JTUS, Vol. 02, No. 9
September 2024
E-ISSN: 2984-7435,
P-ISSN: 2984-7427
|
DOI: https://doi.org/ |
Feeder�Line Concept Development For Public
Transportation Network In Urban Area Based On O-D Matrix And Performance
Evaluation
Rika Fitriyanti1, Gitta Karina2,
Mira Lestira Hariani3*
1,2,3 Universitas Swadaya
Gunung Jati, Indonesia
E-mail: [email protected]1,
[email protected]2, [email protected]3*
|
Abstract The management of the public transport network system is very
important because it affects the future of the city and supports the
activities of the community in travelling and movement. This research aims to
develop a feeder-line concept on the public transport network based on O-D
Matrix and Operational Performance Evaluation. The research method used is
the operational performance standard indicator approach based on the
Directorate General of Land Transportation SK 687/AJ.206/DRJD/2002 and the
O-D Matrix method in determining new route recommendations. This research
uses secondary data as well as primary surveys to assess operational
performance. The results show that the level of operational performance of
public transport in the research area there are still several routes below
the standard with a total of routes operating from D1 to D8 of which 75% of
the routes are in good condition and the other 25% of the routes have
substandard assessment results with a total value of ≤18. Thus, it is
recommended that rerouting to be carried out on routes whose operational
performance is still below standard, namely routes D7, and D8 based on the
characteristics of the feeder-line concept to BRT Corridor 2. Keywords: Feeder-Line, O-D
Matrix, Operational Performance. |
INTRODUCTION
Public transportation is an important
component in supporting the mobility of people in urban areas. According to (Tunjungsari
et al., 2019), public transport is a type of transport
that carries passengers on the road in mixed traffic conditions which provided
by public or private operators in a certain number of routes or groups. Public
transport consists of two types, the first is trunk (main) route transport,
which serves the mobility and hinterland of an area with large vehicles and the
route passes through the central activity area (Karim et
al., 2023). The second is feeder route transport, or a
supporting network of trunk routes that connects generation areas or suburbs to
activity centers (Musthofawi
et al., 2023).
�According to (Afriza &
Manullang, 2017), feeder line are public transport services
that use small-capacity vehicles for lower density areas. In line with that, (Steijn,
2014) explains that a feeder is a means of
transport that serves areas of the city that are not reached by the main
transport system or BRT transit. This idea is also corroborated by (Herdiana
& Firdaus, 2021), who considers feeders as a way to connect
areas that are not served by the main mode of transport such as buses.�
�In
research that has been conducted by (Tangphaisankun
et al., 2009) stated that mass transit in developing
countries needs to introduce the feeder concept as a mass transit system, where
the aim is to integrate paratransit systems into urban transport. On the
performance of bus services in the research area, it is mentioned that there is
a need to consider paratransit services starting from the strategy of
paratransit facilities that should be provided and facilities in connection
from the feeder to the main transport service to reduce the difficulty of
switching passenger (Harry
Yulianto et al., 2018).�
�Cirebon City is one of the strategic areas by connecting two provinces, namely West Java and Central Java, making it a transit city for people travelling between regions. With existing development causes the need for movement and travel to be very high (Gusleni, 2016). Cities public transport currently operates two types of modes, namely angkutan kota (angkot) and BRT Corridor 2. But until now the condition of public transport in the city of Cirebon is still less than optimal causing a decrease in the effectiveness and efficiency of the urban transport system. This is evidenced by urban transport research that has been conducted by (Rizka & Hariani, 2023) that the average load factor value of the actual conditions of route D6 in Cirebon City is 45%. This shows that the operational performance for route D6 is still not optimal with the lack of passengers transported on route D6. While the Trans Cirebon BRT research has been carried out previously on BRT Corridor 1 by (Sugiyanto et al., 2023) mentioned that there are indicators that do not meet performance standards, namely load factor, service time, waiting time, and passenger seat comfort, from these indicators concluded that the operational system on BRT Corridor 1 is not good enough so that it stops operating.
�In a
study conducted by (Sutrisni
& Setiono, 2014) the stage of handling transport problems on
the performance of the Surakarta City road network movement patterns required
identification in the form of the Origin-Destination Matrix. The 2013 O-D
matrix estimation was obtained from processing the priority matrix with traffic
data, and calibrated using the generation and attraction model with an analysis
method that produces the amount of generation and attraction in 2025. With this
result, the total number of hourly movements is 55,074.29 smp with an increase
of 3.3% per year.�
�One
of the analysis of the operational performance of transport can be used to
generate the effectiveness of public transport in service and satisfaction of
the use of public transport, a previous study (Atmaja et
al., 2017) To renew the public transport service
system in Surakarta City, an efficient and sustainable public transport system
needs to be planned. Based on the standard operational indicators that have
been analysed there are still routes that are not optimal in terms of service
according to operational standards. It is still necessary to integrate between
the route network with other types of transport with attractive routes so that
passengers feel safe and satisfied with the services of the public transport system
in Surakarta City.�
�With literature review of previous research that aims as a reference and comparison or a differentiator for this research, where the research aims to study and develop all urban transport network systems in Cirebon City based on the O-D matrix and operational performance evaluation, based on the feeder-line concept between angkot and BRT Corridor 2. With this research, it is hoped that the public transport network system in the city of Cirebon will be able to increase more efficient and sustainable mobility. So that the operational performance of public transport is more optimal, both from several points of view, namely regulators as planners and supervisors, operators as public transport service providers, and also the public who are consumers or users of these public transport services.
METHODS
Location and Object of Research
The study was located in the Cirebon
City area, Indonesia. Covering routes passed by routes from D1 to D8 and BRT Corridor
2 in the urban area of Cirebon City.
Figure 1. Research Location Map
Data Collection Methods and Sources
Figure 2. Research
Flow
The research method used is quantitative
research by collecting data. The data required is in the form of primary data
with field surveys as data collection method in the form of headway surveys to
support frequency data, the number of fleets (availability), also the load
factor survey by recording the number of passengers in the vehicle in each
segment, cycle time and travel time surveys, and travel speed surveys. While
the secondary data needed are public transport network and BRT Corridor 2 maps,
the number of public transport routes and BRT Corridor 2. This secondary data
is obtained through the Cirebon City Transportation Office (Dinas
Perhubungan Kota Cirebon). The survey results are used in data processing
and analysis using the O-D matrix method and operational performance
evaluation, as well as providing recommendations from the analysis
results.�
Operational Performance Standards
Parameters that can be done to determine the
operational performance of public transport are headway, frequency,
availability, travel time, travel speed, cycle time, and load factor. This
research uses standard operational performance indicators of urban public
transport and Bus Rapid Transit based on the Directorate General of Land
Transportation SK 687/AJ.206/DRJD/2002.
Table 1. Urban Public Transport Performance Standards
|
No |
Services Indicator |
Unit |
Assessment Standard |
||
|
Bad (1) |
Performance Standards for Urban Public Transport Moderate (2) |
Good (3) |
|||
|
1 |
Peak hour load factor |
% |
>100 |
80-100 |
<80 |
|
2 |
Off-peak load
factor |
% |
>100 |
70-100 |
<70 |
|
3 |
Travel speed |
Km/Hour |
<5 |
5-10 |
>10 |
|
4 |
Headway |
Minutes |
>15 |
10-15 |
<10 |
|
5 |
Travel time |
Minutes/Km |
>12 |
6-12 |
<6 |
|
6 |
Service time |
Hours |
<13 |
13-15 |
>15 |
|
7 |
Frequency |
Vhcl/Hour |
<4 |
4-6 |
>6 |
|
8 |
Waiting time |
Minutes |
>30 |
20-30 |
<20 |
|
9 |
Number of active vehicle |
Unit |
<82 |
82-100 |
100 |
Source: Directorate General of Land Transportation 2002
Table 2. Performance Standards for Urban
Public Transport
|
Criteria |
Total Value |
|
Very Good |
>24 |
|
Good |
18,00
� 24,00 |
|
Moderate |
12,00 � 17,99 |
|
Bad |
<12 |
Source: Directorate General of Land Transportation 2002
Standard indicators of public transport
performance on BRT Corridor 2 were obtained based on secondary survey
results.�
Table 3. Performance
Indicators of Public Transport Based
on Director General of Land Transportation
|
No |
Criteria |
Value |
|
1 |
Load
Factor |
70% |
|
2 |
Headway time a.
Average b.
Maximum |
5-10
Minutes 10-2-
Minutes |
|
3 |
Passenger
waiting time |
5-10 Minutes |
|
4 |
Vehicle frequency |
4-6
Vehicle |
|
5 |
Service
time |
13-15 Hours/Day |
|
6 |
Travel time a.
Average b.
Maximum |
60-90
Minutes 120
Minutes |
Source:� (Sugiyanto et al., 2023)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Public
Transport Network Data
Based on the Decree of
Walikotamadya/KDH TK.II Cirebon Number: 05 of 1997 there are about 10 codes of
city transport routes operating in the city of Cirebon, namely D1 to D10, but
the D9 and D10 routes are no longer operating, judging on the passenger interest
in using the two routes, this is due to the area or route passed is not
strategic. So, what is studied in this research is only on routes D1 to D8 as
city transport routes. Whereas in the Decree of the Mayor of Cirebon City No.
551/Kep.52-DISHUB/2023 that Cirebon City has Bus Rapid Transit Corridors 1 and
2, with the route of BRT Corridor 1 starts from Dukuh Semar Terminal and ends
at Pesantren Rd., Cirebon City, while the BRT Corridor 2 route starts and
returns at the same point, namely Harjamukti Terminal. However, currently BRT
Corridor 1 has been closed or is no longer operating, due to the lack of
passengers who ride so what operates now is only BRT Corridor 2.�
From the condition of public transport in Cirebon City which has two types of transport, namely BRT and angkot, research was conducted to analyze and evaluate the operational performance system on both types of public transport, by making routes D1 to D8 as feeders that can reach residential areas and connect with BRT Corridor 2.
�Currently the routes and route lengths owned
by public transport in Cirebon City are routes D1 to D8 and BRT Corridor 2 as
listed in table 4 below.
Table 4. Public
Transport Routes
|
Route Type |
Rute |
Distance (Km) |
|
D1 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl. Elang - Jl. Rajawali - Jl.
A. Yani - Jl. Kesunean - Jl. Yos Sudarso - Jl. Cemara - Jl. RA
Kartini - Jl. Wahidin - Jl. Slamet Riyadi - Jl. Diponegoro - Jl. Samadikun -
Jl. Sisingamangaraja - Jl. Kantor - Jl. Syarif Abdurakhman - Jl. Kesunean -
Jl. Kalijaga - Jl. A. Yani - Perumnas Selatan - Perumnas Utara - Jl. Dukuh Semar. |
22,80 |
|
D2 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl. Pangeran Drajat - Jl. Kesambi -
Jl. Nyimas Gandasari - Jl. Pekiringan - Jl. Pekalipan - Jl. Pulasaren - Jl.
Merdeka - Jl. Benteng - Jl. Sisingamangaraja - Jl. Samadikun - Jl. Diponegoro
- Jl. Slamet Riyadi - Jl. Wahidin - Jl. Tuparev - Jl. Brigjen Dharsono - Jl.
Perjuangan - Jl. Majasem - Jl. Kanggraksan - Jl. A. Yani - Jl. Dukuh Semar. |
20,20 |
|
D3 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl.Elang - Jl. Rajawali -
Jl. A. Yani - Jl. Kanggraksan - Jl. Kalitanjung -
Jl. Pelandakan - Jl. Majasem - Jl. Perjuangan - Jl. Brigjen Dharsono - Jl.
Pemuda - Jl. Dr. Cipto - Jl. RA Kartini - Jl.
Karanggetas - Jl. Pekiringan - Jl. Petratean - Jl. Pulasaren - Jl. Lawanggada - Jl. Kesambi - Jl. Pangeran Drajat
-Term. Dukuh Semar. |
15,60 |
|
D4 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl. Elang - Jl. Rajawali - Jl.
A. Yani - Jl. Kanggraksan - Jl. Kalitanjung - Jl. Evakuasi - Jl. Brigjen
Dharsono - Jl. Tuparev - Jl. Wahidin - Jl.�
Slamet Riyadi - Jl. Diponegoro - Jl. Samadikun - Jl. Sisingamangaraja
- Jl. Syarif Abdurakhman - Jl. Pasuketan - Jl. Pekiringan - Jl. Pekalipan -
Jl. Lawanggada - Jl. Kesambi - Jl. Pangeran Drajat - Term. Dukuh Semar. |
15,68 |
|
D5 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl. Elang - Jl. Rajawali - Perumnas
Selatan - Jl. Rajawali - Jl. Kutagara - Jl. Jagasatru - Jl. Pekawatan - Jl.
Pulasaren - Jl. Merdeka - Jl. Kebumen - Jl. Pasuketan - Jl. Pekiringan - Jl.
Petratean - Jl. Pulasaren - Jl. Lawanggada - Jl. Nyi Mas Gandasari - Jl.
Pangeran Suryanegara - Jl. Sukalila Selatan - Jl. Siliwangi - Jl. Slamet
Riyadi - Jl. Wahidin - Jl. Dr. Cipto - Jl.
Pangeran Drajat - Term. Dukuh Semar. |
15,08 |
|
D6 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl. Pangeran Drajat - Jl. Kesambi -
Jl. Nyi Mas Gandasari - Jl. Tentara Pelajar - Jl. Dr. Cipto - Jl. Wahidin -
Jl. Slamet Riyadi - Jl.Siliwangi - Jl. Karanggetas - Jl. Pekiringan - Jl.
Pekalipan - Jl. Lawanggada - Jl. Kesambi - Jl. Pangeran
Drajat - Perumnas Selatan - Perumnas Utara - Jl. Elang - Term. Dukuh Semar. |
20,70 |
|
D7 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl. Pangeran Drajat - Jl. Kutagara -
Jl. Jagasatru - Jl. Lawanggada - Jl. Nyi Mas Gandasari - Jl. Pangeran
Suryanegara - Jl. Sukalila Selatan - Jl. Siliwangi - Jl. Kartini - Jl.
Wahidin - Jl. Raya Pilang - Jl. Kedawung - Jl. Tuparev - Jl. Dr. Cipto - Jl.
Pemuda - Jl. Brigjen Dharsono - Jl. A. Yani - Term. Dukuh
Semar. |
20,20 |
|
D8 |
Term. Dukuh Semar - Jl. Pangeran Drajat - Jl. Dr. Cipto -
Jl. Tuparev - Jl. Kedawung - Jl. Raya Pilang - Jl. Wahidin - Jl. Kartini -
Jl. Siliwangi - Jl. Karanggetas - Jl. Pekiringan - Jl. Petratean - Jl.
Jagasatru - Jl. Kutagara - Jl. Pangeran Drajat -
Jl. Rajawali - Jl. Elang - Term. Dukuh Semar. |
16,30 |
|
BRT Corridor 2 |
T. Harjamukti - Jl. A.Yani - Jl. Kanggraksan - Jl.
Jend. Sudirman - Jl. Angkasa Raya - Jl. Katiasa - Jl. Pramuka - U Turn Jl.
Pramuka (Cadas Ngampar) - Jl. Angkasa - Jl. Angkasa Raya - Jl. Jend. Sudirman
- Jl. Kalitanjung - Jl. Evakuasi - Jl. Brigjen Dharsono - Jl. Pemuda - Jl.
Dr. Cipto - Jl. Tentara Pelajar - Jl. Sukalila
Selatan - Jl. Siliwangi - Jl. Veteran - Jl. Sisingamangaraja - Jl. Benteng -
Jl. Merdeka - Jl. Pulasaren - Jl. Kutagara - Jl. Pangeran
Drajat - Jl. Rajawali Raya - Jl. A. Yani ( T. Harjamukti). |
30 |
Transport Operational
Performance Analysis
The assessment of transport
operational performance on angkot routes D1 to D8 and BRT Corridor 2 can be
seen from the comparison of existing transport data assessment parameters. The
assessment of transport operational performance is based on the 2002 Directorate
General of Land Transportation service standards.�
Headway
�
Figure 3.
Headway
From the results of the
analysis, the average daily headway value of route D3 is 3 minutes. It can be
said that it is very easy to get public transport for route D3. While on route
D7 the average headway owned is 33.9 minutes. These results show that the
quality of the operational performance standards based on the Directorate
General of Land Transportation in 2002 is still not optimal. On BRT Corridor 2,
the average daily headway is 60 minutes. It can be said that the operational
performance of BRT Corridor 2 is still not optimal because of the large headway
value.
Frequency
�Figure 4. Frequency
Based on the frequency analysis results in figure 4, the operational performance standards of routes D1 and D6 have the highest average frequency level, which is 33 vehicles/hour. This is caused by several factors, such as faster public transport travel times due to minimum transport stops waiting for passengers and more routes in operation. Meanwhile, the average frequency of BRT Corridor 2 has a very low value of 2 vehicles/hour. This low frequency can be caused by the lack of a fleet to operate.
Fleet Availability
Figure 5. Fleet
Availability Rate
Based on
the percentage of availability of the operating fleet in figure 5, route D3 has
high percentage value, which is 62%, which means that this percentage has met
the operational performance standards based on the Directorate General of Land
Transportation in 2002. Meanwhile, route D7 has the lowest value, which is 15%.
This can be seen from the current public transport situation during peak hours,
public transport operates more because there are many passengers, but during
off-peak hours, most public transport stops for a break. The availability of
the BRT Corridor 2 fleet has a percentage value of 30%, this shows that the
average percentage value of BRT Corridor 2 is still less than ideal to fulfil
its operational performance.
Service Time
The average service time of all routes starts and end is between
06.00-18.00 or for 12 hours of service a day. In this case the route from D1 to
D8 still has a poor quality of service time. Where good service time, according
to the Directorate General of Land Transportation in 2002, which is at least 15
hours of service. While the service time owned by BRT Corridor 2, which is 13
hours of service a day between 06.00-19.00, this service time according to the
Directorate General of Land Transportation in 2002 is said to meet the
requirements in the operational performance standard indicators.
Travel Time
Figure 6. Travel Time
Based on Figure 6, route D7
has the longest travel time, which is 1.6 hours in one round. This can be
influenced by drivers during peak and off-peak hours, tending to wait for
passengers in potential areas. While the travel time of BRT Corridor 2 is 137
minutes or 2.3 hours in one round. This is because the length of the existing
route travelled is 30 km. As for other factors of BRT Corridor 2, because there
is a stopping time of 30 minutes in one round.
Travel Speed
Figure 7. Travel Speed
Route
D7 has the highest travel speed, which is 27 km/hour. Meanwhile, BRT Corridor 2
has a travel speed of 21 km/hour. From the results of the analysis, it can be
concluded that the factor that affects the speed of travel is high or low due
to changes in travel time. Although in the existing conditions, the route of
each route has the same length the travel time is different, so it will affect
the travel speed.
Cycle Time
Figure 8. Cycle Time
Based on the results of the
cycle time analysis, route D7 has the highest average cycle time, which is 1.6
hours. This is not much different from the travel time of route D7 where the
factors that influence the high cycle time of route D7 are related to the
driver who will wait and look for passengers. On BRT Corridor 2, the average
cycle time is 2.6 hours.
Load Factor
Figure 9.
Load Factor
The highest load factor is on route D4 at 53%. Based on the
analysis, this can occur because some of route D4 passed are quite good, during
peak hours where the number of passengers on route D4 is quite dense.
Meanwhile, the BRT Corridor 2 load factor is 23%. Based on the Directorate
General of Land Transportation standards in 2002, the load factor value
<70%, is very good because there is no need to be crowded. But other
factors, this will be detrimental to the driver because the available seats are
not full, thus reducing income.
Operational Performance Evaluation �
In
BRT Corridor 2, the analysis results that have been compared with the standard
operational performance indicators, only meet some of the requirements of the
Directorate General of Land Transportation in 2002, namely in the analysis of
travel speed and service time. In this case, BRT Corridor 2 is still less than
optimal in the operational performance system according to the standard.�
Table 5. BRT Corridor
2 Operational Performance Standards
|
BRT Corridor 2 Operational Performance Standards |
||||
|
No |
Indicators |
Service Standard |
Value |
Description |
|
1 |
Load Factor |
70% |
27 |
Not
Eligible |
|
2 |
Headway |
5 - 10
Minutes |
60 |
Not
Eligible |
|
3 |
Frequency |
4 - 6
Vhcl/Hour |
2 |
Not
Eligible |
|
4 |
Bus Travel Time |
60 -90
Minutes |
137 |
Not
Eligible |
|
5 |
Passenger Waiting Time |
5 - 10 Minutes |
30 |
Not
Eligible |
|
6 |
Bus Travel Speed |
10 - 30
Km/Hour |
21 |
Eligible |
|
7 |
Service Time |
13 - 15
Hours/Day |
13 |
Eligible |
Based on the results of the
analysis that has been done and then compared with the indicators of the
operational performance standards of the Directorate General of Land
Transportation in 2002, that on city transport routes D1 to D8 obtained the
results that route D7� have the lowest
total value, then route D8, both routes still do not meet operational
performance standards.
Table
6. Operational Performance Standards for Routes D1 to D4
|
No |
Indicator |
Unit |
Route D1 |
Route D2 |
Route D3 |
Route D4 |
||||||
|
Amount |
Value |
Category |
Amount |
Value |
Category |
Amount |
Value |
Category |
Amount Value Category |
|||
|
1 |
Headway |
Minutes |
6.1 |
3 |
Good |
3.8 |
3 |
Good |
3 |
3 |
Good |
8 3 Good |
|
2 |
Frequency |
Vhcl/Hour |
33 |
3 |
Good |
29 |
3 |
Good |
32 |
3 |
Good |
17 3 Good |
|
3 |
Fleet Availability |
% |
35 |
1 |
Bad |
44 |
1 |
Bad |
62 |
1 |
Bad |
27 1 Bad |
|
4 |
Service Time |
Hours/Day |
12 |
1 |
Bad |
12 |
1 |
Bad |
12 |
1 |
Bad |
12 1 Bad |
|
5 |
Travel Time |
Hour |
1,4 |
3 |
Good |
1.5 |
3 |
Good |
1 |
3 |
Good |
1.1 3 Good |
|
6 |
Travel Speed |
Km/Hour |
17 |
3 |
Good |
16 |
3 |
Good |
17 |
3 |
Good |
17 3 Good |
|
7 |
Cycle Time |
Hour |
1.4 |
3 |
Good |
1.5 |
3 |
Good |
1 |
3 |
Good |
1.1 3 Good |
|
8 |
Load Factor |
% |
27 |
1 |
Good |
51 |
1 |
Bad |
30 |
1 |
Bad |
53 1 Bad |
|
Total |
Value |
18 |
Good |
18 |
Good |
18 |
Good |
18 Good |
||||
Table 7. Operational Performance Standards
for Routes D5 to D8
|
No |
Indicator |
Unit |
Route D5 |
Route 06 |
Route 07 |
Route 08 |
||||||||
|
Amount |
Value |
Category |
Amount |
Value |
Category |
Amount |
Value |
Category |
Amount |
Value |
Category |
|||
|
1 |
Headway |
Minutes |
4 |
3 |
Good |
1.4 |
1 |
Good |
11.9 |
1 |
Bad |
8.7 |
3 |
Good |
|
2 |
Frequency |
Vhcl/Hour |
32 |
3 |
Good |
33 |
3 |
Good |
4 |
2 |
Moderan . |
14 |
) |
Good |
|
3 |
Fleet Availability |
% |
39 |
1 |
Bad |
32 |
1 |
Bad |
15 |
1 |
Bad |
27 |
1 |
Bad |
|
4 |
Service Time |
Hours/Day |
12 |
1 |
Bad |
12 |
1 |
Bad |
11 |
1 |
Bad |
12 |
1 |
Bad |
|
s |
Travel Time |
Hours |
1 |
3 |
Good |
1.1 |
3 |
Good |
1.6 |
2 |
Moderan . |
1 |
1 |
Good |
|
6 |
Travel Speed |
Km/Hour |
17 |
3 |
Good |
19 |
3 |
Good |
27 |
3 |
Good |
16 |
3 |
Good |
|
7 |
Cycle Time |
Hour |
1,1 |
3 |
Good |
1,2 |
3 |
Good |
1.6 |
2 |
Moderan c |
1 |
1 |
Bad |
|
8 |
Load Factor |
% |
34 |
1 |
Red |
18 |
1 |
Bad |
12 |
1 |
Bad |
45 |
1 |
Bad |
|
Total |
Value |
14 |
Good |
14 |
Good |
13 |
Moderat . |
10 |
Moderat . |
|||||
The
table above explains that the lowest route weight value is on routes D7 and D8
with moderate categories. While on routes D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6 have a
value of 18 which falls into the minimum limit of the good category. Based on
this, it can be concluded that the operational performance of public transport
in Cirebon City is mostly in the position of the minimum limit of the good
category so that it can be considered not optimal. In addition, when viewed in
terms of passenger transport, it can be concluded that public interest in the
use of public transport is very low and can affect the sustainability of public
transport routes in the future.� Looking
at the results of the operational performance evaluation, the routes that need
to be rerouted are routes D7 and D8 which have the lowest values by considering
the potential pull and generation as well as the existing conditions of the
public transport network operating today.�
This can maximise the quality of transport performance, both in terms of
passengers and driver operators who will feel the positive impact of making
public transport in Cirebon City a sustainable transport network with a
well-operating performance system.
Recommended Transport Network Route Design
In determining the direction of the rerouting point as a route design recommendation can be done by determining the potential passenger demand, which is presented based on the Origin-Destination Matrix table. Where the origin-destination matrix or O-D Matrix data used is based on the results of surveys, interviews, and on roads conducted by the Cirebon City Transportation Office and STTD Bekasi cadets in 2022. The method in this matrix is a method with generation restrictions and a method with pull restrictions.
Table
8. Total Generation Demand and Attraction Movement for Each Zone
|
No |
Ad |
Pi |
|
Attraction |
Generation |
|
|
1 |
Pekiringan (33452) |
Pekiringan (40657) |
|
2 |
Pekalipan (28060) |
Pekalipan (31386) |
|
3 |
Kesambi (23756) |
Kesambi (25704) |
|
4 |
Larangan 2 (20469) |
Sunyaragi 1 (22105) |
|
5 |
Kalijaga 1 (21294) |
Drajat (20878) |
|
6 |
Karyamulya 2 (24346) |
Kecapi, Larangan 1 (20613) |
|
7 |
Sukapura 2 (22076) |
Larangan 2 (22582) |
|
8 |
|
Kalijaga 1 (24135) |
|
9 |
|
Kalijaga 2 (19308) |
|
10 |
|
Harjamukti 2 (19080) |
|
11 |
|
Karyamulya 2 (28021) |
|
12 |
|
Sukapura 2 (30645) |
Sumber:
STTD Bekasi cadets, 2022
The
origin-destination movement pattern shown in Table 7, shows that the most
movements as a generation zone are zone 1 (Pekiringan) with 40657, zone 2
(Pekalipan) with 31386, zone 3 (Kesambi) with 25704, zone 4 (Sunyaragi 1) with
22105, zone 8 (Drajat) with 20878, zone 16 (Kecapi 1, Larangan 1) by 20163,
zone 18 (Larangan 2) by 22582, zone 20 (Kalijaga 1) by 24135, zone 22 (Kalijaga
2) by 19308, zone 24 (Harjamukti 2) by 19080, zone 26 (Karyamulya 2) by 28021,
and zone 28 (Sukapura 2) by 30645. Meanwhile, zones with potential as pull
zones are zone 1 (Pekiringan) with 33452, zone 2 (Pekalipan) with 28060, zone 3
(Kesambi) with 23756, zone 18 (Larangan 2) with 20469, zone 20 (Kalijaga 1)
with 21294, zone 26 (Karyamulya 2) with 24346, and zone 28 (Sukapura 2) with
22076.
By
using the feeder concept on the city transport route as a feeder transport on
BRT Corridor 2, the main thing for determining the design is that the coverage
of the rerouted route must have the potential for high passenger demand, which
is located in areas that have community trip generation, where the distance
between the point of origin of the trip and the destination of the trip has a
route that is not too short and not too long (Suraharta & Ananda, 2020).�
Figure
3. a) and b) Route D7 Before and After Rerouting
The
following are some comparative route designs between the old route and the new
route recommendations based on operational performance analysis and
origin-destination matrix analysis on routes D7 and D8. In the picture, inside
the green square box, there is a route point that has been changed.
The normality test is a
test that is carried out with the aim of finding out whether the results of the
available value data are normally distributed or not. This testing process was
carried out using IBM SPSS Statistic 26 which obtained the following results.
Figure 4. Route D7
Before and After Rerouting
Figure
4 explains the condition of the D7 route before and after rerouting. There are
several things that are done in route changes, namely:
1. Moving routes that pass through Siliwangi Rd. to Kalibaru
Selatan Rd. and Benteng Rd. This is done because on Jalan Siliwangi there are
already several routes that pass through the road section. So as to reduce the
amount of competition, the route was moved.
2.
By moving the route of Siliwangi Rd. to Kalibaru Selatan
Rd. and Benteng Rd., it is expected to increase the potential for generation,
because the area is included in the generation zone category so that it has the
potential to increase transport demand.� The normality test is a test that is carried out with the
aim of finding out whether the results of the available value data are normally
distributed or not. This testing process was carried out using IBM SPSS
Statistic 26 which obtained the following results.
Figure 5. a) and b)
Route D8 Before and After Rerouting
n Figure 5 above explains
the condition of the D8 route before and after rerouting. There are several
things done in route changes, namely:
1.
There are two comparison
boxes between the old route and the rerouting, where
a.
The first box is to move
the route that passes through Tuparev Rd. to Brigjen Dharsono Rd. This is done
because on Tuparev Rd. there are already several routes that pass through the
road. So as to reduce the amount of competition, a new route was created.
b.
The second box moves the
route from Siliwangi Rd. to Pangeran Drajat Rd. to Kesambi Rd. to Kanggraksan
Rd. and continues through Angkasa Raya Rd., Pramuka Rd. to Ciremai Rd.�
2. By moving some of the old routes to the recommended routes that have high generation potential, it is expected that the D8 route will increase its passenger.
Recommendations
from this research were made with adjustments to the characteristics of the
feeder as according to (EMBARQ India, 2013 in (Herdiana & Firdaus, 2021)
that in the regional aspect according to EMBARQ India, feeder characteristics
must connect the settlement node area to the main corridor. The route in the
figure is the result of the rerouting recommendation design using the
development of the feeder-line concept, where the physical operation of the
feeder is integrated with the trunk line (BRT) connecting potential areas with
perpendicular paths that aim to provide direct access to the trunk line (BRT)
route.�
Figure 6.
Feeder Characteristics on the New Route D8
In Figure 5 the route characteristics
owned by route D8 are loop routes or circular routes where the terminal and
final destination return at the same point. On the characteristics of the
feeder-line concept, route recommendations are made where the latest route of
route D8 as a feeder to BRT Corridor 2 reaches residential areas with the
highest generation potential based on the origin-destination matrix in Table 7,
this relates to the feeder concept from the ITDP Indonesia report source that
the feeder system can connect potential areas connected to the main line stops
with areas that have a high level of potential generation to the main service,
namely BRT Corridor 2 (Indonesia, 2019).
�The new route recommendations for routes D7 and D8 leads to BRT Corridor 2 stops, where the D7 route passes 16 stops with a perpendicular path between route D7 and BRT Corridor 2. While on route D8 which has a perpendicular path with BRT Corridor 2, it passes 11 stops. This aims to place the city transport feeder route in the generation areas that lead to the main corridor. So that the transfer of routes to the generation zone is one of the services required in conducting the feeder-line concept. And one of the reasons on which the rerouting recommendation is based, because the current condition of paratransit in Cirebon City is on city transport as a feeder not as the main corridor that delivers passengers directly to the pull zone. So that the routes between feeder transport and the main corridor do not overlap too much and make public transport in Cirebon City a well-integrated transport.
CONCLUSION
First,
the operational performance of public transport in Cirebon City is still below
the standards set by the Directorate General of Land Transportation in 2002.
Out of the eight routes (D1 to D8) operating, 75% or six routes are in good
condition, while 25% or two routes have substandard assessment results with a
total score of ≤18. Second, the analysis reveals that the development of
the public transport network system in Cirebon City is influenced by two main
factors: the standard of transport operational performance and passenger
movement patterns. As a result, the study recommends rerouting certain routes,
specifically D7 and D8. For route D7, the recommendation is to change the path
from Siliwangi Rd. to Kalibaru Selatan Rd. and Benteng Rd. For route D8, the
suggested changes include altering the route from Tuparev Rd. to Brigjen
Dharsono Rd., and from Siliwangi Rd. to Pangeran Drajat Rd., Kesambi Rd.,
Kanggraksan Rd., and finally to Ciremai Raya Rd. �This research is limited to determining the
rerouting of the transport network based on the OD Matrix and operational
performance without reducing the number of routes currently in operation.
However, the determination of transport routes could also consider other
factors, such as the level of route overlap, operator profits, user
perceptions, and more. Therefore, to achieve better rerouting results and to
establish an integrated public transport network, further research could
include these additional considerations. Additionally, it may be beneficial to
reduce the number of routes to better align public transport provision with the
needs of the community in the study area.
REFERENCES
Afriza, W., & Manullang, O. R.
(2017). Integrasi Layanan Trans Koetaradja Dengan Feeder Angkutan Labi-Labi
Di Kota Banda Aceh. Universitas Diponegoro.
Atmaja, P. A., Yulianto, B., & Mahmudah, A. M. H. (2017). Analisis
Kinerja Angkutan Umum Perkotaan Jalur 01B dan 06 Di Wilayah SurakartA. Matriks
Teknik Sipil, 5(2).
Gusleni, Y. (2016). Keterpaduan Pelayanan Angkutan Umum di Kota Cirebon. Jurnal
Transportasi Multimoda, 14(4), 193�206.
Harry Yulianto, S. E., Yahya, S. D., & SE, M. M. (2018). Manajemen transportasi publik perkotaan. LPPM STIE YPUP Makassar.
Herdiana, S., &
Firdaus, M. S. (2021). Identifikasi Ketersediaan dan Kesesuaian Feeder di
Kawasan Pemukiman Bandung Timur (Studi Kasus SWK Gedebage dan SWK Kordon). REKALOKA
Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah Dan Kota, 1(1), 23.
Indonesia, I.
(2019). Pedoman Integrasi Antarmoda. Institute for Transportation and Policy
Development, 1�38.
Karim, H. A., Lis Lesmini, S. H., Sunarta, D. A., Sh, M. E., Suparman, A.,
Si, S., Kom, M., Yunus, A. I., Khasanah, S. P., & Kom, M. (2023). Manajemen
transportasi. Cendikia Mulia Mandiri.
Musthofawi, A., Situmorang, R., & Adriana, M. C. (2023). Analisis
Karakteristik Pengguna Pada Pemilihan Moda Angkutan Umum Jalur Blok M�Bundaran
HI. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Karya Ilmiah Lembaga Penelitian Universitas
Trisakti, 73�84.
Rizka, A., & Hariani, M. L. (2023). Analisis Kinerja Tarif Angkutan
Perkotaan Di Kota Cirebon Berdasarkan Biaya Operasi Kendaraan (Studi Kasus:
Trayek D6). Journal of Research
and Inovation in Civil Engineering as Applied Science (RIGID), 2(2), 59�65.
Steijn, J. (2014). Creating
feeder bus lines for Transjakarta BRT: Understanding spatial patterns of daily
destinations from poverty origin zones in Jakarta to determine demand for a new
feeder system of Transjakarta BRT. University of Twente.
Sugiyanto, M. A.,
Hariani, M. L., & Hikmatullah, H. (2023). Evaluasi Kinerja Operasional Dan
Tarif Bus Trans Cirebon Koridor I. Jurnal Konstruksi Dan Infrastruktur:
Teknik Sipil Dan Perencanaan, 11(1).
Suraharta, I. M.,
& Ananda, A. F. (2020). Perencanaan Angkutan Feeder Yang Melayani Brt
Koridor 2 (Nusadua-Bandara). Jurnal Penelitian Sekolah Tinggi Transportasi
Darat, 11(2), 12�24.
Sutrisni, S., &
Setiono, S. (2014). Estimasi Matriks Asal Tujuan (Mat) Kota Surakarta Tahun 2025. Matriks Teknik Sipil, 2(2), 237�241.
Tangphaisankun, A.,
Nakamura, F., & Okamura, T. (2009). Influences of paratransit as a feeder
of mass transit system in developing countries based on commuter satisfaction. Proceedings
of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies Vol. 7 (The 8th
International Conference of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies,
2009), 236.
Tunjungsari, K. R.,
Setiawan, I. P. N., Wijaya, I. G. A. S., Tonglo, A. J. D. R., & Apriawan,
K. A. (2019). Pelayanan Transportasi Umum Bus Trans Sarbagita Bagi Masyarakat Dan
Pariwisata Kota Denpasar. Jurnal
Sains Terapan Pariwisata,
4(1), 1�11.
