Teoría De Compensación o Balance Estático

Since the late nineties Indonesia started decentralizing governmental tasks. Since then local governments had to develop more policies, including transport policy. First this was done on a regional scale, but since 2008 these cities have to make their own transport plans. Yogyakarta and Surakarta are still struggling with making new plans, due to a lack of capacity and knowledge. In the transport sector both cities were not successful in slowing down the motorization process. Efforts have been made to introduce bus rapid transit systems (BRT), but in both cities these are not as successful as hoped. Wright (2011) describes this phenomenon of cities that that implement BRT unsuccessfully. He sums up 20 of the most common BRT planning errors. Most of these errors also apply to Yogyakarta and Surakarta. Besides the investments in BRT there are not many other transport investments that could qualify as being sustainable. Yogyakarta has made some efforts in creating cycling facilities, but these do not really work when there are no cycling lanes. Surakarta has invested in pedestrian facilities, but here too should have been invested in good walking paths as well. It seems as if both cities are struggling with making effective policy. The example of the pedestrianization of Malioboro Street is a good example of a sustainable plan that is not implemented. In the mean time the motorization continues and the pressure on the transport system increases. So the influence of the market on the transport sector is higher than the influence of the government and transport policies in the past in both cities have not been able to move developments in a sustainable direction.

52

In 2011 both cities were assisted by CDIA in developing a sustainable urban transport strategy. In this strategy the strengthening of institutional capacity is also one of the objectives. It is important that this will succeed because in the future Yogyakarta and Surakarta will have to develop new transport plans and they cannot always rely on the support of external organizations. For cities like Yogyakarta and Surakarta it is important to share experiences through a national or even international network. In this way knowledge about sustainable transport is spread and local policy makers can benefit from the successes and mistakes from other cities. The strengthened capacity and knowledge of local policy makers will probably have a positive effect on the indicators that are related to the government.

The strategies developed by CDIA focus on the improvement of the BRT systems in both cities. With some adjustments made to the routing, the ticketing and accessibility it is expected that people will change modes; from the car to the bus. If this will happen it will have a positive effect on many of the indicators.

The importance of non-motorized transport is acknowledged in the CDIA reports, but most focus is on the development of BRT. While non-motorized transport is a key issue in developing more sustainable transport. It is the mode that is accessible for everyone and it serves as a feeder for public transport. So the indicators concerning the walking and cycling paths, the vehicle ownership and modal share are interesting to monitor in the next years. 5.7.1 Relation to overview sustainable transport policies

In this part the policies of both cities are compared to the overview of possible policies, as presented in Table 4, to see if they cover all aspects. First the transport policies of Yogyakarta are discussed and thereafter those of Surakarta.

In 2008 the Master Plan Transportation (Bappeda Kota Yogyakarta, 2008) was completed, the first transport policy plan the City of Yogyakarta had to develop. The Master Plan shows the ambition of the local government to implement sustainable transport policies. A variety of policies is discussed, ranging from the pedestrianization of areas, constructing cycling lanes and bus improvements. In the elaboration on these policies examples from other cities are used. A translation to the context of Yogyakarta is not always made. Compared to the overview of possible policies, the policies in the Master Plan only aim at modal shift. Avoiding travel activities through better land use planning or telecommunications is not included. Also technological innovations to improve engines and fuels are not mentioned. The policies in the Master Plan do not show a comprehensive approach to sustainable transport, because it is not clear how policies can support each other. In 2011 CDIA completed a study on sustainable urban transport in Yogyakarta (CDIA, 2011d). Although the goal of this study was to develop a sustainable urban transport strategy, only improvements for TransJogja, the local BRT system, are recommended. The implementation of the improvements is much more detailed described than in the Master Plan, but supporting policies are not included in the report. The role of non-motorized transport remains largely neglected.

For Surakarta almost the same observations are made. The Tatralok (Tatralok, 2010) contains many policies to improve non-motorized transport, public transport and motorized private transport. It even proposes the introduction of a monorail. Also road pricing systems are mentioned. As discussed in Chapter 4 a comprehensive set of policies is necessary for effective sustainable transport development. The policies in the Tatralok aim at improving all modes, but this will not lead to a modal shift. The avoidance of travel and improvement of technologies is, like in Yogyakarta, not included in the set of policies. The report of CDIA (CDIA, 2011e) for Surakarta does show some differences compared to the one for Yogyakarta. It

53 does include policies that support improvements in the BatikSoloTrans, Surakarta’s BRT system.