Defining Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Potential

Along the Commuter Line Stations in Jakarta

By

Jonathan Todo Hasoloan

Bachelor of Science in Architecture

Institut Teknologi Bandung
Bandung, Indonesia (2012)

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master in City Planning

at the

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

June 2018

2018 Jonathan Todo Hasoloan. All Rights Reserved

The author hereby grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and
electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter
created.

Signature redacted
Author
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
(May 24, 2018)

Certified by_
Signature redacted
Mary Anne Ocampo
Thesis Supervisor
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
/

Accepted b
Signature redacted
MASSACHUSETS INSTITUTE Professor of the Practice, Ceasar McDowell
OF TECHNOLOGY
Chair, MCP Committee
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
JUN 18 2018

LIBRARIES
ARCHIVES
 DEFINING TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) POTENTIAL ALONG THE
COMMUTER LINE STATIONS IN JAKARTA

By

Jonathan Todo Hasoloan

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 24th, 2018 in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning

ABSTRACT

Transit oriented development (TOD) has been an emerging concept in Jakarta, particularly since
the construction of the new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT). Besides the two
incoming new transits, Jakarta operates an existing Commuter Line, which has a significant ridership,
even compared to the forecasted ridership of the MRT Line and the LRT Line, and an extensive
network coverage across the metropolitan area. The emerging TOD in Jakarta mainly focuses on
producing typical vertical mixed-use development, though there are supposed to be many TOD
approaches that encompass various scales in response to different contexts. This thesis seeks to
provide a comprehensive approach to achieve a sustainable TOD, using the Commuter Line as the
case study

Two imperative studies in TOD planning are combined in this thesis. The first is to investigate TOD
as a network of different node, place, and market values. This thesis adopts the Three Value (3V)
Framework, which is developed by Salat and Ollivier (2017) for the World Bank. The interplay of the
three values distinguishes the development potential of each station and helps create a series of
TOD typologies. The second is to investigate station neighborhood as an area for development itself.
From the first study, three stations are considered as TOD areas and are selected as case studies to
understand the prevalent urban fabric around the stations and how future development could and
should transpire on such fabric. The combination of the two studies could help decision-makers better
allocate and prioritize different development approaches within the Jakarta transit network to achieve
a sustainable TOD.

Thesis Advisor: Mary Anne Ocampo

Title: Lecturer of Urban Design in Department of Urban Studies and Planning

1- -l" I- - -I , , 1-1 I I-- . . - - I-"'-'-,-.", ..
.....
......
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

My greatest gratitude to you:

DUSP and MIT, for the magnificent experiences that I never have imagined to have. I learned so much
from the MCP program and the cohort, amazing individuals and their innovative minds -- the great
future urban planner of the world. I am more than fortunate to be a small part of it. The Guadalajara
practicum class and the Guadsquad, for adding another TOD exposure through a memorable journey.

Mary Anne Ocampo, my thesis advisor, for dedicating her time to support me through this thesis to
the very last errand. Chris Zegras, for being a rigorous reader I know that this thesis is not perfect,
but it has been a precious learning process. Sam, for being an amazing friend by sparing his precious
time to proofread my script.

LPDP Indonesia, for sponsoring this impossible dream. I owe my country a huge contribution. Ema of
DCKTRP Jakarta, the Jakarta Planning Agency, and PT Kereta Commuter Indonesia, for providing the
relevant data for this thesis. PSUD, for all the precious work experiences that brought me to the world
of urban design and planning.

Foremost, my parents, my brother Theo, and Rachel, for the unwavering love, support, and prayer.

/ can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Philippians 4:13
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.. ........... ............................................. 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ....................................... 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION ................. . .. . . . . . .8
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
1.2 Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
1.3 Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 10

.
2. LITERATURE STUDY ................ . . . . ... . o 11
2.1 TOD Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... 11

.
TOD is Place-making . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . 13

.
TOD and Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

.
TO D Typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

.
.
2.2 Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

.
.
Econom ic Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

.
.
Environmental Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

.
.
Social Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

.
.

Sustainable TO D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

.
.

2.3 Conclusion: TOD is a Holistic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

.
.

2 CnITEVT ANAIVIC .
23
......
3.1 Transit System. . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 The Emergence of Transit Oriented Development . . . . . . . . . ......... 28
.
.
3.3 TOD Planning and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 29
.
.

TOD in the Ministerial Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

.

TOD in the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW 2030) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

.

TOD in the 2014 Detailed Spatial Plan Document (RDTR 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3 1
.

Governor Regulation about TOD Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

.

4. STATION CATEGORIZATION ........... . . . . . ........ 33

.

..33 4.1 Node Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

.
.

Degree of Centrality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
.
.

Closeness Centrality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
.
.

Betweenness Centrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
.
.

Daily Ridership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
.
.

Intermodal Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
.

Lessons Learned: Node Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

.

.....37 4.2 Place Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

Density of Street Intersections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

.

Walkshed Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
.

Diversity of Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
.

Density of Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
.

Lessons Learned: Place Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

.
 4.3 Market Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

.
Land P rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
.. . . . . .. . .

.
Development Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

.
. . . . . . . . . .

.
Lessons Learned: Market Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 43

.
.
4.4 Result: TOD Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

.
First Tier Station: Immediate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

.
Second Tier Station: Emerging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

.
.
Third Tier Station: Incremental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

.
4.5 Evaluating the Designated TOD Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
. . . . . . . . .

.
4.6 Additional Insight on the Regional Scale Analysis . 49

.
. . . . . . . . .

.
5. NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

.
5.1 Station 1 - Tanah Abang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
.

.
Land Use and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

.
Urban Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

.
Zoning Regulation Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
. . . . .. . . .
.
5.2 Station 2 - Sudirman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

.
. . . .
. . . . .. . . .
Land Use and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

.
. . .
. . . . . . . . .
.
Urban Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

.
.
.

Zoning Regulation Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 1

. . . . .. . . .
.

5.3 Station 3 - Manggarai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

.
. . . .
.

Land Use and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

.

Urban Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
.

.
Zoning Regulation Interpretation . . . . . . . . . .r.c.n.i.i.n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
.

.
5.4 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
. . . . . . . . .
.

5.5 The Challenge for Sustainable TOD . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

.

. . .
.

Dense Low-rise Fabric Holds the Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

.

Large Scale Development is Desirable with Various . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Station Categories as Reconciliation Tool . . . . . . . . . . . 79
.

Walkable Environment is a Compulsory Quality . . . . . . . . . . . .8 1

Pushing TOD Further as a Green Development . . . . . . . . . . . 83

6. CONCLUSION ............................. 85
6.1 General Lessons................................... 85
6.2 Future Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
.

7. REFERENCES........ .............................. 87

APPENDIX A: THE JAKARTA TRANSPORTATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 91

.

APPENDIX B: THE NODE VALUE CALCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

APPENDIX C: THE WALKSHED BOUNDARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 93

.

APPENDIX D: THE PLACE VALUE CALCULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 95

.

APPENDIX E: THE LAND PRICE SUB-INDEX CALCULATION . . . . . . ........ 96

.

APPENDIX F: THE MARKET VALUE CALCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . 97

.
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Jakarta is an emerging megacity with prevalent urban issues in the global south that include over-
population, congestion, and increasing inequality within a rapidly urbanizing context. Institute for
Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) Indonesia revealed that people in Jakarta spend two
hours in traffic on average for each trip (The Jakarta Post, 2015). Furthermore, Jakarta has the world's
most congested traffic (Greenfield, 2015). Such conditions certainly create a negative impact on
people's daily life in Jakarta. According to the National Planning Agency, traffic congestion has cost
Jakarta, excluding the metropolitan area, 67.5 trillion Rupiah ($4.82 billion) during 2017 (Sari, 2017).
The public realizes that something has to be done to address this situation.

Currently, Jakarta is expecting its new rail-based public transit to mitigate the worsening traffic. The
new MRT line is expected to operate in 2019 and the LRT, which was initially planned to serve the
2018 Asian Games, will also be operating soon. In addition, there is also the existing Commuter Line,
which was modernized in 2011. PT KCI, the operator of the Commuter Line, restructured their internal
organization, introduced automatic tap machine, refurbished trains, and renovated stations. The
image of the Commuter Line has been significantly altered since and it has become a major transit
options in Jakarta.

Though the Commuter Line service is still far from ideal, it currently has 865,342 average daily
ridership -- based on the riderhsip data provided by PT KCI. In comparison, the new MRT line and LRT
line are forecasted to have 173,400 and 360,000 (Rahmadi, 2017) daily ridership, respectively. These
ridership figures show the significance of the Commuter Line in serving the urban mobility in Jakarta.
Next year, the Commuter Line is targeting 9.5% increase ridership. The Commuter Line will continue
to add the rolling stocks and improve station facilities to achieve their target. Furthermore, since
urban land is becoming scarce and more expensive, the extensive network of the commuter railway
and its stations is a crucial asset for future mobility infrastructure in Jakarta.

The massive transit investments and, arguably, the paradigm shift in using public transit have attracted
many transit oriented developments (TOD). TOD is now an intriguing concept. TOD is an effort to
integrate urban development with transit network through a compact and walkable development in
order to encourage transit usage and achieve a more efficient urban mobility. TOD is currently one of
the forefront planning initiatives for the provincial government, a strong development branding for
developers, and emerging lifestyle for the general public.

8
As intriguing as it is as a concept, the implementation of TOD in Jakarta is nascent. TOD is being
implemented mainly as vertical development that focuses on densifying areas around transit station.
Though this is not entirely wrong, there may be missed opportunities in how urban development
might be planned and designed with a TOD framework. Therefore, this thesis seeks to provide
a holistic approach to TOD planning by recognizing that TOD should be a set of interconnected
implementation strategies that take different forms.

In the absence of appropriate development guidelines coupled with the fact that well
established institutional framework and planning order were lacking, these new breed of
developers were competing with one another in acquiring large tracts of land in and around
Jakarta. They later came to the government with their own version of planning and design
schemes and placed requests for approval. Thus, instead of government's comprehensive
planning provides guidelines for project development, it was the project proposals, which
became the reference for the formulation of official plans. (Danisworo and Prasetyoadi, 2015, p.
208)

The quote above from the urbanism pundit in Indonesia asserts the adverse reality of urban
development in Jakarta that is conspicuously market-driven and top-down, but also lacks of visionary
and comprehensive planning. Hitherto, urban expansion is a product of piecemeal and incoherent
developments. Many of these large urban projects are exclusively superior, well-designed, and
equipped with plethora of amenities, but they enclave themselves from the surrounding context. TOD
should be able to offer a new development paradigm that could unify various stakeholders and goals
to achieve sustainable development.

1.2 Research Questions

This thesis is a response to the author's apprehension of possible TOD misconception or rudimentary
implementation in an emerging context such as Jakarta. Since development pace and excitement
around TOD is fairly high, the Jakarta Government should optimize planning and urban design as
tools to accommodate sustainable TOD. The government, in that sense, plays a significant role as the
city manager, who coordinates urban development and mitigates trade-offs to accomplish optimum
outcomes. The TOD objective is inherently to achieve efficient movements in the city by matching the
transit system and the urban development.

TOD ideally should optimize the interconnected nodes within a transit network to create a synergistic
and diverse development. Therefore, if TOD could and should occur across different parts of the

9
city, then this thesis raises a research question: how are TOD stations along the Commuter Line
distinguished within Jakarta? The question searches for an appropriate categorization method that
can be used by decision-makers to guide developments and to establish appropriate strategies in
TOD planning. The stations could not be equally developed as a generic or typical TOD, because the
resources for urban development are limited and each station has its own urban characteristics.

Subsequently, as the categorization may differentiate the scale and the form of development, this
thesis raises complementary questions: how can TOD be sustainably implemented in their unique
context? What are the existing urban characteristics and elements that are relevant to TOD principles?
What spatial adjustments are required? Because, TOD is inherently a form of urban development
that eventually should seek to increase human welfare and livability. Sustainability framework is seen
as the necessary perspective for urban development, including a transit oriented one. Sustainable
development principles will help decision-makers in accommodating various development conflicts
and trade-offs, which are always inevitable in planning urban development.

1.3 Methods

The first part of this thesis will explore literatures surrounding TOD and its relation to various built
environment aspects. This theoretical study will conclude the principles of good urban design and
sustainable development goals for TOD, which underlie the subsequent neighborhood analysis. This
literature study also provides a justification for the thesis to initiate a holistic analysis of the whole
corridor of the Commuter Line. The analysis will be limited to the stations within the Jakarta Province,
although the Commuter Line runs through the metropolitan area, because there was limited data
available for the areas outside the Jakarta Province.

For the holistic analysis, this thesis adopts the Three-Value (3V) Approach, developed by Salat and
Ollivier (2017) for the World Bank, which encompasses node, place, and market values to determine
TOD typologies. Several modifications to this method was necessary due to the limited data available
in Jakarta, though maintaining its efficacy was important to provide an initial basis in distinguishing the
different TOD potential across stations. The 3V methodology is further elaborated in chapter 4.

Subsequently, the neighborhood analysis will select three stations as the case studies. The
investigation combines field observation, secondary research on the context, and spatial analysis in
order to understand the prevailing urban characteristics around the commuter stations. From that, this
thesis synthesizes the relevant spatial interventions in relation to the sustainable development goals,
drawn from the literatures, to eventually propose the challenges to implement sustainable TOD and
that the typologies could be incorporated in the decision-making process.

10
2. LITERATURE STUDY

The literature study provides the basis for how this thesis approaches the study of TOD since the
concept is multidimensional and multidisciplinary. In this thesis, TOD is framed within urban design
and development studies, therefore this chapter elaborates several theories and principles about the
relationship between the built environment and TOD. This study also explores sustainability concept in
urban development, particularly TOD, in order to extract a set of comprehensive objectives of TOD.

2.1 TOD Principles

The strong relationship between urban development and mobility has always been the case since the
invention of wheel, streetcar, automobile and highway, and now the mass rapid transit. It encouraged
development of new economic centers, increased density, and expanded the cities --in other words,
a generator of growth. Uncoordinated growth will pose a future threat and lead to the missed
opportunity of optimizing massive infrastructure investment, thus not allowing the city to capitalize
the virtuous cycle of leveraged mobility and development (Cervero, 2013).

Thus, what is TOD?

A Transit-Oriented Development is a mixed-use community within an average 2,000-foot

walking distance of a transit stop and core commercial area. TODs mix residential, retail, office,
open space, and public uses in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and
employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot, or car. (Calthorpe, 1993, p. 56).

[...] integrated urban places designed to bring people, activities, buildings, and public space
together, with easy walking and cycling connection between them and near-excellent transit
service to the rest of the city. (ITDF) 2017, p. 8)

TOD is a tool to manage growth and to encourage sustainable development in the city It occurs
in multiple scales: neighborhood, city, and regional. The implementation requires a holistic strategy
across many scales. TOD as a concept was introduced by Peter Calthorpe in early 1980s, commonly
associated with compactness, diversity, walkability, density, and good transit service. It is often seen
as the panacea to urban sprawl and unsustainable development -- but if only being implemented
prudently Some argue that the concept itself is an evolution of the previous movements such as the
new urbanism and the smart growth, and thus their objectives often intersect in many aspects.

11
 Transit investments and services are incapable by themselves to trigger significant land-use
and urban form changes without public policies that leverage investments. Experiences in
Europe and Canada underscore the importance of coupling rail investments with reinforcing
local policies such as up-zoning around stations, supplemental acquisition, joint development
of station-area land, and situating publicly provided housing near stations. (Cervero & Seskin,
1995, p.5)

Cervero & Seskin (1995) concluded that there are two imperative forces that should exist for successful
TOD: policy and the market. Significant transformations do not happen spontaneously without any
initiatives from those sectors. TOD will take place if there are actions that coordinate the different
forces and stakeholders, and one of is planning.

Drawing lessons from Europe and some Asian countries, the implementation of TOD needs to be
complemented by comprehensive planning. Cervero (2016) emphasized the necessity of formulating
a vision and a conceptual image of the future metropolis such as the Finger Plan in Copenhagen
and the Planetary Cluster Plan in Stockholm. The Finger Plan, without actually branding itself as TOD,
defined growth axes along a transit network - creating a finger-shaped urbanization. Singapore, often
referred as a successful example of TOD implementation, had the Constellation Plan which combines

4/t r

0
0

(0

'AL 0

Figure 2.1 The Copenhagen Finger Plan

Source: Naturstyrelsen (Nature Agency), Milj0ministeriet (Ministry of the Environment) (2007) retrieved from: www.mlit.go.jp

12
compact and mixed-use development around many MRT stations. This constellation consists of
satellite nodes with specialized functions that interact and complement each other, which also
encourages movement between nodes - encourage ridership.

In general, the main idea is to have a heterogeneous built environment along the transit line to
allow synergistic interaction among the different parts of the city, because the city itself is naturally
heterogeneous. In this case, creating typologies for TOD based on the knowledge of the different
contexts is a more nuanced approach in working within this heterogeneity.

In a simple concluding remark, TOD can be perceived as an effort to bring people and activities
toward transit station. The "effort" refers to the various means in transforming the built environment.
"Towards transit stations" refer to the proximity to transit station and thus emphasizes on the
walkable environment. "Bringing people and activities" refer to the mixed of uses and people and the
appropriate density. Cervero and Kockelman (1997) summarized the TOD relationship with the built
environment into the 3Ds -- density, diversity, and design with further additions of distance to transit
and destination access.

TOD is Place-making

Place is the convergence of the spatial design, the people who use the space, and the activities
- how people use the space. Hence, place-making is the best practice of good space design
that is catered to the people and communities who are using it. It allows physical, cultural, and
social identities to define the place. Bertolini (1996) perceived station as node of networks and
a place in the city at the same time. He argued that TOD is an effort to balance the nature of
mobility and community, turning the transit station into a "place to be" rather than simply "a
place to pass through". Bernick and Cervero (1997) describe TOD from the perspective of place-
making as follow:

The centerpiece of the transit village is the transit station itself and the civic and public
spaces that surround it. The transit station is what connects village residents and workers
to the rest of the region, providing convenient and ready access to downtowns, major
activity centers like a sports stadium, and other popular destinations. The surrounding
public spaces or open grounds serve the important 27 function of being a community
gathering spot, a site for special events, and a place for celebrations - a modern-day
version of the Greek agora. (p.5)

In this sense, TOD is not always about introducing new development that often alienates
the existing environment. Instead, TOD should enhance the existing virtues and alleviate the

13
prevailing issues. This is a very ideal principle yet arduous to implement. Project for Public
Spaces (PPS) comprehends four qualities that constitute place-making: they are accessible;
people are engaged in various activities; the space is comfortable and has a good image; and
finally, it is a sociable place, a melting pot where people meet and interact with each other. PPS
summarizes these four qualities and the relevant characteristics into the diagram below. They
reasonably align well with TOD.

WHAT MAKES A
GREAT PLACE?

- U -eMA P AC T IE0

-I,1

Figure 2.2 The attributes to a great place

Source: Project for Public Spaces

TOD and Urban Design

Public transit is a point-to-point movement and public realm exists between the points -- points
are the stations and the destinations. Public realm is the base for every first and last-mile of a
trip, which ideally are served by non-motorized modes like walking or biking. This implies that
public space design, particularly in relation to walkability, is an inseparable element of transit
activities. Even a door-to-door transportation will require certain integration with the design of
public realm - parking and drop-off area are examples.

Transit is a utility based decision and people's preferences are typically to maximize their
individual utility function. McFadden (2000) suggested that there are two main determinants
to people's decision-making process. The first is the internal and intangible aspects that are
formed by one's personal experiences and memories. This is the preference. The second is
influenced both by the individual memories and the external aspects that creates one's belief
or perception. Both preference and perception are the input to the decision-making process.

14
In transit decision-making, both determinants could be influenced by the condition of the built
environment. Several studies have investigated and confirmed the relationship between built
form and transit activities, although the magnitude of the impact differs in various contexts and
studies (Cervero & Seskin, 1995; Cervero and Kockelman, 1995). Therefore, influencing (transit)
choice is highly possible through designing a more convenient experience, by practicing
good urban design and planning. A particular urban design approach may deliberately favor
pedestrian and bicycle spaces in order to promote a more walkable area, which is desirable for
TOD.

Innovative design and marketing strategies are also effective to improve perception toward
public transportation (uses). The Regional Metro System in Naples and Campania combines
transport infrastructure with architecture, contemporary art, and archaeology as marketing tools
(Cascetta and Pagliara, 2009). This exciting strategy, partly place-making, is crucial especially for
a context where public transit is often associated as an inconvenient option.

There are only few studies that meticulously elaborate the urban design aspects of TOD, but
some of the most relevant elements of urban design for transit activities can be extracted from
the to design principles for a walkable and livable city Ewing and Clemente (2013) suggested
the following criteria to define the quality of urban design:
- Imageability is about the quality of a place that makes it memorable. It may be produced by
one or a combination of many elements of urban design that capture attention and leave
impression on the users. Imageability is also considered as the net result of the other urban
design qualities.
- Legibility: refers to easy navigation and orientation of the spatial structure. This is a very
important element in TOD because it emphasizes that connectivity should be practically
feasible in the field for users - not simply possible based on network analysis.
- Enclosure: is the room-like quality of the place as defined by buildings, walls, trees, and other
vertical elements. It is highly influenced by the proportion of the space - the width and the
height of the volumetric boundary
- Human Scale: refers to the ergonomic of the built environment, how all aspects fit into
human nature - form, movements, speed, etc. This human-scale consideration become
relevant since technology advancement have introduced various new urban dimensions that
do not always cater to human nature, like automobile.
- Transparency: refers to the visual access towards the surrounding environment.
- Linkage: refers to the connection between urban spaces - between public and private
spaces and between themselves.

15
- Complexity: refers to the variety of urban elements that create rich urban experience.
- Coherence: refers to the consistency of urban characteristic that ties a place into a sensible
place. Complexity without coherence is chaotic and vice versa, coherence without complexity
is boring.

These criteria resonate with and adopt many theories around the study of the quality of urban
design (Lynch, 1984; Jacobs, 1993; Jacobson & Forsyth, 2008; Speck, 2012).

TOD Typologies

TOD is a very demanding concept that can align with a plethora of good development
principles. Unfortunately, resources are limited and trade-offs are inevitable for many
development endeavors. Therefore, TOD should never be seen as independent individual
development across the city and offered as one type solution for all (Calthorpe, 1993; Suzuki,
Cervero, and luchi, 2013; Salat and Ollivier, 2017). TOD should exploit the nature of transit
system as an urban or even regional system which forms interconnected nodes (stations) within
various contexts.

The continuum of different contexts could best be represented by a transect. Transects have
originally been used as an analytical tool by scientists, like Alexander von Humbolt, to describe
the idea that there is an appropriate place for all different development types. Duany Plater-
Zyberk (DPZ) adopted the concept of transect as a master planning tool that differentiates the
built environment and utilizes design guidelines to create a context-sensitive built environment.
Dittmar and Pinzon (2009) further developed guidelines for TOD in the Smart Code 9.2, based
on this transect approach. They excluded rural and sub-urban classification that existed on the
initial transect. The TOD transect is grounded in the understanding that urban and rural areas
response to different urban form, which subsequently defines what the ideal urban form is.

NATURAL RURAL SUB-URBAN GENERAL URBAN URBAN CENTER

ZONE k ZONE [aZONE 2MMNE T5ZONE M URBAN CORE
ZONE

Figure 2.3 The transect

Source: Duany PlaterZyberk & Company

16
The transect concept is applicable to TOD typologies because the extensive transit network
that runs across different part of the city, or even connects different city, creates a geographical
continuum of various urban or rural context. The interconnected network invites us to recognize
the different feasible development around different station areas. Therefore, "TOD typologies
aim at creating an aspirational vision of future land uses, prioritizing stations for investment, and
providing guidelines and actions for implementation" (Salat and Ollivier, 2017, p. xxv).

ndolup

Indan

Fremonde

Omean

Rockdngh

0 6 10 IS

Faft ,WA Ju

Mandursh

-I a ah
Wanimr
S----
Pfn" rcs7dm
co0bo

Figure 2.4 The Network City Plan in Metropolitan Perth

Source: Curtis (2006)

17
 In the 1990s, the city of Perth invested strongly in public transport and has since integrated their
planning practice with TOD. The city came up with a planning strategy for the Metropolitan
Perth called 'Network City' (see figure 2.3). The 'Network City' is a spatial framework comprising
three interconnected elements: activity corridors, activity centers, and transport corridors.
Curtis (2006) emphasized the importance of defining and planning for Activity Centers. In
other example, Dittmar and Pothica (2004) elaborated a more detailed TOD classification into
six different categories: urban downtown, urban neighborhood, suburban center, suburban
neighborhood, neighborhood transit zone, and commuter town center. In conclusion,
establishing TOD typologies is one of the initial milestone required to initiate a TOD planning
(Suzuki, Cervero, and luchi, 2014; Cervero, Guerra, and Al, 2017).

2.2 Sustainable Development

Sustainability can be defined as a process or condition that can be maintained indefinitely without
progressive diminution of valued qualities inside and outside the system where the process operated
or the condition prevails (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992). The terms initially applied to the renewable
resources such as fisheries and forestry by limiting the rate of utilization to not exceed the natural
reproduction rate or disrupt the ecosystem as the resource base itself Subsequently, the utilization
of non-renewable resources and the establishment of urban context for human activities makes the
concept of sustainability becomes more complicated to be implemented (Sarosa, 2002).

Social Environmental

Economic

Figure 2.5 The three elements of sustainability

Sustainability has certainly been a prominent principle in urban planning practice around the world.
Although, this thesis argues that sustainability is rarely implemented as a comprehensive concept
that fundamentally embodies the various perspectives - that are often contradictive. Early discourses
around sustainable development was dominated by economic and environmental perspectives. As
the objective of development expands the definition of increasing welfare to not just simply about
capitalization of resources, but also poverty alleviation and equality, sustainable development concept
appends the social objectives into the equation. Barbier (1987) suggested three main elements of

18
economic, environmental, and social to comprehend sustainable development. Equally considering
the three elements is necessary to consider the trade-offs in achieving progress. This is especially
relevant for the developing world where the urbanization rate and development impetus are arguably
high.

Economic Sustainability

"Economic sustainability implies a system of production that satisfies present consumption

levels without compromising future needs" (Basiago, 1998, p.150). It focuses on exploring
and exploiting the available resources for maximum gain while ensuring the continuity of the
process. Theoretically, the two main components are labor and capital.

The search for economic growth is the main driver of urban development. The capitalists
have always found ways to capital extraction which often have encouraged innovations and
technology advancement like new transportation and infrastructure. The system seeks for
the better and best solution to utilize resources for optimum outcome. The term highest and
best use in real estate development highly resonates with this concept. Highest and best use
considers the feasibility (physical, financial, and legal aspects) of a development to generate
maximum value.

Cities are fundamentally a (economic) growth machine, where economic activities are
concentrated in and people are attracted to. Urban planning and design are the tools to ensure
that the economic gears will always rotate within the city. Basiago (1998) emphasized that the
implementation of economic sustainability principle is inherently fulfilling public needs through
good urban design.

Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability is often perceived as the forefront of sustainability practice - as

the most common. It refers to the preservation of natural resources for future uses as well as
mitigating the impact of current development to the environment. Environmental consideration
provides the necessary limit to the extent of economic-oriented development. Although the
term is only recently used, the urban planning practice has been considering environmental
aspects to a certain extent. Some examples were Howard's Garden City and McHarg's Design
with Nature which tried to integrate urban development with significant environmental
consideration.

The recent concept of environmental sustainability within urban development could be

manifested in the green urbanism movement (Beatley, 2015). The idea promotes a compact

19
and an ecological urban form. Beatley's elaboration of sustainable future concerned a lot on
reducing the car usage and the carbon footprints of car-oriented lifestyle while enhancing
the quality of life by doing so. In addition, environmental sustainability encompasses many
interconnected elements within regional and even national scale, hence it cannot be seen
narrowly in practice.

Despite the emerging concern surrounding environmental issues, many solutions within the
planning and urban design realm are being critique as a cliche. Jeff speck (2012) labeled
"pseudo-green" on green-certified architecture that do not inherently encourage green lifestyle.
He argued that environmental sustainability has to be embedded in daily lifestyle through a
systemic transformation in our urban system. The walkable city, as he elaborated in his book
as the real solution to green lifestyle, is only possible through a set of comprehensive changes
in our built environment. Lim (2011) expressed his critique to the approach to environmental
sustainability as an eco-city syndrome, where solutions are focused on the sophisticated and the
cutting-edge technologies that are agnostic to the local context and culture. He brings in social
aspects in the equation where typical eco-city projects try to introduce brand new cities and
invent a new culture, instead of embracing the existing social and cultural framework.

Social Sustainability

Social sustainability is arguably the more recent concern in the framework, compared to
economic and environmental sustainability. Urban developments have been revolving
around the conflict between the economic forces and the environmental issues since the two
are directly connected. The environmental issues have also captured more attention since
their impacts are global, while the social issues are more localized and specific to a certain
demographic.

Social sustainability emphasizes on the distribution of growths and development benefits to the
different socio-economic groups. Capitalism does not inherently encourage social sustainability
where it produces winners and losers. Although the concept of winners and losers ensures
progress and innovation (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2013), the outcome often emanates a
perennial inequality. The losers are trapped in the adverse cycle and the winners enjoy the
privilege of progress.

Accessibility is an important factor in promoting social sustainability. An example is the equal

access to employment opportunities or public amenities. Auto-oriented mobility tends to
be unaffordable for most people and public transit should ideally be an answer this issue.
Unfortunately, high-pace development often widens the gap between the two extremes and

20
 eventually induces segregating urban forms. TOD, which resides more on the economic growth
endeavors, is inherently market-oriented and often brings gentrification with it. Consequently,
the objectives of TOD to increase accessibility for all and to promote effective mobility in the city
could be undermined by the unequal access to the benefits.

Sustainable TOD

The indicators for sustainable development are cross-cutting, so it is hard isolate one to only
a certain dimension of sustainability. Renne (2009) proposed a comprehensive set of goals to
measure sustainability, which are:
- The travel behavior: the goal is to encourage mode shift to be more transit- and pedestrian-
oriented. It can be measured by the vehicle usage and ownership, the pedestrian
accessibility, and the quality of transit;
- The local economy: the goal is to achieve thriving economic activities within station areas. It
can be measured by the range and success of business and housing in the area, as well as
the change in property value;
- The natural environment: the goal is to provide green and natural space to mitigate the
impact of development. It can be measured by the level of noise, pollution, energy use and
water retention and infiltration;
- The built environment: the goal is to create an attractive and livable environment. It is
measured by the vibrancy, the attractiveness, the mixture of uses, the safety, and the
proportion of people-oriented space;
- The social environment: the goal is to empower community through development. It is
measure by safety and security, sense of belonging (ownership), diversity, and opportunities
for advancement;
- And eventually, the policy context: the goal is to incorporate TOD in the regulation.

These goals are proposed as a way to measure TOD success, but in this thesis, they will be used
for TOD planning instead. Recognizing what the goals and measures (of sustainable TOD) are
helps frame the necessary interventions to achieve these goals and to promote a sustainable
TOD.

2.3 Conclusion: TOD is a Holistic Approach

TOD should be approached holistically from two complementary scales: an urban scale and a
neighborhood scale. Understanding both scales helps determine the appropriate interventions and
especially where trade-offs should be made. The urban scale analysis assigns different hierarchies and

21
 Public
Land and $it Assemblye
Preparation Urban
Renewal
Ease of Transit
Private Excess
Assembly (Young
Amendment)
Infrastructure
Capacty AVAILABILITY OF
DEVELOPABLE
LAND
PHYSICAL
Access
Blight
Compatible
UrbanCrime Land Uses Social
Rene" OTHE NEWSocial
NEARB LANDCharacter

ATTRACTIVENESS
OF SITE FOR
DEVELOPMENT

COMMITMENT
TO SPECIFIC ____________ DECISIONS TO r\IPC
IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION DEVELOP LAND MPACT
OFTRANSF IMPROVEMENT1N
IMPROVEMENT ACCESSIBILITY

AREGION'S

USoEi POLUCIES Assessment

Goals of Larger OTHER T aONi
C nity O NMENT and other
Social Character
Plan & Dollar
Zoc:ni and rygEc1n77.Priorities Compliance
with other
Public Programs
Environmental
Impact Review
Equal
Ougnunity

a oure: Knight and Trygg 1977.

Figure 2.6 The diagram of TOD determinants

Source: Knight and Irygg (1977) cited in Suzuki, Cervero, and luchi (2013)

roles to an expansive transit system by understanding different existing contexts where the stations
are located in and the relationship between them. Lim (1998) offered the term "hold and shift" in
urban development where the government performs as the city manager, who coordinates and
allocates development. The conceptual diagram by Knight and Trygg (1977) is a relevant summary
of the various influential factors for TOD. TOD decisions are a result of the interplay between the land
availability, place attractiveness, market value, and policy -- in addition to the transit system itself
Finally, sustainable TOD objectives are the product of intractable development trade-offs. It requires
TOD to create vibrant economic activities, affordable settlements, strong communities, walkable
environments, and vast open spaces, all within station area. Because land is such a limited resource,
any particular development will inevitably face conflicts and trade-offs amongst these goals.

22
3. CONTEXT ANALYSIS

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia and is administered directly by the provincial government

-
rather than a municipality The Jakarta Province consists of five municipalities: North Jakarta, South
Jakarta, West Jakarta, East Jakarta, and Central Jakarta. Below the municipal administrative level are
Kecamatan (District level), which are in turn divided into Kelurahan and Desa (Sub-district level).
Besides this formal administrative division, each Kelurahan and Desa is composed of Rukun Warga
(RW) and Rukun Tetangga (RT), the local community or neighborhood units. One RT generally consists
of 10-50 families, while one RW consists of 3-10 RT. The administrative and community units are
potential planning instruments. Unfortunately, highly top-down approaches rarely involve the lower
hierarchical units in the planning process, let alone the RT and RW which are not official administrative
units.

Legend:
1. Central Jakarta
2. North Jakarta
2 3. East Jakarta
9 5 4. South Jakarta
5. West Jakarta
3 F10
6. Bekasi
4 6 7. Depok
8 8. South Tangerang
9. Tangerang
10. Bekasi Regency
11. Bogor Regency
12. Bogor
13. Tangerang Regency
14. Cianjur Regency

2
Population Density (people/km
)

_-_ < 2,000

w 2,000 - 6,000
m 6,000 - 10,000
- 10,000 - 14,000
- >14,000

A0 5 10 20 Kilometers

Figure 3.1 The administrative boundary and population density of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area
Source: Badan Pusat Statistik

23
Jakarta, like many other mega-cities in the global south, has experienced massive urban expansion
and agglomerated into a large metropolitan area. The Jakarta Metropolitan Area (JMA) consists of
ten municipalities and four regencies, but a large portion of the population remains concentrated in
Jakarta itself

As it has expanded, Jakarta has transformed into a polycentric city, although arguably with certain
urban centers have remained dominant, especially where the business district and commercial
activities are concentrated. A study by Bertaud and Malpezzi (2003) suggested that a combination of
public transit and individual cars is the effective means of transportation in cities like Jakarta. However,
the fairly low density and moderate level of land use mix in Jakarta suggests that public transit is
slightly less effective compared to individual cars (Hasibuan, Soemardi, Koestoer, & Moersidik, 2014),
which is corroborated by Jakarta's terrible traffic condition today.

As the city has become increasingly polycentric, private developers have contributed to the disruptive,
sprawling, and haphazard pattern of development. In fact, the activity centers designated in the official
planning documents such as the West Primary Center and East Primary Center, have not thrived as
much as other new large developments initiated by private developers. Developers have competed
to introduce new towns and urban centers around the perimeter of the metropolitan area where
land is cheaper, which have increased the number of people commuting daily to Jakarta. These
precincts are connected mainly by highways, major roads, and, in places, by the Commuter Line. This
development trend has been prevailing and remains attractive to developers. Several studies indicate
that developers still expand their market to the satellite cities with new town development as the main
business model (Firman & Dharmapatni, 1994; Firman, 2004). They offer a more affordable housing
further from the city center accompanied by complementary amenities such as shopping centers.

On the other hand, the urban center has developed into an interesting convergence of extreme
ends of socio-economic ladder, creating the dualism that characterizes urban development in Jakarta
(Danisworo and Prasetyoadi, 2015; Firman, 2004; Kusumawjaya, 2004; Peresthu, 2002). This urban
dualism refers to "the tension between formal-informal, planned-unplanned, rich-poor within urban
development" (Winarso, 2011, p.164). "Urban villages" exist next door to sophisticated residential
areas; informal commercial areas lie adjacent to modern malls and shopping centers; and kampungs
are surrounded by modern office buildings, apartments, and condominiums (Winarso, 2011). This is
a unique form of spatial segregation that can be both dangerous and beneficial at the same time. It
is dangerous because it creates an exclusive environment for the affluent and may exacerbate social
disparities and raise class conflicts. But it could also be seen as a sustainable form of diverse urban
community and potentially create mutual symbioses between different economic groups.

24
TOD within the urban area will have to compete with this outward-oriented development trend while
addressing the complicated dualisms of the urban core. TOD has to be able to perform as a cohesive
endeavor that stitches and unifies the city and its diverse neighborhoods.

3.1 Transit System

Public transit has never been a strong feature of most cities in Indonesia, including Jakarta. The latest
successful transit system in Jakarta was arguably the BRT line, Transjakarta, which is the world's longest
BRT network and has been widely used since its opening in 2004. Transjakarta has an extensive
coverage throughout the city, although it fails to maintain reliable frequency and headway particularly
because of the disjointed dedicated busway, so buses are still stuck in congestion.

Population Density (people/kn 2

)

awai
r- < 2,500
0_ m 2,500 - 5,000
- 5,000 - 10,000
m 10,000 - 15,000
- 15,000 - 20,000
= 20,000 - 25,000
= 25,000 - 30,000
- > 30,000
0 2.5 5 10
1 1 a111111 -- A

Figure 3.2 Overlay between population density at sub-district level and the location of the commuter stations
Source: Badan Pusat Statistik and Open Street Map

25
The only operating rail-based transit today is the Commuter Line, which serves the metropolitan
area. The Commuter Line was significantly improved and modernized in 2011 and has since been
experiencing a ridership increase. An automatic ticketing system, train refurbishment, station
renovations, and, arguably, the recent spread of the transportation network companies (TNCs) and
ride-sharing technology together have helped to transform the Commuter Line into a convenient
transit option.

The Commuter Line has an extensive coverage throughout the metropolitan area. PT KCI (Kereta
Commuter Indonesia), the corporation that operates the Commuter Line, is now operating 75 stations
serving the whole JMA. It connects the urban center with substantial residential pockets around the
perimeter Figure 2.2 shows that the Commuter Line network aligns quite well with the densest sub-
districts. Since the Commuter Line operates on urban infrastructure that has been in place since 1925,
many stations that were previously in the outskirts of the city are now located within the urbanized
area.

1,000,000
900,000
' 800,000
o 700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
2 300,000
> 200,000
100,000

2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Figure 3.3 The Increase of average daily ridership of the Commuter Line
Source: PT Kereta Commuter Indonesia

In the next two years, Jakarta will be operating a new MRT line and LRT line. These projects have been
hailed as imperative infrastructures that Jakarta should have had for quite some time now - Bangkok
had its Skytrain in 1999, Kuala Lumpur opened its monorail in 2003, and Singapore opened its first
mass rapid transit (MRT) in 1987. The new MRT line and LRT are both only a small part of the larger
planned network. They may struggle to significantly impact accessibility in Jakarta and attract high
ridership right away

The Ministry of Transportation has targeted a significant increase of transit usage from 26% of the
modal share in 2016 to 40% in 2019. This requires a major paradigm shift in transportation system in
Jakarta's transportation system. It is a good ambition that can only be achieved through an integrated
urban development - TOD - in addition to the improvements within the internal transit services.

26
 Recsamatio
industrial Park
The old City
AIRPORT
(SATELLTNort Conveton
CoY)aetsriar

TANGERANG Center
(sATELUr CITY) 'West Primary
Center
- BEKASI
- (sAWELITE CTY)

CB -- -

BSD
(NEW CITY DEVELOPMENT)
-- LR~ine 0 2. 5 1 Kiloeter

Leg d

+-o MRT Station with TO Designation

-----
MRT Phase 2 (Approx.)
Commuter Line Fig-
(Larger int indicate transfer (SATUTE CITY)
station)
---LRT Line 1
-- LRT Line 2 0 2.5 5 10 K11ometers
0 Designated TOD Area in the Detailed Spatial Plan
CDVarious Center of Activities

Figure 3.4 The existing and planned rail transit network in Jakarta
Source.- Author with data from RDTR 2014, The Jakarta Planning Agency, Open Street Map

27
 Figure 3.5 Illustration of current TOD projects in Jakarta
Source: LRTCITY; Liputan6.com

3.2 The Emergence of Transit Oriented Development

Transit oriented development is currently one of the forefront planning initiatives for the government,
a strong development branding for developers, and an emerging lifestyle for the general public. The
next sub-chapter will discuss how the TOD concept is incorporated into the regulatory system. Equally
important is to observe the way in which developments have started to brand themselves as TOD in
the past few years.

PT Adhi Karya, a public construction and property development enterprise, has been granted the
right to construct the new LRT line along with supporting properties. The company developed the
LRT City project, which is a set of superblock developments next to several LRT stations. Perumnas,
the national housing development enterprise, has just started constructing two apartments around
commuter stations on land owned by PT KAI (Kereta Api Indonesia), the National Train enterprise.
In addition, Perumnas seeks to develop more apartments around another three stations. Private
developers have exploited TOD in their development branding as well. This trend has occured
because the general public started to see living in proximity to transit as a promising investment, if not
a future lifestyle. Therefore, the market of TOD-branded development, particularly apartments, have
been thriving.

28
 Company Station Location Transit Mode
PT PP Tbk. * Juanda Station Commuter Train
- Manggarai Station
PT Waskita Karya Tbk. - Bogor Station Commuter Train
PT Adhi Karya TBk. - LRT City
- Bekasi
- Royal Sentul Park Bogor LRT
- Jati Cempaka
- West Bekasi
PT MRT Jakarta - Duku Atas (Sudirman) Station
- Fatmawati Station
MRT
- Cipete Raya Corridor
- Blok M - Sisingamangaraja Station

Table 3.1 Current TOD Projects

source: Nurcaya (2017)

Most of these developments have apartments for sale or office towers with proximity to a station,
usually with retails stores as well as complementary amenities on the ground floor. While dense
residential is indeed necessary for TOD, this trend does not display a holistic implementation of TOD.
There has been more attention to the density aspect than to how these projects actually fit into and
shape their contexts (In the Spotlight: Sibarani Sofian, 2018). Affordability is another attribute that
many of these projects try to promote, especially for projects built by public enterprises. But this
can only be proven effective after the properties reach the stabilized-occupancy stage and be re-
evaluated, since people often buy these units as their second homes for future investment.

3.3 TOD Planning and Regulation

The Provincial Government of Jakarta created the Regional Spatial Plan for Jakarta 2030 (RTRW
2030), which is more elaborately developed in the 2014 Detailed Spatial Plan (RDTR 2014) document.
The Detailed Spatial Plan contains, among other things, the city's zoning regulations. The zoning
regulations are generally similar to those of US cities. The RDTR coordinates and regulates urban
development at the province scale as well as at the parcel level. The provincial government also
produces Urban Design Guidelines (UDGL) for various special areas that require specific guidelines,
including TOD areas. Figure 2.6 shows the location of areas with UDGL, which also indicate the
location of large urban projects in the city. Most of the areas with UDGL are located along the new
MRT corridors, because UDGL is required for new TOD and density (FAR) increase proposals around
MRT stations.

29
 ~-W-

Legend
Areas with UDGL
"

0 25 5 10 Miometers

Figure 3.5 Transit Stations and UDGL Locations

Source: The Jakarta Planning Agency (DCKTRP); and Open Street Map

However, UDGL documents are inherently advisory and not legally binding. The actual
implementation of the guidelines is controlled by the executive, the planning agency, during the
permitting process. Only a few aspects of the recommendations, such as FAR, BCR, and block plans,
are usually codified and signed by the Governor In general, UDGL is the direct planning instrument
to control the form of development and is crucial for TOD. The following are several regulations that
have addressed TOD:

TOD in the Ministerial Regulation

At the national level, the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning (2017) published a
regulation about TOD guidelines. This regulation was released to anticipate the prevalent TOD
initiatives in several major cities in Indonesia and to fill the gap in the spatial arrangement
regulation about TOD and urban renewal. This regulation defines TOD as the area within 400 m
- 800 m from the transit station. The major takeaway from this regulation is its TOD classification
which discerns three general typologies:

30
- Urban TOD: characterized by the regional scale services and activities or the area that has
been designated as an activity center
- Sub-urban TOD: characterized by the urban scale services and activities.
- Neighborhood TOD: characterized by the neighborhood scale services and activities.

These typologies are assigned with different urban characteristics which are represented by
gradients of density, development intensity, open space requirements, parking requirements,
and mixed-use proportions. Indeed, this regulation provides very comprehensive guidance on
TOD, although its efficacy is questionable because it is a national level regulation; the regulation
specifies various quantitative urban design guidelines that may or may not be appropriate for
different contexts or different cities.

TOD in the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW 2030)

The Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan (Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, 2012) is a
provincial level plan which contains a development vision for the region and prescribes high-
level guidance and ordinances. TOD in this document is characterized by three main attributes
which are a mixture of residential and commercial uses, high accessibility from mass public
transit, and compact and dense development. The document also mentions several TOD
principles, whereby development should:
- Adopt regional or urban scale planning approaches with an emphasis on transit integration;
- Promote diverse land uses and activities;
- Encourage development in the area around transit in the form of infill development,
revitalization, or redevelopment;
- Prioritize pedestrian oriented development; and
- Focus on the quality of public space and preserve green open spaces.

Most, if not all, of the important TOD principles have been mentioned in this document. This
document also indicates several areas that should be developed as TOD, but without further
elaboration of any typologies. This TOD designation is mainly based on the areas in the
existing and planned transit network that are considered significant. The details on specific
developments are to be elaborated in subsequent planning documents and regulation.

TOD in the 2014 Detailed Spatial Plan Document (RDTR 2014)

The Jakarta 2014 Detailed Spatial Plan (Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, 2014) is derived
from the RTRW 2030 document. This document specifically mentions several station and
terminal areas to be developed as TOD. They consist of the following areas:

31
- Harmoni District
- Senen*
- Grogol*
- Blok M
- Kebayoran Lama*
- Dukuh Atas/Sudirman*
- Manggarai*
- Pulo Gebang Terminal
- Jatinegara*

(*) indicates area with Commuter Line station.

These designated TOD areas are derived from the RTRW 2030. There are six designated areas
that involve the Commuter Line stations. Furthermore, The most important feature of RDTR
2014 is the zoning regulation. It provides all the necessary guidance relevant for development
such as land use, building coverage ratio (BCR), floor area ratio (FAR), green area ratio (GAR),
building height, and setback.

Governor Regulation about TOD Management

One crucial progress step for TOD in Jakarta was the appointment of PT MRT Jakarta, the
operator of the MRT Line, as the managing entities for TOD area around MRT stations
(Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, 2017). This was promulgated by a Governor Regulation
in 2017, which designated PT MRT the authority to engage with involved stakeholders and to
coordinate developments. With this designation, PT MRT Jakarta as a state-owned enterprise
could establish a business-to-business relationship with property owners and developers, and
thus could ease the process for forming Public Private Partnership (PPP). This is particularly
crucial for financing strategies because the government is usually less nimble in this matter and
often restricted by bureaucratic processes.

32
4. STATION CATEGORIZATION

In this chapter, this thesis explores a framework to initiate TOD planning with a quantified process
that can characterize stations differently The Three Value (3V) Framework by Salat and Olivier (2017)
provide a comprehensive analysis to distinguish stations based on node value, place value, and
market value. It is a methodology for identifying economic opportunities in areas around mass transit
stations and optimizing them through the interplay between the three values. A significant station
with multimodal connectivity increases access for people and thus encourages the agglomeration
of activities. Conversely, a vibrant urban area with robust activities encourages the influx of people
and hence increases the significance of a station. Market forces trigger development and value good
places, while a well-designed place eventually attracts higher market value. Analyzing the three values
of each stations equips policy and decision-makers to better understand the relationship between the
economic vision for the city, its land use, its mass transit network, and its stations' urban qualities and
market vibrancy (Salat and Olivier, 2017).

4.1 Node Value

Node value recognizes the significance of a station based on its location within the transit network
as well as its connection to other stations and transit modes. Ideally, TOD decision making should
begin from an understanding of the node value of each station in order to effectively allocate and
concentrate development that capitalizes on the transit network itself In cities with established transit
networks like Paris, London, and Tokyo, studies reveal that the concentration of people and economic
activities are highly influenced by their transit network. From this perspective alone, development
should ideally be concentrated around stations with high node value to ensure maximum integration
between connectivity and destinations - which together form accessibility

The commuter line in Jakarta consists of six lines that expand to nine municipalities and four
regencies. Although this thesis focuses only on stations within the Jakarta Province, the centrality
analysis includes the whole Commuter Line network and all the active stations based on the current
operational map (see figure 4.1). Each of the following sub-indexes are normalized into a 0-1 scale
(using Min-Max Normalization) and later compounded into one Node Value.

33
 0 AWW ANM 0M

I-
nina
- - POK

-
AAJU

- 0 -- r-F-

-
- 0 --- I-

4I im
---.
0 ---

o -M SI
---
I..,.0
WMZ 0 --0uEm -- Gum

--- 10 --0 -o

acwmO * -0m2
Io.-. 1-

.
um 0
o urn -- *

-
a~
-- I o
-. 1 ita -- W --- -0P.
i-A 0
rnO o aa O.W.M OMcM

Figure 4.1 The network map of the Commuter Line

Source: Kereta Commuter Indonesia, retrieved from: http://www.kr.co.id/#m-perjalanankrl

Node value is calculated by measuring the following sub-indexes:

Degree of Centrality

This sub-index calculates the number of transit links at a station where each direction counts as
a link. It values transfer stations more highly and conversely, assigns terminal stations the lowest
value.

Closeness Centrality

This sub-index calculates average distance (in terms of numbers of links) from a station to every
other station in the network, measured by dividing 1 by the average shortest path from a station
to all other stations in the network.

Betweenness Centrality

This sub-index calculates how often a node is found on a shortest path between two nodes in

34
 the network. Calculated as the total division between the number of paths that pass through the
station and the number of shortest paths from two transit nodes. where Oi is the total number
of shortest paths from node i toj and Gi(k) is the number of those paths that pass through
station k.

betmeennessod =i jk)
iij k G ii

Daily Ridership

This sub-index calculates the daily ridership for each stations, excluding passengers not
stopping. This analysis uses the 2017 ridership data provided by PT KCI (Kereta Commuter
Indonesia), a subsidiary company of PT KAI that operates the Commuter line. This real ridership
data (not a forecast) is very useful in representing the attractiveness of each station based on
the current condition.

Intermodal Diversity

This sub-index calculates the number of lines of different transit modes accessible within
walking distance of a station. The number of complementary transit mode for the Commuter
Line stations is compiled using a transportation map (see appendix A) created by FDTJ
(Forum Diskusi Transportasi Jakarta), a non-profit public group that focuses on the Jakarta
transportation system. All transit modes are considered to have an equal value of one in the
analysis. So, two bus connections within a station means two points in the calculation.

The first three sub-indexes (degree of centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality) are
compounded (weighted average) into a centrality sub-index. This centrality sub-index is the value
that represents how each station fit in the network. This thesis calculates these values using Gephi,
a network analysis software, that automatically generates the values of these centrality sub-indexes
using the network form as an input. Next, the centrality sub-index is compounded with daily ridership
and intermodal diversity sub-indexes to produce the node value (see appendix B for more detail on
this process). Using the node value, this thesis distinguishes each station into one of three typologies:
- Single Line Stations (node value is less than 0.33), are the stations that have only two links (not
a transfer stations) and lack of good intermodal connectivity. They are usually located at the outer
extent of the transit network, although some may be located within the urban area.

35
- Major Stations (node value is between 0.33 and 0.66), are the transfer stations or the stations
with good intermodal connection, which in result have a relatively higher ridership. They are mostly
located within the urban core.
- Highly Connective Stations (node value is more than 0.66), are the stations with the highest
centrality, good intermodal connection, and high ridership. These stations are the most significant
nodes within the network.

-~

ww~m ~

~&

Node Value:
* single Stations
* Major Stations
Highly Connective Stations
s
Popula n density, darker color indicates higher density)
s 10 kmA

Figure 4.2 Node value typologies

Source: author with data from Badan Pusat Statistik and OSM (2018)

36
 Lessons Learned: Node Value

The node value result is a very useful insight to distinguish stations beyond transfer and single
stations - which is visible from the network map. It is logical to conclude that transfer stations
are the most important nodes in the network, but node value analysis highlights other attributes
that influence the perceptions of each station's significance. Indeed, some of the transfer stations
do possess fairly high node value, such as Manggarai Station, Jatinegara Station, and Tanah
Abang Station. But the results also show that stations like Sudirman Station, Cawang Station,
and Tebet Station are more significant of a node compared to the other transfer stations like
Duri Station and Jakarta Kota Station. This is because the additional attributes like ridership and
intermodal diversity enrich the way one could value the stations as part of a transit network.

The highly connective stations could be prioritized for future TOD especially for the more
intensive development. They have the capacity to accommodate higher traffic, and some of
them actually do -- because the node value considers the ridership sub-indexes. The major
stations could be developed to complement the main hubs -- the highly connective stations.
Their development should be less intense, but ideally should have the combination of diverse
land uses and attractive destinations. In the future, a major station could be updated to a
highly connective station if it receives a significant transit service improvement. The single
stations are the least significant stations within the network, so they are more suitable for a
moderate neighborhood-type development. The prevalence of single line stations within the
urban core area indicates the lack of intermodal connectivity in many of these stations, which in
result produce a fairly low riderhsip level, despite being located in a densely populated district.
Although it is arguably the most important for TOD, the node value is not the only important
factors in determining a station's potential.

4.2 Place Value

Place value describes the urban quality of a place and its attractiveness in terms of amenities; the
type of urban development; local accessibility to daily needs by walking and cycling; the quality of
the urban fabric around the station, especially the pedestrian accessibility, the granular urban blocks,
and the interconnected streets that create vibrant neighborhoods; and the good mixture of land uses.
Based on this 3V approach, place value can be represented and measured through a composite index
of the following sub-indexes:

37
Density of Street Intersections

This sub-index calculates the number of street intersections per km 2 within an 800-meter radius
of each transit station. More street intersections indicate smaller blocks and more routes for
movement within the area, which is desirable for the ideal TOD. The calculation uses street
network data downloaded from Open Street Map (OSM) with several modifications to match
the existing condition. The limitation of using OSM is that its street network does not include all
the existing streets, especially narrow lanes. Because OSM continuously updates and appends
its data, this thesis utilizes the available data during the time of writing. In any case, the current
OSM street network data is not extremely different to the existing condition, thus the result
provides a solid initial representation of street intersections.

Walkshed Ratio

This sub-index calculates the proportion of the walkshed boundary in an 800-meter radius area.
The walkshed boundary is the actual area within 800m walking distance on the existing street
structure from the station. This process recognizes any available pedestrian space as a feasible
route regardless of its physical quality. Exceptions are made for flyover bridges and highways
that do not provide any designated pedestrian space, where it is impossible to walk. Pedestrian
crossings across very large streets are also considered infeasible without any designated
crossing facilities, either pedestrian bridge or zebra-crossing. The walkshed boundary is
calculated using the network analysis tool (service area) in ArcGIS with the street network data
from OSM. The ratio is the area of the walkshed boundary divided by the area of 800 m-radius
circle. The walkshed boundary for each station can be seen in appendix C.

Diversity of Uses

This sub-index calculates the number of types of land uses based on the zoning regulation
map. This process cannot be done based on the existing condition because the existing
uses data is not available at this time. But measuring the land use assignment in the zoning
regulation is equally important and will be useful especially to be compared (qualitatively)
with the existing condition. Calculated using the Shannon entropy formula where i is the type
of use (commercial, community, residential, industrial); N is the number of uses; pi is the area
dedicated to use i; and pN is the area of the cell dedicated to any use. The value of a diversity
index increases with the number of types and evenness. For a given number of types, the value
of a diversity index is maximized when all types are equally abundant.

38
 log
Entropy = - lo g N P

Density of Amenities

This sub-index calculates the number of amenities within an 800m radius. Amenities data is
collected from OSM where they comprise of: commercial facilities (shop, supermarket, and
restaurant), education facilities (kindergarten, school, college, and university), healthcare
facilities (clinic, hospital, pharmacy, and dentist), public amenities (places of worship, community
center, library and historic features), and sport facilities (stadium, swimming pool, and sport
center). All these categories are based on what is provided in the OSM data. Although this is an
open source data, they are expected to provide a good proxy of amenities prevalence around
each stations.

All of these sub-indexes are compounded (weighted average) into one place value. Walkshed ratio
and land use diversity are valued more than the other two, because the walkshed ratio represents
the actual permeability better than the density of street intersection and the land use diversity is a
significant attribute in TOD (see appendix D for more detail on this process). The resulting place value
assigns each stations to one of the following three typologies:
- Suburban (place value is less than 0.33), are the station areas that do not possess the desirable
urban character to support good TOD. They usually are dominated by one land use, such as
residential or industrial. They generally have a poor (pedestrian) connectivity and minute amenities.
- Urban area (place value is between 0.33 and 0.66), are the station areas with a moderate
pedestrian connectivity and a fairly good mixture of uses.
- Intense urban area (place value is more than 0.66), are the station areas that combine permeable
urban fabric, good mixture of uses, and ample amenities. They are conceptually the best
environment to support transit lifestyle.

Lessons Learned: Place Value

The place value produces a less enlightening result, because most of the stations fall within
a narrow range of medium values. This result indicates that no stations have both the fine
granular fabric and a good mix of uses. Some possible causes are:
- Stations with relatively higher walkshed ratio and intersection density have dense low-rise
urban fabrics that are dominated by residential use and hence, score lower on the diversity
of uses sub-index.

39
- Stations with a good mix of uses have large commercial blocks, which are detrimental to the
walkshed boundary and the density of intersection scores.
- Several stations only have entrances to one side of the station and since the rail is at-grade,
this excludes part of the proximate area from accessing the station. Hence, the stations
achieve a lower walkshed ratio score despite having a relatively high score on other sub-
indexes.

By looking briefly into some of the highest scoring stations in Google Maps, the intense urban
stations, such as Mangga Besar, Gang Sentiong, and Pondok Jati stations are surrounded by
dense low-rise settlements with commercial activities and amenities along major streets. They
have the right attributes to be a walkable and vibrant urban area, but the challenge is how this
fabric could be effectively densified and transformed into a compact development. The current
condition is already dense but land-intensive.

The urban area represents the stations with a moderate quality of walkable and diverse
environment. A lot of these stations can be improved into a better urban quality by solving
several connectivity issues in the field. For example, Sudirman Station and Tanah Abang Station
have a good mixed of uses but score poorly on walkshed ratio and density of street intersection
sub-indexes, because they have a disconnected pedestrian network and several large plots that
provide no semi-public access. TOD in urban area station will have to address these details to
improve its place value.

There is only one station area that falls under the suburban typology, which is the Kampung
Bandan Station. Kampung Bandan Station is highly disconnected from its surrounding and
surrounded by a large empty plot and industrial buildings -- low density of intersections and
land use diversity scores. In the future, TOD in these stations could focus on adaptive reuse
or regeneration, especially on declining industrial sites. Kampung Bandan Station do have the
potential for major regeneration TOD.

Finally, This thesis must emphasize the limitation of the place value score, where the calculation
for the diversity of uses sub-index uses the land use designation from the zoning plan, which
does not always represent the current condition but rather the allowable or potential condition.
The quality of the built environment is also not captured in this analysis. In extreme cases, dense
informal settlements may be composed of small blocks with many narrow lanes that make it
conceptually walkable and thus conceptually desirable. This is not entirely true because there
are other complementary attributes of the built environment that influence walkability and
makes it a desirable TOD. But that also does not undermine the fact that this fabric indeed offers
a more walkable setting than large blocks do. Instead, it reveals the opportunity to improve

40
 I

I-

SW

S.0.0

F> -A

*
J,

1C4,w-
-

7,

Place Value:
suburban
Urban Area
Intense Urban Area
ns
Popula n density, darker color indicates higher density 7kmm A
s5

Figure 4.3 Place value typologies

Source: author with data from Badan Pusat Statistik and OSM

the quality of the built environment on the already granular fabric and to create more diverse
activities as planned in the zoning regulation.

It is also important to note that an extremely abundant intersections indicates a dense

settlement fabric which usually lacks of a legible pathway. Instead of being walkable, a
complicated structure of narrow streets create a difficult orientation towards the place, especially
for non-locals. UN Habitat suggested that the intersection density should ideally range between
80 - 100 intersections per km 2
.

41
4.3 Market Value

Market value ideally refers to the available capacity for future development around station areas.
It is derived through market analysis (the study of demand and supply). It is measured through a
composite index that includes major drivers of demand including current and future human densities
(residential plus employment); the current and future number of jobs accessible by transit within 30
minutes; and major drivers of supply, including developable land, potential changes in zoning such
as increasing floor area ratios (FAR), and market vibrancy The approach should be looking forward
rather than backward.

Land Price

Unfortunately, this thesis was unable to compile such comprehensive data and thus, this thesis
simplifies the analysis using the land price zone produced by the National Land Agency, which
represents the market land value. The land price zone is created as a reference for asset
valuation, land transactions, and administration fee and property tax calculation. It is also a
mechanism to control land speculation. This thesis assumes that a high land price represents
higher market desirability for future development because most highly priced land is located
strategically either in proximity to existing activity centers or major access points. (see appendix
E for more detail on the calculation process)

Development Capacity

Additionally, this market value also measures development capacity of a station area based on
the maximum FAR of each plots designated in the zoning regulation. Development capacity
is calcluated as the total floor area of developable land use type within 800m radius from
each station. All land use types except green open space and waterbodies are considered as
developable land.

In combining the two sub-indexes, stations with highest land prices and highest development
capacities have the highest market value, and vice versa (see appendix F for more detail on this
process). The clustering of this value produces three typologies:
- Low Market Stations (market value is less than 0.33), are the station areas with the lowest
development capacity and average land price. Hence, they are the least attractive sites for
intensive developments and arguably suitable for an incremental and small scale development.
- Emerging Stations (market value is between 0.33 and 0.66), are the stations with moderate
development capacity as well as moderate land value. They usually are located quite strategically
within the city and in proximity with many activity centers.

42
* High Market Stations (market value is more than 0.66), are the stations that combine a high
development capacity and a high average land price. These stations are arguably the most
attractive for the intense or aggresive developments, because they do have the capacity to
accommodate such developments while also being strategically located within the city.

Lessons Learned: Market Value

The market value result strongly indicates the reality that there are many aspects that influence
development. Transit is just one of many, and the Commuter Line, which only began to

uan a.
nOdangdia
en

Market Value:
* Low Market Stations
* Emerging Stations

High Market Stations

Populat n density, darker color indicates higher density s 12 A

Figure 4.4 Market value typologies

Source. author with data from Badan Pusat Statistik and OSM

43
 improve transit service in the past five years, has not yet been a significant force. Hence, there
are a considerable number of high market stations with low node value. These stations are
potential areas for future transit improvement, because the expectation is that development will
occur - or even has occurred -- in these high market areas. Connectivity can be improved by
introducing more feeder services. Furthermore, high market stations with relatively high node
values (highly connective hubs or major stations) are arguably the immediate potential for TOD
within the Commuter Line network. These stations are important stations with significant transit
capacity as well as development potential.

In general, the market value score, although is a simplified version, provides initial impetus for
decision-makers to further investigate available developable land, either at high market stations
for intense development or conversely, at low market stations to establish relatively affordable
projects with good accessibility. The emerging stations are where development could go to
both directions, either to be a major destinations or dense neighborhood. It depends on other
relevant considerations. In general, this is a useful insight that will inform different approaches to
achieve different development goals.

However, the market value calculation could certainly be improved when existing built-parcel
data is available. The Jakarta Planning Agency is currently planning on mapping existing
buildings and if such data is ready in the future, then the real development capacity can be
measured more precisely

4.4 Result: TOD Categories

The 3V approach provides the initial basis to distinguish the TOD potential of different stations
and thus helps decision-makers prioritize strategic interventions and align development initiatives.
The commuter stations in Jakarta clearly display a wide range of characteristics and potential
for development. Knowing the three respective values -- node, place, and market - provides a
comprehensive perspective to distinguish each station from others and helps in accommodating
future discussion on development trade-offs.

The summary of the 3V analysis result is provided in table 4.1. By observing the clustering points of
the three values relationship, particularly node and market values (see figure 4.5), this thesis proposes
the following categories as a guide to how decision-makers could distinguish the appropriate
approaches for TOD along the Commuter Line in Jakarta:

44
 First Tier Station (1): Immediate

This category is assigned to stations with relatively high node and market values, which
means that these stations are capable of accommodating high ridership and attractive for
new developments. If developable land is available, a TOD project could immediately be
implemented to generate a critical mass of development. Some of the station areas may
already have a significant development and thus, the imperative is to integrate the existing
development(s) into a TOD-place quality. These stations ideally should perform as the main
destinations within the network, and thus intensive development is encouraged.

Second Tier Station (2A and 2B): Emerging

This category is assigned to stations with medium score on node value which means, further
improvement in their transit services could transform these stations into a major TOD. There
are two groups within this category The first is the 2A stations with inherent high market
value. These stations could be the top priorities for future transit improvement programs.
Additional transit capacity will justify for more intense development around these stations.
The second group is the 2B stations, with relatively low market value, where future transit
improvements should be accompanied by significant strategies to improve their attractiveness

------------
100 *Sudrrlan i

0.90
qGondangdia

0.80 I
Jayakarta
Sawah Besar PasarSenen
0.70 Kampa~ Banf Clkini
W Mang Bea
*Jakarto Kota
0.60 *Kramat *Raja O Karet
angaiT Abang
Gang Sentiong
U) 0.50 Anco i Palmerah

.Jatineg4a
*j Angke OGrogol *Kebayorn
*Pesing '@ Duren Kalibata

Iw W~sar M. Baru
p~dIa 2r *Cawang
0.20 Tan at
aman Kota i Pasar Minggu
1Bjong Indah
0,10 Bng *KMender Baru
Lente gung *The circle size represents the
OUniversitas Pancasila
0.00 -
------ --- ? *-- ---- place value
-

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 .00

Node Value

Figure 4.5 Station clustering based on the 3V analysis

45
 for development. This can be done by evaluating density (FAR) allocation within station areas
and by investing in urban design improvements to influence the market value. In general,
development intensity for this category is relatively lower than the first tier stations, unless there
is a major transit improvement.

Third Tier Station (3A and 3B): Incremental

This category is for the less significant stations with fairly low node value where ideally
development should be less intense. TOD in these stations should focus on improving public
space such as streetscape and open space. This category consists of two groups as well. First,
is the 3A stations with relatively high market value. These stations have significant development
impetus but are served by minimum transit service, which is the Commuter Line. Any major
developments within these stations should be considered and studied carefully, not to emanate
more car traffic. The second group is the least significant stations, 3B, with low market value.
These stations should mainly contribute as "origin", which means that developments tend
toward a dense residential neighborhood with good accessibility to many destinations around
the city. From a transit perspective, development around these stations should conceptually be
the least intense.

These categories are derived, first, from the difference in node value that is considered as the most
important guiding principle for TOD typology. The variations, such as can be found in second tier and
third tier station categories, are based on the difference in market value. The place value contributes
more as an additional insight in this categorization, because the categories will eventually be used to
determine place-related interventions.

This categorization is a bit different from Salat and Ollivier's method and the Zhengzhou
implementation case they showcase in the document. Originally, the categorization separates each
point within three equal intervals (of 3.33) on each values -- which is also the method to determine
the typologies for each values. Instead, this thesis argues that the relative clustering of nearby stations
in the realtionship matrix could better characterize the stations into a more robust categories.

46
Station Node Value Node Typology Place value Place Typology Market Value Market Typology
Ancol 0.06 Single Station Urban Area Emerging
Angke 0.15 Single Station 0.50 Urban Area 0.38 Emerging
Bojong Indah 0.11 Single Station 0.53 Urban Area 0.11 Low Market
Buaran 024 Single Station 0.44 Urban Area 0.19 Low Market
Cawang Major Station 0.55 Urban Area 0.24 Low Market
Cikini 031 Single Station 0.59 Urban Area High Market
Duren Kalibata 0.35 Major Station Urban Area 0.33 Emerging
Dud 0.31 Single Station Urban Area 0.36 Emerging
Gang Sentiong 0.09 Single Station Intense Urban 0.54 Emerging
Gondangdia 028 Single Station 0.57 Urban Area High Market
Grogol 024 Single Station 0.56 Urban Area 0.39 Emerging
Jakarta Kota Major Station 0.49 Urban Area Emerging
Jatinegara Major Station 0.49 Urban Area 042 Emerging
Jayakarta 0.12 Single Station 0.43 Urban Area High Market
Juanda Major Station Urban Area High Market
Kalideres 0.11 Single Station 0.35 Urban Area 0.23 Low Market
Kampung Bandan
Karet
0.22
0.33
Single Station
Major Station
0.27 Suburban
Urban Area
72
0.61
* High Market
Emerging
Kebayoran 0.38 Major Station 0.49 Urban Area 0.38 Emerging
Kemayoran 0.12 Single Station I07 Urban Area High Market
Klender .28 Single Station 0.54 Urban Area 0.23 Low Market
Klender Baru 0.17 Single Station 0.52 Urban Area 0.10 Low Market
Kramat 0.09 Single Station Urban Area Emerging
Lenteng Agung 027 Single Station 0.45 Urban Area 0.06 Low Market
Mangga Besar 0.12 Single Station Intense Urban High Market
Manggarai Major Station Urban Area Emerging
Palmerah 0.39 Major Station 0.34 Urban Area 0.49 Emerging
Pasar Minggu 0.39 Major Station 0.41 Urban Area 0.16 Low Market
Pasar Minggu Baru 0.19 Single Station Urban Area 0.27 Low Market
Pasar Senen Single Station 0.55 Urban Area High Market
Pesing 0.15 Single Station 0.35 Urban Area 0.33 Emerging
Pondok Jati 0.10 Single Station Intense Urban 0.37 Emerging
Rajawali 021 Single Station 0.48 Urban Area Emerging
Rawa Buaya 0.13 Single Station 0.45 Urban Area 0.29 Low Market
Sawah Besar 0.13 Single Station O.5 Urban Area High Market
Sudirman Highly Connective 0.49 Urban Area High Market
Taman Kota 0.19 Single Station 0.48 Urban Area 0.19 Low Market
Tanah Abang Highly Connective Urban Area Emerging
Tanjung Barat 0.26 Single Station 0.51 Urban Area 0.21 Low Market
Tanjung Priok 0.15 Single Station 0.56 Urban Area 0.22 Low Market
Tebet Major Station 0.46 Urban Area 0.30 Low Market Darker green
Universitas Pancasila 0.19 Single Station 0.51 Urban Area 0.05 Low Market higher score

Table 4.1 The summary of the three value analysis result

4.5 Evaluating the Designated TOD Districts

This thesis also takes the opportunity to briefly examine the few Commuter Stations that have been
designated as TOD areas in the RDTR 2014 (the detailed spatial planning document; see chapter 3).
Since the TOD designation mentions no typology or classification in the document, it is assumed
that these stations are designated as priority areas for immediate TOD. The stations are Sudirman (or
Dukuh Atas), Manggarai, Jatinegara, Pasar Senen, Grogol, and Kebayoran. Their categories are varied
based on the result of the 3V analysis.
- Grogol station is considered as the third tier station (3B) because it has a fairly low market
value. The station scores relatively high on place value which indicates the granular and
permeable blocks. But the combination of low market value and high place value in this
context usually signifies a dense low-rise settlement. This thesis suggests that Grogol Station
should be developed incrementally with moderate intensity, unless there is a plan for major
transit improvements around the area.
- Kebayoran Station, based on the analysis result, does not stand out as one of the highest
potential station to be developed. It falls within category 2B. The station scores medium-
low in all the three values, and like Grogol station, it is mainly surrounded by dense low-rise
fabric. A good reason for TOD designation is if there has been a significant development
proposal that could serve as a catalytic project.
- Pasar Senen Station is an interesting case of a single node station with high market value
and fairly high place value. It falls within category 2A. The government could encourage
developers to be involved in new developments and urban design improvements. On the
other hand, adding complementary transit modes and feeders whenever possible would be
important to leverage accessibility and thus, increase its development capacity These efforts
will depend on how available land is for development, and if these improvements occur, it is
possible that Pasar Senen Station could be promoted to a highly connective hub (category
3).
- Jatinegara is an important node in the network and categorized as a second tier, emerging
station (21B). Based on the node value, this station has the capacity to accommodate fairly
dense development, but unlike Pasar Senen Station, it has less development impetus. Here,
TOD relies on the government incentives and initiatives to engender transformation.
- Sudirman and Manggarai Station are categorized as the first tier station (category 3) as the
immediate potential for TOD -- it is an important node with high market value and fairly
moderate place value. Decision-makers could really focus on guiding new developments
and particularly improving the place value in these stations. It is more likely for development
to occurs within a shorter time period if land is available.

48
4.6 Additional Insight on the Regional Scale Analysis

The 3V framework indeed offers a comprehensive perspective in approaching TOD which will be
very useful to initiate TOD planning. TOD planning in Jakarta needs to also understand the nature of
the transit network and differentiate the significance of each station, especially in the case of urban
retrofitting and optimizing existing transit lines. This thesis recognizes that a regional scale analysis
could further incorporate other considerations to enrich the process. The analysis could incorporate
environmental and social considerations to the equation to integrate a more sustainable development
decision, which is particularly relevant for Jakarta.

The ground water condition is an example of relevant environmental factor for TOD in Jakarta
because intense development will also be followed by an increased needs for basic resources like
water Currently, massive ground water extraction has damaged underground reservoirs in Jakarta
and induced severe land subsidence. Figure 4.6 is an overlay of station locations over the map of
ground water condition in Jakarta. The ground water map shows five levels of condition, with a
general pattern of worse conditions towards the north coast area. Adding this environmental factor
to the regional analysis could help decision makers to rethink where to allocate development or, if
development is happening, what special measures are required.

* N j~p.
2'

- MRT Phase 1
--- 'F
MRT Phase 2 (Approx)
-4 Commuter Line
C Water Infiltration Zone
C3 Safe
E Vulnerable
I' M Critical
M Damaged
I,

'/

Figure 4.6 The Stations overlaid on the ground water condition map in Jakarta
Source: Jakarta Planning Agency (DCKTRP)

49
Additionally, social issues are crucial in the interpretation of data and decision-making process. The
regional scale analysis could add socio-economic analysis such as the distribution of income and
poverty level, but the aggregated data may overlook the reality on the ground field. Many social
issues could be better captured at a finer scale.

Finally, even though regional scale analysis could and should underlie the holistic vision for TOD,
it can only tell us a little about the possible or appropriate form of development on the ground. It
may suggest for a particular station to increase the quality of its built environment (place value) but
the actual necessary and feasible interventions can only be determined by zooming in to a finer
scale. The typologies are more useful to manage development priorities rather than determining
development from. Therefore, the next chapter of this thesis will study the stations at a neighborhood
scale.

50
5. NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY

Realizing that the place value analysis result does not reveal a significant result, this thesis argues that
understanding the real place value is only possible through a thorough study at a finer scale. The
place sub-indexes in the 3V analysis could be enriched to be more meaningful, but that depends
on data availability on the context of study. It is also possible that result of the place value analysis
indicates that typical place characteristics are in fact prevalent around the commuter stations.
Furthermore, this thesis argues that some qualitative values of a place are rather hard to be quantified
and captured in 3V analysis, which can be investigated through a neighborhood study. Ideally, this
thesis would study all stations at the neighborhood or station scale (Cervero and Murakami, 2008),
but priority had to be made given time constraints for this thesis.

This thesis is particularly interested in the first tier stations with high node values and high market
values because they conceivably have the highest immediate potential for TOD. It is plausible that
more intense development is allocated within these high node stations, relative to the other stations,
because they have the capacity to accommodate a higher ridership influx. A high market value score
indicates that sufficient development capacity has been designated in the zoning regulation and
that significant development may transpire if opportunity emerges, because the land within is highly
valuable (high land price sub-index). This isjust one of many possible scenarios because development
occurrence is influenced by various other factors. But in this case, developments initiated around
high-node and high-market stations are conceptually the most transit oriented.

The neighborhood study investigates the quality of the built environment around stations to identify
the opportunity for TOD and how it can transpire in this context. My personal knowledge of the
context asserts that these selected stations are the appropriate case study, because they encompass
a wide range of urban fabrics. The expected lesson is to understand how urban design, density, and
diversity take form in this context today and possibly in the future. What is the prevalent urban fabric?
What are the challenges to implement sustainable TOD in these potential stations?

The three stations selected for this study are:

- Station 1 - Tanah Abang;
- Station 2 - Sudirman; and
- Station 3 - Manggarai.

51
 Figure 5.1 Context map of the three stations for neighborhood analysis
Source: author with image from Google Earth

These stations are located in the center of Jakarta and in proximity to many activity centers. This is
further attested by the stations' high centrality values, which indicate that these stations are significant
nodes to the Commuter Line network. The three stations also represent different gradient of market
potential as well as place value. They are generally at a different phase of development condition and
possibly different future development forms.

Tanah Abang Sudirman Manggarai

Node Value Highly Connective Station Highly Connective Station Major Station
Place Value Urban Area
Market Value Emerging Station High Market Station Emerging Station

Table 5.1 The three values of the three stations

Although the stations are inherently different, they also have some similar urban characteristics that
reveal the typical urban features of areas around the commuter stations in Jakarta. The unit of analysis
of this neighborhood study is the walkshed area as the core of a TOD - which is within reasonable
walking distance of 800 m. Significant activities outside the walkshed area but within 800 m radius
that have a high potential to enhance TOD are considered in the analysis as well -- for example, a

52
developable land, a significant up-zoning, or a major destination. Furthermore, this analysis focuses
on studying urban design and development features that could potentially engage the three elements
of sustainability- social, economic, and environmental. The analysis is framed within the following
urban elements:
Urban Form
Urban form refers to the combination of built form and environmental features. Built form
is defined as the physical morphology of the built environment and mainly represented by
the arrangement of plots and blocks and the typical building type. Plots are the smallest
units of development that collectively form the urban realm, both public and private space.
A plot defines the boundary of private space, with everything outside as public. The plots'
arrangement forms a block, which generates a more significant urban characteristic and
defines a legible urban fabric.

The built form analysis also investigates the street pattern and streetscape as the main
embodiment of the public realm. Streets accommodate an interesting dynamic between
two main functions as traffic conduits (motorized and non-motorized) and as public space,
where people settle and various public activities occur The last component of urban form is
the environmental features, which refer to the existing waterbodies, rivers, and green spaces.
Environmental system are rarely seen as a dominant feature within TOD areas but, if present,
they can be influential to the urban form.

- Destination and Activities

Destination and activities refer to the potential trip generators that are currently existing in
the station area as well as those activities that contribute to the characteristic of the place.
For example, a couple of street vendors would not be considered in this analysis unless they
form into an agglomeration that significantly defines a corridor Single large facilities such as
a stadium or a convention center could be considered as a significant destination.

- Zoning Regulation
Zoning regulation is not a physically-present element in the field but certainly defines and
therefore encourages the form of future development. For this study, the regulations that
are considered relevant are: Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Building Coverage Ratio (BCR), Building
Height, Green Coverage Ratio (GCR), Street Classification, and Land Use. GCR defines the
minimum green open space or pervious surface that should be provided on site.

53
 Monday Tuesda Wednesday Thursday--] Friday I Saturday I Sunday

Station 1 - Tanah Abang

Station 2 Sudirman

Station 3 - Manggarai

Figure 5.2 Daily Popular Time of the Three Stations

Source: Google

5.1 Station 1 - Tanah Abang

Figure 5.3 The built environment around Tanah Abang Station

Land Use and Activities

Tanah Abang station has the highest ridership number within the commuter rail network. The
main destination in the area is the Tanah Abang Market, a major textile and garment wholesale
center that serves domestic and international visitors. The market has 40,000 - 50,000 average
daily visitors. The market has undergone various renovations and rebuilding. It is divided into

54
three areas: Tanah Abang Metro, Tanah Abang AURI, and Old Tanah Abang. The market is
very active and vibrant and attracts many street vendors outside the market buildings, who
occupy the street (see figure 5.6 for the location). In 2013, the street vendors were relocated to
one of the market buildings but it failed and the vendors returned to the street. Interestingly,
many of the street vendors pay rent to a certain person to use the sidewalk, which indicates a
malpractice and a weak legal enforcement. Although this issue is not discussed further in this
thesis, it is the evidence that informality is inevitable and fundamental to the dynamic of public
realm in Jakarta.

Unlike the work-dominated trips of other stations, the market activities at Tanah Abang help to
create even ridership intensity throughout the day and the week (see figure 5.2). In addition,
Tanah Abang Station is also located in proximity to a business corridor which can be reached
within 15 to 30 minutes drives from the station. Several offices of the provincial government
agency are concentrated to the north to the station, meaning that the station serves significant
work-trips in addition to the trips generated by the market activities.

As the station is mainly surrounded by office and commercial uses, the area has less residential
features within walking distance. The north-west portion of the station area is dense low-rise
settlements but is separated by a flyover bridge with no pedestrian access toward the station.
One apartment is under-construction across the river from the station, but it also has no
convenient access to the stations and consequently is not within 800m-walking distance despite
the geographic proximity.

Urban Form

Tanah Abang station area is dominated by small plots (< 2,000 sqm) of low-rise dense
settlement and commercial buildings. This area only has approximately 9 large plots (> 10,000
sqm) accessible within walking distance. Among the nine plots, two are an open space along
the river bank and an operating freight and logistics company The other large plots are
mainly part of the Tanah Abang Market, which are fully built. One part of the market is built
as an attached 3-storied retail building. Scale wise, this building type suggests a potential for
human-scale commercial setting, but unfortunately this is not the case. It is a gated attached
retail buildings and is highly car-oriented. The station area is divided by the river and railway
along two sides - the east and west side. The arterial streets (see figure 5.7) are extremely wide
and some have traffic underpass along the middle section of the street, which prevent easy
pedestrian access towards the blocks on the north and east of the station area. Overall, the
station area is mostly built and hardly any open space can be found within walking distance
from the station except for the one park along the river banks - which is a passive green space.

55
Zoning Regulation Interpretation

The station area is prepared for future development particularly on the block adjacent to the
station. The up-zoning consists of commercial and residential land use with the highest FAR
of 7.0 provided for vertical housing development in the middle of the block (see figure 5.5).
This indicates that the regulation recognizes the significance of having a dense residential use
within the station. However, the density assigned to the commercial blocks next to Tanah Abang
station displays a promising future transformation into a mid-rise development. Overall, the FAR
allocation at Tanah Abang Station is less significant compared to the other two stations.

56
 Figure 5.4
Station 1 - Tanah Abang
Destination and Activities

up-f nI I A M4

Flctll-~
«1 J", Legend
Commercial Activities
Large Office
Major Residential
z Public and Social infrastructure

Figure 5.5
Station 1 - Tanah Abang
Major Up-zoning
12/2
-

-J

- 1 " ~
Legend
x.x/y FAR / Building Height
AD

Commerical and Offices

Residential
Mixed-use
National Government Office
N

0 100 200 40 0 mA

57
 Figure 5.6
Station 1 - Tanah Abang
Street Frontage Quality

Legend
- Sufficient sidewalk space or infrastructure
- Sufficient pedestrian-building interaction
- Street with noticeable green characteristic
Street vendors or hawkers
Open/green space
Waterbodies and river

Figure 5.7
Station 1 - Tanah Abang
r
Street Structure

~AI

Legend
< 3 meter
- 3 - 7 meter
7 -.12 meter
12-26 meter
>26 meter

Arterial Street
Collector Street
Local Street

0 100 200 400 m A

58
 Figure 5.8
Station 1 - Tanah Abang
Parcel Size

Legend
<2,000 sqm (290,104 sqm/2485 parcels)
/

2,000 - 10,000 sqm (141,4SO sqm/ 32 parcels)

10,000 - 30,000 sqm (118,840 sqm/7 parcels)
>30,000 sqm (75,498 sqm/ 2 parcels)

Figure 5.9
Station 1 - Tanah Abang
Building Coverage Ratio

/1
Legend
Waterbodies
Open space

Building Coverage Ratio

(50%
So%-6o%
o 60%

0 Z00200 400 m
A

59
5.2 Station 2 - Sudirman

Figure 5.10 The built environment around Sudirman Station

Land Use and Activities

The Sudirman Station area is dominated by various forms of commercial offices. They are office
towers or low-rise buildings, either adaptive re-use of houses into office or three- to four-floor
attached buildings. This variation of offices represents the diversity of office types and scales,
from headquarters and corporate offces to small firms. This station arguably has a wide range
of employment levels.

Furthermore, a large shopping center, the Grand Indonesia Mall, is located within walking
distance from the station. The shopping center has 65,000 daily visitors on weekdays and
85,000 daily visitors on the weekend. Unlike Tanah Abang market which has a more diverse
income-level, the Grand Indonesia Mall is an upscale destination that is mostly targeted to the
more affluent market. Even though the shopping center has more visitors on the weekend, the
station ridership on the weekends falls significantly, which may indicate that majority of the daily
trips are work-trips and mall visitors do not commonly use the commuter train.

Urban Form

The Sudirman station area can be divided into four disconnected quadrants. Currently there is
little to no convenient access available to cross the railway and the river that run east to west
and the ultra-wide arterial street that runs north to south of the area. The area is dominated by
large-scale and superblock developments with high density vertical development. Considerable
small plots can be found behind these larger plots. The contrast between large-scale
development and small settlements is very obvious in this area which in a way could promote

60
a unique diversity environment for TOD. The different development forms certainly embody
different activities and people. There is also dense low-rise fabric with diverse residential
areas, which vary from very small houses to large villa-type houses adjacent to the station.
This complex is part of a preserved heritage area of Menteng (see figure 5.11).

Zoning Regulation Interpretation

The Sudirman Station area has the highest designated FAR among other stations. The area
is among the highest density area in the entire Jakarta because it is the business district. The
FAR designation indicates several intensification efforts on what currently are dense low-rise
settlements and empty lands. The dense low-rise settlements are up-zoned into a vertical
housing use, with a maximum height of 35 floors.

There are three blocks of small-sized parcel (< 2,000 m2) with a grid arrangement
designated as mixed use classification with significant FAR (see figure 5.12). This allows for
design exploration of different densification strategies to typical large-scale development.

61
 Figure 5.11
Station 2 - Sudirman
Destination and Activities

Legend
Commercial Activities
Large Office
Major Residential
Public and Social Infrastructure
4X Part of Menteng Heritage District

Figure 5.12
Station 2 - Sudirman
Major Up-zoning

A\
Legend

16
x. FAR/ Building Height
Commerical and Offices
4 Residential
Mixed-use
National Government Office

0 100 200
0400 m A

62
 Figure 5.13
Station 2 - Sudirman
Street Frontage Quality

2
Legend
Sufficient sidewalk space or infrastructure
Sufficient pedestrian-building interaction
Street with noticeable green characteristic
Street vendors or hawkers
Open/green space
Waterbodies and river

Figure 5.14
Station 2 - Sudirman
Street Structure

T
N

Legend
( 3 meter
67]
- 3-7 meter
S7-12 meter
12-26 meter
)26 meter

Arterial Street
- Collector Street
Local Street

0 100 200 400m A

63
 Figure 5.15
Station 2 - Sudirman
Parcel Size

f ---

'xi
Legend
< 2,ooo sqm (290,104 sqm/2485 parcels)
2,000- 0,ooo sqm (141,450 sqm/ 32 parcels)
1O,000-30,000 sqm (118,840 sqm/ 7 parcels)
>30,000 sqm (75,498 sqm/ 2 parcels)

Figure 5.16
a Station 2 - Sudirman
Building Coverage Ratio

Legend
Waterbodies
Open space
Building Coverage Ratio
< 50%
50%-60%
- > 60%

0 100 200 400 m A

64
5.3 Station 3 - Manggarai

Figure 5.17 The built environment around Manggarai Station

Land Use and Activities

Manggarai Station area is unique in comparison to the other two stations because it has less
commercial activities and arguably less market impetus for development. Manggarai Station
is the largest station within the network and has been operating since 1918 - for reference,
Indonesia gained independence in 1945. The area comprises of many KAI-related facilities such
as the large train workshop and maintenance facilities (Balai Yasa) for the intercity train and the
official-residence complex. In general, the station area is dominated by KAI assets - land and
building.

The residential complex is designed as villa-type housing (European-style detached house)

with strong green nuance on the street. The area is well-planned and equipped with
sufficient amenities like parks and schools to serve the community. There are several logistics
service companies operating within this complex who initially used the rail service for land
consignment. The businesses now utilize other transportation modes - truck, ship, and air
freight. They remain in the area by renting the officer houses. Consequently, many trucks are
parked on the local street within the complex.

Considerable informal developments can clearly be identified around the river banks and at
the secondary layers, forming the typical dense low-rise settlements with commercial buildings
facing the major streets. The commercial activities on the major street are varied and have no
noticeable agglomeration that could build the urban character of the place. Important to note,
is that some of these settlements provide affordable rental units (kos or indekos) especially for
workers which are within walking distance from the station.

65
In general, the station area lacks the anchor activities that could contribute to the vibrancy of
the area. Therefore, although Manggarai Station is a significant transit station, it has far lower
ridership numbers compared to the other two stations.

Urban Form

Manggarai Station is dominated by small plots of single housing and low-rise commercial
building. There are only a few large plots in the area including the Balai Yasa (train
maintenance facility) and an existing industrial office complex. The other is Pasaraya
Manggarai, a quiet shopping center that lost one of its anchor tenants in 2017. The station
area is divided by the river and the railway, which contributes to the small walkshed area
score. It also includes many informal settlements, which develop around river banks and
railways. The informal settlements range from those with good built quality to those that
resemble slums. On the other end, the official residential complex has an organic grid
structure with two collector streets. The villa-type houses have an ample yard and create a
lush neighborhood. The commercial buildings around the arterial street are mostly attached
buildings with 2-3 stories. The building frontage is close to the sidewalk, but several new
developments set the frontage further back to provide parking spaces.

Zoning Regulation Interpretation

Manggarai Station is planned for up-zoning in several plots both for commercial and
residential development. All the large plots have been assigned to have 5.0 FAR which
grants the ability to accommodate large-scale development, including the Balai Yasa.
This strongly indicates the possibility of relocation and redevelopment of the massive
maintenance complex. Several residential blocks have also been assigned to have 5.0 FAR
to accommodate vertical housing. This indicates that the government is trying to invite
development to the area through zoning regulation. Potential development conflicts may
occur on the dense low-rise settlements, some of which may lack legal ownership status
- which may become future conflicts that include land disputes and the displacement of
communities. This thesis does not have such information but simply emphasizes the high
possibility of such a case.

66
 Figure 5.18
Station 3 - Manggarai
Destination and Activities

Legend
Commercial Activities
Large Office
Major Residential
Public and Social Infrastructure

Figure 5.19
Station 3 - Manggarai
Major Up-zoning

v-x

Legend
x.x/] FAR/ Building Height
Commerical and Offices
Residential
Mixed-use
National Government Office

0 100 200 400m A

67
 Figure 5.20
Station 3 - Manggarai
Street Frontage Quality

Legend
Sufficient sidewalk space or infrastructure
Sufficient pedestrian-building interaction
41 Street with noticeable green characteristic
Street vendors or hawkers
Open/green space
Waterbodies and river

Figure 5.21
Station 3 - Manggarai
Street Structure

Legend
( 3 meter
- 3-7 meter
7 - 12 meter
.12-26 meter
>26 meter
Arterial Street
Collector Street
Local Street

0 100 200 4 0 0 mA

68
 Figure 5.22
Station 3 - Manggarai
Parcel Size

JIM-

Legend
<2,o sqm (290,104 sqm/2485 parcels)
2,ooo 2oooo sqm (141,450 sqm/ 32 parcels)
1O,000- 30,000 sqm (118,840 sqm/7 parcels)
>30,000 sqm (75,498 sqm/ 2 parcels)

Figure 5.23
Station 3 - Manggarai
Building Coverage Ratio

~f N

Legend
Waterbodies
Open space

Building Coverage Ratio

S50%
5o% - 6o%
- >60%

0 100 200 400m A

69
5.4 Findings

The investigation on the three stations reveals several important conditions or issues worth
addressing in TOD planning. These findings certainly complement my perception of place,
with some characteristics that are not represented in the 3V analysis. The summary of
urban characteristics of the three stations are summarized in table 5.1. Some of the urban
characteristics around the station area are:
1. There is a significant imbalance in the ratio between job and housing in these stations.
Tanah Abang Station and Sudirman Station display ample job-related uses, but lack of
dense residential uses. Whereas, Manggarai Station is the opposite case, where job-related
uses are miniscule. However, Tanah Abang and Sudirman Stations have been planned for
a more balanced ratio between commercial and residential uses. Whereas, Manggarai
Station remains lacking job-related use.
2. The street structure is mostly dominated by traffic-based hierarchy of sparse arterial and
collector streets, where the local streets in between are mostly informal and less planned.
The streets do not possess legible pathways for pedestrian. Most of the arterial streets are
built significantly wide to accommodate massive traffic capacity which is detrimental to the
walkability of the area.
3. The streetscape design is generally poor with insufficient pedestrian infrastructures. Most
streets do not have either sufficient sidewalk space, good vegetation and shading, or
attractive building frontage (see figure 5.24 and 5.25).
4. The public space in Jakarta tends to be occupied by many informal activities. The sidewalks
are, in many cases, occupied by motorcycle for parking or street vendors. Moreover, many
retails intrusively put their merchandises on the sidewalks as well.
5. The at-grade railway and the river have unfortunately dissected the station area and
degraded connectivity. This is exacerbated by the informal development that tends to
populate the river banks and the railway edges, which make connectivity improvement
more complicated -- although not impossible.
6. The boundary between private and public space is apparently strong in this context. This
is seen by the gated developments that are large scale developments with security gates.
This is arguably the result of two major causes. First is the car-oriented development that
limits pedestrian access since areas are fenced off. The default access to the properties
is by private vehicle, hence the interface design between public and private space are
focused on accommodating car access. This is aggravated by the wide setback regulations
in Jakarta, where property owners tend to utilize the setback space for an internal vehicle
lane or a drop-off area. Second, there have been several terrorist incidents that have

70
 triggered increased security measures. The solutions to tighter the security, by making
strict security checks and site boundaries, undermine the possibility for pedestrian-oriented
design and vibrant interaction between private and public space.
7. There is an adverse inconsistency in the design of interface between public and private
space, especially in the commercial buildings and the large-scale development with
setback areas. These inconsistencies are displayed by the variety in setback size as well as
the use and the design of the setback area. This condition undermines the effort to create
a walkable environment - despite any sidewalk improvement projects.
8. Up-zoning efforts are obviously zoned where there are many low-rise dense fabrics
around these stations, especially on the informal settlements.
9. Open space could rarely be found within these station areas. Some neighborhood parks
exist in the Sudirman and Manggarai Stations, where these areas were planned and built
during the colonial era. There are some passive green spaces found along the riverbanks.
In Manggarai Station, the detached houses and its front yard contribute to adding more
open space to the station area. Tanah Abang Station arguably has the least open and
green spaces, because most of the area are intensively use for commercial and residential
uses.
10. The unbuilt area, based on the BCR regulation, is massive. Theoretically, only about half of
the total area of the plots within station areas can be built. The other half should remain
unbuilt as an open space.

71
 Station I - Tanah Abang Station 2 - Sudirman Station 3 - Manggarai
Node Value Highly Connective Station Highly Connective Station Major Station
Place Value Urban Area Urban Area Urban Area
Market Value High Market High Market Emerging

Priority area 62.6ha 88.9ha 79.9ha

Complementary Transit Mode Minivan BRT

L Q
MR LRT Airport
Train
11" Minbsus Airport Minivan BRT
Train

Transit Service Range Metropolitan Area

Commen:ial to Rodskential land Use Ratio: Commercial to Reskiential Land Use Ratio: Commenrial to Reskoential Laod Use Ratio:
3.000.Xt 3ooW 3. wo

Land Use Composition (Plan) 1.36 1.77 ""0 5620.0

N\) LI_ wot u. YAk U.. W-k
Plot Sire Composition (Total land Area): Prolaent Built Fon: Plot Size Composition (Total Land Area): Prevalent Bukt Form Plot Ske Composition (Total Land Area): Prevalent Bulk Form-

SDense Low-rise Fabric 400 Large Buildings Dense Low-rise Farbic

wOO Commercial Corridor 0o Dense Low-rise Fabric g
N55Detached Housing
MOW
Oetached
Housing O . Center)
-(Vimla-type)
- Large Buildings (Shopping D
(Villa-type
Built Form Composition - nevatp tool sot.
3. lai.
to0ol
Mo. Mod0n
B uilt......Form....Com position....................................................................................................................................................... ....................................
(See figure 5.24 and 5.25 for the existing photos .......
of different ofdfeetfotg
frontage ye)Arterial
types)"" arWColotorCofgurtion: strot Frontago: Autoril al Collector Cofiurtion Sirset rouiagW "' "*
Arteril latdColiortorCofguato: Sired Frontagie.
frontage with

Open Space Riourink Pairk Nelgliorho*d Patk Water Reservoir Commercial setback

-
Ritarbook Patk Noihborhood Park Rsildential Yard
Am

Special Characteristic Vibrant Commercial District Modern CBD Residential Neighborhood

Ground Water Condition Vulnerable - critical Safe - Vulnerable Safe - Vulnerable

Table 5.2 Summary of the Neighborhood Analysis

The sufficient sidewalk space
The typical frontage at the main corridor where there has been major sidewalk improvement projects, but there is no
meaningful interaction between the pedestrian and private activities.

The sufficient pedestrian-building interaction

The typical frontage within an informal and dense-low rise fabric, where the urban scale is more intimate and the building
frontage is built close to the sidewalk, but lack of legible pedestrian facilties.

The streets with a noticeable green characteristic

The typical frontage particularly around an old neighborhood where trees and vegetations along the street provide a strong
shade and a green ambience.

Figure 5.24 The exisiting street frontage conditions

73
The sufficient sidewalk space + a green characteristic
The combination of sufhcient pedestrian facilties and ample green features provide a comfortable walking experience
especially in the hot and humid environment.

The sufficient sidewalk space + an active building frontage

The combination of wide sidewalk and active building frontage is a very rare feature in this context. These are few examples of
such case along some commercial corridors, although the design quality is still lacking.

The common issues on the current street frontage

These images show the common issues in this context because pedestrian has not been the focus of current urban
development. In most cases, the sidewalk is occupied by the informal activities or it has poor design and built quality.

Figure 5.25 The exisiting street frontage conditions (continued)

74
5.5 The Challenge for Sustainable TOD

This thesis attempts to match the various improvements and interventions to increase
place value along with sustainability goals in the station areas. The listed improvements and
interventions below are drawn from the neighborhood studies and my interpretation of what
can be transformed on the field to achieve better place quality -- to increase the place value.
Therefore, they are contextually in response to the findings, but may not be exhaustive. The
sustainability goal clusters are extracted from the literature study. They can be elaborated as
follows:
1. Travel Behavior
- To reduce surface parking to discourage car usage
- To design better streetscapes for pedestrians and bicycles
2. Local Economy
- To "formalize" informal economic activities
- To enhance local economic activities
- To provide a diverse housing market
- To increase density
- To have high commercial - housing ratio for high-potential stations
3. Environment Systems
- To increase permeable surface
- To promote water-sensitive development
- To add more vegetation
4. Built Environment
- To create an attractive interface between private and public space
- To provide a legible pedestrian circulation framework
- To provide active open space
- To design better streetscape for pedestrian and bicycle
5. Social Environment
- To create diverse demographic groups
- To involve existing community groups
- To increase sense of belonging
- To provide more public infrastructure and amenities
6. Policy Context
- To form development Entity for TOD
- To align zoning regulation with TOD principles and its categories, particularly
regarding land use, setback, and FAR.

75
A lot of these interventions contribute to more than just one specific goal, since the goals are
inherently cross cutting. Most of them are spatial interventions. Likewise, these interventions
can be considered as an effort to increase place value while fulfilling the various sustainability
goals. After understanding these necessary interventions and how they could spatially be
implemented, this thesis raises the following propositions about TOD in this context:

Dense Low-rise Fabric Holds the Key

Dense low-rise fabric is a prevalent urban fabric in the three case study stations, and potentially
in other stations as well. The neighborhood study reveals that the dense low-rise fabric
encompasses a wide range of different conditions. The most problematic is arguably the
slums which are typified by poor infrastructure and legal problems. They tend to squat along
riverbanks and railway edges which are legally government-owned land. They usually have the
poorest built quality and infrastructure. The complication rises because they have usually been
settled for a long time and have grown into solid communities. Eviction will certainly lead to a
severe social tension. There are also the informal settlements that have legal land ownership
status, but are incompliant with the current zoning regulation. Technically they are residing
within unauthorized housing but, similarly, they were mostly established long before the
zoning regulation was codified. These are the most common cases for eviction because local
government can act on a legal basis, although at the cost of social tension. Last, is the formal
dense low-rise fabric that faces no legal issue and complies with the designated land use. This
type usually lasts for a long time and only changes incrementally

In general, this fabric is composed of small blocks and ample street intersections that
conceptually made it a walkable setting. But although it is conceptually so, it is not practical or
attractive for the general public. Most of these settlements lack the legible pathways with clear
hierarchies that would allow pedestrians to walk easily to their destinations. This path legibility
issue is exacerbated by the often poor built environment quality, which makes walking even less
attractive.

This fabric also makes a significant contribution to local economies and services. Many
affordable rental housings (in local term known as kos or indekos) can be found within, serving
housing needs for low- and mid-income workers, students, and young couples. There are also
daily services such as laundries and restaurants provided by the local businesses. As mentioned
in chapter 2, the symbioses between this dense low-rise settlement and office and commercial
districts is a unique condition that can be explored as a strength for TOD.

76
The reason why this fabric is considered as key to sustainable TOD in the future is because of its
prevalence around station areas and its incongruity, in certain ways, with TOD principles. It does
not promote compact development because it is highly space-intensive despite being arguably
dense. As a result, it has very little open space and permeable surfaces which are crucial to
promote the environmentally sustainable development. The often poor built environment is also
detrimental to people's perception for the area, whereas TOD is supposed to be a melting pot
for the city

How urban development is encouraged in this fabric across the stations will be the key
to sustainable TOD in Jakarta. A prudent approach to transform this ubiquitous fabric
into a compact development is crucial to achieve balance between various dimensions of
sustainability The degree of intervention could vary based both on the context and the station
categories. The minimum interventions could include infrastructure improvements, streetscape
design, and infill development. At the other extreme, the intervention could mean total
redevelopment.

Jan Gehl (2010) emphasized that the human dimension is crucial in urban development.
He mentioned that contact with the ground floor quickly dissipates above the fifth floor
Unfortunately, many new development efforts, including public housing, have been tended
towards the towering vertical housing approach which is extremely disruptive to the current
residential culture. Most of public projects are strictly attached to delivering the quantity which
often undermines their quality aspects. Lim (2011) in his concept of incomplete urbanism
critiqued the massive quantities of repetitive high-rise public housing blocks that have been
implemented in many emerging economies to meet housing shortage. He argued that a
new design approach is necessary to create a more spatially exciting and complex living
environment - some attributes that are, in a certain way, possessed by this dense low-rise
fabric.

There are few to no examples of a good mid-rise residential or mixed-use development in

Jakarta that seeks to balance the densification (compact development) goal and preservation
of neighborhood quality. Studies reveal that Haussmann's famous Paris mid-rise (6-7 floors)
district is denser than a 20-storey building neighborhood in Hong Kong over the same land
area. New development prototypes could be tested around TOD stations which could promote
suffcient density within moderate floor height to achieve a friendlier form and a more livable
neighborhood. The advent of recent concepts, such as co-living and co-working that cater to
the younger generations, could probably be incorporated in the new development.

77
Most importantly, TOD should address the land ownership issue by engaging the communities
and establishing a land tenure program to clarify any "grey" status. Otherwise, no progress can
be achieved, at least not a socially sustainable progress. Forming a special entity to coordinate
and manage stakeholders and their interests would be a useful initial step.

Large Scale Development is Desirable with Various Preconditions

Large-scale and superblock development are arguably the most desired form of TOD in the
current development market. Many large-scale developments are emerging as TOD-branded
project because they could better accommodate a higher density and optimize development
profit over the expensive land. The way TOD projects in Jakarta are represented attests to this
trend, whereby a TOD project is usually referring to a mixed-use vertical development.

A large scale development can be defined as a superblock when it integrates at least three
different significant revenue-producing uses in one development (Prasetyoadi and Danisworo,
2015). Conceptually, superblock development plays a significant role in creating diverse urban
environments by drawing living space close to activity centers. It also generates intense uses
and invites more people to the area. It has the necessary attributes for major TOD area.

But, unfortunately, current practice in Jakarta tends to create exclusive developments that do
not integrate well with their surroundings. The development form indicates a car-oriented
approach by placing a considerable amount of ground parking, drop-off area, and internal
car lanes that separate buildings from the public realm. Most developments display a strong
boundaries between the private and the public realm. The interface between private and
public space is the imperative issue to be addressed in TOD areas. Since TOD highly promotes
walkability, the ground floor quality influences the walking experience and safety.

Furthermore, the large plots are usually assigned with a low building coverage ratios (BCR) and
a high floor area ratios (FAR). This BCR-FAR proportion ideally forms a compact development
with ample open or unbuilt space within the plot. This is another crucial urban feature that
could define the quality of TOD in Jakarta. The utilization of this unbuilt space particularly in
combination with the setback regulation, directly impacts the quality of the public realm. The
zoning regulation, in addition, includes defined green coverage ratios (GCR) that regulate the
minimum green area and pervious surface provided on each plot. Enforcing this GCR regulation
and establishing design guidance for public-private space interfaces will change the face of the
large scale development in Jakarta.

78
Finally, the large scale development should not be seen as the default solution for TOD.
It should be limited to certain station areas with the capacity to accommodate intense
development -- based on the TOD categories. The large scale development is also disruptive
to the prevalent low-rise fabric, so a comprehensive design guidelines is needed to ensure that
any large scale development could fit well with its surrounding context.

Station Categories as Reconciliation Tool

Decision-makers are now equipped with a set of development pearls where each could be
directed into different developments. This inherent advantage of TOD must be optimized. It
can be used to reconcile the trade-offs between various sustainability goals. Development
tension is particularly likely to emerge around increase in density, where redevelopment efforts
may threaten the prevalent low-rise fabric. The conflict could also be about commercial and
residential ratios around stations - questions like "do we need more housing or more office?"
Ideal TOD is supposed to accommodate various socio-economic groups, land use diversities,
affordability levels, and built intensities at different connected locations.

The varying degree of these attributes is what differentiates one station from another, which
conceptually will also generate trips between nodes. I argue based on the incorporation of the
TOD categories, that the following underlying development principles should be pursued:
For the first tier stations, development intensity is higher and densification will be more
aggressive. The ratio of commercial to residential is higher, because the station should
perform more as a destination rather than an origin. This station could attract more large-
scale development to capitalize on the high node and market values. This does not mean
that it has no place for the existing low-rise fabric at all, but the priority to maintain the status
quo of current built environment could be less, especially if the area lacks the necessary
destination features -- such as Manggarai Station. Dense low-rise fabric and kampung will
be relatively encouraged for redevelopment and densification. Redevelopment strategies
and community outreach will play a significant role in this TOD to avoid displacement and
instead, to find a way to include existing communities in the new compact development.
New open spaces are mainly characterized by the commercial open space and semi-private
open space because land is more expensive. In addition, kampung redevelopment will
provide opportunities to create new open spaces to serve the community.
- For high node station with low market value, the strategy will be to introduce catalytic
development that could generate critical mass for development. The zoning regulation
can be evaluated to see whether assigning higher density is feasible. Because from TOD
perspective, more intense development could be encouraged at such stations. However,

79
 there is no such condition found in Jakarta commuter network because all of the few high
node stations have high market value as well.
- For the second tier (2A and 2B) stations, development impetus lies in between the first and
the third tier station. They could combine redevelopment and infill approach, depends on
the existing condition around the station areas. In general, these stations need to have suffice
attractive destination features to complement the first tier stations. These stations ideally will
have the most balanced commercial to residential uses ratio.
- For the third tier (3A and 3B) stations, development intensity could and should be lower
because these stations have less capacity to accommodate more ridership. Instead,
development could focus on providing more affordable housing and improving the existing
neighborhood with a sufficient level of mixed use and amenities. Here, existing dense low-
rise fabric and kampung face less development impetus, so infrastructure improvements and
infill developments are more appropriate. Open space is provided more as neighborhood
parks and community spaces. A major green space is encouraged to be integrated with
the parks to increase water infiltration capability. Large scale development will be less
encouraged around this station. The only potential large scale development is residential
complexes that enhance the "origin" nature of this station.
- There will be additional consideration for the 2A or 3A stations, which have a medium or
low node value but a high market value. The appropriate strategy could be to improve
connectivity to the station by adding complementary feeder transportation or instead, to
re-evaluate the FAR designation in the zoning regulation - in other words, to hold down
development. However, such a downgrading approach has rarely been implemented
(Cervero and Murakami, 2008). Intense development in a low node value station will
attract more private vehicle usage, which undermines the inherent goal of TOD. Therefore,
complementary transit modes can be a prerequisite for development at these stations.

For example, based on the categories, the three selected stations -- Tanah Abang, Sudirman,
and Manggarai -- could be developed into a similar level of intensity as a first tier station.
But the three are currently at a different phase of maturity. The three are well-suited to being
a major economic center because they have high accessibility. Sudirman Station is the more
established example with significant concentration of offices and commercial buildings.
Tanah Abang Station already has a major commercial destination, but is still embracing more
development as indicated in the zoning ordinance. Manggarai Station, on the other hand, is the
case where no major destination has been established, but could potentially be in the future.
In this case, the typology helps to justify that Tanah Abang Station and especially Manggarai
Station could be encouraged for a significant transformation in the future. The main effort will
be to consolidate developable land by negotiating with the existing communities.

80
 In general, the combination of the typologies and development decisions can be summarized
as shown in figure 5.26. It shows the gradient of development approach that will produce a
rich variety of developments along the Commuter Line that caters to different goals and thus,
makes it sustainable. However, the actual implementation will have to go through a thorough
neighborhood study on each stations in order to determine the appropriate development.

Development Approach Development Approach

-----.. Less dense and diverse; Denser and more diverse; ---
Developed as "origin" and Developed as "destination" and
residential pockets activity centers
More preservation; More growth;
Infill development. New development;
More green open spaces and More commercial open space and
neighborhood park; urban plaza
Higher affordability level Lower affordability level

*With major transit improvement

Figure 5.26 The conceptual gradation of development approach for different TOD categories

Walkable Environment is a Compulsory Quality

In addition, there are other general issues that are relevant for all stations despite their
typologies. These are mainly to improve the connectivity and the sidewalk quality to promote
a walkable environment. Walkability is an imperative quality that should be promoted in every
stations. Convenient crossing facilities over the railway and the river has to be provided in
almost all stations. Sidewalk quality is also generally poor throughout this context. Specific
urban design frameworks for each stations are necessary for TOD. The street configuration
and the design scale may be influenced by the development typologies. A walkable residential
neighborhood will be different from a walkable commercial district. Although, this thesis argues
that it eventually will be determined by the result of the neighborhood study on each stations.

81
The neighborhood study will allow us to understand the distribution of destinations on site
and the potential streets to implement urban-hierarchical streets. In dense low rise settlements,
where the blocks are smaller and the street intersections are denser, a main through-pass
across the settlements or Kampung could be designed to help people orient themselves in the
complicated organic structure of the narrow streets. The main through-pass could also perform
as a cohesive space for the community - because a lot of community activities occur on the
narrow streets in these settlements. Another important key is to connect these ubiquitous
settlements to the destinations and, particularly, the station. Most of the narrow streets in these
settlements are connected to the collector or the arterial streets, which are not a compelling
streetscape either Whereas, plenty of these streets are commercial corridors that could
potentially be a good and a pedestrian friendly street, if designed well.

In the three station cases, these potential commercial corridors can be seen in all of them

-
although the scale in Sudirman Station is more of a CBD corridor, and thus the design approach
is different. In Tanah Abang Station and Manggarai Station, rows of commercial buildings with
small to no building setback possess the potential to bring about a vibrant pedestrian space
and the thriving economic activities that will follow. They can serve as the pedestrian collectors
that connect the station and the residential enclaves behind the commercial streets. On the
other hand, the large scale developments will have to provide semi-public access through their
site to mitigate their impermeable large blocks and allow people to permeate easily within the
station areas.

Additionally, some of the connectivity issues could be solved by a better, often simple, attention
on the detail of the streetscape design. For example, underpasses are common around the
station areas and they currently do not provide a sufhce sidewalk space. Whereas in many cases,
the underpass is the main connection from the station to the neighboring blocks. This is not a
sophisticated problem that only requires the will to solve. Hitherto, the current urban design
practice in Jakarta still assumes the pedestrian needs as an exception rather than the default.
However, this is potentially changing as more attention have been given to many sidewalk
improvement projects.

The other intractable problem would be to address the informal activities like street vendors
that, in some way, contribute to the vibrancy of the street. This thesis recommends that the
government could incorporate them into the TOD planning to agree on how, where, and when
they could operate without undermining other goals, such as the pedestrian convenience and
the image of the place. There have been many precedents in incorporating informal activities
and street vendors such as in New York City, Seoul, and Bangkok.

82
Most importantly, multiple provincial agencies need to coordinate and cooperate in order to
streamline the process of sidewalk and street improvements. I learned from my previous work
experience in Indonesia that a good design proposal often could not be implemented, because
there is a lack of coordination between multiple agencies that are responsible for the various
elements on the street, such as drainage, various utility cables, and trees and vegetation. They
often work within their own silo -- related to programs, budgets, timeline, and goals - which
complicates the realization of a comprehensive street improvements.

Pushing TOD Further as a Green Development

The conclusion in chapter 4 have mentioned that environmental concerns are crucial in TOD
planning. Jakarta has a particular relationship with water. There are 13 main rivers that run
through the city, before they eventually reach the coast. Flooding has been a major issue and
it occurs frequently. Sea level rises is exacerbated by the land subsidence as the result of the
massive ground water extraction and the lack of water infiltration on the vastly built urban
surface. This thesis argues that TOD, as the proponent of compact development, could further
promote green development by incorporating a water-sensitive approach and introducing more
open spaces.

Compactness should be seen in line with openness (Cervero and Sullivan, 2011). The commercial
uses, particularly within the large plots, are assigned with low BCR and as a result, about a half
of the station areas is supposed to be unbuilt area or open space. In the three stations, only
within the walkshed boundary, Tanah Abang, Sudirman, and Manggarai Stations are supposed
to have 49% of unbuilt area (32.1 ha), 58% of unbuilt area (37 ha), and 56% of unbuilt area (34.8
ha), respectively. This is a huge opportunity to create a sustainable urban environment. The vast
surface parking and pavements can be altered into a green and permeable surfaces. However,
these radical changes are only possible through a well-functioning transit system, which justifies
the reduction of car-oriented facilities within TOD area.

For example, among the three stations, Tanah Abang Station falls within the area with
vulnerable ground water condition (see figure 4.6). A special measure should be taken for TOD
in Tanah Abang. The urgency for remediation strategies and more infiltration surfaces will be
higher in Tanah Abang Station compared to the other two stations.

83
 In addition, the rivers, which run through many Commuter Line station areas, should be seen as
an integral part of future TOD. Incorporating the river into TOD in Jakarta will not only means
dealing with the environmental concerns, but concomitantly, dealing with the prevalent informal
settlements along the riverbanks. Urban development in Jakarta must begin to treat the rivers
as a precious urban frontage.

Eventually, sustainable TOD should be measured within the entire development along the network,
because it will show how the system leverages sustainability by allocating different development along
its network. In the case of the three stations, intense development is encouraged because they have
the potential to be the major destinations, based on the typology. Therefore, the approach toward
development should be different compared to the second and third tier stations. One station may
be a stronger advocate for certain development goal(s), whiles other stations may complement this
in other aspects. The synergistic developments across different stations within the Commuter Line
network will create a sustainable TOD.

84
6. CONCLUSION

6.1 General Lessons

The combination of regional and neighborhood analysis is imperative in TOD planning. The regional
scale analysis, like the 3V analysis, provides the underlying perspective to enrich TOD decision making.
It allows decision-makers to recognize the different potential they have throughout the network and
to be able to allocate different urban developments. It is also crucial for reconciling the conflicting
development agendas and thus, helps to achieve a sustainable development. Furthermore, the
neighborhood analysis is required to complement the regional analysis to translate development
impetus into concrete feasible forms that addressed the prevailing issues in the context. Utilizing one
without the other could result in an uninformed decision and missed opportunity. If the planning
process focuses only on the regional analysis, many granular urban conditions would not be captured
and thus, the intervention may not be feasible to be implemented. If the process, instead, focuses
only on the neighborhood analysis, many development trade-offs could not be mitigated and
potentially will promote haphazard developments that burden the city - as it does right now.

Exercising the comprehensive analysis has allowed this thesis to answer its research questions. How
to distinguish TOD potential along the commuter stations in Jakarta? The three value analysis has
offered a set of categories to distinguish the TOD potential based on, fundamentally, the interplay
between node and market value. The place value is seen more as the objective of development, since
the result of the analysis is not significantly different among stations. There are three categories: the
first tier station as the immediate potential; the second tier station as the emerging potential; and the
third tier station as the incremental potential. What is the prevalent urban fabric around the commuter
stations in Jakarta? The neighborhood study explores the condition of the built environment around
the stations and recognize that the dense low-rise built environment is a crucial urban fabric for future
TOD around the commuter station. Conversely, the large scale developments are the development
type that seems to be profoundly promoted but requires a significant design alteration to comply
with TOD principles. This thesis also emphasizes the need for a walkable environment in TOD and the
opportunity for TOD to promote green development in Jakarta. By incorporating both typologies and
understanding of the prevailing condition, one can make a well-informed decision and seek for the
balance to incorporate the urban dualism for TOD in Jakarta.

85
6.2 Future Studies

Nevertheless, I recognize that this thesis is a small elaboration of one dimension of TOD planning. To
complement this thesis, a more elaborate study on the dense low-rise urban fabric around a potential
station is crucial in order to investigate the appropriate approaches and strategies to initiate TOD.
The study could encompass the land tenure issue, the inclusive development strategies, and the
institutional policy and financing mechanism for TOD in this context. A significant amount of studies
has been done around the dense low rise fabric, especially the Kampung, but little to none has
incorporate TOD perspective in it.

For the regional scale study, it is also necessary to improve the method to better establish the station
categorization, either using the 3V analysis or other methods. This can be done by incorporating
more advance data collection and statistical methods. In addition, the study could first seek to
determine the appropriate attributes, other than those mentioned in this thesis, to better distinguish
the stations particularly for Jakarta as the context.

86
7. REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why nations fail: The origins ofpower prosperity and poverty
Broadway Business.
Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental conservation,
14(2), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/SO376892900011449
Basiago, A. D. (1998). Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development
theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist, 79(2), 145-161. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1006697118620
Beatley, T. (2015). Planning for sustainability in European cities: A review of practice in leading cities. In
The city reader (pp. 536-547). Routledge.
Bernick, M., & Cervero, R. (1997). Transit villages in the 21st century.
Bertaud, A., & Malpezzi, S. (2003). The spatial distribution of population in 48 world cities: Implications
for economies in transition. Center for urban land economics research, University of
Wisconsin, 22.
Bertolini, L. (1996). Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Redevelopment.
European Planning Studies, 4(3). Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
pdf/10.1080/09654319608720349?needAccess =true
Calthorpe, P (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology community and the American dream.
Princeton architectural press.
Cascetta, E., & Pagliara, F. (2009). Rail friendly transport and land-use policies: the case of the Regional
Metro System of Naples and Campania. Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen,
edited by C Curtis, JL Renne, and L. Bertolini 39-47.
Cervero, R., & Seskin, S. (1995). AN EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TRANSIT
AND URBAN FORM. TCRP Research Results Digest, (7). Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/
view/426603
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199-219. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2008). Rail+ Property Development: A model of sustainable transit finance
and urbanism. Retrieved from escholarship.org/uc/item/6x3k3Sx
Cervero, R., & Sullivan, C. (2011). Green TODs: marrying transit-oriented development and green
urbanism. InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 18(3), 210-218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.570801
Cervero, R. (2013). Linking urban transport and land use in developing countries, 1, 7-24. https://doi.
org/10.5198/jtlu.v1.425
Cervero, R. (2016). Public transport and sustainable urbanism: global lessons. In Transit Oriented
Development (pp. 43-56). Routledge.

87
Cervero, R., Guerra, E., & Al, S. (2017). Beyond Mobility Planning Cities for People and Places. Island
Press.
Curtis, C. (2006). Urban Policy and Research Network City: Retrofitting the Perth Metropolitan Region
to Facilitate Sustainable Travel Network City: Retrofitting the Perth Metropolitan Region to
Facilitate Sustainable Travel. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140600703691
Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P R. (n.d.). Population, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity A framework
for estimating population sizes and lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining
future generations. Retrieved from http://math.unife.it/Im.ecologia/lnsegnamenti/
management-degli-ecosistemi/materiale-didattico/Daily and Ehrlich 1992.pdf
Dittmar, H., & Poticha, S. (2004). Defining transit-oriented development: the new regional building
block. The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development, 19-40.
Dittmar, H. & Pinzon L. (n.d.). Transit-Oriented Development SmartCode Module. Retrieved from:
http://hankdittma r.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/M -030-Transit-OrientedDevelopment-
SPREADS.pdf
Duany PlaterZyberk & Company. (n.d.). The Urban Transect. Retrieved May 18, 2018 http://www.dpz.
com/Initiatives/Transect
Ewing, R., & Clemente, 0. (2013). Measuring urban design: Metrics for livable places. Island Press.
Firman, T, & Dharmapatni, I. A. I. (1994). The challenges to sustainable development in Jakarta
metropolitan region. Habitat International, 18(3), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-
3975(94)90006-X
Firman, T (2004). New town development in Jakarta Metropolitan Region: a perspective of
spatial segregation. Habitat International, 28(3), 349-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-
3975(03)00037-7
Geh1, J. (2013). Cities for people. Island press.

Greenfield, C. (2015, April 17). Expect delays: world's-worst Jakarta traffic in gridlock for another
decade. Reutres. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
indonesia -traffic/expect-delays-worlds-worst-jakarta-traffic-in-grid lock-for-another-decade-
idUSKBNON806E20150417
Hasibuan, H. S., Soemardi, T. P, Koestoer, R., & Moersidik, S. (2014). The Role of Transit Oriented
Development in Constructing Urban Environment Sustainability, the Case of Jabodetabek,
Indonesia. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 622-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PROENV2014.03.075
In the Spotlight: Sibarani Sofian (2018, February). Construction Plus, 1(7).
ITDP (2014). TOD Standard. New: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP).
Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets.
Jacobson, J., & Forsyth, A. (2008). Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-
Oriented Development Projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 1(2), 51-88. https://doi.
org/10.5198/jtlu.vli2.67
Jakartans spend 400 hours a year in traffic, says survey (2015, February 9), The Jakarta Post. Retrieved

88
 May 18, 2018 from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/02/09/jakartans-spend-400-
hours-a-year-traffic-says-survey. html
Knight, R., & Trygg, L. (1977). Evidence of land use impacts of rapid transit systems. Transportation,
6(3), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177453
Kusumawiaya, M. (2004). Jakarta. metropolis tunggang langgang. GagasMedia.
Lim, W. S. (1998). Asian new urbanism. Singapore.
Lim, W. S. W. (2011). Incomplete urbanism. A critical urban strategy for emerging economies. World
scientific.

LRTCITY (2018). Retrieved May 18, 2018 from http://www.lrtcity.com/

Lynch, K. (1984). Good city form. MIT press.
McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. American economic review, 91(3), 351-378. Retrieved from:
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/aer.91.3.351
Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning of Indonesia. (2017). Ministerial Regulation No.
16/2017 about Transit Oriented Development Guidelines. DKI Jakarta: Author.
Nurcaya, I. (2017, November 8). PERMEN TOD : Beleid Jadi Basis Pengembangan. Bisnis Indonesia.
Retrieved May 18, 2018, from http://banten.bisnis.com/read/20171108/449/706933/permen-
tod-beleid-jadi-basis-pengembangan
Peresthu, A. (2002). Jakarta's" Exurbia" Kampongs. Perspectivas Urbanas/Urban Perspectives. 2002,
nom. 1. Retrieved from https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2099/787/inf0l-1.htm
Prasetyoadi, T., & Danisworo, M. (2015). Global Cities in a Local Context: The Case of Indonesia's Urban
Development. CTBUH 2015 New York Conference. pp.204-209. Retrieved from http://global.
ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2459-global-cities-in-a-local-context-the-case-of-
indonesias-urban-development.pdf
Project for Public Spaces. (n.d.). What Makes a Successful Place? Retrieved May 18, 2018, from: https://
www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/
Project for Public Spaces. (n.d.). What is Placemaking? Retrieved May 18, 2018, from: https://www.pps.
org/reference/what is-placemaking/
Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta. (2012). Local Regulation of DKI Jakarta No. 1/2012 about 2030
Regional Spatial Plan. DKI Jakarta: Author.
Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta. (2014). Local Regulation of DKI Jakarta No. 1/2014 about
Detailed Spatial Plan and Zoning Regulation. DKI Jakarta: Author
Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta. (2017). Governor Regulation of DKI Jakarta No. 140/2017 about
the Appointment of PT Mass Rapid Transit Jakarta as the Main Operating Manager for Transit
Oriented Development Along Phase 1 (North South) Corridor of the Jakarta Mass Rapid
Transit.DKI Jakarta: Author.
Rahmadi, D. (2017, April 26). Transportasi berbasis rel, ini perbedaan MRT, LRT dan KRL. Merdeka.
Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://www.merdeka.com/jakarta/transportasi-berbasis-rel-ini-
perbedaan-mrt-rt-dan-krl.html

89
Renne, J. L. (2009). Evaluating transit-oriented development using a sustainability framework: Lessons
from Perth's network city. Planning Sustainable Communities: Diversity of Approaches and
Implementation Challenges. Ed. Sasha Tsenkova. Calgary: University of Calgary, 115-148.
Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_.Renne/publication/254722734
EvaluatingTransit-Oriented_- DevelopmentUsing-aSustainabilityFrameworkLessonsfrom_
Perth'sNetworkCity/links/0deec5383f5ef7a0d2000000.pdf
Salat, S., & Ollivier, G. (2017). Transforming the Urban Space through Transit-Oriented Development.
Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26405
Sari, N. (2017, October 6). Kerugian akibat Macet Jakarta Rp 67 Triliun Per Tahun, Ini Kata
Pemprov DKI. Kompas. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://megapolitan.kompas.com/
read/2017/10/06/17432751/kerugian-akibat-macet-jakarta -rp-67-tril iu n-per-tahun-i ni-kata

-
pemprov
Sarosa, W. (2002). A framework for the analysis of urban sustainability: Linking theory and practice.
URDI. Retrieved from http://www.urdi.org/2017/09/09/a-framework-for-the-analysis-of-urban-
sustainabilityhtml
Speck, J. (2013). Walkable city: how downtown can save America, one step at a time. macmillan.
Suzuki H., Cervero R., I. K. (2013). Transforming Cities with Transit. Igarss 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13398-014-0173-7.2
Winarso, H. (2011). Urban dualism in the Jakarta metropolitan area. In Megacities (pp. 163-191).
Springer, Tokyo.

90
APPENDIX A: THE JAKARTA TRANSPORTATION MAP

This map is created by Forum Diskusi Transportasi Jakarta (FDTJ). An online version of this map is
available at: https://fdtjakarta.wixsite.com/peta-fdtj

Peta Jaringan
Transportasi p.-.,
A

Umum Massa[

-
Jabodetabek

-
Jakarta Metropolitan Mass--
Transit Network Map
I-,

je- . LMa - - -- -m-

I-

Mr- MM- now-

Mr-~

a~
Nor MW

I wows-
:w 9

wa- Mir 7:me

WV_

de Dee~ep
a gnZ=
QFDTJ
ad D=C
-mum" I- -

-- 2 2 4 5 07
-

91
APPENDIX B: THE NODE VALUE CALCULATION

Closeness Closeness Setwenneess Betwenneess Degree Degree Centrality Intermodal Intermodal Avg. Daily Ridership Node
Centrality Sub-Index Centrality Sub-lnde, Centrality Sub4ndex Sub-Index* DiversIty Sub-Index Ridership Sub-Index Value"
Sudirman ,200 0.33 =
Tatah Abang 3.00' 0.67 2.00 0.15 am6
Manggarai 0.12 1.0 - 19,32 042 0.63
Jatinegara 0.11 0.90 874.23 0.51 3.00 0.67 0.62 11,151 0.24 0.56
Tebet 0.11 0.90 1037.00 0.60 2.00 0.33 0.61 4.00 0.31 - 0.52
Cawang 0.11 0.81 992.00 0.57 2.00 0.33 0.57 7.00 0.54 14,139 0.30 0.45
JakartaKota 0.09 0.62 126.83 0.07 2.00 0.33 0.23 7.00 0.54 22C 0.9 0.43
Palmerah 2.00 0.33 0 3.00 0.23 16,561 0.36 0.39
Pasar Minggu 0.09 0.57 115.00 0AS 2.00 0.33 CA7 3.00 0.23 20,220 0.4 0.39
Kebayoran V. 9 057 2.00 0.33 0.57 4.00 0.31 13,995 0.30 0.38
Juanda 0.09 065 136.00 0.08 2.00 0.33 0.24 16,306 0.35 0.38
Duren Kalibata 0.10 0.72 -2.00 0.33 1.00 0.08 19,472 0A2 0.35
Karet , 2.00 0.33 1.00 0.08 11,722 0.25 0.33
Cikini 0.33 0.8S 248.17 0.14 2.00 0.33 0.32 4.00 0.31 34.061 0.30 0.31
Duri*1a 1.00 0.0 9,867 0.21 0.31
Gondangdia 0.10 0.74 188.00 0.11 2.00 0.33 0.21 1.00 0.08 A- 0.28
Klender 0.10 0.78 621.00 0.36 2.00 0.33 04 4.00 0.31 6,186 0.13 0.28
Pasar Senen 0.09 0.63 124.00 0.07 2.00 0.33 0.24 4,624 0.10 0.27
Lenteng Agung 0,08 0.45 737.00 0A3 2.00 0.33 OA1 1.00 0.08 14,O 0.31 0.27
Tanjung Barat 0.08 0.51 792.00 0.46 2.00 0.33 04 1.00 0.08 12,S46 0.27 0.26
Grogal 621.00 0.36 2.00 033 OA4 3.00 0.23 4,902 0.10 0.24
Buaran 0.10 0.67 560.00 032 2.00 0.33 0.40 3.00 0.23 5,958 0.13 0.24
Kampung Bandan .10 .2 453.50 0.26 030 1.00 0.08 5,079 0.11 0.22
Rajawai 0.09 0.65 145.17 0.08 2.00 0.33 025 5301 0.31 2,119 0.04 0.21
Taman Kota 0.09 0.59 497.00 0.29 2.00 0.33 0.36 3.00 0.23 2,129 0.04 0.19
Universitas Pancaslla 0.07 0.39 680.00 03 2.00 0.33 0.38 1.00 0.08 6,268 0.13 0.19
Pasar Minggu Baru &09 I$ a0640 - 2.00 0.33 & - 0.00 0.00 4,508 0.09 0.191
Klender Baru 0.09 O.8 497.00 029 20 0.33 0.36 0.00 0.00 7,323 0.16 0.17
Tanjung Priok 0.08 0.1 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 Am 0.38 1,198 0.02 0.15i
Pesing 0.0 580.00 0.32 2.00 0.33 0.40 0.00 0.00 3,701 0.08 0.15
Angke 434.00 0.25 2.00 0.33 0.38 0.00 0.00 3,936 0.08 0.15
Rawa Suaya 0.08 0.44 385.00 0.23 2.00 033 0.28 0.00 0.00 5,737 0.12 0.13
Sawah Besar 0.09 0,60 105.00 0.06 2.00 0.33 0.22 0.00 0.00 7,631 0.16 0.13
Mangga Besar 0.09 0.60 99.00 0.06 2.00 0.33 0.22 0.00 0.00 6,560 0.14 0.121
Kemayoran 0.09 0.4 129.00 0.07 2.0 0.33 0.24 0.00 0.00 5,631 0.12 0.121
Jayakarta 0.09 0.61 104.00 0.06 2.00 0.33 0.22 0.00 0.00 5,826 0.12 0.12
Kafideres 0.07 0.37 296.00 0.17 2.00 0.33 0.24 0.00 0.00 5,004 0.10 0.11
Bojong Indah 0.08 0.51 432.00 0.25 2.00 0.33 0.32 0.00 0.00 1,534 0.03 0.11
Pondok Jati 213.00 0.12 2.0 0.33 0.30 0.00 0.00 14267 0.02 0.10
Kramt 0.10 ' 161.00 0.09 2.00 0.33 0.26 0.00 0.00 2,142 0.04 0.09
Gang Sentiong 0.09 0.63 130.00 0.08 2.00 0.33 0.24 0.00 0.00 2,292 0.05 0.09
Ancol 0.09 0.61 77.00 0.04 2.00 0.3 0.21 0.00 0.00 198 0.00 0.06

- All sub-indexes are normalized using the min-max normalization where xi = (x- Xmin)/( Xmax - Xmin ).
a The stations, with a score range from 0 to 1, are ranked into three equal interval groups to create three
typologies:
- single station (value < 0.33),
- major station (0,33 =< value >= 0.66),
- and highly connective stations (value > 0.66).
a *Centrality sub-index = Cl = 0.2*(Degree Centrality) + 0.2*(Closeness Centrality) + 0.6*(Betweenness
Centrality)
- ** Node Value = 0.3*CI + 0.3*(Intermodal Diversity) + 0.4*(Daily Ridership)

92
APPENDIX C: THE WALKSHED BOUNDARY

Goangn h(7A%) saw" fts

7
/

Cakung (47.6%) GAnbk r(33.5%)

/I

Durl (3L6%) Gambir(L.%)

GrgW (6g%)w 6aadKOa((34.^

Kam(42.1%

Kebayoran(302%) Kemayoran (46.o%) Kkdendor{47.4%) Klender Ba 27.%

93
 V I I;i~ >1
I L'.
~ ~K77~
I, ~
Yc~\
I
/ I
~ i~ ~ V V
>7'
I
F I I
I
i
APPENDIX D: THE PLACE VALUE CALCULATION

Station Name Walkshed Intersection Amenities Land Use Land Use Walkshed Intersection Amenities
Ratio* Count* Place Value*
Count* Entropy Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index
Pondok Jati 0.48 414.00 4 0.68 0.55 0.88 0.47 0.70
Mangga Besar 0.52 419.00 11100 0.70 0.60 0.95 0.48 0.70 0.70
Gang Sentiong 364.00 112.00 0.66 0.50 0.38 0.71 0.67
Duren Kalibata 0.43 283.00 118.00 i1 0,77 0.24 0.75 0.65
Duri 0.32 121.00 0.64 0.46 0.51 0.78 0.64
Karet 0.42 243.00 79.00 0.74 0.17 0.46 0.63
Kramat 045 333.00 109.00 0.70 0.60 0.80 0.33 0.62
.69
Ancol 0.33 391.00 68.00 0.54 0.43 0.38 0.61
Cikini 147.00 102.00 0.71 0.60 0.00 0.63 0.59
Tanah Abang 0.31 I 94.00 0.49 0.57 0.59
Pasar Minggu Baru 292.00 93.00 0.68 0.53 0.25 0.57 0.59
Manggarai 0.27 318.00 97.00 .s5 0.92 0.42 0.30 0.60 0.58
Juanda 046 158.00 64.00 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.02 0.35 0.57
Gondangdia 0.45 244.00 56.00 " 79 0.79 0.80 0.17 0.29 0.57
Kemayoran 0.46 270.00 79.00 0.71 0.61 0.83 0.22 0.46 0.57
Cakung 0.48 157.00 17.00 0.86 0.02 0.00 0.6
Grogol 0.53 3M.00 62.00 0.60 0.37 0.98 OA4 0.34 0.56
Tanjung Priok 0.40 207.00 69.00 0.70 0.11 0.39 0.56
Cawang 0A6 397.00 104.O 0.56 0.27 0.82 0.44 065 0.55
Pasar Senen 0.39 254.00 90.00 06 0.67 0.19 0,54 0.55
Klender 30900 82.00 0.64 0.45 0.28 0.49 0.54
Bojong Indah 0.27 311.00 61.00 0.42 0.29 0.33 0.53
Kender Baru 0.28 451.00 101.00 0.67 0.S3 0.42 0.53 0.63 0.52
Sawah Besar 0.40 357.00 9300 0.62 0.41 0.69 0.37 0.57 0.52
Tanjung Barat 0.39 306.00 54.00 0.74 0.67 0.67 0.28 0.28 0.51
Universitas Pancasila OA2 165.00 77.00 0.73 0.65 0.73 0.03 0.45 0.51
Angke 0.33 i 95.00 0.57 0.30 0.55 O.SB 0.50
Jakarta Kota 0.34 255.00 83.00 0.72 0.63 0.56 0.19 049 0.49
Sudirman 0.4fA 186.00 39.00 0.77 0.74 0.75 0.07 0.16 0.49
Jatinegara 0.23 374.00 &mR 0.70 0.59 0.31 OAO 0.49
Kebayoran 0.36 288.00 75.00 0.69 0.57 0.25 0.43 0.49
Rajawali 0.24 89.00 0.68 0.54 0.34 0.54 0.48
Taman Kota 0.33 249.00 61.00 0.53 0.18 0.33 OAS
Tebet 0.28 0.44 0.00 0.43 0.46
Rawa Buaya 0.23 252.00 54.00 0.33 0.18 0.28 0.45
Lenteng Agung 0.29 359.00 85.00 0.63 0.44 0.46 0.37 0.51 OAS
Buaran 0.29 98.00 0.51 0.17 0.46 0.60 OA4
Jayakarta 0.24 300.00 80.00 0.70 0.60 0.34 0.27 0.47 0.43
Pasar Minggu 0.21 248.00 72.00 0.74 0.68 0.28 0.18 0.41 0.41
Pesing 0.18 293.00 50.00 0.71 0.61 0.22 0.26 0.25 0.35
Kalideres 253.00 40.00 0.54 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.35
Palmerah 0.27 185.00 67.00 0.63 0.44 OA2 0.07 0k 0.34
Kampung Bandan 0.08 184.00 46.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.27

- All sub-indexes are normalized using the min-max normalization where xi = (x- Xmin)/( Xmax - Xmin )
- The stations, with a score range from 0 to 1, are ranked into three equal interval groups to create three
typologies:
- suburban (value < 0.33),
- urban (0,33 =< value >= 0.66), and
- intense urban (value > 0.66).
- *Measured within 800 m radius from the station
** Place Value = 0.3*(Walkshed Sub-index) + 0.3*(Land Use Sub-index) + 0.2*(Intersection Sub-index)
+ 0.2*(Amenities Sub-index)

95
APPENDIX E: THE LAND PRICE SUB-INDEX CALCULATION

The following table is the calculation of the proportion of each price zone within 800 m radius from
each station. The land price zone refer to an online map that could be seen at: http.//peta.atrbpn.
go.id/ There are 9 price points, and each is given a score where the lowest price point is valued
as 1 and the highest price point is significantly inflated to 12 (instead of 9) because it has no upper
limit. Land price in the in the city center could reach more than 1DR 100 million/m2. The land price
score is the sum of the multiplication of each scores with its area proportion.

Score: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12
4*00 1ak-2uak 200k-5W0k 500k-1000k 100k-200k 2000k-500k OO586k80k 10000k-2000SS vZOOak Land Price Score
Ancol 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.31 0.06 0.54 9.65
Anke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 7.71
Bojong Indah 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 6.73
Buaran 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 001 5.80
Cawang 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 020 0.14 6.76
Cikini 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.15 11.08
Duri 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 &.i 0.10 7.64
Gangentong 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 9.54
6ondengdit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 11.76
Groo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.11 8.30
Jakarta Kota 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0 0.29 8.96
Jatinqara 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.19 0.13 8.21
Jayakarta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.25 0.59 10.18
Juanda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 11.74
Duren Kaflbata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.21 iM000 7.53
Kalidere 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.14 0.00 6.49
Kampung Bandan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.24 0.24 9.86
Karet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 11.93
KWbay.ran 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.15
O27 0.32 7.93
Kemayoran 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,3 024 10.15
Klender 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OA2 0.10 0.04 6.86
Kkinder Baru 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.45 0.05 000 6.43
Kramat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 025 9.56
LentAngung 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 4 . 0.0 0.00 6.18
Mangga Besar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 10.17
Mawgarai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 .V 023 0.31 8.66
Pahnerah 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 021 0.12 10.44
Pasar MknPg 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.28 O.A 0.02 6.90
Paswr Mingu Baru 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ;10 0. 0.00 7.26
Paswr Senen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0 10.18
Pein 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 024 0.03 7.74
Pondok Jati 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.14 7.91
Rajawalh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 025 029 'MM 9.51
Rawa Buaya 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.21 0.00 6.98
Sawah Sesar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.21 0.67 10.54
Sudirman 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.96
Taman Kota 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 005in 2 0.00 6.90
Tanah Abang 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 A.M 0.10 9.76
Tanjung Barat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 ' . 8 7.45
Tanjung Priok 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0 0 0.07 0.04 0.10 6.74
Tebet 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.06 7.73
Univershtas Pancasa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 025 0.07 0.00 6.28

96
APPENDIX F: THE MARKET VALUE CALCULATION

Land Price Land Price Total Floor Development Market Value*

Station Name 2
Score Sub-Index Area m Sub-index
Sudirman 11.96 1.00 1.00
Gondangda 11.76 0.97 3,858,898.06 0.71 0.86
Juanda 11.74 0.96 3,826,859.96 0.70 0.86
Jayakarta 10.18 0.71 4,416,44627 - 0,85 0.77
Sawah Besar 10.54 0.77 3,935,857.14 0.73 0.75
Pasar Senen 10.18 0.71 4,045,795.68 0.76 0.73
Kampung Bandan 9.86 0.66 4,223,056.64 0.80 0.72
Cikini 19d8 911 3,005,886.18 0.49 0.71
Kemayoran 10.15 0.71 3,751,095.11 0.68 0.70
Mangga Besar 10.17 0.71 3,659,258.90 0.66 0.69
Jakarta Kota 8.96 0.51 4,343,768.39 0.83 0.64
Karet 4,823,346.52 0.96 0.61
Tanah Abang 9.76 0.64 3,251,265.35 0.55 0.61
Manggarai 8.66 OA6 0.60
Kramat 9.56 0.61 3,162,620.74 0.53 0.58
Rajawali 9.51 0.60 3,177,794.61 0.53 0.57
Gang Sentiong 9.54 0.61 2,810,329.78 OA3 0.54
Ancol 9.65 0.62 2,307,972.57 0.30 0.50
Palmerah 10A4 0.5 0.49
Jatinegara 8.21 0.39 2,890,385.46 0.46 0.42
Grogol 8.30 0.41 2,546,455.18 0.37 0.39
Angke 7.71 0.31 3,030,951.25 0A9 0.38
Kebayoran 7.93 0.35 2,791,671.81 0.43 0.38
Pondok Jati 7.91 0.34 2,734,825.16 0A1 0.37
Duri 7.64 0.30 2,892,052.07 0A6 0.36
Duren Kalibata 7.53 0.28 2,680,162.86 OAO 0.33
Pesing 7.74 0.32 2,450,716.28 0.34 0.33
Tebet 7.73 0.31 2,222,054.68 0.28 0.30
Rawa Buaya 6.98 0.19 2,801,816.69 OA3 0.29
Pasar Minggu Baru 7.26 0.24 2,381,445.60 0.32 0.27
Cawang 6.76 0.16 2,570,440.67 0.37 0.24
Klender 6.86 0.17 2,398,241.88 0.33 0.23
Kalideres 6.49 0.11 2,741,183.40 OA2 0.23
Tanjung Priok 6.74 0.15 2,355,114.76 0.32 0.22
Tanjung Barat 7A5 0.27 1,603,207.32 0.12 0.21
Buaran 5.80 0.00 0.19
-

Taman Kota 6.90 0.18 1,927,653.00 0.20 0.19

Pasar Minggu 6.90 0.18 1,674,834.22 0.14 0.16
Bojong Indah 6.73 0.15 2060882.39 0.24 0.11
Kender Baru 6.43 0.10- 0.10
Lenteng Agung 6.18 0.06 1,382,892.78 0.06 0.06
Universitas Pancasila 6.28 0.08 1,145,796.00 0.00 0.05

- All sub-indexes are normalized using the min-max normalization where xi = (x- Xmin)/( Xmax - Xmin ).
- The stations, with a score range from 0 to 1, are ranked into three equal interval groups to create three
typologies:
- low market station (value < 0.33),
- emerging station (0,33 =< value >= 0.66), and
- high market station (value > 0.66).
- * Node Value = 0.6*(Land Price Sub-index) + 0.4*(Development Sub-index)

97