International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 1

01

Modeling The Effect of Congestion Pricing on
Mode Choice in Yogyakarta, Indonesia
1) 2) 2) 2)
Gito Sugiyanto , Siti Malkhamah , Ahmad Munawar , and Heru Sutomo
1)
Civil Engineering Department, Jenderal Soedirman University, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia
2)
Civil Engineering Department, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
e-mail: gito_98@yahoo.com

Abstract – Application of congestion pricing in central urban Yogyakarta is one of the transportation development
road aims to maximize the efficiency of the urban transport regions in Indonesia with specific characteristic. The
system by discouraging unnecessary private vehicle use and transportation characteristic in Yogyakarta is mixed traffic and
increase the use of public transport. The aim of this research is to
overloaded on some road links. In Malioboro corridor, 82.15%
developmode choice model and modeling the effect of congestion
of the total traffic volume consist of motorcycle [1].
pricing on mode choice. Only the mode choice between
Center for Transportation and Logistics of Gadjah Mada
motorcycles users as a through traffic in Malioboro corridor,
University [2] has shown that the average growth of private
Yogyakarta and bus TransJogja are estimated. Mode choice
vehicle in Yogyakarta city is 4.04% per year. Meanwhile there
model is developed base on stated preference data. This study
was a decrease in public transport users as much as 3% per
shows that travel attributes which influences mode choice
year. The average load factor of public transport vehicle was
between motorcycles and busTransJogja are travel costs,
41% and 27.22% in the year 2003 and 2004 respectively [3].
congestion costs, headway, travel time and walking time.
This fact reflected that the service quality was still low. The
Application of congestion pricing as IDR 4000.00 per trip for
lack of accessibility for public transport from origin zone to
motorcycles user as a through traffic in Malioboro, Yogyakarta
destination zone caused the attractiveness of public transport
will be shift as 6.848% motorcycle user to bus TransJogja.
decreased.
This aimof this paper is to estimate the amount of
Index Term- Congestion pricing, Motorcycle, Generalized cost, congestion cost for motorcycle users, to develop the mode
Stated preference, Mode choice choice model between motorcycle and bus TransJogja based
on stated preference data and to modeling the effect of
I. INTRODUCTION congestion pricing on mode choice between motorcycles
The costs incurred by the society as the result and the effect users and bus TransJogja in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
of transportation includes congestion cost, pollution cost,
traffic accident cost, fuel and energy wasted. The increase of II. LITERATURE REVIEW
totalvehicle operating in the roads increases the cost that must A. Definition of Congestion
be borne by the society. Transportation Demand Management Related with speed and traffic flow congestion is defined as
the impedance vehicles impose on each other, due to the
(TDM), application of pricing policy in charging zone, road
speed-flow relationship, in conditions where the use of a
pricing, and traffic restraint are the alternatives to reduce the
transport system approaches its capacity [4].
transportation cost.
Congestion is one of the significant transportation problems B. Estimation of Congestion Cost
in urban area, especially in Central Business District (CBD) The theoretical background of road-use pricing has relied
during peak hour. This situation happens because of the upon the fundamental economic principle of marginal-cost
imbalance between the number of vehicles and the capacity of pricing, which states that road users using congested roads
the road. The congestion becomes worse with the increasing should pay a toll equal to the difference between the marginal-
activities in the roadside and bad behavior in driving. social cost and the marginal-private cost in order to maximize
Congestions will generate many problems due to inefficiency. the social surplus [5].
With congested roads, vehicle speed will be simultaneously up The amount of the congestion cost represents the
and down, and the average speed will be lower and hence the difference of marginal social cost (MSC) to marginal private
cost will increase. Therefore, road users will suffer from cost (MPC) (Fig. 1). Congestion cost is caused by vehicle
increasing vehicle operating cost and loosing more time and addition in the same road while the equilibrium is reached at
environment will be in worse conditions due to pollutions. In points F with the traffic flow as much as Q2 and cost is P2. The
other words, transportation costs will increased due to vehicle addition after the optimal traffic flow Q2 must take
congestions. travel cost as much as Q2Q1HF but only enjoy the benefit
116601-2929 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS
IJEN
S

There is welfare gain01as much as FEH. Therefore. the congestion cost is counted 116601-2929 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS IJEN S . International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 2 Q2Q1EF.

9% during the weekbefore ERP started has actually decreased to 3. congestion cost must be balanced with the marginal social cost. The . 2005). Result of Stockholm trial is that vehicle traffic decreases as driving is made more expensive by road tolls. 2006). The Western bypass is estimated to cost SEK 25 billion. Congestion cost estimation [6]. m social cost. and C ijMPC the marginal private cost. A new Western bypass is estimated to reduce traffic across inner city bridges by 11% (Eliasson et al. the Eastern bypass SEK 15- 0 Q0 Flow 20 billion. The traffic pattern at Ayer Rajah Expressway gantry before and after the implementation of toll and the model predictions. it is unreasonable to set up these zonem i to zone j can bem formulated through the equation: investments against toll. 2006 in [8]). A new Eastern bypass is estimated to reduce the number Cost of vehicles passing over inner city bridges by D approximately 14% (Markstedt et al. Since Fig. so that traffic flow will decrease fromQ1 to Q2. leaving 4. while free public transport reduces public revenue Q2 Q1 by SEK 5 billion per year. It can be realized if congestion pricing as much as F-Gor P2-P3 was applied. Eliasson et al studied the effect of congestion cost in Stockholm.8% in the week after the rate revision. Bureau and Glatchan developed an econometric model to ij ij ij m m in which CC is the congestion cost. P1 H b.5% can be attributed to changes of petrol prices and business-cycle effects. The trial showed The optimal congestion pricing reflects the difference between marginal social cost and marginal private cost.C MPC (1) road tolls are worth stressing [8]. C. The mean coefficient of variation of 15-min volumes which was 3. The environmental side effects of the m CC = C MSC . This s hows that flow equilibrium conditions developed very quickly after a change in pricing and also confirms that traffic was not congested [7].5% to be the result of the road toll. Effect the Application of Congestion Cost Olszewskiand Xie studied the empiricalevidence on the effect of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) rate changes on traffic volumes in Singapore and proposed a practical framework for modeling the impact of road pricing on the time distribution of traffic volumes.3% after the ERP introduction and then decreased further to 2. I P3 Besides being more effective than these measures in G Demand reducing inner city congestion. According to the principle of pricing. C MSC the marginal effect of congestion charges were boosted as modal switch ij ij from car to public transport was made easier. we estimate that 1. The number of passengers by public transit was 6% larger in spring 2006 than 12 months earlier (Stockholm Transport. 1. the road tolls result in a financial surplus of SEK 500-600 The amount of congestion cost estimation of mode m from million each year.based on the difference between marginal social cost and that the tolls resulted in reductions of traffic congestion and marginal private cost. Swedia. 2006). travel times that were large compared to the expected effects Marginal Social Cost of other measures that are discussed in Stockholm traffic [8]: Cost Marginal Private a. this is estimated to reduce vehicle kilometres P4 E travelled in the county by 3% (Stockholm Transport. c. the environmental effects and P0 the public finance aspects of road tolls differ substantially different from these measures... Based on back-of-the- envelope elasticity calculations. If public transport was made free-of-charge in the Stockholm P2 F county.

4 per hour at the logarithmic formulation and except for very large changes in most. Measured in this way. This result is not surprising when one considers using the mid-point formulation. a large price change reductions induced by tolling. approximated by a mid-point The 15-20% reductions in generalised cost are surprisingly small for charge levels which have achieved a 15% reduction . while elasticities involving a free fare (price Motorists taken as a whole tend to lose when a toll is equals zero before or after the change) must be calculated introduced. Nevertheless. This is significantly below those predicted by strategic models which particularly suitable for assessing distributional effects as it permit only limited rerouting responses [10]. we rely on a basic traffic model a from each 1% change in price. They reach €11. Motorists endure average consists of numerous incremental changes. The methodology is based on a reroute reduces the benefits gained from road pricing to levels mode choice modelthat is nonlinear in income. calculated in infinitesimally simple speed-flow relationship to calculate the time small increments. interpreting the results. Arc elasticity is defined by a their values of travel time.0 per trip when a toll based on both the originaland finalvalues of demand and that induces a 20% traffic reduction is implemented. It appears that the ability of traffic to pricing scenarios in Paris . which would require a travel time reduction of around price or service and quantity demanded is closely 11 min to outweigh a €2 toll [9]. First. we only deal with home-to- An arc elasticity reflects the change in consumption resulting work trips and the second. two The arc elasticity or its variation the mid-point (or linear) methodological limits should be kept in mind when arc elasticity most frequently used in transportation analysis. relaxes the assumption of constant marginal utility of D. Elasticity income made in traditional models. Arc elasticity is welfare losses ranging from €0.7 to €1. price or service.simulate the distributional effects of various urban road in overalltrip making.

. Travel time 2. Analysis Approach 7 bde . By following the design using Plan 6A. a product affects directly to the change in demand of the and walking time [15]. .Travel Walking ice treatment tion cost way time time cost 1 (-) . It must choose a motorcycles 1 substitutes for each other [12]. .00-2000. METHODOLOGY 6 ade + . the development of the third partial replication of factorial 5 design 2 through confounding. The advantage of this service for stated preference questionnaire. Especially traveling speed has a significant effect on attributes and their level will be obtained 2 = 32 alternative fuel consumption and the lowest fuel consumption rates occur combination. the questionnaire design is planned consist of eight alternative of choice as shown in Table II. Consumption Fuels of Vehicles Fuel economy improvement can be implemented by raising There are five design of selected attributes. The relationship between consumption fuel and speed [13].0-6. xn is the value of variable (Pratt.. the choice with rating technique that is divided in five scale of price elasticity reflecting the price change in one product semantic are presented in Table I. - Fig. + . Maybe choose bus TransJogja 4 a price change in another related good [11]. . 5.0 U BT 3. This alternative combination is very much and in a speed rage of 40 to 55 km/hour as shown in Fig. attribute Motorcycles Bus TransJogja PMC = U (U MC U BT ) 1.00 -  MC U MC exp  exp 1  exp (U MC U BT ) 4. Congestion cost IDR 2000. + . This design is usually made orthogonal. On the other hand.00 exp exp (2) 2. The option is balanced 3 4. Yogyakarta is affected by five travel another product.00-5000.2 [16]. While in Table IVis meaning that the combination of attributes that are presented presented the value of positive and negative conditions of vary independently of each other. 2. headway. will be difficult for respondents to select the mode. - 2 ab + + .0 5. attribute. change will take effect.. + III. + + . bus TransJogja are shown in Table III. DIFFERENT LEVEL OF TRAVEL ATTRIBUTE The formula of binomial logit different can be arranged: No Travel Type of mode The probability of motorcycles choice can be formulated as: . Cross elasticities refer to the 2. + + The analysis approach is used Stated Preference 8 abcd + + + + - Technique. 2 [13]. each attribute traveling speed and replacing overage vehicles with fuel consists of 2 levels. Maybe choose a motorcycles 2 percentage change in the consumption of a good resulting from 3. Headway - minutes 4. So. x1. + + A.0 minutes 7. Semantic Scale Point Rating depending on whether the two products are complementary or 1. .00 IDR 3000. 3 cd . Therefore.0-6. an is the Direct and cross elasticity are distinguished by to which the coefficient of model. affects the demand for another product is called cross TABLE I elasticity [12]. Most Stated Preference using design of exsperiments to construct alternatives that presented to The different level of travel attribute for motorcycle and respondents. . formulation based on the average value of each independent in which Ui is the utility of choice i. In this paper. method is that the effect of each attribute that responded more TABLE III easily identified [14]. . Travel cost IDR 1000... Combination Conges- Travel Head. travel time... respondents reported their product is called a direct elasticity. congestion cost. It must choose bus TransJogja 5 E. The effect of change is able to Mode choice model between motorcycles and bus influence whether on the demand for the same product or for TransJogja in Malioboro.0 minutes The probability of bus TransJogja can be formulated as: 2. + 5 bce . TABLE II FACTORIAL COMBINATION TREATMENT 25 IN 8 UNIT Different of level attribute Cho. + + - 4 ace + . POINT RATING AND SEMANTIC SCALE The sign of cross elasticity may be positive or negative No.0-8. a0 is the constants of model and a1. Walking time - PBT = 1 – PMC = minutes 1 (3) 1  exp (U MC U BT ) .. The elasticity at which the change in price of attributes are travelcost. when we combined all of the 5 saving. 1999 in [11]). . .

PBT is the probability of choosing bus TransJogja. While the utility model which is used in (2) and (3) is: Ui = a0 + a1x1 + .. UMC is moda motorcycles utility and UBT is bus TransJogja utility.in which PMC is the probability of choosing motorcycles. + anxn (4) ..

TABLE IV TABLE V VALUE OF TRAVEL ATTRIBUTE IN STATED PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENT STATED PREFERENCE .

00 . Sex: Male 40. Yogyakarta.00% (faster 5. A. attribute (+) (-) 1.00% Tour/Traveling 14.00% IDR 1000000.00% Shopping 17. 3.00% The characteristics of respondents include: sex.00% Walking -6.IDR in the study area in Malioboro.00% 7. age. based on travel cost in free-flow speed condition and travel cost in actual condition which potentially cause traffic jam. IDR 2000000. vehicle operating cost (VOC) of motorcycles is Fig.00% traveler who uses a motorcycle as a through traffic in Malioboro House Wife 6.00% Congestion IDR 2000.IDR direction undivided road (2/1 UD) 1. No Travel Condition of service No. 21-30 years old 60.00% Yogyakarta IV.00% Working 32. Diploma (D1/D2/D3) 14.00% .00% Family affairs 9.IDR 1000.0 minutes) (faster 1.00% distributed to respondents who used the motorcycles that pass Government Official 18. 5.00% Moving Car Observer (MCO) survey in Malioboro.00 > IDR 4000000. Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) and Speed Relationship In this paper.00% Yogyakarta. 3. Study area in Malioboro.00% 1 time per day 6.IDR 34.0 minutes) Senior High School 49. Yogyakarta.00% time saving time 6 minutes) saving time 2 minutes) Undergraduate Program (S1) 30. Data Collection Stated preference data is obtained from questionnaires 4.00% -5.00% 2 times per day 4. Average Visit to Malioboro: > 3 times per day 2. Income: < IDR 500000. IDR 500000.00% Trading 1.00 0.00% 2000.00 9. counted in two conditions. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The generalized cost consists of three components of cost: (a) vehicle operating cost. Yogyakarta. Travel cost (cheaper IDR (cheaper IDR 2.00% preference can be seen in Table V. Headway (saving time 4 saving time 8 minutes) > 55 years old 1.00) 16-20 years old 11.0 minutes -2.00 .00 .0 minutes 4.00 IDR 5000.0 minutes 5.00 . IDR 1500000. Yogya.00% 1-2 times per week 66.IDR 4.00% through in Malioboro Corridor.00 IDR 2500000.00% Malioboro others 7. income. Travel time Junior High School 2.00% 3-5 times per week 15.00% The travel time in actual cost condition is obtained from 2000000.00% 1. can be seen in Fig.00 .414 kilometers long from 3000000.IDR 2000.00) 1000.00 6. (c) travel time cost.00% were conducted with randomsampling techniques to the Entrepreneur 7.00 25.0 minutes -1.00% Armed Forces/Police 2. Malioboro corridor consist of two lane one-way 2500000. Item Percentage .00 Female 60.00% B.00% to Malioboro.00 . Job: Student/Graduate 55.00 2. The respondents Private Workers 12. job.IDR 4.00% 3. (b) cost of pollution in each vehicle. travel destination.00% -4. 4000000. Age: 8-15 years old 2.IDR 12.00% minutes) 3.00 Malioboro Street to Ahmad Yani Street.00% Postgraduate Program (S2/S3) 3.00% cost more expensive 2000) (more expensive 5000) 31-45 years old 12. The collection of data IDR 3000000.00 .0 minutes 46-55 years old 14. Education: Elementary School 2. The general characteristics of respondents stated 1500000. Travel Destination: Studying 27.00% education.00% Corridor.0 minutes -8.00 12. and the average visit 1000000. .

the pollution cost of motorcycles at Malioboro is IDR 81.39/trip in actual cost condition. Speed is the main factor to estimate the vehicle operating Generalized cost consists of vehicle operating cost. C. traveltime cost.30 per km.71 per trip.55/hour [15].79 per trip in free-flow speed condition and IDR 378.04/km (Fig. The generalized cost of motorcycles showing the relationship between vehicle operating cost and speed of motorcycles for Malioboro as presented in [15].57 km/hour so the vehicle operating cost is IDR 460. Fig. D.90/km (Fig. Fig.37 per trip and VOC in actual cost condition is IDR 651. From Fig.8647V + 555. the average of traveltime in actualcost condition is 6 minutes 45 second. 4. Based on Moving Car Observer survey.33 per km and free-flow speed condition as IDR 57. cost and pollution cost. 2) in [13]. Generalized Cost . the average of travel time in free-flow speed condition is 1 minute 52 second.0921V -8. B.85 per trip in actual cost condition. The marginal health cost can be calculated in actualcondition as IDR 123. Travel time cost of motorcycles at Malioboro is IDR 104. Travel Time Cost (TTC) Value of time of motorcycles users in December 2009 in Yogyakarta city is IDR 3367. the speed of motorcycles in actual cost condition which potentially cause traffic jam is 12. The fuel consumption of motorcycles were counted based on fuel consumption model of SITRAMP 2004 (Fig. the average speed of motorcycles in free-flowspeed condition is 45. Multiplying with 1.51 (5) in which Vis speed of motorcycle (km per hour) and y is vehicle operating cost (IDR per kilometer). Yogyakarta. 4 shows a graph to estimate vehicle operating cost. Travel time cost of motorcycles in Malioboro was calculated by multiplying travel time with the value of time. 4). Based on moving car observer (MCO) survey. Relationship between speed and vehicle operating cost [15].414 km.45 km/hour so the vehicle operating cost is IDR 351. The vehicle operating cost of motorcycles at Malioboro in free-flow speed is IDR 496. Based on the survey and analysis of travel time of motorcycles in Malioboro.02 per trip in free-flow speed condition and IDR 174. 4). Pollution Cost The cost of pollution was calculated based on Marginal Health Cost [17] in USD cent/liter. 4. it can be seen that the vehicle operating cost model for motorcycles is formulated as: 2 y = 0. Based on the survey and analysis of travel time and speed. the length of Malioboro.

CONDITION IN CBD MALIOBORO. Efforts to reduce traffic congestion in Yogyakarta. Fig. 5-Fig.45 km/hour. Alternative of Mode Choice Model Almost 23% of respondent who used the motorcycles in Malioboro choose the limit of congestion cost for motorcycles user as IDR 5000.02 104. thus the congestion cost of motorcycles in Malioboro. G. The main reason respondents used motorcycles.39 378. Distribution of travel time. that the generalized cost of motorcycles in actual condition is IDR 1204. YOGYAKARTA The most travel time of respondent is 20-30 minutes.57 km/hour and generalized cost in free- flow speed condition with speed 45.95 Fig. The ) (IDR/trip) ) distribution of main reason respondent not interested used Free-flow 496.18 bus TransJogja are presented in Fig. E. Indonesia. 6. 7. 5. F. The main reason respondent not interested to use Bus TransJogja. as presented in Fig.79 682. speed Actual cost 651.37 81. Based on Fig. Fig.85 1204. Congestion Cost The amount of congestion cost of motorcycles is the difference between generalized cost in actual condition with speed 12. Distribution of Choice of Respondents Fig.18 per trip. 6 presented SPEED distribution of traveltime from origin zone to destination zone. presented in Fig.77 per trip. The limit of congestion cost in Malioboro. 8. Fig. 8. 5 presented the main reason TABLE VI of respondents used motorcycles because motorcycles is GENERALIZED COST OF MOTORCYCLES IN ACTUAL COST AND FREE-FLOW more flexibel than bus TransJogja.00 per trip. 9. Fig.95 per trip. The main VOC Pollution TTC reason respondent not interested to use bus TransJogja Type Generalized (IDR/trip Cost (IDR/trip of condition cost (IDR/trip) because the travel time is longer than use motorcycles. and generalized cost in free-flow speed condition IDR 682.users in actual cost condition and free-flow speed condition are Distribution of choice of respondents stated preference are presented in Table VI. Fig. 9. 10. Yogyakarta. almost 41% of motorcycles user as a through traffic in Malioboro choose the application of congestion cost to reduce the traffic congestion in Yogyakarta.71 174. Yogya(4k)arta is IDR 522. It is shown in Table 6. . 7.

7838 2.17490 0.7054 9 4 2 8 3 X2 a2 -0.7563 133.11625 0.02057 -0.3214 62.7462 (Travel time) t-stat 6 5 -0.01594 0.02859 0.9723 8 X3 a3 3.16314 0.00547 F-critical 3.4852 -1.7215 1.9269 1.15752 1.95842 -2.4350 80.23114 -0.0818 87.54945 9.0247 (Travel cost) t-stat 6 8 6 6 9 -0.01931 0.7954 101.0169 -0.36426 F-stat 0.840 3.000 3.3202 3.7939 X1 a1 -0.66874 (Headway) t-stat 0.34173 -0.2897 9 8 X5 a5 8.6026 1.5152 t-stat 0.0169 -0.11413 R2 0.2048 129. YOGYAKARTA Variabel of Parameter Constants and coeffisient of travel attribute model of model Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3 Alt-4 Alt-5 Alt-6 Alt-7 Alt-8 Alt-9 Alt-10 Constants a0 41.9419 0.14625 0.0499 -0.65061 0. Distribution of choice if the congestion cost is applied in Malioboro.1583 2.000 3.4634 1.04011 0.840 3.840 3.36362 0.02584 1.7417 0.08395 X4 a4 -3.57058 0.4577 -0.74195 2. TABLE VII CALIBRATION RESULT OF 31 ALTERNATIVE LOGIT BINOMIAL MODEL OF MOTORCYCLES USERS AS A THROUGH TRAFFIC IN MALIOBORO.3968 -0.02079 (Congestion cost) t-stat -2.35998 0.04453 0.9165 56.000 3.23550 4.3894 -0.8521 69.000 .0275 -0.8367 -0.0147 -0.78907 (Walking time) t-stat 1.840 3.13806 1 -1.12959 0. 10.000 3.840 3.23114 3.57129 0.4747 36.4844 -2.05235 4. Fig.

7217 -5.6106 -1.6192 -0.85490 7 4 3 9 -0.46059 (Walking time) t-stat 1.34729 0.72489 3.0283 -0.600 2.5314 89.51582 R2 0.9241 s t-stat 7 2.20500 0.99402 9 -1.82681 -11.5888 -3.09470 0.11493 1.35858 7 0.59087 2.4631 122.55488 0 0.2273 5 X4 a4 -4.1068 -2.31985 -0.370 2.0217 -0.98283 -0.01899 -0.02600 -0.05010 (Travel cost) t-stat 9 -2.7492 0.02479 (Travel cost) t-stat 8 -2.600 TABLE VII (CONTINUED) Variabel Parameter of Constants and coeffisient of travel attribute of model model Alt-21 Alt-22 Alt-23 Alt-24 Alt-25 Alt-26 Alt-27 Alt-28 Alt-29 Alt-30 Alt-31 Constant a0 63.2525 -4.04220 0 -2. Utility differential of binomial logit From the analysis of 31 alternative mode choice model.11556 0.83957 -0.34380 -0.47172 F-critical 3.000 3.11850 1.000 3.60285 3 F-critical 2.13094 3.51383 2.9114 -11.54163 0.600 2. .4844 -5.3743 -0.600 2.0257 (Congestion cost) t-stat -2.600 2.60448 -1.0509 -0.35662 3.44215 0.000 3.6222 87.58973 0.4395 -1.57672 0.0849 3.04151 0.7462 (Travel time) t-stat 7 6 8 1 5 -1.65950 -1.2950 0 X4 a4 -11.16095 0.92326 1.23114 3.38153 0.58549 0.80901 3.02701 -0.54945 9.85181 8.86718 -0.63160 3.0505 -0.03344 -0.4907 -11.9177 139.64435 -2.03149 -0.69959 5 -3.45375 -0.35288 4 4 4 6 0.0513 -0.7466 -2.02873 0.44416 1.54718 0.46037 1.62361 1.92225 X1 a1 -0.4378 0 9 X3 a3 3.6175 76.32867 -2.67139 2.711 57.96836 1.7353 -1.04159 0.55622 0.01913 -0.08647 -3.17689 0.04974 -0.23114 (Headway) t-stat 0.600 2.600 2.53954 2.23114 3.08705 0.210 H.31831 0.000 3.04820 -0. model between motorcycles and bus TransJogja is presented: interpretation and statistical tests (t-test and f-test) and calibration.97911 1 X1 a1 -0.08142 2 6 -0.56786 -0.0147 -0.2705 1 7 7 4 X5 a5 2.7480 -0.95440 2 -2.04954 8 3.82429 -1.02419 1.2048 5 X3 a3 -1.72635 0 0 X5 a5 10.46461 1.19789 2.41078 -11.2105 48.35451 1.5317 1 9 2 X2 a2 -0. Mode Choice Model alternative 31 is the best.82505 0.42981 3.12471 5 1.13577 2.000 2.0265 -0.600 2.53315 0.97855 2.76490 6 F-stat 0.23114 -2.50676 0.600 2.01611 0.7869 76.96294 (Headway) t-stat -0.11532 1.370 2.37458 0.75280 0.51574 2.88028 116.20701 -0.1452 68.7438 3.2504 83.63160 3.45150 -1.370 2.370 2.15581 3.4107 -11.5028 -11.88233 0.03497 -0.34087 -0.61955 1.32721 -1.600 2.9357 1.718 3 -3.79683 3.5817 (Travel time) t-stat 4 -1.55682 0 1 -1.13219 0.3636 9 1 2 X2 a2 -0.72505 5.52494 -2.57082 -1.5312 68.53954 3.04878 -0.78981 10.1143 89.4192 77.7353 1.64874 -0.80667 0.05605 0.22094 0.31463 0.12788 0.41680 1.5766 -1.03303 (Congestion cost) t-stat -2. TABLE VII (CONTINUED) Variabel of Paramet Constants and coeffisient of travel attribute model er of Alt-11 Alt-12 Alt-13 Alt-14 Alt-15 Alt-16 Alt-17 Alt-18 Alt-19 Alt-20 model Constants a0 118.00742 2 -1.32068 9.2145 57.91824 -0.02524 -0.2009 108.05173 137.8841 t-stat 3.34009 0.370 2.27124 -0.13460 110.5028 -11.4220 126.55999 0.4766 -1.0217 -0.31174 -3.02780 -0.39825 0.37440 0.78907 (Walking time) t-stat 0.90435 0.23114 -1.19084 R2 F-stat 4.35701 9.88002 2 2 0.74721 2.11876 0.23114 -3.73382 0.06091 1.03525 0.

0501X1-0.5818X4-3.3767.9791) (-1. Analysis of Elasticity The result of analysis of direct elasticity and cross elasticity between motorcycles users as a through traffic in Malioboro. The next attribute is travel cost. congestion cost is the most sensitive attribute which affect the probability of motorcycles with value -9.05 and three travel attribute: headway. significant in the utility of mode choice at the level of significance () = 0. with the value of direct elasticity is -7. travel cost is the sensitive 2 (0.9653 0.3445 0.074% is influenced by the other attributes that are not considered in this model. In direct elasticity analysis. X3 = the different of headway of bus TransJogja. with r = 0. . It means that the influence of all the travelattributes which changes in the utility of this model amounts to 74. I.0000 -3.5158) attribute affect the selection of motorcycles.9130 6.0000 0. This is consistent with the expected parameters (the requirement of plausibility).7263) (-0.210. d.05.3767 -9.0422) (-0. travel time and walking time by individually that is not significant at the level of significance () = 0.2931 0. On cross elasticity analysis. X5 = the different of walking time to the bus stop of TransJogja.8672) (-3. This means that all travel attributes simultaneously and significantly affects in the utility of mode choice at the level of significance () = 0.461X5 2.7649 in which: X1 = the different of travel cost between motorcycles and bus TransJogja.0000 elasticity Cross 10.9629X3-11.74926. X4 = the different of travel time between motorcycles and bus TransJogja. The result is the following: a.4538) (-1. The choosen modelhas two attribute with t-stat value > t- critical value: travel cost and congestion cost. b. The validation of choosen model using statistical analysis.033X2-2. X2 = the different of congestion cost between motorcycles and bus TransJogja.05.926% and the remaining 25. The choosen model has the largest of coefficient 2 determination (R ) 0. The choosen modelhas F-stat value is 3.0483 0.UMC-UBT=57. The choosen modelhas the highest attribute with a negative sign (-). TABLE VIII VALUE OF DIRECT ELASTICITY AND CROSS ELASTICITY FOR EVERY T RAVEL ATTRIBUTE Value of elasticity for every travel attribute Elasticity Travel Congestion Head. Travel Walking cost cost way time time Direct -7. Yogyakarta and bus TransJogja is shown in Table VIII.0483.73533 > F-critical = 2. c.9479 elasticity Based on the result of direct elasticity and cross elasticity analysis it can be concluded as follows: 1.9241-0. That means that travel cost and congestion cost by individually.

this 1. Master in Transportation. Congestion cost in Malioboro. Thesis. If the application “Hibah Penelitian Disertasi Doktor” in the fiscalyear 2010 st of road pricing with improve the public transportation with Number of Contract: 481/SP2H/PP/DP2M/VI/2010. congestion costs. Ministry of National The application of road pricing in Belgium have a positive Education. All the contributions are acknowledged. and decreased the use of [1] G. Sugiyanto. in 11 service quality. Travel attributes that influences mode choice between to the contrary. through traffic in Malioboro. increase. Directorate General of Higher Education. This means that if attribute of mode-A between motorcycles and bus TransJogja in Malioboro.848% motorcycle user to bus is 2. Yogyakarta City)”. taxi users 17%. [2] Center for Transportation and Logistics Studies of Gadjah Mada . Faculty of Civil Engineering and V. headway.00 per The different utility value of motorcycles users as a tirp for motorcycles user as a through traffic in Malioboro.77 per trip. 93. Indonesia. February 2007. While on the cross elasticity analysis.61035 so that the probability of choosing motorcycles is TransJogja.3. increase the selection probability of modes-B and apply 2. Bandung Institute of Technology. there will be decrease in the probability of Yogyakarta. Indonesia includes the amount of congestion cost choosing mode-A. Civil Engineering Department. Bandung. increase the use of public transportation (case study in Malioboro Corridor. motorcycles and busTransJogja are travel costs. can be concluded as follows: all the travel attributes have a positive sign (+). Yogyakarta for motorcycles means that if the attribute of mode-A increase. the use of public transport will be increase June 2010. travel time and walking time.152% and the probability of choosing bus TransJogja is 6. it will is IDR 522. Yogyakarta and bus TransJogja Yogyakarta will be shift as 6.00 per trip is 6.848%. unpublished. “ Study on application of congestion charging to private car 33% [19]. 23% [18]. It means that the proportion of motorcycles users as ACKNOWLEDGMENT a through traffic in Malioboro which will shift to bus This research was carried out by the financial support of TransJogja after the implementation of congestion cost IDR Directorate of Research and Community Service (DP2M) 4000. All of the travel attribute in direct elasticity have a Modeling the effect of congestion pricing on mode choice negative sign (-). The application of congestion charging as IDR 4000. Republic of Indonesia through Research Grant impact on reducing the use of private vehicle users and increased the use of public transport 10%. CONCLUSION Environment.848%. Proportion of Motorcycles Users Shift to Bus TransJogja 3. Implementation of congestion charging for private vehicle users in urban centers in London increase the use of REFERENCES urban bus 18%. J.

Faculty of Engineering. issue 6. Gadjah Mada University.. Jenderal Soedirman University. Engineering. W.).M.Q. Bradley. Faculty of Engineering. [16] W. Fax: +62 274 524713. Dr.S. Candidate in Transportation Engineering. Swanson. Glachant. Surabaya. Bochum. Jalan Grafika No. 755-772. and modeling transportation. Transportation Engineering: An Sipil Journal from Civil Engineering UNS Surakarta. � Doktor Ingenieur in Verkehrswesen (Transportation).ucl. between public transport and congestion cost: an ex-ante study of the E-mail: amunawar@mstt. “ The impact of London congestion � Master of Science in Transportation. Cox. 39. Lall.ugm. Siti Malkhamah. Dalvi. vol. Nerhagen.C. Eliasson. Jakarta. Upper Saddle River. Hultkrantz. He presented papers at the Research Seminar at Directorate 2002. Available: 6596700. Civil Engineering.) from Institute Assessment of nine scenarios for Paris”. E. Symposium of Inter- (VTPI). England. Central Java. 2004. Khisty and K. Bidang Angkutan Dinas Perhubungan Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. 43. 55281. Yogyakarta. Olszewski. Central Java. Yogyakarta. vol.. Steer Davies Gleave & University.B. pp. August 2007. pp. Bhakar. Post Code 55281. issues 7-9. school. London. Milne. March 2006. issue 1. Santos. New York. He is an Associate Professor in 2006. Data Armada Angkutan Umum Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Tahun 2006. issue 7. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.com. 2004.162. of London from a value of time savings perspective”. 1957. Indonesia 55281. Introduction. Civil Engineering. E-mail: gito_98@yahoo. pp. vol. He has published in the Civil Engineering [11] T. London.G. pp. 1987. Final Report Technical Report. Gadjah Mada University. Fax: [18] H. Xie.13. University of Bradford.ugm. Post Code: 53371. 240–250. pp. Yogyakarta. November 2010. Her current address is in Civil Engineering [14] D. pp. Faculty of Cheltenham. Experimental Design. Laporan Akhir Hibah Penelitian Disertasi Doktor.org Universities Forum on Transportation Studies Proceeding. [17] P. Discussion paper. 1999. issue 2 His academic experience is: (Modeling of Urban Road Pricing and Its Implementation). 2.B. Transportation Elasticities How Prices and Other Factors Dimension (CED) Petra Christian University. Final Report Studi Pola Jaringan Transportasi Jalan Kota Yogyakarta. His current address is in Civil Engineering and Environment Department. “ The Region、 DIY. PCI and ALMEC Corporation. the Jabodetabek Phase 2. Kampus UGM [6] P. New Jersey. John Wiley & Areas of specialization: Traffic Engineering and Traffic Safety. University of Leeds. 1996. Prentice Hall. Faculty of Engineering. Sugiyanto. Jalan Grafika No. 3rd Ed. Central [10] A. Gadjah Mada University. Indonesia. 1994. Kampus UGM . 1990. 42. Jalan Grafika No. 2008. General of Higher Education.. “ Meningkatkan Kesehatan Manusia Perkotaan melalui Ahmad Munawar. Indonesia. Transport Economics. Rosqvist. E-mail: [15] G. 1996.S.T. 2. Yogyakarta. 26 August 2009.D. Jalan Grafika No. Victoria Transport Policy Institute Universities Forum on Transportation Studies. Indonesia on 15 th February traffic in Singapore”. Central Java.D. The Economics of Regulating Road Transport. 1980. Rail Freight Group.J. pp. Indonesia. [5] E. vol. Warta Engineering and Environment Department. and J. Telp: +62 274 902245..22-33. May and D. M. Yogyakarta. Sons Ltd. 32-43. Dinamika Journal (Civil Engineering University of Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Telp: +62 274 902245. Gadjah Mada University. Yogyakarta. Surakarta. � Bachelor of Science. University. association such as member of Inter-Universities Forum on Transportation The Study on Integrated Transportation Master Plan (SITRAMP) for Studies. Stubs. [7] P. Transport Policy. Indonesia). Indonesia from August 1998 until [9] B. “ Effects of alternative road pricing Java. “ The economic cost of road traffic congestion”. Telp: +62 281 6596700. Penelitian Departemen Perhubungan No.vtpi. Transportation Research Technology Bandung (ITB). [Online]. issue got graduate program in Civil Engineering (S. Haque Consulting Group. junior/middle high Practice. George Yogyakarta.) from Sebelas Maret 3. Heru Sutomo. Transportation Research Part A: research interest is in economic transportation. Indonesia. and L. Prof. charging scheme on the generalized cost of car commuters to the city 1985. and L. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and 1980. Germany.. Transport Studies Indonesia.id Kemacetan bagi Pengguna Motorcycles di Daerah Pusat Her academic experience is: Perkotaan. Transport � Bachelor of Science.D. Technology. Indonesia from August 2005 until February Part A: Policy and Practice. [19] G. Cochran and G. Prof. 994-1007. Journal of Inter- Affect Travel Behavior. L. “ Distributional effects of road pricing: April 2002.. Faculty of Science and [4] P. He received his Master in Transportation (M. August 2000. Verhoef. specialization: Transport Modeling and Traffic Engineering. Bureau and M.ac. Tyson. Litman.-Ing. August-November 2005. since December 2002 until now. Yogyakarta. He is a lecture in Jenderal Soedirman University. Fax: +62 274 Allen and Unwin (Publisher) Ltd. He also involved in professional [13] JICA and National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS).2. Dr.T. 2003. Researcher in Center for Transportation and Logistics (PUSTRAL) Gadjah Mada University.id Stockholm trial-cost road”. [Online]. Faculty of Engineering. L. [3] Department of Transportation. University College London. Areas of Policy. vol. pp. 34. Republic of Indonesia. http://eprints. 2. Goodwin. Pengembangan Model dan Estimasi Biaya smalkhamah@mstt. 13. Yogyakarta. “ Modelling the effects of road pricing on He was born in Gunungkidul. Gadjah Mada University. Pearmain.11/Th VII/ January.10. Sitorus. � Masters of Science (Engineering). Stated Preference nd and Environment Department. Fax: +62 281 Unit. L. public transport services Policy and Practice. University of Leeds.. Now. He Stockholm congestion-charging trial 2006: Overview of effects”. He is a Ph. Yogyakarta. Kroes. Gadjah Mada Techniques: A Guide to Practice 2 Ed. 1991. Media Teknik [12] J. Hultkrantz. His current address is in Civil Perbaikan Kualitas Bahan Bakar Kendaraan Bermotor”.uk/archive/00001259/. Purwokerto. 524713. University.T.C. Ruhr Universitaet 172. unpublished. Available: www. and M. Purwokerto. � Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. Gadjah Mada University. March 2009. J. His field of study and systems on network performance”. “ The Politico-economic link +62 274 524713. United Kingdom. Kampus UGM February 1996. and senior high school were experienced in Gunungkidul [8] J. Telp:+62 274 902245.ac.ac. Armelius. January 2006. Dr. vol. 407-436. 4-10. Transportation at Civil Engineering Department. His education level at elementary school. Gito Sugiyanto.

). � Bachelor of Science. 1987. Civil Engineering.D. 1992. . Telp: +62 274 902245. Post Code 55281. Traffic Modeling. Areas of specialization: Traffic Engineering and Transport Economic. Indonesia. E-mail: hsutomo@pustral-ugm. � Masters of Science (Engineering). Yogyakarta. University of Leeds. Gadjah Mada University.org His academic experience is: � Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. Fax: +62 274 524713. 1983. University of Leeds.