661 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240662 1,547 1,689 1,611 1,048 50 437 616 5,451 6,998
24067 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240681 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240682 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24069 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24071 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24072 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24074 5,016 3,774 1,591 1,801 113 193 1,161 8,633 13,649
24075 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
240761 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240762 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24077 9,638 4,640 1,843 2,758 809 1,644 1,564 13,257 22,896
240781 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240782 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24079 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24080 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24081 8,783 7,268 2,636 3,984 2,429 378 2,820 19,515 28,298
24082 16,975 4,407 1,379 2,074 318 2,304 1,230 11,712 28,687
24083 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24084 12,723 6,125 2,433 3,640 1,068 2,170 2,065 17,500 30,223
240851 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240852 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240861 11,690 5,628 2,235 3,345 981 1,994 1,897 16,080 27,770
240862 11,690 5,628 2,235 3,345 981 1,994 1,897 16,080 27,770
24087 8,179 3,938 1,564 2,340 686 1,395 1,328 11,250 19,429
24088 8,179 3,938 1,564 2,340 686 1,395 1,328 11,250 19,429
24089 8,179 3,938 1,564 2,340 686 1,395 1,328 11,250 19,429
240901 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
240902 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240911 8,179 3,938 1,564 2,340 686 1,395 1,328 11,250 19,429
240912 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24092 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
24093 8,179 3,938 1,564 2,340 686 1,395 1,328 11,250 19,429
24094 4,618 2,223 883 1,321 387 788 749 6,352 10,969
240951 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240952 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24096 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24097 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240981 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
240982 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
240991 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
240992 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24100 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
241011 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241012 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24102 4,870 2,344 931 1,393 409 831 790 6,698 11,568
241031 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
241032 1,726 920 584 1,179 184 381 573 3,821 5,547
24104 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
24105 13,429 2,926 1,812 443 8 1,718 206 7,113 20,542
24106 26,466 7,960 2,873 1,372 138 1,147 1,614 15,104 41,570
241071 7,852 3,780 1,501 2,247 659 1,339 1,275 10,801 18,653
241072 7,852 3,780 1,501 2,247 659 1,339 1,275 10,801 18,653
24108 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
241091 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
241092 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241121 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241122 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241131 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241132 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24117 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24118 1,130 248 301 391 - 97 256 1,293 2,423
24120 561 270 107 161 47 96 91 772 1,333
24124 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
24127 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24130 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241321 4,321 165 333 190 6 686 - 1,380 5,701
241322 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24133 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
24135 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
241371 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241372 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24146 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241481 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
241482 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
24151 2,744 155 418 897 - 601 52 2,123 4,867
24152 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
24153 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
241541 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
241542 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
24155 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
24156 8,445 2,295 782 155 - 1,913 29 5,174 13,619
24157 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
24158 364 175 70 104 31 62 59 500 864
24159 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
26001 12,723 6,125 2,433 3,640 1,068 2,170 2,065 17,500 30,223
26002 16,358 7,875 3,128 4,680 1,373 2,790 2,655 22,500 38,858
26003 16,358 7,875 3,128 4,680 1,373 2,790 2,655 22,500 38,858
260041 9,996 4,813 1,911 2,860 839 1,705 1,623 13,750 23,746
260042 9,996 4,813 1,911 2,860 839 1,705 1,623 13,750 23,746
26005 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
26006 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
26007 6,736 3,243 1,288 1,927 565 1,149 1,093 9,265 16,000
26009 6,361 3,063 1,216 1,820 534 1,085 1,033 8,750 15,111
26010 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
26011 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
26015 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
260171 11,186 5,385 2,139 3,200 939 1,908 1,816 15,387 26,573
260172 11,186 5,385 2,139 3,200 939 1,908 1,816 15,387 26,573
26018 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
26019 2,908 1,400 556 832 244 496 472 4,000 6,908
26023 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
26025 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
26026 4,544 2,188 869 1,300 381 775 738 6,250 10,794
26030 1,454 700 278 416 122 248 236 2,000 3,454
28001 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280021 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280022 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
28003 8,179 4,455 1,440 2,295 923 1,451 686 11,250 19,429
28004 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280051 3,981 893 548 2,499 479 1,092 1,035 6,546 10,527
280052 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280061 7,865 4,284 1,385 2,207 887 1,396 660 10,819 18,685
280062 6,582 2,623 1,479 1,551 891 2,499 1,230 10,273 16,855
28007 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280081 8,179 4,455 1,440 2,295 923 1,451 686 11,250 19,429
280082 8,179 4,455 1,440 2,295 923 1,451 686 11,250 19,429
280091 11,144 6,070 1,962 3,127 1,257 1,977 935 15,329 26,473
280092 7,396 6,716 1,860 3,812 2,555 823 2,226 17,992 25,388
28010 12,723 6,930 2,240 3,570 1,435 2,258 1,068 17,500 30,223
28011 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28012 11,550 3,331 1,313 2,183 466 911 2,214 10,418 21,968
28013 15,362 3,804 3,886 3,193 2,433 7,715 1,782 22,813 38,175
28014 16,358 8,910 2,880 4,590 1,845 2,903 1,373 22,500 38,858
28015 46,653 16,809 7,160 2,571 552 16,220 1,339 44,651 91,304
28016 60,830 20,541 4,696 5,020 1,693 7,859 116 39,925 100,755
28017 16,358 8,910 2,880 4,590 1,845 2,903 1,373 22,500 38,858
28018 18,999 12,569 3,722 5,149 3,240 2,475 2,154 29,309 48,308
280191 12,723 6,930 2,240 3,570 1,435 2,258 1,068 17,500 30,223
280192 5,049 6,903 2,368 5,671 2,375 1,560 2,198 21,075 26,124
28020 5,969 6,893 3,224 3,743 1,509 1,626 2,266 19,260 25,229
280211 5,883 4,760 1,713 2,321 810 1,452 639 11,695 17,578
280212 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28022 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28023 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280241 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280242 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28025 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
28026 12,258 17,643 3,545 6,743 2,116 2,889 660 33,596 45,854
28027 6,434 5,108 3,918 3,179 2,112 7,126 1,325 22,768 29,202
28028 19,993 10,890 3,520 5,610 2,255 3,548 1,678 27,500 47,493
280291 25,445 13,860 4,480 7,140 2,870 4,515 2,135 35,000 60,445
280292 26,594 14,486 4,682 7,462 3,000 4,719 2,231 36,581 63,175
28030 18,731 19,857 4,367 3,912 859 4,007 1,362 34,364 53,095
28031 3,947 1,993 1,030 1,903 2,743 989 607 9,265 13,212
28033 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28036 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280371 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280372 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28038 2,750 1,447 745 1,585 376 1,279 405 5,837 8,587
280391 7,834 4,267 1,379 2,198 884 1,390 657 10,776 18,609
28040 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280411 9,245 2,965 1,229 1,607 255 541 232 6,829 16,074
280412 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280413 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280421 8,179 4,455 1,440 2,295 923 1,451 686 11,250 19,429
280422 5,753 2,983 1,390 2,373 2,724 1,097 897 11,464 17,217
28043 8,179 4,455 1,440 2,295 923 1,451 686 11,250 19,429
280441 8,179 4,455 1,440 2,295 923 1,451 686 11,250 19,429
280442 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280461 5,043 905 502 888 326 692 68 3,381 8,424
280462 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28047 10,865 5,918 1,913 3,049 1,225 1,928 912 14,945 25,810
28051 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280521 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280522 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280571 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280572 4,685 7,539 1,590 8,893 3,637 211 662 22,532 27,217
28058 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
28060 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28062 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28063 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28064 1,454 792 256 408 164 258 122 2,000 3,454
28065 1,454 792 256 408 164 258 122 2,000 3,454
280661 1,454 792 256 408 164 258 122 2,000 3,454
280662 364 198 64 102 41 65 31 500 864
28067 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280681 10,628 2,511 1,548 972 132 2,081 967 8,211 18,839
280682 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280691 8,347 1,446 811 1,088 70 863 190 4,468 12,815
280692 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28070 12,578 2,499 1,604 2,069 132 1,414 417 8,135 20,713
28072 4,143 1,951 1,147 1,334 834 1,234 547 7,047 11,190
280731 13,356 3,364 2,669 2,040 947 2,800 1,095 12,915 26,271
280732 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28074 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280751 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280752 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28076 8,110 2,036 782 808 237 1,252 384 5,499 13,609
280771 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280772 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28078 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280791 10,433 1,734 1,097 1,072 281 830 67 5,081 15,514
280792 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
280811 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280812 7,590 3,992 1,345 3,573 1,685 952 414 11,961 19,551
28084 9,996 5,445 1,760 2,805 1,128 1,774 839 13,750 23,746
280851 4,271 2,384 653 531 290 1,304 438 5,600 9,871
280852 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28086 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280871 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280872 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28088 8,880 3,570 934 2,066 309 1,485 472 8,836 17,716
28089 14,553 6,108 1,424 833 249 2,796 568 11,978 26,531
280901 1,454 792 256 408 164 258 122 2,000 3,454
280902 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280911 11,737 4,998 1,051 1,350 577 1,848 494 10,318 22,055
280912 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
28092 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28093 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28094 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
280981 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
280982 7,331 2,249 793 1,737 210 884 88 5,961 13,292
28099 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28100 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281011 5,035 3,865 2,051 2,643 916 1,241 1,218 11,935 16,970
281012 8,710 4,446 1,627 2,787 729 1,254 1,115 11,958 20,668
281041 3,105 2,375 958 956 265 88 699 5,341 8,446
281042 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28105 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28106 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
28107 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
28108 8,179 4,455 1,440 2,295 923 1,451 686 11,250 19,429
28109 9,996 5,445 1,760 2,805 1,128 1,774 839 13,750 23,746
28110 6,361 3,465 1,120 1,785 718 1,129 534 8,750 15,111
281111 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
281112 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28112 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28113 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28114 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28125 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28129 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281311 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
281312 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28132 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28133 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
28134 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28142 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281431 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281432 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
28144 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281451 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281452 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281461 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
281462 2,908 1,584 512 816 328 516 244 4,000 6,908
281581 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281582 4,544 2,475 800 1,275 513 806 381 6,250 10,794
281601 6,360 1,522 1,021 1,504 801 1,034 375 6,257 12,617
281602 364 198 64 102 41 65 31 500 864
28162 6,899 7,339 2,598 3,202 1,256 - 742 15,137 22,035
28173 7,542 1,264 900 2,564 375 539 10 5,652 13,194
APPENDIX B:
THE STRATEGIC CORRIDOR
EVALUATION MODEL (SCEM)
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Need for Screening
The main road network in Java consists of links of varying standards and traffic flows,
ranging from relatively lightly used single carriageway roads with a width of 5m or less up to
heavily trafficked 6-8 lane high quality limited access divided highways. As traffic grows
over time, the congestion will develop on those links where the demand approaches or
exceeds capacity. There are a number of alternative ways in which these links might be
upgraded in response to these progressively increasing traffic flows. It was therefore
considered desirable to develop a simple screening process to assist in the economic
evaluation of different upgrading options, identifying the effects of alternative upgrade paths
and their timing. This would be particularly useful for the relatively large numbers of lower
capacity links in the network for which a detailed examination using the full strategic traffic
model would not be feasible or appropriate. This information could then be used to assist in
the formulation of comprehensive strategies for the development of the network.
1.2 The Development of the Strategic Corridor Evaluation Model (SCEM)
In order to allow the rapid testing of a large number of upgrading strategies for the links under
investigation in the highway network, a new economic evaluation model (SCEM) has been
developed within JARNS. This builds on the key features of the CEEM developed earlier as
part of the CAPEX2 study, and the subsequent improvements to the IRMS. It also
incorporates work undertaken as part of the JARNS project itself, in developing updated
typical construction costs, vehicle operating costs, and values of time, the last of which was
investigated in a separate research study.
As far as possible, the model has been designed to be easy to operate and to be capable of
undertaking a large number of comparative tests in a short period. The opportunity has
therefore been taken to simplify the approach used in CEEM, although tests have been
undertaken to ensure that this did not affect the reliability of the output.
1.3 Possible Upgrading Options
There are a number of possible options for upgrading links in the network. As an example, for
a road with a width of less than 7m, there are in principle at least 11 possible upgrading
options that can be considered. These are set out in Table B1. These assume that existing
roads are only widened to 7 metres or 14 metres or additional capacity is provided in terms of
a new off-line 4-lane dual carriageway. Other possible options not considered at this stage
would include the upgrading or the provision of new roads to alternative widths. These could
be considered when looking at specific link improvements, but such detailed analysis was not
considered appropriate in the context of a strategic study.
Carl Bro International as and Associates B- 2

Table B1: Possible Upgrade Options for a Road with an Initial Width of Less than 7m
Type of Upgrading Code

Upgrade to 7 metres 2U7
Upgrade directly to 4 lanes undivided on line 4UE
Upgrade directly to 4 lanes divided on a new alignment 4DN
Upgrade directly to 4 lanes divided limited access road on a new 4LAN
alignment
Upgrade to 7m and subsequently 4 lanes undivided on line 2U7+4UE
Upgrade to 7m and subsequently 4 lanes divided on new alignment 2U7+4DN
Upgrade to 7m and subsequently 4 lanes divided limited access road 2U7+4LAN
on new alignment
Upgrade to 7m, then 4 lanes undivided on line and subsequently 4 2U7+4UE+4DN
lanes divided on new alignment
Upgrade to 7m, then 4 lanes undivided on line and subsequently 4 2U7+4UE+4LAN
lanes divided limited access on new alignment
Upgrade to 4 lanes undivided on line and subsequently 4 lanes divided 4UE+4DN
on new alignment
Upgrade to 4 lanes undivided on line and subsequently 4 lanes divided 4UE+4LAN
limited access road on new alignment
In the initial testing an economic evaluation was undertaken or at least considered for all of
these options. However, an examination of the results of this early work indicated that in
some instances, there were no significant differences between the user costs calculated for
options such as 4DN and 4LAN. In other instances, the analysis indicated that particular types
of upgrading, particularly those involving very large increments of capacity, did not perform
well on economic grounds and could therefore be excluded from consideration at this stage.
For the subsequent work, it was therefore considered appropriate to concentrate on a more
limited range of upgrading options. These were:
• Upgrading of a road of less than 7 metres in width to 7 metres on line (2U7).

• Upgrading to an online 4-lane dual carriageway (4UE). Options of upgrading
directly from a road of less than 7m in width or with the intermediate step of
upgrading to a road of 7m (2U7) were considered.
• Adding an offline 4-lane limited access dual carriageway road (4LAN) to a
corridor already containing at least an existing 4-lane road (4UE).
2. KEY MODEL INPUTS
2.1.1 Introduction
The evaluation undertaken within the SCEM model is based in the comparison of user costs
between an unimproved DM road and alternative options for upgrading this. The user costs
are a function of the capacity and speed flow curves for the links, the volumes of traffic
forecast to use these, the user costs faced by this traffic in the light of the conditions predicted
to experienced and the costs that would be required to upgrade the links.
The performance of the links is calculated using the relationships developed by IRMS. The
other elements input to the appraisal and which are used to calculate costs and benefits are:
• Vehicle Composition

• Traffic Growth
• Vehicle Operating Costs
• The Value of Time
• Typical Construction Costs for Different Road Types.
2.1.2 Vehicle Composition
The vehicle composition on which the model is based has been derived from the RIS and
Roadside Counts undertaken across Java as part of JARNS. Although there appear to be
significant differences between the traffic flow compositions estimated for the different
provinces within Java, a island wide average has been incorporated in SCEM.
This composition used is set out in Table B2.
Table B2: Assumed Vehicle Composition
Vehicle Type Count Classification Proportion of AADT

Passenger Vehicles
Motorcycles 1 29.6%
Car 2 25.7%
Utility 4 9.5%
Angkot 3 11.0%
Subtotal Passenger Vehicles 75.8%
Buses
Small Bus 5A 2.2%
Large Bus 5B 4.2%
Subtotal Buses 6.3%
Trucks
Light Truck 6A 6.7%
Medium Truck 6B 6.8%
Heavy Truck 7A 2.6%
Artic Truck 7B+7C 1.7%
Subtotal Trucks 17.8%
Total 100.0%
2.1.3 Traffic Growth
Within SCEM, traffic growth is assumed to be related to GDP growth. In line with earlier
work, it has been assumed that traffic will grow by about 15 per cent more than GDP. The
forecasts of GDP and traffic growth that result are set out in Table B3.

Table B3: Traffic Growth Factors
Economic Growth Traffic Growth

Growth
Total Annual Average Total Annual Average
to:
(2000=1.00) (%) (2000=1.00) (%)
2005 1.28 5.1% 5.87% 1.33
2010 1.66 5.3% 6.10% 1.79
2015 2.20 5.8% 6.67% 2.47
2020 2.97 6.2% 7.13% 3.48
2025 4.04 6.3% 7.25% 4.94
2030 5.43 6.1% 7.02% 6.94
Over the period up to 2020, traffic flows are forecast to increase by a factor in excess of 3,
and by 2030 by a factor of almost 7.
2.1.4 Values of Time
The values of time used in SCEM are based on the detailed work undertaken as part of
JARNS, using Stated Preference and Revealed Preference surveys to derive behavioural
values of time on which the values for evaluation are based. A full description of the work
undertaken and the values derived is set out in JARNS Technical Report 7 “Value of Time for
Modelling and Evaluation”, and is summarised in Appendix C to this Report.
It should be noted that the use of values of time for evaluation based on behavioural values
represents a change from the approach developed by CEEM and typically used in other
studies in Indonesia. In addition, the values that result are typically substantially higher than
those incorporated in IRMS, even after allowance is made for the effects of growth and
inflation between 1997 and 2000/2001.
The values of time used in the appraisal are set out in Table B4.
Table B4: Values of Time Incorporated in SCEM
Vehicle Type Value of Time per Vehicle

Car 20,185
Bus 89,192
PU/Angkot 19,411
Truck 22,896
Average VOT/veh 18,911
Average VOT/pcu 17,475
The value of time is also assumed to increase in real terms as disposable incomes increase and
the extent to which users are prepared to pay for savings in travel times increase. For the
initial applications of the model, it has been assumed that the value of time would increase by
4 per cent per year, broadly in line with the forecast growth in GDP per capita.
The modelling procedures incorporated in SCEM in general determine the effects of travel
time savings directly on the basis of the change in travel time and the appropriate value to be
attached to these savings, rather than incorporating the new values in the IRMS VOC
relationships. This approach has two main benefits:
• The vehicle operating costs are essentially based on similar relationships to those
used in earlier studies and thus provide some continuity with this earlier work

• The vehicle operating costs include a number of numerical manipulations , which

tend to mask the effects of potential changes. This is likely to be a particular
problem with the higher values of time now being proposed which represent a
much higher proportion of the total costs. As an example in 2000, the value of
time using the JARNS values would typically represent about 25 per cent of the
total user costs (VOC plus value of time), but this proportion would increase
over time as the value of time grows and the levels of congestion increase.
In order to give the maximum compatibility with the earlier studies, an allowance for crew
costs and for the time related costs of the vehicle have been retained within the VOC
equations. The values of time considered separately for goods vehicles have therefore been
adjusted to remove any double counting.
2.1.5 Vehicle Operating Costs
The vehicle operating costs for use in SCEM have been based on the standard IRMS
approach, updated to take account of price changes up to 2000. As far as possible liaison has
been maintained with other studies to ensure a consistency of approach.
The vehicle operating costs incorporated in SCEM are summarised in Table B5. The details
of their derivation is set out in JARNS Technical Report 4. It should be noted that although
the VOC relationships include an allowance for roughness (IRI), this has been assumed to be
constant across all road types at a value of 4.
Table B5: Unit Vehicle Operating Costs Incorporated in SCEM
Constant 1/V V2 IRI IRI2

Car 1,589 3,446 0.01000 11.120 0.4900
Utility 451 12,232 0.00560 12.904 0.5813
Small Bus 860 24,200 0.02595 37.047 -0.0762
Large Bus 1,464 24,609 0.04465 33.721 1.8289
Light Truck 714 21,394 0.01987 28.829 0.5343
Medium Truck 1,000 27,777 0.06926 42.622 0.0550
Heavy Truck 1,342 29,966 0.07949 60.021 0.1698
Articulated Truck 2,274 39,422 0.05060 122.335 -0.0879
For the purposes of SCEM, the vehicle operating costs have been determined for the typical
vehicle, and this is based on a weighted average by vehicle type, using the traffic breakdown
as discussed above in Section 2.1. It should be noted that in line with the approach taken in
CEEM, no allowance has been made for any changes in the vehicle operating costs for
motorcycles and this group is excluded from the economic appraisal.
2.1.6 Construction Costs
The costs of construction and land acquisition for the various upgrade options have been
estimated as set out in Table B6. These are for a typical scheme in flat/rolling terrain. In
practice, especially for the smaller scale schemes, the costs could vary substantially according
to the particular characteristics of the road itself and the conditions in its immediate vicinity.
The figures quoted should therefore be regarded as illustrative only, and appropriate only for
a general broadbrush screening exercise. They would need to be reviewed for use in a
particular scheme.

Table B6: Preliminary Costs of Upgrading and New Construction (excluding land
costs) Rp millions per km in 2000 prices
Type of Upgrading/ Construction Costs Design, Supervision and Total

New construction Contingencies (20%)
4m to 7m 1,760 370 2,130
5m to 7m 1,280 175 1,455
6m to 7m 800 35 835
4m to 14m online 5,055 2,530 7,585
5m to 14m online 4,665 2,300 6,965
6m to 14m online 4,275 2,070 6,345
7m to 14m online 3,625 1,840 5,465
4DN (no allowance for 10,135 2,600 12,735
subsequent widening)
4LAN 17,370 4,800 22,170
2.2 Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation process identifies the effects in terms of discounted road user cost savings and
construction costs of possible alternative upgrading paths and allows their timing to be
assessed. As traffic flows on the road grow, the user costs, in terms of both vehicle operating
costs and the value of time, increase and the benefits from the provision of additional capacity
consequently also grows. Since the costs of providing this additional capacity remain
constant, the returns from the scheme improve as it is delayed. The optimum time to construct
a scheme, given a particular discount rate, is when the reduction in the discounted
construction costs is just less than the discounted annual benefits. This gives the date at which
the NPV of the scheme is maximised or alternatively the total DS costs (discounted road user
costs plus construction costs) are minimised. The SCEM program allows this point to be
identified easily.
In this process, the scheme is constructed in effect when the First Year Rate of Return equals
the discount rate. However, on this basis the rate of return for the project as a whole is
substantially greater than the selected discount rate. Alternatives with earlier starting dates
would be rejected, even though their whole scheme rates of return would exceed the test
discount rate. The application of SCEM has assumed a discount rate (and a minimum FYRR)
of 20 per cent. If necessary it would be possible to adjust the appropriate discount rate (or
FYRR required) to give project rates of return that were broadly in line with particular
discount rates. Although the calculation is not exact, and depends on a number of factors such
as traffic growth and the growth in benefits, in general for the schemes examined the project
rate of return is about twice the First Year Rate of Return.
A function of the discount rate is to attempt to strike a balance between the resources
available and the schemes likely to be justified. In the case of Indonesia where the resources
likely to be available for new strategic and arterial road construction or upgrading are likely to
be severely constrained, a high discount rate would be appropriate, to ensure that only the best
schemes are selected.
The use of the approach adopted in SCEM, which is based on a FYRR and which minimises
the total DS costs, is intuitively attractive and is also easy to handle analytically, allowing
rapid selection of best options. This approach has therefore been retained for the Screening
Appraisal. In principle, a 20 per cent minimum FYRR provides a fairly severe test of
economic viability, although this has been retained for the present analysis.

2.3 The Application of the Model
The initial use of the model is to look at alternative upgrading paths for specific existing links
with particular physical characteristics and traffic flow. For this purpose, the existing link
types considered have been categorised into 6 types based on road width. These types are:
• 4 metre single carriageway

• 14 metre undivided or divided road
Each of these is assumed to have specific characteristics in terms of free-flow speed and
capacity, which define its performance at different traffic levels. These characteristics are
based on the physical characteristics of the road and the effects of side friction.
As discussed above a set of possible upgrade options has been identified, each of which are
defined in terms of the capacities and free-flow speeds of the new or upgraded roads and the
costs of upgrading or new construction. The road user costs in terms of the value of time and
vehicle operating costs are estimated for the DM and DS scenarios, and then compared with
the costs to arrive at the overall NPV of the proposed scheme. The option that generates the
highest NPV at the selected discount rate is assumed to give the best result for the corridor
link under examination.
2.4 Threshold Analysis
The approach developed can be used to derive general traffic thresholds at which upgrading
would be appropriate. The levels of these thresholds are a function of:
• The typical costs of construction of the links

• The benefits achieved from upgrading the network, both in terms of the resource
savings and the values attached to these
• The evaluation criteria used to assess the desirability and appropriate timing of
any scheme or combination of schemes.
In particular, the thresholds identified depend critically on the values of time, which on the
basis of the current research are much higher than those used earlier, the costs of land
acquisition and construction for the different improvement types, and on the evaluation
criteria applied, which are considerably more severe, again than those used in earlier studies.
In practice, these two effects broadly cancel out, and the thresholds are broadly similar to
those derived in earlier studies.
The thresholds that result are summarised in Table B7.
Table B7: Thresholds for Upgrading as Derived from SCEM5
Upgrading Option Critical Flow

(AADT including motorcycles)
S4-S7 2,500-3,500
S5-S7 3,500 - 4,500
S6-S7 3,500 - 4,500

S7-4UE 15 - 20,000
4UE-4DN 50-60,000
4UE-4LAN 75-85,000
These thresholds are based on a typical traffic mix for Java as a whole, derived from the RIS
and count data collected by JARNS. The results are sensitive to the assumptions made about
the breakdown of traffic, and the costs of construction of the new or upgraded road, and also
shift slightly over time as the value of time increases. The generalised results set out in the
table may therefore not be strictly applicable in a detailed analysis of links where a different
traffic breakdown or unit construction costs are appropriate.
2.5 Comparison against Budget Availability
In addition to assessing the best approaches to the upgrading of individual links on the
network and the economic viability of the schemes which result, the application of these
approaches to the links on the network as a whole would allow an estimate to be made of the
potential expenditure which meets the desired criteria. This can either be applied to the
network as a whole or to components of this. Comparing the totals against the resources likely
to be available would then give an indication of the extent to which the programme derived
can be followed in practice.

APPENDIX C:
SUMMARY OF VALUE OF TIME RESEARCH
UNDERTAKEN IN JARNS

1. INTRODUCTION
The value of time plays an important role in the modelling of road traffic behaviour and in the
evaluation of highway schemes. As part of the JARNS project, an extensive investigation
was undertaken into the values of time to be used in Indonesia, in order to provide a reliable
input into the traffic forecasting process, especially where this involved the choice between
tolled and free roads and into the process of scheme assessment, and for project evaluation.
This work involved a review of work in this area previously undertaken in Indonesia; a
review of the international literature on the subject; and an extensive program of surveys to
provide a base for the determination of current values of time appropriate for use in JARNS.
This work is more fully documented in JARNS Technical Report No. 3: “Value of Time for
Modelling and Evaluation”. This Appendix is intended to provide a brief overview of the
work, and the summary results achieved.
2. TYPES OF VALUES OF TIME
2.1 Values of Time and their Types
There are a number of somewhat different concepts for the value of time, and different values
may be appropriate for the different uses of VoT’s. As a result, there are different methods for
deriving estimates appropriate to each type. Three distinct types of values are needed, as listed
below and described later:
• Perceived or ‘behavioural’ values

• Resource values
• Equity values
Somewhat different values of time are used for:
• Transport modelling (‘behavioural’ values)

• Transport scheme evaluation (resource or equity values usually used)
In addition, different classes of travellers have different tastes and put different emphasis on
travel time and travel cost. Therefore, different VoTs should be used for different classes of
traveller and different types of travel. It is good practice to distinguish between VoTs for:
• Work or business purposes

• Non-work purposes, such as commuting, leisure travel, etc
The VoT of individuals is strongly related to income. Where it is possible to do so, it is
desirable to use different values of time for different economic groups. Thus in Indonesia, car
owners are usually wealthier than bus passengers, and different values of time should be used
for the two groups, where appropriate estimates are available.
2.2 Methods of Estimating Values of Time
Values of time that are properly representative of the population need to be estimated, using
data collection and estimation methodologies that are appropriate to the particular type of
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates C-1

VoT required. There are two main approaches to the estimation of VoT, based on somewhat
different behavioural theories, and employing very different types of data. These methods are:
• Revealed Preference (RP)

• Stated Preference (SP)
The distinguishing feature is the ‘mode’ of preference: stated or revealed. Table C1

summarises possible VoT data sources according to SP and RP and according to whether the
value of business (working) or non-business (non-working) time is sought.
Table C1: Possible VTTS Data Sources
VTTS Working Time VTTS Non-Working Time

SP Survey employers Survey individuals
Survey employees
RP GDP, earnings, expenditure statistics Expenditure statistics
Survey employers Survey individuals
Survey employees
2.2.1 Revealed Preference Surveys
RP involves an interpretation of traveller preferences from actual behaviour. Estimation of

values of time from such data is based on microeconomic principles that have been developed
for this purpose. Theories of discrete choice and random utility were first developed for use in
this type of analysis, and a Nobel Prize for Economics was recently awarded to those who led
this significant research effort.
The main advantage of RP data is that it is based on ‘real world’ observation, recording
travellers behaviour as it happens in the marketplace. This has been and remains the
traditional technique used to estimate models of consumers’ behaviour. However this
approach suffers from a number of practical and statistical problems that make it often
difficult to derive accurate parameters from the observed data.
2.2.2 Stated Preference
Because of the difficulties in collecting and interpreting RP survey data, there has developed
within the field of market research the practice of basing demand estimates on an analysis of
responses to hypothetical choices or Stated (rather than observed) Preferences. The choice
alternatives for any situation under investigation are presented to a sample of respondents in
terms of their component attributes, which can take different values. The design of a Stated
Preference experiment is based on the theory of experimental statistics, and a limitation to the
technique is that it has to be properly done to yield valid results. Data analysis and interpretation
are based on utility theory and econometrics actually developed earlier to deal with RP data.
Because the SP experimental environment is fully under the control of the researcher, all
important factors affecting choice can be properly included, and measurement problems can
be avoided. In addition, problems of correlation between time and cost values (which can be
particularly bad in RP methods) can be controlled for by the experimental design, which can
be tested in advance.

3. EMPIRICAL SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN AS PART OF JARNS
In order to provide current estimates of the values of time, and to update earlier research work
which had become outdated by changes over the recent past, additional Stated Preference and
Revealed Preference surveys were undertaken as part of JARNS.
3.1 SP Surveys
The SP surveys were undertaken at a number of locations between Bandung and Tasikmalaya
in late 2000, and over 500 cars were stopped and the drivers interviewed. This provided 435
successful responses for analysis, and the estimation of new Values of Time. The values
derived were compared with the results of an earlier and more comprehensive program, and
used to update VOT estimates from the earlier work to current values. The values resulting
are set out in Table C2.
Table C2: Values of Time Derived from SP Surveys in 1997 and 2000 (Rp/h)
Category VoT 1997 VoT 2000

Car user non-working 5900 8900
Car user working 6500 11500
Bus user non-working 2800 4200
Bus user working 3000 4500
Light truck 50000 75000
Medium truck 57000 85000
Heavy truck 112000 170000
3.2 RP Surveys
A series of RP surveys were undertaken to provide a check on and help validate the results of
the SP work. These were undertaken at three sites close to toll roads, where respondents had
a choice between potentially paying for time savings or choosing a slower but less expensive
route. The sites selected were:
• Padalarang-Cileunyi (Padaleunyi) toll road and parallel arterial road near

Bandung, West Java
• Cirebon (Palikanci) toll road and parallel arterial road near Cirebon, West Java
• Surabaya-Gempol toll road and parallel arterial road between Surabaya-Malang,
East Java
Approximately 6,000 surveys were undertaken, and the key characteristics of the sample are
summarised in Table C3.
Table C3: Key Data from Revealed Preference Surveys
Bandung Cirebon Surabaya Total

Number of cars (interviews) 2132 1815 1968 5915
Proportion using toll road 73% 66% 97%
Average overall car occupancy 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.0
Average occupancy (excluding paid driver if 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7
present)
% of journeys in the course of work (business) 31% 18% 12% 21%
Average perceived travel time (chosen route)
Choosing route with toll road 125 min 126 min 89 min

Choosing route with non-toll road 144 min 141 min 110 min
The analysis of the data revealed that only a very small proportion of the trips interviewed in
Surabaya were not using the toll road, and as a result it was not possible to derive reliable
results from these surveys. Attention was therefore focussed on the data for Bandung and
Cirebon.
The estimated values of time from this work are set out in Table C4.
Table C4: Revealed Preference Results at Two Locations
Location/purpose Sample VoT

(Rp/hr)
Cirebon all 681 8900
Cirebon business 112 8900
Cirebon non-business 569 8900
Bandung all 1082 9700
Bandung business 383 10500
Bandung non-business 699 8400
Cirebon all 681 10800
Cirebon business 112 11200
Cirebon non-business 569 10500
Bandung all 1082 11100
Bandung business 383 10800
Bandung non-business 699 11400
These value of time estimates are very close to those derived from the SP research, suggesting
that a high degree of confidence could be attached to the findings.
4. VALUES OF TIME FOR TRANSPORT SCHEME EVALUATION
4.1 Introduction
In addition to determining the values of time for transport modelling purposes, savings in
journey times can potentially form an important part of the benefits of new road construction
or upgrading. Values therefore need to be attached to these savings to allow them to be
incorporated in the economic evaluation.
International practice in the treatment of time savings in the evaluation of new roads varies,
especially for time savings which are incurred in journeys undertaken for other than work
purposes. In many developing countries, a high weight is given to the role that roads can play
in economic development. While savings in travel time spent in the course of work, which
would potentially contribute to measured economic output, are given a value, savings for
other types of travel, which contribute to the quality of life of those travelling but which do
not add to economic output as conventionally measured, have been ignored entirely.
However there is an increasing trend in the economic evaluation of transport projects in

developing countries, to ascribe values to savings in non-working time. To provide some
general assistance in this area, where other direct estimates may not be available, a World
Bank Infrastructure Note Transport NO OT-5 “The Value of Time in Economic Evaluation of
Transport Projects: Lessons From Recent Research” by KM Gwilliam (1999) provides some
direction. The main points can be summarised as follows:

• The value of working time should reflect the value of the incremental goods and
services produced as a result of reduced travel times. These in principle at least
should be reflected in the costs of employment of those travelling.
• The values of non-working time can be derived either from users perceptions or
estimated as a function of household incomes.
• Different values should be used for travellers using different modes.
• There should be no differences between the values used in different regions, and
common equity values should be derived.
• The value of time should grow over time in proportion to the increase in GDP
per capita.
Values of time for evaluation are required for a number of journey types. The approach to
their determination and the values that result are discussed below.
4.2 Values for Savings in Time Spent on Employers Business
Two possible approaches are available for estimating the value of time spent on employers
business:
• The results of the SP surveys as discussed above

• A top down approach based on national accounts.
Values of time used for evaluation should reflect the marginal output that in principle is
achievable if journey times are shortened. For working time, it is reasonably well-established
that the income of the traveller is an appropriate measure of this value. The only difficulty is
imputing such values, when there is high variation in employment levels and incomes, which
in turn vary widely by mode of travel.
Income levels in a country like Indonesia are extremely difficult to establish with any degree
of reliability. However based on national income data it was estimated that the gross monthly
income for a worker in Java was about Rp. 862,000. On the basis of 50 weeks per year, and
44 hours per week, this is equivalent to approximately Rp. 4,500 per hour.
However this is an average measure, and provides no information about the distribution of
incomes by type of vehicle. Car owners and users are by definition from a much higher
income level, and values of time for car users will be higher than those for the population as a
whole. Based on the ratio between the SP values of time for bus users (taken to be
representative of the average for the population as a whole and those for car users, it was
estimated that the value of time for evaluation for car users was about 11,500 Rp per hour.
4.3 Non-Working Time
The selection of appropriate values for non-working time is more complex since there is no
single conceptual approach to their determination. The World Bank paper suggest that these
time savings should be given a value, and two possibilities have been suggested:
• valuations based on values perceived by the travellers themselves, identified

through SP or RP surveys;
• valuations based on standard approaches and factors which have been developed
over time. The World Bank suggests that a reasonable default assumption is that
the value of non-working time is equivalent to 30 per cent of total household
income.

The values derived from the SP and RP surveys for non-working time are close to the
estimates of the values of working time. The fact that both the SP and RP surveys gave
similar results increases confidence in the overall conclusion. The value for car users is about
Rp. 8,900 per hour or about 75 per cent of the estimated wage rate. For bus users, the
difference is even smaller, with the SP value of non-working time of Rp 4,200 per hour being
about 95 per cent of the equivalent value of working time. This would seem to indicate that at
lower levels of income, all time becomes a highly valued resource used as much as possible
for generating income.
These ratios may initially seem high by international standards, but may reflect difficulties in
defining working and non-working journeys, and the opportunities for making use of potential
time spent on “non-working” journeys in some form of income producing activity.
Using the second approach based on 30 per cent of total household income, the value of non-
working time would amount to about Rp. 2,400 per hour for bus users and Rp. 6,000 for car
users. (These are based on a typical household size of 4, and an average participation rate of
44 per cent, in line with published data).
There is therefore a considerable difference between the values produced by the two
approaches. However, it is reasonable to assume that over time, as affluence increases and
employment levels rise, the population will begin to enjoy higher levels of “leisure” time, and
therefore the valuation of non-working time will fall as a proportion of working time. For this
reason, a lower value is proposed for use in JARNS, to reflect this likely shift. The values
proposed are:
VoT for non-working time, car user: 67% of working VoT Rp. 7,700 per hr.
VoT for non-working time, bus user: 75% of working VoT Rp. 3,375 per hr
4.4 Values of Time for Goods Vehicles
For freight, it has been assumed that the appropriate approach is to use the valuation placed
on the value of time of the vehicle as determined by the consignor as estimated by the SP
surveys. These in principle would reflect the value of the vehicle, the load and the drivers and
helpers wages and should therefore represent a reasonable estimate of the overall value to
society. The costs of the crew wages and the time-related vehicle operating costs are included
in the total vehicle operating costs set out in Technical Report No. 4. These have therefore
been subtracted from the figures in Table B5 to avoid double counting.
4.5 Summary
The Values of Time recommended for economic evaluation purposes are summarised in
Table C5, using observed vehicle occupancy rates from surveys.

Table C5: Values of Time for Economic Evaluation (Rp. per hour)
Mode Purpose Values per Vehicle Values per

person Occupancy vehicle
Cars Working 11,500 2.2 25,300
Non working 7,700 2.4 18,480
Average assuming 25 per cent 20,000
in working/official time
Pickups Working 4,500 2.2 9,900
Non working 3,375 2.2 7,425
Minibus Working 4,500 8 36,000
Non working 3,375 8 27,000
Other Bus Working 4,500 35 157,500
Non working 3,375 35 118,125
GV Small truck 24,000
Medium truck-2ax 23,000
Heavy truck (3 ax +) 21,000
Notes (1) The car “working” proportion is based on business trips plus work-business
plus official-official trips as defined in the OD statistics.
(2) It is assumed that users of pickups have a similar breakdown of trip purposes
as for cars and values of time similar to those for bus users
(3) For buses a 5 per cent share on formal business type uses is assumed
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summing Up
The work reported here appears to have been very successful, and as a result a high degree of
confidence can be placed in the reported results.
5.2 Recommended Values for Transport Modelling
Behavioural VoTs should be used in transport modelling. By definition, these are the values
that give the best empirical fits to observed behaviour, and are best able to assist in modelling
the decision to travel in any particular circumstances. The VoTs derived from SP and RP data
particularly suit the above definition.
For car we recommend the values as derived from the most recent SP surveys and
corroborated by the RP surveys. In Table B6 we present two different values per vehicle, one
for business and another for non-business purpose. This assumes car occupancies of 2.2 and
2.4 for business and non-business purpose respectively (we exclude paid car drivers). If one
mixed car matrix is used then an average VoT is estimated based on the information about
purpose mix (25% business). Pickups are assumed to have VoTs similar to buses, but are used
for business 25% of the time, as for cars.

For bus, we derive an average VoT for both travel purposes. This is based on the behavioural
VoTs of Rp. 4,200 per hour (non-business user) and Rp. 4,500 per hour (business user), bus
average occupancy and travel purpose mix, ie VoT = 0.05*35*4500 + 0.95*35*4200 = Rp.
147,500 per hour per bus.
For trucks, the updated SP values can be used after adjusting for average load. Assuming
light, medium and heavy trucks are used for inter-urban freight movements, then the full
behavioural VoTs are Rp. 45,000, Rp. 51,000 and Rp. 56,100 per hour per vehicle
respectively.
Table C6: Recommended ‘Behavioural’ VoTs per Vehicle
Vehicle Type VoTs per vehicle (Rp. per hour)

Car non-working 21,300
Car working 25,300
Car all purposes 22,300
Pickups all purposes 9,300
Mini bus all purposes 33,700
Small and large bus all purposes 147,500
Light truck 45,000
Medium truck 51,000
Heavy truck 56,100
5.3 Recommended Values for Transport Scheme Evaluation
Table C7 summarises the recommended VoTs for transport scheme evaluation.
Table C7: Recommended VoTs per Vehicle for Evaluation
Type of Vehicle VoTs per vehicle in Rp. per hour

Car non-working 21,400
Car working 30,800
Car all purposes 23,800
Pickups all purposes 9,900
Mini bus all purposes 34,100
Small and large bus all purposes 149,100
Light truck 24,000
Medium truck 23,000
Heavy truck 21,000
5.4 Annual Rates of Growth in the Value of Time
The values of time derived above are in terms of 2000 values and these need to be up-rated
over time.
It is standard international practice to assume that the real value of both working and non-
working time will grow in line with the real GDP per head (NB not per worker). However,
wider ownership of cars may mean that the growth rates for car owners (and also non-car
owners) may fall below this figure. For the purpose of evaluation and modelling of traffic
behaviour it has been assumed that the value of time will grow by approximately 4 per cent
per year. This figure reflects forecast GDP and population growth and also the effects of
increasing car ownership by broader sectors of the population.

5.5 Comparison With IRMS Values of Time
It needs to be noted that the VOT estimates derived in JARNS are very different to the
comparable values currently used in IRMS, and more generally in road project evaluation in
Indonesia. The differences are summarised in Table C8 below.
Table C8: Comparison Between JARNS and IRMS VOT Estimates
Type of Vehicle VoT per vehicle in Rp. per hour

JARNS IRMS 1997 IRMS 1999
Car all purposes 20,000 4,125 4,950
Pickups all purposes 8,000 3,750 4,500
Mini bus all purposes 29,000 (inc in Pickups) (inc in Pickups)
Small and large bus all purposes 120,000 12,150/27,300 (1) 14,580/32,760 (1)
Light truck 38,000 3,500 4,200
Medium truck 41,500 3,500 4,200
Heavy truck 45,500 3,500 4,200
The inclusion of the new much higher values of time in the evaluation process will
substantially increase the rates of return from upgrading the highway network or alternatively
will bring forward the year when they appear to be economically justified. As an example
assuming a minimum scheme discount rate of 15 per cent, the typical upgrading of a single 7
metre interurban road would be justified at an opening year flow about 6-7,000 vehicles per
day with the new values of time as compared to about 10-15,000 vehicles per day with figures
based on the previous IRMS approach.
The result of this is that a much higher number of road schemes will be economically justified
if the rest of the evaluation criteria remain unchanged. While it is probably the case that there
would have been a case for substantial investment over the immediate future with the lower
IRMS values of time, the number of schemes appearing to justify an immediate start is much
increased with the new values of time, putting pressure on the very limited resources likely to
be available.
This therefore has implications for the development of the evaluation framework for the
strategic road programme for Java since the costs of the road schemes which are likely to be
potentially justified both in the immediate and longer term future are likely to be considerably
in excess of the funds available. (This would also probably apply to other components of the
overall road programmes within Indonesia if the higher values of time are universally
accepted.) It will therefore be necessary to revise the evaluation criteria or to develop some
other form of rationing to ensure that the limited resources available are used in the way
which maximises their economic, developmental and strategic impacts.
One way of revising the evaluation criteria, which would aim to achieve a better balance
between the level of expenditure, justified and the resources available in an economically
efficient manner would be to increase the appropriate minimum discount rate. This approach
has been adopted in the screening process developed by JARNS (SCEM-Simplified Corridor
Evaluation Model) where a minimum first year rate of return of 20 per cent has been applied.
A second way, which can be used in combination with revised discount rates, is to recognise
explicitly the benefits of road upgrading in specific corridors not measurable in conventional
economic terms. It is proposed that this approach would be used in the development of an
overall JARNS strategy.

APPENDIX D:
RESULTS OF THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

RESULTS OF THE SCREENING ANALYSIS
1. ROAD NETWORKS FOR SCREENING
The results of the SCEM screening are to be applied to three distinct networks, to identify
economically warranted expenditure programs for Arterial, Primary Collector and Strategic
Collector networks.
Tables D1 – D3 below identify the lengths of roads by category, for each of these three
classes of road.
Table D1: Length of Arterial Road Network by AADT and Road Width

(vehs/day) < 5.0 >= 5.0, >= 6.0, >= 7.0, >= 10.0, >= 14.0, >= Network
< 6.0 < 7.0 < 10.0 < 14.0 < 16.0 16.0
km km km km km km km km
< 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 - 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 - 3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 - 4000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4000 - 5000 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13
5000 - 7500 0 0 60 0 4 0 3 68
7500 - 10000 0 6 77 0 53 0 0 136
10000 - 12500 0 0 272 128 33 5 4 442
12500 - 15000 0 67 135 21 7 0 4 233
15000 - 20000 0 16 125 345 125 26 65 701
20000 - 25000 11 4 51 207 81 7 16 377
25000 + 0 0 30 146 130 57 148 511
Total 11 94 749 846 447 94 239 2,480
Table D2: Length of Primary Collector Road Network by AADT and Road Width

(vehs/day) < 5.0 >= 5.0, >= 6.0, >= 7.0, >= 10.0, >= 14.0, >= Network
< 6.0 < 7.0 < 10.0 < 14.0 < 16.0 16.0
< 1000 26 28 0 0 0 0 0 54
1000 - 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 - 3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 - 4000 27 13 70 2 0 0 0 112
4000 - 5000 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7
5000 - 7500 0 53 106 41 9 0 0 209
7500 - 10000 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 18
10000 - 12500 0 92 118 102 25 6 2 346
12500 - 15000 21 80 17 0 2 0 0 121
15000 - 20000 0 0 103 99 47 0 0 248
20000 - 25000 9 23 21 38 13 0 11 115
25000 + 0 0 4 89 1 0 0 94
Total 83 297 439 389 97 6 13 1,324
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates D-1

Table D3: Length of Strategic Collector Road Network by AADT and Road Width

(vehs/day) < 5.0 >= 5.0, >= 6.0, >= 7.0, >= 10.0, >= 14.0, >= Network
< 6.0 < 7.0 < 10.0 < 14.0 < 16.0 16.0
< 1000 91 179 2 2 0 0 0 274
1000 - 2000 0 0 36 17 0 0 0 52
2000 - 3000 30 45 62 1 0 0 0 139
3000 - 4000 228 167 124 39 4 1 0 563
4000 - 5000 45 160 57 9 0 0 0 270
5000 - 7500 110 312 243 55 18 0 3 740
7500 - 10000 0 228 91 46 4 0 0 369
10000 - 12500 0 119 182 137 12 0 4 454
12500 - 15000 16 8 27 13 0 0 9 72
15000 - 20000 0 54 110 146 25 2 0 337
20000 - 25000 0 20 13 61 7 0 4 105
25000 + 7 27 22 11 7 3 19 96
Total 526 1,318 968 536 77 6 39 3,471
2. OPTIMUM CAPACITY EXPANSION PROGRAM FROM SCEM
Table D4: “Optimum” Capacity Expansion Program by Road Type and Traffic Level
Traffic Level Upgrade Optimum Year for Capacity Expansion by Road Type:
(AADT) Road to: < 5m 5-< 6m 6-<7m 7-10m 10-<14m 14 +m
<1000 To U7 2014 2017
To 4UE
1000-2000 To U7 2010 2012 2013
To 4UE
2000-3000 To U7 2004 2006 2007
To 4UE 2023 2024
3000-4000 To U7 2004 2004 2004
To 4UE 2023 2023 2023 2020 2020
4000-5000 To U7 2004 2004 2004
To 4UE 2021 2021 2021 2017 2018
5000-7500 To U7 2004 2004 2004
To 4UE 2017 2017 2017 2013 2014
7500-10000 To U7 2004 2004
To 4UE 2013 2013 2009 2010
10000-12500 To U7 2004 2004 2004
To 4UE 2010 2010 2009 2006 2007
To LAN
12500-15000 To 4UE 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
To LAN 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026
15000-20000 To 4UE 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
To LAN 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023
20000+ To 4UE 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
To LAN 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020

3. ECONOMICALLY WARRANTED ARTERIAL ROAD UPGRADING

PROGRAM
The preceding Tables combine to identify the economically warranted expenditure program
over the next 20 years, for each of Arterial, Primary Collector and Strategic Collector.
Table D5: Economically Warranted Arterial Road Upgrading Program
Existing Upgrade Length of Road Upgrading by Optimum Year: Total:

Road Type to: 2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
<5 m U7
4UE 11 11
LAN 11 11
5-<6 m U7 6 6
4UE 88 6 94
LAN 4 16 67 87
6-<7m U7 410 410
4UE 340 270 77 60 750
LAN 81 125 135 340
7-<10m 4UE 718 128 846
LAN 353 345 21 718
10-<14m 4UE 345 86 4 13 447
LAN 211 125 7 344
14m + LAN 228 90 4 322
Total: U7 416 416
4UE 1,502 484 87 73 2,146
LAN 0 888 701 233 1,822
Total: 1,918 484 87 961 701 233 4,384
The total in Table D5 includes approximately 500 kms of 4-laning in the North Java Corridor
which is regarded as committed for the period 2000-2005, although the funding of this has not
all been secured.. The total uncommitted length of 4 laning on Arterial Roads that would
meet the criteria for economic viability therefore amounts to about 1000 kms over the period
from 2000 to 2005 or about 1,600 kms over the full evaluation period.

Table D6: Economically Warranted Primary Collector Road Upgrading Program

Road Type to: 2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
<5 m U7 27 26 53
4UE 30 27 57
LAN 9 21 30
5-<6 m U7 166 28 194
4UE 103 92 53 21 269
LAN 23 80 103
6-<7m U7 295 295
4UE 144 118 0 106 70 439
LAN 438 118 0 25 103 17 144
7-<10m 4UE 226 102 18 41 387
LAN 127 99 226
10-<14m 4UE 63 25 9 97
LAN 14 47 2 63
14m + LAN 11 8 11 11
Total: U7 488 0 26 28 542
4UE 566 337 27 200 118 0 1,249
LAN 201 337 72 610
Total: 1,054 337 53 429 455 72 2,400
Table D7: Economically Warranted Strategic Collector Road Upgrading Program

Road Type to: 2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
<5 m U7 412 92 503
4UE 23 110 272 405
LAN 7 16 23
5-<6 m U7 985 45 179 1,209
4UE 109 119 228 312 327 1,094
LAN 47 54 8 109
6-<7m U7 698 62 36 2 797
4UE 171 182 91 243 181 868
LAN 35 110 27 171
7-<10m 4UE 230 137 46 64 39 516
LAN 72 146 13 230
10-<14m 4UE 39 16 18 4 77
LAN 14 25 39
14m + LAN 26 2 9 38
Total: U7 2,094 107 127 181 2,510
4UE 572 454 383 732 819 2,960
LAN 201 337 72 610
Total: 2,666 561 510 1,115 1,156 72 6,080

4. SUMMARY PROGRAM
These results are summarised in Tables D8 and D9 below, and the overall costs of the
program are identified. Figures D1 – D8 show these results graphically.
Table D8: Length of Road in Economically Warranted Road Upgrading Program, by

Road Type Length of Road (km): Total:

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial
To U7 416 416
To 4UE 1,502 484 87 73 2,146
To LAN 888 701 233 1,822
Total: 1,918 484 87 961 701 233 4,384
To U7 488 0 26 28 542
To 4UE 566 337 27 200 118 0 1,249
To LAN 201 337 72 610
Total: 1,054 337 53 429 455 72 2,400
Other Strategic
To U7 2,094 107 127 181 2,510
To 4UE 572 454 383 732 819 2,960
To LAN 201 337 72 610
Total: 2,666 561 510 1,115 1,156 72 6,080
Fig D1: Total Length of Warranted Network Improvements
Total Network - Length
6,000
5,000
4,000
Kilometres in Period
Secondary Collector
3,000 Primary Collector
Arterial
2,000
1,000
-
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period

Table D9: Estimated Cost of Economically Warranted Road Upgrading Program, by


2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial
To U7 351 - - - - - 351
To 4UE 7,929 2,475 467 374 - - 11,245
To LAN - - - 19,685 15,546 5,170 40,400
Total: 8,279 2,475 467 20,059 15,546 5,170 51,996
Primary Collector
To U7 545 - 55 41 - - 640
To 4UE 3,310 1,792 128 1,094 654 - 6,977
To LAN - - - 4,625 5,494 2,683 12,801
Total: 3,854 1,792 183 5,760 6,147 2,683 20,418
Other Strategic
To U7 2,893 118 224 263 - - 3,497
To 4UE 3,407 2,446 2,055 3,993 4,475 - 16,376
To LAN - - - 4,463 7,469 1,596 13,528
Total: 6,300 2,563 2,279 8,718 11,944 1,596 33,401
Total
To U7 3,789 118 279 304 0 0 4,488
To 4UE 14,646 6,713 2,650 5,461 5,129 0 34,598
To LAN 0 0 0 28,773 28,509 9,449 66,729
Total: 18,433 6,830 2,929 34,537 33,637 9,449 105,815
Fig D2: Total Cost of Warranted Road Upgrading Program
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
To LAN
20,000 To 4UE
To U7
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period

Fig. D3-D5: Length of Road Upgrading by Status
A rteria l N e tw o rk - L e n g th
1 ,6 0 0
1 ,4 0 0
1 ,2 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
LAN
800 4U E
S7
600
400
200
-
2 0 0 0-0 5 2 0 0 5-2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0-2 0 1 5 2 0 1 5-2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0-2 0 2 5 2 0 2 5-2 0 3 0
P e rio d
Prim ary C ollector R oads - Leng th
1200
1000
800
Kilometres per Period
L AN
600 4UE
S7
400
200
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
P eriod
S eco nd ary Co llector R oads - Leng th
3,0 00
2,5 00
2,0 00
LA N
1,5 00 4U E
S7
1,0 00
50 0
-
20 00 -0 5 20 05 -2 01 0 20 10 -2 01 5 20 15 -2 02 0 20 20 -2 02 5 20 25 -2 03 0
P erio d

Fig. D6-D8: Cost of Road Upgrading by Status
A rterial N etw ork - C o st
25 ,000
20 ,000
15 ,000
To LA N
To 4U E
To U 7
10 ,000
5,0 00
0
20 00-05 20 05-2010 20 10-2015 20 15-2020 20 20-2025 20 25-2030
P eriod
Prim ary Collector Netw ork - Cost
7,000
6,000
5,000
Billions Rp. in Period
4,000
To LAN
To 4UE
3,000 To U7
2,000
1,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period
Secondary Collector Roads - Cost
14,000
12,000
10,000
Billions Rp in Period
8,000
To LAN
To 4UE
To U7
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period

Fig D9: Network Investment Needs by Administrative Status
40,000
35,000
30,000
Bill
ion
Rp 25,000
. In
Pe Other Strategic Total
rio 20,000 Primary Collector Total
d
Arterial Total
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Total:
Period
5. THE EFFECTS OF A LOWER VALUE OF TIME
The main analysis has been based on the values of time for evaluation based on the approach
described in Technical Report No 7. However, this represents a considerable change from the
position previously adopted for the evaluation of highway schemes in Indonesia, where much
lower values of passenger time have been used. An analysis was therefore undertaken of the
impact of reducing the value of time to half the values used in the preceding analysis.
The lower value of time affects the timing at which road upgrading could be justified, and the
revised dates are set out in Table D10. This may be compared with the comparable results in
Table D4.
Table D10: Optimum Capacity Expansion Program for Reduced VOT
Traffic Level Upgrade Optimum Year for Capacity Expansion by Road Type
(AADT) Road to:- U4 U5 U6 U7 U10 4UE
<1000 To U7 2019 2021 2021
To 4UE
To LAN
1000-2000 To U7 2015 2017 2017
To 4UE
To LAN
2000-3000 To U7 2009 2012 2012
To 4UE 2028 2028
3000-4000 To U7 2005 2008 2008
To 4UE 2027 2027 2027 2024 2024

4000-5000 To U7 2004 2004 2005

To 4UE 2024 2024 2024 2021 2022
5000-7500 To U7 2004 2004 2004
To 4UE 2020 2020 2020 2017 2018
7500-10000 To U7 2004 2004 2004
To 4UE 2016 2016 2016 2013 2014
10000-12500 To U7 2004 2004 2004
To 4UE 2013 2013 2013 2010 2011
12500-15000 To 4UE 2004 2004 2006 2007 2008
To LAN 2028 2028 2028 2028 2028 2028
15000-20000 To 4UE 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
To LAN 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025
20000+ To 4UE 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
To LAN 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022
Comparing these figures with those set out in Table D4 indicates that in the instances where a
scheme is not justified more or less immediately, the reduced value of time would delay
upgrading to S7 by about 5 years, to 4UE by 3-4 years and to LAN by about 2 years. The
reduced value of time would also mean that the minimum traffic thresholds for the schemes
which can be justified immediately would also be increased.
The road upgrading programme which would be economically justified with the revised
values of time is set out in Tables D11-D13
Table D11: Economically Warranted Arterial Road Upgrading Program with

Reduced Value of Time
Existing Upgrade Length of Road Upgrading by Optimum Period Total

Road Type to: 2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 – 30
<5 m U7 - - - - - - -
4UE 11 - - - - - 11
LAN - - - - 11 - 11
5-<6 m U7 6 - - - - - 6
4UE 88 - - 6 - - 94
LAN - - - - 20 67 88
6-<7m U7 410 - - - - - 410
4UE 206 135 349 60 - - 750
LAN - - - - 206 135 340
7-<10m 4UE 697 148 - - - - 846
LAN - - - - 697 21 718
10-<14m 4UE 336 7 86 4 13 - 447
LAN - - - - 336 7 344
14m + LAN - - - - 318 4 322
Total: U7 416 - - - - - 416
4UE 1,338 290 435 70 13 - 2,147
LAN - - - - 1,589 233 1,822
Total: 1,754 290 435 70 1,603 233 4,385
Carl Bro International a|s and Associates D - 10

Table D12: Economically Warranted Primary Collector Road Upgrading Program

with Reduced Value of Time

Road Type to: 2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
<5 m U7 27 - - 26 - - 53
4UE 30 - - - - - 30
LAN - - - - 9 - 9
5-<6 m U7 153 13 - - 28 - 194
4UE 103 - 92 53 7 13 269
LAN - - - - 23 80 103
6-<7m U7 224 70 - - - - 295
4UE 127 17 118 106 - 70 439
LAN - - - - 127 17 144
7-<10m 4UE 226 102 18 41 - 2 389
LAN - - - - 226 - 226
10-<14m 4UE 61 2 25 9 - - 97
LAN - - - - 61 2 63
14m + LAN - - - - 11 - 11
Total: U7 404 83 - 26 28 - 541
4UE 547 122 253 209 7 85 1,224
LAN - - - - 456 100 556
Total: 951 205 253 235 492 185 2,321
Table D13: Economically Warranted Secondary Collector Road Upgrading Program

with Reduced Value of Time

Road Type to: 2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
<5 m U7 382 30 - 91 - - 503
4UE 23 - - - - - 23
LAN - - - - 7 - 7
5-<6 m U7 817 167 45 - 179 - 1,209
4UE 109 - 119 539 160 167 1,094
LAN - - - - 101 8 109
6-<7m U7 573 124 62 36 2 - 797
4UE 145 27 274 243 57 124 869
LAN - - - - 145 27 171
7-<10m 4UE 218 150 46 55 9 39 516
LAN - - - - 218 13 230
10-<14m 4UE 39 - 16 18 4 - 77
LAN - - - - 39 - 39
14m + LAN - - - - 29 9 38
Total: U7 1,773 322 107 127 181 - 2,510
4UE 534 176 454 855 229 330 2,578
LAN - - - - 539 56 595
Total: 2,306 498 561 982 949 387 5,683
These results are summarised in Tables D14 and D15, and in Figures D10-D12 below

Table D14: Length of Road in Economically Warranted Road Upgrading Program,

by Administrative Status with Reduced Value of Time
Road Type Length of Road (km) in Period Total

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 – 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial
To U7 416 - - - - - 416
To 4UE 1,338 290 435 70 13 - 2,147
To LAN - - - - 1,589 233 1,822
Total: 1,754 290 435 70 1,603 233 4,385
To U7 404 83 - 26 28 - 541
To 4UE 547 122 253 209 7 85 1,224
To LAN - - - - 456 100 556
Total: 951 205 253 235 492 185 2,321
Other Strategic
To U7 1,773 322 107 127 181 - 2,510
To 4UE 534 176 454 855 229 330 2,578
To LAN - - - - 539 56 595
Total: 2,306 498 561 982 949 387 5,683
Table D15: Estimated Cost of Economically Warranted Road Upgrading Program,

by Administrative Status with Reduced Value of Time

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial
To U7 351 0 0 0 0 0 351
To 4UE 6,939 1,689 2,196 376 497 1,494 13,192
To LAN 0 0 0 0 32,982 3,676 36,658
Total: 7,290 1,689 2,196 376 33,479 5,170 50,201
Primary Collector
To U7 467 78 0 55 41 0 640
To 4UE 3,194 676 1,329 1,125 40 466 6,830
To LAN 0 0 0 0 9,879 2,213 12,092
Total: 3,661 753 1,329 1,180 9,960 2,678 19,561
Other Strategic
To U7 2,482 411 118 224 263 0 3,497
To 4UE 3,173 986 2,449 4,634 1,245 1,805 14,291
To LAN 0 0 0 0 11,941 1,248 13,189
Total: 5,655 1,397 2,566 4,858 13,448 3,053 30,976
Total
To U7 3,300 489 118 279 304 0 4,488
To 4UE 13,305 3,350 5,974 6,136 1,782 3,764 34,312
To LAN 0 0 0 0 54,802 7,137 61,939
Total: 16,605 3,839 6,092 6,414 56,888 10,901 100,738

Figure D10
Total Network - Length
6,000
5,000
4,000
Secondary Collector
3,000 Primary Collector
Arterial
2,000
1,000
-
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period
Figure D11
60,000
50,000
40,000
To LAN
30,000 To 4UE
To U7
20,000
10,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Period

Figure D12
60,000
50,000
40,000
Billion Rp. In Period
Other Strategic Total

30,000 Primary Collector Total
Arterial Total
20,000
10,000
0
2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030
Total:
Period
As discussed above, the lower value of time has the effect of shifting back in time the
economically justified expenditure on the strategic highway network, although over the period
as a whole the change in total expenditure is relatively small. This is illustrated in Table D16
and Figure D13.
Table D16: Comparison of Economically Justified Investment in the Highway

Network with Different Values of Time for Evaluation.
Impact by Road Type
Road Type
Cost of Road Upgrading Program (Trillion Rp.) Total:
2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
To U7 3.8 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 0 4.5
To 4UE 14.6 6.7 2.7 5.5 5.1 0 34.6
To LAN 0 0 0 28.8 28.5 9.4 66.7
Total: 18.4 6.8 2.9 34.5 33.6 9.4 105.8
To U7 3.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 4.5
To 4UE 13.3 3.4 6.0 6.1 1.8 3.8 34.3
To LAN 0 0 0 0 54.8 7.1 61.9
Total: 16.6 3.8 6.1 6.4 56.9 10.9 100.7

Figure D13
Impact of Alternative Values of Time on the Pattern of Economically Justified
Expenditure on the Strategic Highway Network
60,000
50,000
Expenditure in Period (Rp Billion)
40,000
With Full Value of Time

30,000
With Revised Value of Time
20,000
10,000
0
2000-05 2005-10 2010-2015 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30
Period
The road upgrading program which is justified in terms of the economic appraisal criteria set
out in SCEM consists of a number of strands. In general, the program broadly consists of:-
• Rapidly upgrading all the road network currently with a width of less than 7
metres.
• Upgrading most of the network to 4 lanes on line, over a more extended period
• Construction of 4 lane off line roads towards the end of the period.
The patterns of expenditure which result reflect these strands. With the full value of time, a
high proportion of the on-line schemes in the first two categories are justified either
immediately or within the second five year period. The off-line schemes do not start being
justified until the fourth period, after 2015, and expenditure is concentrated in the ten years
after 2015. As a result, economically justified expenditure is high at the beginning of the
period for the on-line schemes which then reduces until 2015 at which time the off-line
schemes start being justified. Expenditure on these is spread approximately equally in the
periods 2015-2015 after which expenditure again declines.
With a lower value of time, the start date of a significant part of the overall program
particularly for the off-line schemes is delayed, although the justification for a substantial
amount of early upgrading would still remain. However given the lumpiness of the
expenditure patterns with the higher values of time, much of the effect is to delay expenditure
within the two periods 2000-2015 and 2015-2030 rather than to reduce the totals. As a result,
justified expenditure is shifted from 2000-2005 and 2005-2010 to 2010-2015, and from 2015-
2020 to 2020-2025 and to a smaller extent to 2025-2030, and the impact on the total justified
expenditure is small.
The main impact is on the level of expenditure justified on the construction of new off-line
routes. Here the start of the proposed programme would be significantly delayed with no new
schemes justified until after 2020, and the size of the 30 year programme would also be
reduced by about 10 per cent.

The impact on the expenditure on the different administrative road types is set out in Table
D18
Table D18: Comparison of Economically Justified Investment in the Highway

Network with Different Values of Time for Evaluation.
Impact by Administrative Type

2000-05 05 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30
Arterial 8.4 2.5 0.5 20.1 15.5 5.2 52.0
Other Strategic 6.3 2.6 2.3 8.7 11.9 1.6 33.4
Total: 18.4 6.8 2.9 34.5 33.6 9.4 105.8
Arterial 7.3 1.7 2.2 0.4 33.5 5.2 50.2
Other Strategic 5.7 1.4 2.6 4.9 13.4 3.1 31.0
Total: 16.6 3.8 6.1 6.4 56.9 10.9 100.7
Over the period as a whole, the greatest impact is on the other strategic (secondary collector)
roads, where expenditure would be reduced by about 8 per cent, compared with about 2-3 per
cent for the other link types.
Halving the value of time would therefore only have a limited impact on the overall
programme that could be justified, and the main effect would be on delaying the start of the
program of construction of off-line 4 lane roads.

Interim Report JARNS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interim Report JARNS

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

Interim Report JARNS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTEMEN PERMUKIMAN DAN PRASARANA WILAYAH

DIREKTORAT JENDERAL 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.

JAVA ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK STUDY (JARNS)

A PRELIMINARY ROAD NETWORK

1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES 1-1

1.1 Reasons for the Study 1-1

1.2 Study Objectives and Required Outputs 1-1

1.3 Objectives for the Road Network 1-2

1.4 A Role for Toll Roads? 1-2

1.5 The Need for a Plan 1-3

1.6 Overview of this Report 1-3

2. THE JAVA INTER-URBAN ROAD NETWORK 2-1

2.1 Introduction and Overview 2-1

2.2 Data Sources: The IRMS Road Inventory Database 2-1

2.3 Data Sources: Traffic Data 2-2

2.4 The National and Provincial Road Network 2-4

2.5 The Strategic Road Network 2-5

2.6 Summary Traffic Characteristics 2-9

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates i

2.7 Road Capacity 2-10

2.8 Toll Roads in Java 2-13

3. ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN JAVA 3-1

3.1 Objectives 3-1

3.2 Overview of Spatial Characteristics of Java 3-1

3.3 Spatial Development Policies and Plans 3-3

3.4 Macro-Economic and Development Scenarios 3-5

3.5 Zonal Development 3-7

3.6 The Role of Roads in Development 3-9

3.7 Corridor Development Strategies and Priorities 3-11

4. REVIEW OF EXISTING ROAD CORRIDORS AND CONDITIONS 4-1

4.1 Introduction 4-1

4.2 General Approach 4-1

4.3 Capacity Expansion Options 4-1

4.4 Preliminary Conclusions 4-2

4.5 Jakarta-Merak/West Coast (Corridor 10) 4-2

4.6 Jakarta-Surabaya/North Coast (Corridor 20) 4-5

4.7 Jakarta-Bogor-Bandung (Corridor 30) 4-12

4.8 Cikampek-Padalarang (Corridor 40) 4-15

4.9 Bandung-Cirebon (Corridor 50) 4-16

4.10 Bandung-Yogyakarta-(Malang) (Corridor 60) 4-16

4.11 Yogyakarta-Surabaya (Corridor 70) 4-20

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates ii

4.12 Semarang-Surakarta (Corridor 80) 4-23

4.13 Surabaya-Malang/East Coast (Corridor 90) 4-24

5. OTHER TRANSPORT MODES – PORTS, SHIPPING AND RAIL IN JAVA 5-1

5.1 Introduction 5-1

5.2 Ports and Shipping 5-1

5.3 Rail Transport in Java 5-4

5.4 Conclusions 5-10

6. SCREENING NETWORK DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 6-1

6.2 Capacity Expansion Options 6-1

6.3 Development of a Screening Methodology 6-2

6.4 Screening Analysis 6-4

6.6 Conclusions 6-18

Carl Bro International a|s and Associates iii