Transit-Oriented Development: Towards Achieving Sustainable Transport and Urban Development in Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia

Abstract

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is advocated for achieving sustainable transportation through development around transit stations. TOD’s global implementation revealed varied outcomes, with many cities failing to achieve the intended objectives. TOD implementation in the Jakarta Metropolitan area still in its infancy. Through a geospatial information system and a survey of 400 commuters who live inside the 1 km radius of planned TOD, this longitudinal study aimed to examine an eight-year lapse between 2013 and 2020 of changes in two aspects, specifically land-use and spatial distribution as well as commuters’ travel behavior and preferences in TOD implementation and travel changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings are as follows: increased diversity in the residential function around planned TOD areas in the Jakarta capital and a decrease in the suburbs, reflecting the commuters’ improved readiness to reside in planned TOD areas. Furthermore, kinship relations were the commuters’ main reason when selecting house locations, with no capacity to change their workplaces. A significant increase in public facilities at the expense of green open space (GOS) indicates that TOD implementation was conducted by the government with the sole authority to manage GOS, lacking private sector involvement. The cost factor was the most dominant reason for the commuter’s use of public transportation, instead of new transport modes such as MRT and LRT. Moreover, the commuter’s travel behavior in all studied transit stations, whilst it showed evidence of changes in time and frequency, was not greatly influenced by the COVID-19 related restrictions.

1. Introduction

The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) policy triggered debates within sustainable urban development in the early 1990s. The concept aimed to address urban transportation issues, including severe traffic congestion, by combining urban land-use and transport systems [1]. TOD manages people’s mobility by decreasing trip distances and maximizing transport service efficiency by concentrating urban development around transit stations [2]. The key TOD characteristics advocated are high density, being pedestrian-friendly, and mixed-use space following the widely known three ‘D’ aspects of density, diversity, and design [3,4]. Subsequently, they became 5Ds, including density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, and distance to transit [5]. TOD policies aim to achieve a sustainable land-use and transport system through enhancing accessibility by providing high-level transport connections [6,7,8]. This would attract people to use public transport, reducing traffic congestion, energy consumption, and air pollution [9].

Extensive literature has assessed TOD’s effectiveness by examining its key components, including the connection of transit stations and land-use density, diversity, and proximity to transport nodes. Other components are cycling and pedestrian-friendly developments related to accessibility based on infrastructure development [1,10,11]. A Beijing case study identified unique policies and strategies for mixed land use to enhance metro stations’ accessibility [11]. In this context, the short distance between metro stations that provides a pedestrian-friendly environment is more important than bus connections [11]. Other studies showed that the TOD infrastructure is expensive, requiring high initial capital investment, with city governments often failing to secure investors [12]. Similarly, operational and maintenance costs are problematic, including financial sustainability only achievable by fulfilling density or maximum ridership [13]. Many TOD projects failed to meet their intended objectives [10]. Moreover, there are mixed results regarding implementing the transit-oriented metropolis, the extended version of TOD that clusters the city into adaptive and transit, strong-core, and hybrid [3]. Commuters in South Korea still adopt high mobility, using private automobiles to surrounding areas [14].

Some studies highlighted the relationship between urban spatial land-use development and travel patterns [15,16], including the impact of land use and income on travel behavior [17,18,19]. Other studies examined market forces as the dominant factors influencing an individual or firm’s decisions when selecting office or home locations [20]. Adjusting locations between private housing and employers optimizes travel duration and distance by generating maximum ridership [21]. Furthermore, Ref. [22] highlighted the relationship between land use in areas within a 500 m radius around rail stations and ridership patterns in Seoul. Ref. [23] developed a TOD model to achieve optimal land-use allocation within stations to maximize transit ridership in Jakarta. Similar studies were conducted in metropolitan cities in Japan and China, including Hong Kong, regarding the relationship between property development and the transport rail system [13,24]. Extensive studies in China focused on alternative urban land-use allocations that increase transport ridership [25,26], including using a generic algorithm and the grey linear programming technique [27]. When identifying contributing factors for TOD performance, studies on physical infrastructures with the socio-economic and cultural aspects of the key TOD stakeholder, including the commuters, received scant attention.

The TOD concept has been implemented in many metropolitan cities worldwide [10]. However, the concept is relatively new in Indonesia, with limited literature on its policy and implementation. For instance, from the 330 TOD articles reviewed by [10], case studies were drawn from cities in the USA, Europe, Australia, and a few in Asia, including cities in China, Japan, and Thailand. Indonesia’s capital city, Jakarta, the world’s fourth most populous city and South-East Asia’s largest, received no mention. The concept was first included within the policy document enacted in 2012 on the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan, also known as Jakarta RTRW 2030. However, the key implementing regulations have only been stipulated since 2017. An efficient transport system and effective urban development are essential to support the Jakarta metropolis with its 29,313,171 people, including 1.2 million commuting daily and population growth of 2–4% [28]. With TOD still in its infancy, a recent study suggested that the government prioritize the diversity of land-use allocation to generate maximum transport ridership [23]. Shortly after 2012 enacted the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan policy, Ref. [21] assessed the characteristics of the locations proposed as TOD areas through GIS analysis. Additionally, the study examined the relevant factors related to commuters’ socio-economic profiles, mobility, and preference regarding TOD implementation through a survey of 400 respondents. With few exceptions, including [21,23], the existing literature largely focuses on physical factors related to TOD implementation.

The review of 330 TOD projects’ implementation worldwide summarized different impacts on travel behavior, land-use and spatial distribution, real-estate prices, residential location, and community life [10]. TOD debates have shifted from their initial main goal of addressing urban mobility and transportation issues to its impact and physical factors influencing its performance. Although TOD addresses urban transportation issues, the current discussion focuses on making it functional at any cost. The critical question is to whom TOD should be functional. Furthermore, the literature on the relationship between land-use development and travel patterns focuses predominantly on travel distance between housing and work locations, relying on physical infrastructure development.

Moreover, the on-going COVID-19 pandemic has affected travel behavior overall, with governments worldwide imposing travel restrictions, including a reduction in public transports’ usage and the closure of public facilities and non-essential retail stores. Policies to restrict public mobility, such as physical and social distancing and ‘lock down’, are implemented in many countries to mitigate the spread of the virus, and people’s risk perception of it plays a significant role. A study in China [29] emphasized the critical role of risk perception, perceived understanding, and safety climate for the successful implementation of social distancing policies. Relevant to risk perceptions, other studies have highlighted the role of social media, both positively and negatively, when spreading misinformation [30,31]. A joint force between governments and scientists from various domains of epidemiology, governance, economy, and psychology, was called to create potent and persuasive media content for successful healthcare protection campaigns [30]. The campaign, which included a ‘stay-at-home’ regime regulating individuals when conducting distance working or studying [30], led to the transition from working in offices to remote operations.

Many countries have also enacted various public health strategies, including contact tracing and quarantine, with peoples’ willingness to participate influenced by factors such as level of knowledge, ethical and psychological aspects that ultimately determine the effective implementation of the strategies [32]. Another study in Switzerland [33] also identified health risk perception as an important driver for people’s acceptance of government’s measures for COVID-19 mitigation. The health risk perception has a mediating effect, which further enhances public obedience of social distance behaviors. In addition, a China study [34] discussed how regulatory punishment affects social distancing obedience behavior and could have a greater effect by enhancing risk perception. While the long-term effect of the COVID-19 pandemic warrants further research, this present study aims to extend the existing literature by presenting the preliminary findings of the COVID-19 effects on the changes in commuters’ travel behavior.

Overall, this study contributes to the existing literature by focusing on two TOD impacts, including changes in commuters’ travel behavior and land-use and spatial distribution [10] in the Jakarta metropolitan area. It fills a gap in the TOD literature regarding the lack of a longitudinal study [10]. Furthermore, this study supports [21] with an eight-year lapse since the inclusion of the TOD concept in 2012 within the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan. First, it aimed to examine the progress and barriers to TOD implementation. Second, this study aimed to determine changes in commuters’ mobility through a survey of 400 respondents and land-use spatial distribution via the geographic information system within the several TOD areas in the Jakarta metropolitan area. It used the 2013 and 2020 data to determine how these changes were influenced by TOD-related developments. Third, this study aimed to establish appropriate policy recommendations on how the Jakarta and national governments should pursue TOD or alternative policies to achieve sustainable urban transportation and development.

2. Materials and Methods

This section outlines the significance of the Jakarta metropolitan area as an important case study and the methods of data collection and analysis. The methods used include the geographic information system (GIS) and the survey of 400 daily commuters who live within the TOD radius area in 2013 as repeated in 2020.

2.1. The Jakarta Metropolitan Area

The Jakarta metropolitan area that includes the cities of Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi, together known as Jabodetabek, is an important case study for the following reasons. First, it has the potential to offer a transit-supportive environment covering 5489 km² and a density of 9756 people per km² in 2020 [35]. Although residential areas have shifted from the Jakarta Capital and spread across the suburbs, employment remains concentrated in the Capital. Second, the TOD concept was included within the 2012 enacted policy document of the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan, but the key implementing regulations were stipulated from 2017 onwards. The slow progress and barriers to TOD implementation necessitate appropriate policy recommendations. Third, Jabodetabek is a metropolitan area with 29.3 million people, including 1.2 million commuting daily and population growth of 2–4% [28]. This implies the need for efficient and sustainable transportation and effective urban development. Fourth, the public transport infrastructure has improved with light rail transit (LRT), rapid mass transit (MRT), and busway systems. However, their numbers are insignificant compared with the growth of private motor vehicles of 58,180 annually [28]. Jabodetabek’s administrative territories include Jakarta province, Bogor city and district, Bekasi city and district, Tangerang city, South Tangerang city, and Tangerang district. These territories hold significant relevance, as they were included within the initial TOD plan incorporated within the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan. They are also relevant to the rail network development plan, a policy established by the national government through the Ministry of Transport and Network.

Daily commuters in Jabodetabek increased tenfold between 1985 and 2002 [36], 1.5-fold from 743 thousand trips in 2000 to 1.1 million in 2010 [37], and grew to 1.38 million trips in 2014 [38]. In 2019, daily commuters decreased to 1.2 million trips [28]. About 80% of the trips in 2014 were made by private vehicles [21], reducing to 66% in 2019 [39].

Jakarta is Indonesia’s first province to include a TOD concept within its Regional Spatial Plan 2030 issued in 2012. Its implementation has been slow and uncertain, challenged by barriers, such as overlapping institutional infrastructures. One implementing regulation is the Spatial Plan and Zoning issued in 2014 [40]. Other policy documents include Governor Regulations number 44 of 2017 on the Development of TOD replaced by number 67 of 2019, and number 140 of 2017 on the Assignment of the MRT Jakarta Corporation to manage the first phase of the MRT operation, the TOD North–South corridor [41]. Furthermore, Presidential Regulation number 55 of 2018 on the Greater Jakarta Transportation Master Plan [42] was issued to regulate TOD implementation in the Jabodetabek area. Although there is convergence between policies issued by the Jakarta provincial, Jakarta metropolitan, and national governments, several differences exist regarding selecting TOD areas [40,42].

2.2. Geographic Information System (GIS) and Analysis of Land-Use Changes

Land-use maps were constructed according to the basic land-surface map developed by the National Agency of Land Survey. These maps were analyzed using the ArcGIS system of 2013 and 2020 and data from field surveys. The land-use structure and spatial growth analysis included the growth or expansion of urban forms, density, diversity or heterogeneity, and connectivity [43,44]. Moreover, this study utilized Google Earth satellite imagery to construct the relevant land-use maps of 2013 and 2020 for the Jakarta region. It examined land-use changes between 2013 and 2020 through the following steps.

This study conducted spatial digitization involving data processing from satellite imagery into vector data using ArcGIS 10.1 version. The categorical maps of the urban green space were manually interpreted based on the same ArcGIS 10.1. The same image or spatial interpretation was then conducted to classify land use following the National Agency of Land Survey’s classification comprising residential areas, workplaces, public facilities, and green open space.

Following the GIS results of the land-use maps, this study used the non-site-specific-accuracy method [45] to calculate the total area assigned to each land-use category and compare the changes between 2013 and 2020. It compared the overall figures with the size and distribution of land use of the categories. Since both maps use the same classification scheme, they were classified at the same level of detail.

The location areas are the planned and considered as TOD areas in Jabodetabek, eight areas in Jakarta city and six in the suburbs (Figure 1). The selected TOD areas within Jakarta capital are grouped into three categories: (1) those that are MRT based consist of Dukuh Atas, Lebak Bulus, and Kampung Bandan; (2) those that are commuter rail based consist of Manggarai and Senen, and (3) those that are BRT based include Harmoni, Blok M, and Grogol. The six studied areas within the suburbs have not received formal TOD interventions and still operate as ordinary transit areas (Figure 1). The other TOD areas depicted in Figure 1, including Bogor, Depok, Depok Baru, Tangerang, Tangerang Selatan, and Bekasi, are the main railway networks where commuters begin their departure from each of the suburbs to Jakarta capital as the main destination.

Eight TOD areas were selected as samples for the following reasons. Six of them, i.e., Dukuh Atas, Manggarai, Harmoni, Senen, Blok M, and Grogol were included within the 2030 Jakarta Regional Spatial Plan. The other two areas, Lebak Bulus and Kampung Bandan, were specifically planned as TOD-based MRT Stations (Figure 2).

Following [44], this study employed a spatial unit of analysis of 1 km radius of the TOD area. It adopted the following formula to measure land-use diversity.

$$LUDI=-{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^{n}li.\frac{\ln \left(i\right)}{\ln \left(4\right)}$$

(1)

The formula is explained as follows:

• LUDI (land use diversity index): this is an index used for representing the land-use mix or homogeneity rate of land use in a given area.
• li: the ratio of a particular area of the land-use category to the total area being analyzed.
• li multiplied with the (ln i) which is divided by the total area (ln 4) within the TOD area with four land-use categories.

Since LUDI is normalized using the natural logarithm of the number of land uses, its value lies between 0 and 1, where 0 represents homogenous land use, and 1 indicates the tract of land that is equally distributed across all land use types. A higher diversity index implies many diverse activities within the proximity of TOD areas. This reflects the population’s mixed socio-economic condition and better synergies between various land-use functions.

2.3. Survey of 400 Daily Commuters Who Live in Planned TOD Areas in 2013 and Repeated in 2020

Each of the 2013 and 2020 surveys involved 400 daily commuters, who live in planned TOD areas, moving from Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi (Bodetabek) to the Jakarta capital city mainly for work reasons. The 2013 survey was conducted after the TOD concept was included within the 2012 policy document of the 2030 Jakarta Regional Spatial Plan. In both surveys, 400 respondents were selected randomly from the transit areas within the six rail stations in suburban areas (Bogor station, Depok station, Depok Baru station, Tangerang station, South_Tangerang station, and Bekasi station). Furthermore, 50 respondents were added in 2020 from the newly operated Lebak bulus MRT station (Figure 2). The 400 people surveyed in the eight TOD areas studies were purposely selected to meet two criteria: (1) worker/employee, and (2) commuter who lives within a radius of 1 km of a TOD area and works in the Jakarta capital. The population (i.e., number of employees) in aggregate was 4.047 in 2013 and 4.582 people in 2020, hence the number of surveyed people reached 9.8% and 8.7% of the population, respectively.

The 2020 survey was conducted in August to examine changes in commuters’ travel behavior and their preferences relating to TOD implementation. The main 2013 survey questions were used in data collection. Information was collected on commuters’ geographic origins, including distance to the transit locations, residential status, length of residency, reasons to select residences, and access to transit locations. Furthermore, the survey focused on the purpose of their mobility and the spatial distribution of workplaces and distance. The commuters’ mobility, including modes of transport, frequency of trips, average commuting time, travel cost, fuel consumption, and total time of return travel, were also surveyed. Additionally, data were collected on their TOD implementation understanding and preferences for the design and rationale of residence selection. The 2020 survey included a question on commuters’ preference to work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic which has influenced their travel behavior. The limitation of this research design was the respondents asked in 2013 were not same as the respondents in 2020, although the residents are in the same area within TOD area.

3. Results

3.1. The Changes of Land-Use and Spatial Distribution within TOD Areas between 2013 and 2020

Land-use changes within a one-kilometer radius of TOD areas between 2013 and 2020 are outlined in

Table 1. Land use diversity index in a radius of 1 km of TOD areas in Jakarta capital city.

TOD Areas	Residential (%)		Work Places (%)		Public Facilities (%)		Green Open Spaces (%)		Diversity Index
	2013	2020	2013	2020	2013	2020	2013	2020	2013	2020
Dukuh Atas	36.79	35.48	36.17	36.91	5.09	11.54	21.95	16.06	0.88	0.92
Manggarai	60.15	65.64	27.85	18.91	5.78	11.61	6.22	3.83	0.72	0.70
Harmoni	18.66	33.91	66.05	48.84	5.49	15.59	9.79	1.65	0.70	0.77
Blok M	43.97	46.39	31.40	33.18	14.80	13.49	9.74	6.94	0.89	0.85
Grogol	55.04	60.44	21.18	15.66	11.41	16.36	12.38	7.53	0.84	0.78
Senen	51.36	50.46	28.28	29.46	17.55	18.40	2.81	1.68	0.80	0.78
Lebak Bulus	53.09	53.50	18.80	23.49	15.66	13.05	12.45	9.95	0.87	0.84
Kampung Bandan	25.44	25.43	45.33	42.41	12.08	23.44	17.14	8.72	0.91	0.91

and

Table 2. Land use diversity index within a radius of 1 km of TOD areas in suburban Bodetabek.

TOD Areas	Residential (%)		Work Places (%)		Public Facilities (%)		Green Open Spaces (%)		Diversity Index
	2013	2020	2013	2020	2013	2020	2013	2020	2013	2020
Bogor	50.76	48.80	31.14	17.83	3.45	20.17	14.64	13.20	0.80	0.90
Depok	78.09	67.09	8.10	11.88	3.24	7.39	10.57	13.65	0.54	0.71
Depok Baru	65.15	65.76	15.01	15.26	2.46	7.94	17.15	11.04	0.69	0.73
Tangerang	61.66	57.97	18.26	14.44	8.60	15.84	11.48	11.75	0.77	0.82
Tang-Sel	75.35	66.26	2.68	4.37	2.47	5.36	19.51	24.01	0.52	0.66
Bekasi	57.83	39.14	13.97	23.70	8.78	15.07	19.43	22.09	0.81	0.96

. In Table 1, the changes within the eight TOD areas in Jakarta city are less significant than in suburban areas (Table 2).

The comparison of the diversity variable in Jakarta between 2013 and 2020 showed that the TOD residential areas grew significantly (Table 1). The growth was almost twofold in the Harmoni area that hosts the central station of the Trans-Jakarta busway system. Moreover, there was a diversity of around 3–5% within TOD areas, such as Manggarai, Blok M, and Grogol. A decrease in diversity occurred only in the Senen area, and no changes were recorded in the Lebak Bulus and Kampung Bandang areas. Workplaces showed a decrease within all TOD areas, except Blok M, Lebak Bulus, and Senen. Lebak Bulus hosts the new MRT station, showing the highest increase in the workplace category. Furthermore, a significant increase occurred in public facilities within six TOD areas and a decrease in Blok M and Lebak Bulus. The green open space function decreased in all areas.

The changes in public facilities areas are insignificant in Dukuh Atas, Manggarai, Harmoni, and Kampung Bandan at the expense of green open space (Table 1). This could be attributed to the government enlarging the station areas and supporting facilities in the initial TOD development. Based on the diversity index values, only Dukuh Atas and Harmoni had an increase in the diversity of land use. Dukuh Atas is a central hub of transportation modes, including the MRT, BRT, rail commuter, and airport rail, and has a high diversity index of 0.92. Harmoni, the central hub of BRT, has a moderate diversity index of 0.77. These two central transit hubs experienced an increase in the diversity index. Therefore, the other six sampled areas failed to achieve TOD’s criteria of land-use diversity.

Figure 2 shows the comparison of the diversity variable in four large-scale TOD areas in Jakarta city in 2020. It shows that residential areas dominate in Lebak Bulus with 52% followed by workplaces with 23%, public facilities with 13%, and green open spaces with 9.95%. Residential areas and workplaces hold similar proportions in Dukuh Atas, the central hub of Jakarta’s major land transportation. In Harmoni and Blok M areas, the BRT large-scale TOD regions, residential areas, and workplaces are similar, with the previous functional area experiencing a significant decrease in its green open space.

The GIS-based analysis of land-use changes between 2013 and 2020 showed a large difference in the diversity of the planned TOD areas between those in sub-urban Bodetabek and those in Jakarta. Most locations in sub-urban Bodetabek experienced a decrease in residential built areas but an increase in workplaces (Table 2). There was a notable increase in workplaces in Depok, South Tangerang, and Bekasi directly connected to Jakarta through the mass transport system (Table 2). This could be attributed to the private sector’s decision to choose the suburbs as an affordable location for their business activities. In this case, the accessibility variable to the Jakarta central business district is no longer an issue.

Moreover, Table 2 shows that public facilities grew significantly in all planned TOD areas within the suburbs in the eight-year lapse. Although green open spaces decreased in Jakarta (Table 1), they increased in some major Bodetabek’s TOD areas, such as Depok, South Tangerang, and Bekasi (Table 2). All TOD areas have higher land-use diversity to suit TOD criteria based on the diversity index.

3.2. Housework: Changes in Commuters’ Preference between 2013 and 2020

The survey results (

Table 3. Commuters’ preference in choosing housing location in Jakarta suburbs (in percentage (%)).

	2013			2020
Influencing Factors	East Suburbs	West Suburbs	South Suburbs	East Suburbs	West Suburbs	South Suburbs
GOS	7.50	7.60	19.30	16.60	17.40	20.20
Social (kinship)	19.60	19.60	20.10	24.80	17.20	24.90
Accessibility	24.60	24.60	18.30	25.30	24.20	24.70
Price	21.00	21.00	19.70	21.40	24.30	21.80
Public Facility	15.80	15.80	11.00	13.60	20.70	12.30
Water Facility	11.50	11.50	11.70	11.20	13.60	10.20
Near The MRT				3.70	0.00	6.10

Note: GOS: Green open space.

) indicate that accessibility contributed most to commuters’ reasons to choose housing locations in the east and west suburbs in 2013. In contrast, most commuters selected the south suburbs due to social factors, including geographical proximity with extended family members and kinship relations. There are significant differences in commuters’ preferences between those from the east and west suburbs with others in the south suburbs. Accessibility, price, and social factors became the three highest priorities in east and west suburbs. However, south suburbs’ commuters cited the social, green open space, and price factors. In 2020, accessibility, social, and price factors remained the three of the most cited preferences. The green open space was the least and most cited factor in 2013 and 2020, respectively, and is even higher than the public and water facility factors. Another notable finding was the factor related to the new development of the MRT, where the near MRT station factor was the least cited. The south suburb’s commuters mostly considered the social factor in choosing house locations in 2013 and 2020. The east suburb’s commuters consistently cited accessibility as the most important factor, while the west suburbs changed preferences from accessibility in 2013 to the price factor in 2020.

Furthermore,

Table 4. Commuters’ reasons to choose workplace locations in Jakarta capital city.

Commuters’ Origin (Bodetabek Areas and Jakarta Suburbs)	Reasons to Choose Workplace Locations 2020 in Percentage (%)
	Near CL	Easy Access to Trans-Jakarta Bus	Near MRT/LRT	Place of Employers	Others
- East Suburb of Jakarta (Bekasi city and Bekasi residency)	19.3	1.8	0.9	78.9	1.8
- West Suburb of Jakarta (Tangerang city, South Tangerang, and Tangerang residency)	20.9	7.5	0.0	71.6	0.0
- South-Suburb of Jakarta (Depok city, Bogor city, and Bogor residency)	21.7	0.0	1.6	54.3	22.5

Notes: CL: commuter line; MRT: mass rapid transit; LRT: light rapid transit.

highlights commuters’ reasons to select workplace locations in 2020. It shows whether their decisions were influenced by the newly developed transport infrastructures, such as MRT, LRT, better access to the transit stations of the Trans-Jakarta bus system, or geographic proximity of transport lines to workplaces. Commuters from all suburbs predominantly considered the place of employer factor as the main reason to choose the workplace location. The second reason by commuters from the east and west suburbs was near commuter line KRL, an electricity-based mass train. Almost the same percentage was revealed by commuters from the South suburbs. A notable finding was the factor of near MRT or LRT being the least cited reason.

3.3. Changes in Commuters’ Travel Behavior between 2013 and 2020

The main modes of public transportation cited (

Table 5. Shared modes of public and private transportations within TOD areas in Jakarta suburbs.

Public Transportation Usage
Commuters’ Origin	2013					2020
	KRL Commuter Lines	Bus	BRT Trans-Jakarta	City Mini Bus	KRL Commuter Lines	Bus	BRT Trans-Jakarta	City Mini Bus	MRT
East suburbs of Jakarta	57.1	5.2	0.6	13.0	57.9	3.5	10.5	0.0	0.9
West suburbs of Jakarta	8.3	21.4	6.5	11.7	72.4	0.0	7.5	1.5	1.5
South suburbs of Jakarta	54	10.0	0.0	5.0	58.9	0.0	4.7	0.8	14.0
Private Transportation Usage
	2013					2020
	Car		Motorbike	Bicycle	Car	Motorbike		Bicycle
East suburbs of Jakarta	5.2		29.9	1.3	19.3	43.0		0.0
West suburbs of Jakarta	10.2		28.9	0.0	5.2	69.4		1.5
South suburbs of Jakarta	17.5		0.0	0.0	16.3	50.4		0.8

Notes: KRL: ‘Kereta Rel Listrik’, i.e., an electricity-based mass train, also known as ‘commuter line’. MRT: mass rapid transit; LRT: light rapid transit; BRT: bus rapid transit.

) included train, regular bus, BRT Trans-Jakarta bus, and City minibus, known locally as angkot. The 2020 survey included MRT, which became operational in March 2019. The findings in

Table 6. Reasons to use public transport by commuters within TOD areas in suburbs.

Suburbs	Reasons to Use Public Transport (In Percentage (%))
	New Transport Infrastructure (MRT, LRT)	Better Connectivity of Trans-Jakarta Bus	Pedestrian Space	Cost
East suburbs of Jakarta	9.6	11.4	0.0	31.6
West suburbs of Jakarta	23.9	22.4	1.5	29.1
South suburbs of Jakarta	38.0	16.3	8.5	31.0

show that the commuters’ main concern is the availability of a reliable public transport system and not the distance between their residential and workplace locations. The current KRL commuter lines play a key mobility role in the Jakarta Metropolis, with a stable growth rate of more than 50% in 2013 and 70% in 2020. Consequently, 57% of commuters from East suburbs consistently use this transportation mode (Table 5). Moreover, Table 5 shows that there is a significant increase in the use of the BRT Trans-Jakarta bus, from 0.6% in 2013 to 10.5% in 2020. A significant change occurred in the travel mode of west suburb commuters, where the use of KRL commuter lines increased from 8.3% in 2013 to 72.4% in 2020. There was a 1.5% usage of the MRT and a decrease in using the regular bus and city minibus. Most BRT Trans-Jakarta corridors connect all Jakarta city and suburban areas. The use of MRT by the east suburb’s commuters is low, while the south suburbs’ commuters hold the highest usage with 14%. Furthermore, KRL commuter lines and BRT usage increased to 4.9% and 4.7%, respectively. The usage of the mass transit system, including the KRL commuter lines, BRT, and MRT, increased significantly between 2013 and 2020.

As shown in Table 5, there is a significant shift in commuters’ using private vehicles from all the departure points, with a sharp increase in motorcycle usage. Moreover, commuters rarely use bicycles, which are non-existent at some departure points. The east suburbs commuters’ use of private cars and motorcycles increased about fourfold and twofold in 2020, respectively. In the west suburbs, the usage of cars decreased almost half, from 10.2% to 5.2%. However, the use of motorcycles increased nearly two and a half fold, and bicycle usage, a new phenomenon, increased by 1.5%. Furthermore, the south suburbs’ usage of motorcycles surged from 0% in 2013 to 50.4% in 2020. The speed factor explains why private vehicle usage is still dominated by motorcycles, which is because they navigate severe traffic congestion efficiently.

The respondents were also asked whether their reasons for using public transport were influenced by the newly developed transport infrastructures such as MRT and LRT (Table 6). They were also asked whether their reasons were influenced by other mass transit systems, such as the BRT Trans-Jakarta bus or the development of more pedestrian spaces.

As shown in Table 6, the MRT and LRT infrastructure has the most significant impact on commuters from the south suburbs deciding their public transport use. The reason for this could be that the first operated line of the MRT service is through the south suburbs. Moreover, the better-connected Trans-Jakarta bus and newly operated MRT impacted the decision of the west suburbs’ commuters. The most important reason for using public transport is the cost, except for the south suburban commuters. New transport infrastructure and cost were cited almost equally in the south suburbs, with 38% and 31%, respectively. Other main decision-making factors when using public transport is the improvement in connectivity of the Trans-Jakarta bus. Although the LRT was built in the east part of Jakarta, it is not preferred by commuters because of its high cost. As for walking, this study found that commuters preferred not to walk between the point of origin to transit stations or from the stations to the destination. More than 50% of the commuters traveled to the stations, not by foot. Overall, the cost factor is the one of the dominant reasons to use public transportation (Table 6).

3.4. Changes in Commuters’ Travel Behavior Impacted COVID-19

Survey results (

Table 7. Change of travel behavior influenced by COVID-19 (in percentage (%)).

Item/Sub-Urbs	No	Yes	No Answer
Use of train from the station
East suburbs of Jakarta	48.4	51.6	0
West suburbs of Jakarta	72.0	28.0	0
South suburbs of Jakarta	37.0	63.0	0
Changes in traveling time and frequency
East suburbs of Jakarta	46.5	53.5	0
West suburbs of Jakarta	25.0	63.0	12
South suburbs of Jakarta	71.0	27.0	2.0
Changes in mobility due to service limitations
East suburbs of Jakarta	26.8	66.8	6.4
West suburbs of Jakarta	34.0	43.0	22.0
South suburbs of Jakarta	20.0	58.0	2.0

) showed that commuters, predominantly from the east and south suburbs of Jakarta, were largely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic-related measures. They still used the trains from the transit stations to work places. Different results were observed in the west suburbs, where the majority of commuters changed their mode of transport, no longer using trains (Table 7). Noticeably, commuters also tended not to change their pattern of accessing the station, i.e., the way they travel from home to the transit stations during the pandemic. This can be attributed to two factors: the limited choice of modes of transport offered in transit stations, and the unavailability of alternative modes that connect the stations to their residence. These are classic factors that occur in many transit stations that are still in the early development stage, especially when the supporting infrastructure is still not fully prepared, as advocated by the TOD concept.

With regard to the survey question on changes in traveling time and frequency of traveling, the survey results (Table 7) showed that most of the commuters reduced their daily commuting time during the pandemic. They tended to focus only on essential travel, such as commuting to the work places, where many employers operated shift work, and buying essentials or acquiring basic services, including education and health. An interesting finding is that commuters from the south suburbs predominantly showed no changes in traveling time and frequency, also tending to maintain the use of trains as their preferred mode of transportation to their workplace and other destinations. Relating to travel limitations imposed during the pandemic, most commuters showed changes in their mobility behaviors. The commuters from all transit stations were more careful in avoiding rush hours, which are usually crowded with passengers, and switched their travel to non- peak hours. Thus, they could still travel but avoid crowded situations and long queues which could pose dangerous health risks during the pandemic.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Changes of Land-Use and Spatial Distribution

Research results showed that the increase in the residential function around TOD areas in Jakarta was evident, although the suburbs experienced a decrease (Table 1). This suggests an improved readiness and interest of commuter around TOD areas in 2020, eight years after the concept was included within Jakarta’s spatial planning policy document in 2012. Moreover, the increase in the number of commuters from the south suburbs who gave greater transportation access to TOD areas in the capital city suggests that TOD areas have become a more desirable location for workplaces.

Following our findings, Jakarta Metropolis’s governments and urban planners need to improve policies that enable residential and working places around TOD areas with high connectivity and accessibility to public transportation. The aim of moving commuters closer to workplaces is to decrease their mobility, travel distances, and usage of private vehicles. This policy was usually advocated based on the argument that placing residential and workplaces around TOD areas significantly enhances the land-use density and diversity [43,46,47,48]. However, governments should cautiously adopt this strategy and learn from other TOD implementations that failed to attract enough people to reside within TOD areas, including cases in Thailand [49,50]. In Thailand’s case, the TOD areas were deserted by native residents because they could not afford the housing prices that had increased drastically since the development of infrastructure [48,50]. Furthermore, local authorities failed to attract new residents to move to the TOD areas for the same reason [50]. Studies worldwide suggest that local governments could not establish affordable housing due to the sharp rise in land price within TOD areas [10,51,52]. In contrast, the TOD concept succeeded in Shenzen, China, partly due to establishing government-subsidized rental housing [52].

Another notable finding from our study (Table 1) shows a significant increase in public facilities at the expense of green open space (GOS) in the capital city. Most of the capital’s land is owned by the National or Jakarta government and has been used by previous development projects [53]. Therefore, relevant government authorities must utilize GOS to develop the required public facilities within the transport systems, including stations and pedestrian spaces. For almost a decade, TOD has been implemented solely by governments’ legal authorization to manage GOS. Therefore, governments should engage the private sector through a public–private TOD partnership (PPP) to address this limitation [54].

4.2. The Change of Commuters’ Preference to Choose Workplace and Housing Locations

The TOD components of land-use diversity and destination accessibility were considered to be more significant than others by commuters. Commuters from all suburbs predominantly considered the place of employer factor as the main reason to choose the workplace location. Our finding differs from other studies which showed that regional accessibility influenced travelers’ behavior as an important predictor of rail station ridership [55].

This finding informs relevant policymakers and urban planners to focus on the enhancement of the accessibility of workplace and housing locations as part of their TOD strategic implementation. Previous TOD studies recommended the universal increase in land-use density and diversity around transit stations [43,46]. However, our study found other factors critical to TOD implementation. These are socio-economic and cultural aspects, including commuters’ customs and practices, which should be accounted for when governments implement TOD. For instance, commuters’ preference for housing location was also significantly influenced by kinship relations or the social factor (Table 3), reflecting the local culture. Commuters live near their families and relatives, who provide child care and livelihood support. Other social factor variables include the feeling of security and belonging as discussed by van Gent et al. [56].

The existence of new transport infrastructures, such as MRT and LRT, did not significantly influence commuters’ choice of workplace (Table 4). This means that ridership should be increased to achieve a sustainable transport system. As advocated across the TOD literature, transit ridership could be enhanced by improving multi-modal connections and planning land use that attracts travelers and serves as a destination in chained trips [57]. Although feasible, these strategies depend largely on the expensive development or expansion of physical transport infrastructures, such as MRT and LRT. City governments often cite financial barriers as the main challenge to implementing TOD [58]. Another notable finding of our study is with regard to commuters’ preference in choosing housing locations influenced predominantly by kinship relations (Table 3), that reflects the local culture of living in close proximity to family and relatives.

4.3. The Change of Commuters’ Travel Behavior

One of our key findings is related to the existence of new transport infrastructure, such as MRT and LRT, which did not significantly influence the use of public transportation by the majority of commuters, although it impacted the travel behavior of the south suburbs’ commuters (Table 6). The better connectivity of the Trans-Jakarta bus also has more impact to endorse the commuter to use public transportation. These findings also suggest that increased ridership of existing transport systems may hold greater prospects for success for achieving a sustainable transport system, compared to building new transport systems which commuters cannot afford. This relates to another key finding for which “travel cost” was cited as one of the most important factors when using public transport. For example, while LRT has been built and is operational in eastern Jakarta, it is considered expensive and, thus, not preferred by commuters, costing twice that of the Trans-Jakarta bus and thrice the commuter rail [59]. This finding resonates with an earlier study in Beijing which highlighted time punctuality, affordable cost, and comfortable experience as factors attributing to the commuters’ subjective experience toward traffic congestion and which ultimately influenced their travel behavior [60].

Pedestrian-friendly spaces, a key characteristic of TOD, have less impact on commuters’ decision to use public transportation (Table 6). This finding differs from those in other large cities, such as Seoul, where walking and bicycling are prominent modes of transport [57]. However, a positive link exists between MRT availability and pedestrian space in the south suburbs. Commuters’ walking behavior has increased significantly within the south suburbs and decreased in the other two suburbs (Table 6).

Walking is one of TOD’s primary goals as part of integrating land-use and transport development [43,44,46]. However, pedestrian space would only be an influencing factor with an integrated transport infrastructure network. This finding differs from the commonly advocated TOD concept. Based on TOD, a pedestrian-friendly design, including the threshold distance to transit stations and walking destination, promotes pedestrian mobility and increases transport ridership [61]. Indonesians’ walking habit is low, with the country being placed last out of 46 countries and territories for the number of citizens walking steps [61]. A pedestrian-friendly infrastructure is considered a key factor in enhancing walking behavior. However, the online motorcycle taxi, known locally as Gojek, has discouraged the walking habit, with commuters using it instead of walking to and from transit stations, this in line with [62].

While the COVID-19 pandemic and mobility restrictions have changed human mobility, in general, our finding suggests that the pandemic has not significantly impacted commuters’ travel behavior in our study areas. Differing from China as the first country that implemented a national lockdown [29], Indonesia, including the Jakarta metropolitan, did not implement a lockdown policy. Instead, certain mobility restrictions were imposed when cases of COVID-19 increased severely. In our study areas, through governments’ regulations on mobility restrictions, the changes in commuters’ travel behavior varied. In many transit stations, commuters did not voluntarily change their preferred modes of transportation during the restriction periods, still relying on ordinary trains to serve their mobility. As discussed earlier, this can be attributed to the lack of alternative modes of public transport meeting commuters’ main considerations, i.e., price affordability. Nonetheless, whilst the commuters’ willingness to comply with the local authority’s public health strategies during the pandemic was not as full as expected, there was evidence of travel behavioral changes with regard to travel time and frequency.

Further research needs to be conducted following the post-pandemic phenomenon and related policies. Specifically following [31], future research in the Jakarta metropolitan area needs to focus on attributing factors that may influence people’s willingness to comply with public health strategies, including ethical, psychological, and practical factors that were deemed to be important and frequently discussed within the existing literature [31]. Moreover, as highlighted by other studies [29,30,33], the following key interrelating factors also warrant study in the Jakarta metropolitan area: how public guidance influences the risk perception of individuals, the role of social media in shaping such risk perception, and the extent to which risk perception and regulation punishment affect social distancing obedience behavior.

5. Conclusions

• Through a geospatial information system analysis and survey of 400 daily commuters who live within a 1 km radius of the planned TOD case study areas conducted in 2013 and 2020, our study examined changes in the spatial distribution of land use and commuters’ travel behavior, determining the extent to which TOD implementation influenced these changes, thereby informing appropriate future policies. While acknowledging the importance of land-use diversity and accessibility within the modes of transit transportation, i.e., the physical aspect of which has become a major focus of the existing TOD literature, our research findings revealed a significant weight on social and culture as key factors that influenced commuters’ travel behavior, with kinship relations being the main reason for choosing housing locations.
• A significant increase in public facilities at the expense of green open space (GOS) indicates that TOD implementation was conducted by the government with the sole authority to manage GOS, lacking private sector involvement.
• Our study found workplace and home culture as key factors for commuters’ decisions to support TOD implementation, highlighting socio-cultural elements as key determining factors toward achieving sustainable urban transportation and development. The cost factor was the commuters’ main reason for using public or private modes of transportation, reflecting specific mobility habits and local culture. Therefore, we call for policymakers and urban planners to consider these aspects when designing transit areas and enhancing accessibility to commuters’ housing locations and workplaces. Specifically, the workplace is important because commuters cannot change employment easily.
• We also found that the COVID-19 pandemic has not caused significant change in the mobility behavior pattern of commuters who live within planned TOD areas in the Jakarta Metropolitan areas. This is attributed to the factor that commuters’ ability to change employment is limited. Following our research findings, our policy recommendations comprise two aspects on which governments should focus: (1) improving public transportation modes which are affordable, and (2) establishing good access and connectivity between housing and workplaces.
• There are several key limitations of this study, and we recommend that future research pays particular attention toward addressing them. Firstly, our sampled population consisted of commuters who live within a 1 km radius of the planned TOD areas. Thus, they may not have all the attributes that comprehensively match with the characteristics of the overall commuting population. Secondly, we surveyed different individuals as research respondents between 2013 and 2020. Therefore, the survey results might not prove the relationships and consistencies of the same commuters. Moreover, future research is required to include workers whose workplaces are within those planned TOD areas to explore their dominant travel behaviors and the relationship between the points of origin and destination within TOD areas.