Hi! I hope you’re enjoying your weeks so far (:
From last week’s post, we have already seen how Jakarta’s overpopulation problem translates to a rapid increase in water demand. This week, we will see how overpopulation leads to a rapid increase in private vehicle ownership and its subsequent environmental problems.
The DKI Jakarta Province observes economic growth over the years which translates to higher private vehicle ownership. In Jakarta, there are approximately 9.9 million units of vehicles; 98.9% of which are private vehicles and in 3/4 of the trips, people use private vehicles.
It is not a surprise that the main contributor to Jakarta’s severe air pollution is these motorised vehicles, whereby 80% of the vehicles are powered by sulfur-rich diesel fuel. Based on the Air Quality Index ( AQI ), Jakarta’s air quality index is ranging from 130-200 daily, which is ‘very unhealthy’. This pollution not only bring environmental problems but also public health risks such as pulmonary disease, and acute lower respiratory disease, due to the inhalation of the finest pollutant microparticles called PM2.5
As a local who experience this traffic gridlock first-hand, the congestion usually renders me immobile for 2-3 hours every day, and 1-2 hour on a good day. I think that this problem will also halt socio-economic productivity as there will be a delay in information transmission and health problems including mental health problems like stress and anxiety caused by the agitation and restlessness while waiting for the traffic jam.
Provided that the environmental and socio-economic problems in this traffic-choked city are so severe, should the government relocate the capital?
If the answer is no, the government should adopt a multi-pronged approach in order to combat the pre-existing traffic congestion and air pollution. The government should provide a sustainable public transportation system which is essential as a precursor for alternative policies like road management policy, odd-even rationing policy, and supply based policy which limits the number of private car ownership like Singapore’s Certificate of Entitlement ( COE ) policy.
Yet, sometimes the construction of public transport infrastructures could worsen the current traffic. Moreover, there will be a lot of funding problems which can put this project on halt due to the sheer amount of money required to build integrated public transportation infrastructure.
If the answer is yes, it could be an easy way out to start anew. Thus, the government should allocate these resources and built an integrated and sustainable public transport infrastructure. They should also draft policies that are able to restrict future growth of private car ownership. Other than that, they could promote the use of electric cars or environmentally friendly cars to minimise air pollution.
Yet, It is hard to analyse what kind of public transportation that is suitable to the context of Borneo as there is a difference in soil layers and structure, as well as public perception of taking public transportation.
That’s all for today! Don’t forget to collect your puzzle piece and see you next week! (:
Hi Sherry,
I like how well strucured your whole blog is. The roadmap gives a good indication on what we can expect.
Considering about transport alone, I think the move would be beneficial as it may relieve some pressure off Jarkata while having a brand new opportunity for urban planning in the new capital.
Moving capitals is a complicated business. Thing are starting to pick up a decade after Naypyidaw became the new capital of Myanmar – and it is not quite the ghost town compared to when the shift was first formalised what with the underutilised infrastructure.
Will you be looking into how officially changing the capital may not cause supporting industries to move over in a future post?
Hi Ee Kin! Great to see you here <3
I agree with you too! In a sense, it would be an easy way out too since it is easier to build upon something from scratch rather than overcoming the pre-existing urban challenges.
Also, thanks for your suggestion! I will consider weaving in the idea in my future posts and perhaps I will analyse how the supporting industries relate to the potential environmental challenges too!
Hi Sherry, this time I think I shall be taking a blue tile. From what I can see based on the context you are laying out, is whether the government should try to rebuild and improve it current transport infrastructure vs going elsewhere to rebuild a better and higher quality transport infrastructure. The fact that they should restrict vehicle purchases is a done deal. Looking at this just from this perspective, I think that too much capital is needed to completely revamp the current infrastructure they have in Jakarta in addition to damage from land subsidence. Perhaps it may also prove to be easier to control car ownership in Borneo as there are less vehicles there currently. What do you think blue or red?
-Li Zhe
Hi Li Zhe! I agree with you. It would be difficult to revamp the current infrastructure and not to mention, the infrastructure itself could even add pressure to the land and exacerbates the current issue of land subsidence. Other than that, it would be so much easier to create a policy that suppresses car ownership when there are no cars yet as compared to creating policy that requires the government to think about what to do with the existing cars. Personally, I think blue would be an easy way out. However, I am still conflicted in a way that the government cannot just throw away and dispose of the capital just like that. Even if the government decided to relocate, they should think about how to alleviate the pre-existing urban challenges in Jakarta too!