Appendix to Chapter 4 - JICA報告書PDF版(JICA Report PDF)

Appendix to Chapter 4

The Study on Integrated Transport Master Plan for JABOTABEK (Phase I) Final Report – Review of MRT Project

AP 4 - 1

AP4.1 Outline of Alternative-3A

Table AP 4.1 Alternative 3A

Section Distance No. of Station Structures Fatmawati Depot - - Ground Fatmawati Station 1.6 km 1 Station Underground Cipete Raya - Istora 7.8 km 6 Stations Elevated Guideway Bendungan Hilir – Monas 6.2 km 6 Stations Underground

Total 15.6 km 13 Stations

Figure AP 4.1 Route Plan of Alternative 3A

Alternative 3A: This case is derived from “Alternative 2”as the purpose of modification of Fatmawati toll way flyover. Consequently, Fatmawati station will be adopted underground station with double layer type station under Jl.Fatmawati.

Figure AP4.2 Plan and Profile Transition Trough at Fatmawati Depot (In Case of Alternative 3A)

AP4-2

The S

tudy on Integrated Ttransport M

aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)F

inal Report V

olume III (R

eview of Jakarta M

RT

Project) A

ppendix

JL. MA

DR

ASA

H

JL. RAYA FATMAWATI

JL

. K

RA

MA

T

BA

TU

JL. ASEM

JL. ASEM

JL. SEKTOR KOMP. DEPLU

JL. CENDRAWASIH 2

M

SE

KO

LA

HA

N

M

MA

SJID

S a l u r a n A i r

Figure AP4.4 Plan and Profile Between Cipete Raya - Haji Nawi Station (Alternative 3B)

AP 4-4

The S


aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)F

inal Report V

olume III (R

eview of Jakarta M

RT

Project) A

ppendix

569/84

Figure AP4.5 Plan and Profile Between Haji Nawi - Blok A Station (Alternative 3B)

AP4-5

The S


aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)F

inal Report V

olume III (R

eview of M

RT

Project) A

ppendix

AP4-6

The S


aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)F

inal Report V

olume III (R

eview of Jakarta M

RT

Project) A

ppendix

Figure AP4.6 Plan and Profile Between Blok A Station - Blok M Station (Alternative 3B)

The S


aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)F

inal Report V

olume III (R

eview of Jakarta M

RT

Project) A

ppendix

AP4-7

BS.35

KOLAM

BS.74

BS.52.A

BS.73

KO

DA

K

BS.34

BS.51

BS.52

JL

.GA

TO

T

SU

BR

OT

O

WILAYAH JAKARTA SELATAN

Figure AP4.8 Plan and Profile Between Bendungan Hilir - Setia Budi (Alternative 3B)

AP4-8

The S


aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)F

inal Report V

olume III (R

eview of Jakarta M

RT

Project) A

ppendix

Figure AP4.9 Plan and Profile Between Dukuh Atas - Bunderan HI (Alternative 3B)

AP4-9

Final R

eport Volum

e III (Review

of Jakarta MR

T P

roject) Appendix

Figure AP4.10 Plan and Profile Between Sarinah - Monas (Alternative 3B)

AP4-10

The S


aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)F

inal Report V

olume III (R

eview of Jakarta M

RT

Project) A

ppendix


AP 4 - 11

AP4.2 Review of E/M for Rolling Stock Items

Differences of E/M technical items between “Revised Basic Design” and “Review Results” by JICA Study are shown in Table AP 4.2.

Table AP 4.2 Differences of Revised Basic Design and Review Results by JICA Study (E&M / Rolling Stock)

Item Revised Basic Design (Phase 1) Issued 1999

JICA Study (Phase 1 : Alternative 3B)

E&M Rolling Stock 1.Motors 50% motored with a 6 car consist Same as R.B.D

2.Noise levels Sound deadening materials and imposes no limits

Same as R.B.D

3.Passenger Door Electrical sliding plug for passenger door -Pneumatically operated external sliding door

Same as R.B.D

4.Auxiliary power Leaves open for use of 480 V 60 Hz 440 V 60 Hz for auxiliary power 5.Battery -45 min. operation battery 100 V DC 6.Air conditioning -26’C and 60 RH in a 40’ C tunnel

-10’ C differential Same as R.B.D

7.Resilient wheels Solid wheels for reduced maintenance and capital cost

Same as R.B.D

8.Buff strength A light duty Same as R.B.D 9.Braking Regenerative with resistor banks in

traction power substation Same as R.B.D

10.Fire resistance Fire resistant material Same as R.B.D 11.Operating modes Three modes Same as R.B.D

AP4.3 Review of E/M for Power Distribution System

The differences of Power Distribution System between Revised Basic Design and Review Results by JICA Study are shown in Table AP 4.3.

Table AP 4.3 Differences of Revised Basic Design and Review by JICA Study (Power Distribution)

Item

Revised Basic Design (Phase 1) Issued 1999


Power Distribution System 1.Power distribution A single 20 kV system Three phase 20 kV system 2.Traction Power

Substation 4 substations each with 2 transformers and rectifiers

Same as R.B.D

3.Equipment specifications & ratings

Slightly more specific regarding type of components without identifying ratings

Same as R.B.D

4.Resistor banks Resistors in substations Same as R.B.D 5.Substations 2 substation but less quantity of

distribution circuits Same as R.B.D


AP 4 - 12

Major review results on design standards are described as follows:

• Electrical power to passenger stations and traction power substations will be supplied from two 150 kV bulk supply substations, which also will house emergency diesel generators sets.

• Bulk supply substations (BSS) will be located on ground near Fatmawati. Another termination of the system will be located in Sawah Besar. Each BSS includes an emergency diesel engine generator to supply the vital passenger station loads through the 20 kV distribution loop.

• Traction power substations (TPS) will be located at selected passenger stations below ground level. The traction power substations will convert the power from 20 kV AC to 1500 V DC and distribute the DC power to the rolling stock through high speed DC circuit breakers and the overhead contact system.

AP4.4 Review of E/M for Overhead Contact Line

Differences of overhead contact line between “Revised Basic Design” and “Review Results” by JICA Study are shown in Table AP 4.4.

Table AP 4.4 Differences of Revised Basic Design and Review by JICA Study (Overhead Contact Line)

Item

Revised Basic Design (Phase 1) Issued 1999


E&M Overhead Contact

Line Dual contact wire or T-bar system, 5000 V insulation system

Same as R.B.D

Major reviews results on design standards are described as follows:

• The Overhead Contact Line (OCL) will distribute electrical power to the Rolling Stock in the tunnels and depot. The OCL in the tunnels will be either an auto tensioned dual contact wire system or a rigid aluminum T-bar. The system will have a nominal current capacity of 3000 amps.

AP4.5 Review of E/M for Signaling System

Differences of signaling system between “Revised Basic Design” and “Review Results” by JICA Study are shown in Table AP 4.5.


• The Signaling system will be a fixed block, modular design to provide vital Interlocking and Automatic Train Protection (ATP) and other non-vital functions. The system will be designed for normal, left hand running only. Single-track operations under revenue service are not planned. Right hand running may be performed in an unsupervised manual mode.


AP 4 - 13

Table AP 4.5 Differences of Revised Basic Design and Review by JICA Study (Signaling System)

Item Revised Design (Phase 1)


Signaling System ATO

(Automatic Train Operation)

-ATO; No such functions but requires local automated train stopping and door opening

Same as R.B.D

ATS (Automatic Train Stop)

-Automatic train supervision; No such features in favor of more simplified locally controlled interlocking at terminal stations and manual regulation

Same as R.B.D

OCC (Operations Control Center)

3 positions Same as R.B.D

Depot Local interlocking equipment and necessary track circuits but eliminates monitoring and control from OCC. All depot operations are under manual control

Same as R.B.D

• Wayside signaling equipment will include electronic audio frequency track circuits suitable for use on continuously welded jointless tracks.

• The Signaling system will provide a route interlocking function to prevent conflicting routes.

• The Signaling system will provide an Automatic Train Protection function to prevent a variety of unsafe train operations. ATP will ensure spacing to keep trains from entering an occupied block and will not permit trains to exceed the maximum authorized speed for given conditions. In addition, ATP will monitor door operations to permit door opening only while the train is stopped and to preclude movement while a door is open.

AP4.6 Review of E/M for Communication System

Differences of Communication system between “Revised Basic Design” and “Review Results” by JICA Study are shown in Table AP 4.6.


• A Public Address (PA) system will be provided in the passenger stations and in the depot building. Passenger station public address will be operated only from the passenger station control room. Speakers will be mounted on the platform and mezzanine levels at roughly 5-meter intervals. A simple amplifier and volume control will be furnished in the passenger station control room. The depot public address system will include similar equipment.


AP 4 - 14

Table AP 4.6 Differences of Revised Basic Design and Review by JICA Study (Communication System)



Communication System

Public Address -Only features in favor of simple local station control

Same as R.B.D

CCTV (Central Control TV)

-No cab mounted monitor and more specifically quantified number of monitors and cameras. Black and white monitors

Same as R.B.D

• The CCTV system will permit the stationmaster to observe facilities such as escalators, ticket halls and public attendance areas on black and white monitors. Fiber optic cables connecting the stations to the OCC will permit observation of passenger station areas by supervisory personnel in the OCC. A wayside mounted monitor will be provided at the head end of each platform to permit the train operator to view the platform, to aid in the door closing operation. A single monitor for each camera will be provided in the passenger station control room. A bank of four monitors will be provided in the OCC adjacent to the power dispatcher’s position. A facility will be provided to enable the power dispatcher to select any camera within the system for viewing. An automatic timed scrolling feature will be provided for normal operation. Cameras will be fixed mounted and will include a zoom feature.

AP4.7 Review of E/M for Safety and Security System

The differences of safety and security system between “Revised Basic Design” and “Review” by JICA Study are shown in Table AP 4.7.

Table AP 4.7 Differences of Revised Basic Design and Review by JICA Study



Platform Screen Door System

-No automatic opening but push button operation

Same as Revised

Safety and Security System

-Automatic voice alarm; No such feature but requires staff to make emergency announcements

Same as Revised


• A Platform Screen Door System (PSD) will be provided on each platform edge to separate the platform area from the track.

• The principal purpose of the PSD system is to reduce the air conditioning load in the passenger stations. Additional benefits include improved cleanliness in the stations and passenger safety.

• Under normal automatic control, the control system unit will determine that the train is properly docked and will provide a doors open enabling signal to


AP 4 - 15

the platform mounted, maintenance interface panel. The maintenance interface panel will transmit the signal to each door control unit, located in the door header box, to open the doors. Local operation of doors will be possible through the use of a key switch in the maintenance interface panel and individual door control units.

• The door control unit will sound an audible alarm on opening and closing doors. Doors will include a programmable obstruction detection feature.

• The closing signal for the doors will originate form a push button in the lead cab or a push button on the platform operated by a platform attendant. Both means will be provide for selective use by the MRT operator.

AP4.8 Mass Transit System in ASEAN Countries

In Jakarta, PT.KAI is responsible for the urban transportation. And also PT.KAI is providing services for mass transit and own the railway network, which is a unique feature of Jakarta urban railway transportation systems compared with ASEAN countries.

a) Manila City

There are three lines now being operated in Manila city: LRT line No.1, running from the north of the city to the south, LRT line No.3 opened at the end of last year. The national railway “PNR” is operating a limited role in urban transportation.

b) Bangkok City

The system called BTS Sky Train started up in December of last year with a BOT basis.

There are two lines operating with a ridership of about 200,000. The national railway “SRT” is also rendering mass transit services with a terminal station in the center of Bangkok City. However, SRT’s share of total trips in the Bangkok metropolitan area is less than one per cent.

c) Kuala Lumpur City

There are two LRT systems operating on a BOT basis, as well as one line of the national railway. As the population of Kuala Lumpur is comparatively small, the role expected of the national railway for urban mass transit services is not comparable with that in other cities.

Table AP 4.8 Railway System of ASEAN Countries

Item

Gauge

Route Length

Electrification Passenger Transport

(Mil. Passenger-km)

Freight Transportation (1,000 tones)

Indonesia 1,067 mm 750 mm

5,961 km 497 km

125 km (1,500kv DC)

15,220 (a) 14,485 (b)

Malaysia 1,000 mm 2,227 km 150 km (25kv 50Hz AC)

1,396 5,400

Philippines 1,067 mm 897 km - - 14 Thailand 1,000 mm 3,865 km - 14,496 7,600

(a): Jane’s World Railways 1998-99 (b): Transportation in Indonesia (April 1999)


AP 4 - 16

Table AP 4.9 Urban Transportation Systems in Major Cities of ASEAN Countries

Item

Population

System (Organizatio

n)

Operator

Route Length

Gauge

Electrificatio

n System

Remarks

Jakarta 8.4 million Jabotabek PT.KAI

160 km

1,067 mm

1,500kv DC Overhead

-

Kuala Lumpur

1.2 million STAR

PUTRA

Private

Private

27 km

29 km

1,435 mm 1,435 mm

750 v DC Bottom

Third Rail

Opened in 1996

Opened in 1998

Manila 8 million Line No.1

Line No.3

LRTA (MRTC)

14 km

17 km

1,435 mm

1,435 mm

750 v DC

Third Rail

Opened in 1984

Opened in 1999

Bangkok 8.6 million BTS (Sky Train)

Private 23 km 1,435 mm 750 v DC Third Rail

Opened in 1999

Jane’s Urban Transport Systems 1998-99 and other Sources

Actually, Jakarta City is somewhat similar to Tokyo in urban Transportation system, otherwise, PT.KAI has long operated a major role in providing mass transit services in aspects of the operating length than another ASEAN Countries.


AP 4 - 26

AP4.9 Review of Transition Trough Section (Opening Section)

Two transition troughs section (opening sections) between underground and viaduct structure are located on JL.Sisingamangaraja (11 k 670 m – 11 k 910 m) and JL.Majapahit (19 k 830 m – 20 k 010 m). As the condition of land use is shown in Figure AP 4.20, the areas of the transition trough section on JL. Sisingamangaraja are almost public lands. It should be considered the difficulty of the land acquisition for the widening road. Perhaps, It should be reviewed the possibilities of the land acquisition such the private lands, or should be reconsidered the plan of vertical gradient of MRT.

LEGEND

: Public Land

: Transition Trough Section

Figure AP4.20 Transition Trough Section on Jl. Sisingamangaraja

AP4-29

The S


aster Plan for JA

BO

TA

BE

K (P

hase I)A

ppendix - Review

of MR

T P

roject


AP 4 - 28

AP4.10 Review of Construction Schedule

Differences of construction schedule between Revised Basic Design and Review by JICA Study are shown in Table AP 4.10.

Table AP 4.10 Differences of Revised Basic Design and Review by JICA Study Item Revised Design

(Phase 1) JICA Study

(Phase 1 : Alternative 3B) Construction Schedule Shield Machine

Operation - 4 units of shield machine, 180 m

/ month production capacity. - Ave. length of excavation per

machine is 2,809 m for D6.06 and 2,872 m for D6.66

Same as Revised

Track Laying Sequence - 1 base in Fatmawati Depot - 2 base in Fatmawati and Dukuh Atas

a) Merits

Shield tunnel construction can be adopted. Shield tunnel is more economical and faster construction method than cut & cover tunnel in the area.

Island-type platform can be adopted. Island-type platform is more convenient for passengers, especially at terminus station. Construction period and cost can be reduced because of the narrower station box width.

b) Demerits

Affect to the historical buildings between Glodok and Kota area in phase 2 (If in case of adopted underground guideway). Since the bored tunnels passing near under the historical buildings, countermeasures not to give damages shall be considered.

c) Shield Machine Operation

Unit cost of Shield Tunnel construction is closely related to the tunneling length per shield machine. In general the longer tunnel construction become more economical as shown in Figure AP 4.21.

It has been provided based on the idea of construction schedule that 2 units of shield machine progressing one way in parallel. The average monthly progress is estimated at 120 - 130m (Basic Design estimation). Therefore, If it will be adopted that parameter on the Basic Design’s schedule, total 4 units of shield machine will be required (In case of Alternative 3B: Refer to Figure AP 4.21).

In addition to above, although the required bigger diameter tunnel is required only between Monas-Sarinah-Bunderan HI sections (1,436m), Basic Design’s schedule extended bigger tunnel section until Dukuh Atas (total 2,094m) due to the machine allocation problem.

Table AP 4.11 Number of Shield Machines by Basic Design Tunnel diameter (m) Number of Shield

Machine Average Tunneling

Length/machine 6.06 2 1,726 m 6.66 2 2,094 m


AP 4 - 29

Unit Cost (M il. US$/km)

55.0

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Tunneling Length (Single Track) / Shield Machine (m)

: Outside Diameter 6.06m Bored Tunnel

Figure AP 4.21 Relation between Unit Cost - Tunneling Length

The recommendation in this study is based on the different idea that shield machine can be turned in a vertical shaft. Therefore, one unit of shield machine is enough to construct a certain length of a pair of shield tunnel with turn - over operation. The average monthly progress is estimated at 180m. This figure is still conservative when considering recent technology. Consequently, the required number of shield machine will be 3, as detailed below.

Table AP 4.12 Number of Shield Machines by JICA Study

Tunnel diameter (m)

Number of Shield Machine

Average Tunneling Length/machine

6.06 2 2,809 m 6.66 1 2,872 m

This construction schedule is shown on the Figure AP 4.22.


AP 4 - 31

AP4.11 Track-Laying Sequence

It is unavoidable causing idle time between track/cable laying and trial/test running operation. In order to minimize this idling time, 2 track-laying bases at both ends of the MRT route, namely Fatmawati Depot and Dukuh Atas, are planned in this recommendation.

Taking into consideration all the aspects of the two sites, the Fatmawati Depot track laying base will be responsible for laying 60% of the track and Dukuh Atas for 40%.

AP4.12 Alignment between Glodok and Kota (In Case of Phase-2)

Basic conditions, which have to be taken into consideration in the construction of this project, are shown in Figure AP 4.23.

The routes between Kota and Glodok stations have been divided into 3 cases.

Basic Design has recommended along river eats site route by underground. However, it seems that no detailed discussion had been made during the selection process. It is obvious that Revised Basic Design has recommended route with Alternative 1 (by Elevated) and Alternative2 (Underground) advantages than Basic Design’s route on the construction aspects.(Refer to Figure AP 4.23)

It should be considered the structure type of Phase 2 between Harmoni and Kota, because of according to Mater plan of Jabotabek Railway in 1981 by JICA Study, it has still been the implementation of railway that Jakarta Kota Station should be removed to Kampung Bandan area as new station. It is necessary to discuss the plan of this issue as soon as possible.


AP 4 - 41

Table AP 4.21 Operation & Maintenance Cost (f21-Net)

(2) f21-Net /2 Minutes Headway(A) (B) (A)+(B) (B)/7.95

Year Max Load Minute of No.of Unit Additional O & M Car Cost + O & M(pax/day Headway & Addiitional Cost Car Cost O & M Cost2 way) (No. of Cars Cost Cost

Cars) (Spare) (Mil.Rp.) (Mil.Rp.) (Mil.Rp.) (Mil.Rp.) (1000 $)

2000 0 02001 0 02002 0 02003 0 02004 0 02005 108,462 0 02006 115,373 0 02007 122,724 0 02008 130,544 10 (30) 30 6 12,562 452,232 121,874 574,106 15,3302009 138,862 0 121,874 121,874 15,3302010 147,710 0 121,874 121,874 15,3302011 157,122 0 121,874 121,874 15,3302012 167,133 7 (42) 12 12,562 150,744 152,049 315,367 19,1262013 177,782 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262014 189,110 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262015 201,160 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262016 213,977 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262017 227,612 6 (48) 6 12,562 75,372 163,268 251,208 20,5372018 242,115 0 163,268 163,268 20,5372019 257,542 0 163,268 163,268 20,5372020 273,951 5 (60) 12 12,562 150,744 183,637 346,955 23,0992021 291,407 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992022 309,975 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992023 329,726 4 (72) 12 12,562 150,744 224,246 387,564 28,2072024 350,735 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072025 373,083 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072026 396,855 3 (96) 24 6 12,562 376,860 269,896 659,348 33,9492027 422,142 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492028 449,040 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492029 477,652 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492030 508,086 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492031 540,461 2 (138) 42 12,562 527,604 269,896 810,104 33,9492032 574,898 30 6 12,562 452,232 362,811 827,641 45,6372033 611,529 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372034 650,494 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372035 691,942 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372036 736,031 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372037 782,929 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372038 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372039 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372040 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372041 787,500 6 12,562 75,372 362,811 450,751 45,6372042 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372043 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372044 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372045 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372046 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372047 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,637

Total 210 18 2,864,136 10,385,546 13,388,056 1,306,358


AP 4 - 42

Table AP 4.22Operation & Maintenance Cost (f26-Net) (3) f26-Net / 2 Minutes Headway

(A) (B) (A)+(B) (B)/7.95Year Max Load Headway No.of Unit Additional O & M Car Cost + O & M

(pax/day Minute and Addiitional Cost Car Cost O & M Cost2 way) (No. of Cars Cost Cost


2000 0 02001 0 02002 0 02003 0 02004 0 02005 103,012 0 02006 109,605 0 02007 116,620 0 02008 124,083 10 (30) 30 6 12,562 452,232 121,874 574,106 15,3302009 132,025 0 121,874 121,874 15,3302010 140,474 0 121,874 121,874 15,3302011 149,464 0 121,874 121,874 15,3302012 159,030 7 (42) 12 12,562 150,744 152,049 315,367 19,1262013 169,208 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262014 180,038 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262015 191,560 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262016 203,820 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262017 216,864 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262018 230,744 6 (48) 6 12,562 75,372 163,268 251,208 20,5372019 245,511 0 163,268 163,268 20,5372020 261,224 0 163,268 163,268 20,5372021 277,943 5 (60) 12 12,562 150,744 183,637 346,955 23,0992022 295,731 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992023 314,658 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992024 334,796 4 (72) 12 12,562 150,744 224,246 387,564 28,2072025 356,223 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072026 379,021 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072027 403,279 3 (96) 24 6 12,562 376,860 269,896 659,348 33,9492028 429,089 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492029 456,550 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492030 485,770 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492031 516,859 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492032 549,938 2 (138) 72 6 12,562 979,836 362,811 1,355,287 45,6372033 585,134 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372034 622,583 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372035 662,428 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372036 704,824 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372037 749,933 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372038 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372039 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372040 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372041 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372042 787,500 6 12,562 75,372 362,811 450,751 45,6372043 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372044 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372045 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372046 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372047 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,637

Total 198 18 2,713,392 10,267,699 13,094,329 1,291,534


AP 4 - 43

Table AP 4.23 Operation & Maintenance Cost (f21-capNet)

(6) f21-capNet / 2 Minutes Headway(A) (B) (A)+(B) (B)/7.95

Year Max Load Headway No.of Unit Additional O & M Car Cost + O & M(pax/day Minute and Addiitional Cost Car Cost O & M Cost2 way) (No. of Cars Cost Cost


2000 0 02001 0 02002 0 02003 0 02004 0 02005 165,613 0 02006 177,445 0 02007 190,122 0 02008 203,705 7 (42) 42 6 12,562 602,976 152,049 755,025 19,1262009 218,258 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262010 233,852 6 (48) 6 12,562 75,372 163,268 251,208 20,5372011 250,559 0 163,268 163,268 20,5372012 268,459 5 (60) 12 12,562 150,744 183,637 346,955 23,0992013 287,639 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992014 308,189 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992015 330,207 4 (72) 12 12,562 150,744 224,246 387,564 28,2072016 353,798 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072017 379,075 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072018 406,157 3 (96) 24 6 12,562 376,860 269,896 659,348 33,9492019 435,174 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492020 466,264 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492021 499,576 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492022 535,267 2 (138) 42 12,562 527,604 362,811 903,019 45,6372023 573,508 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372024 614,482 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372025 658,382 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372026 705,419 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372027 755,817 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372028 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372029 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372030 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372031 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372032 787,500 42 6 12,562 602,976 362,811 978,397 45,6372033 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372034 787,500 6 12,562 75,372 362,811 450,751 45,6372035 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372036 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372037 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372038 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372039 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372040 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372041 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372042 787,500 24 6 12,562 376,860 362,811 752,263 45,6372043 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372044 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372045 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372046 787,500 42 12,562 527,604 362,811 903,019 45,6372047 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,637

Total 276 24 3,768,600 12,366,953 16,273,987 1,555,592


AP 4 - 44

Table AP 4.24 Operation & Maintenance Cost (f26-capNet) (7) f26-capNet / 2 Minutes Headway

(A) (B) (A)+(B) (B)/7.95Year Max Load Headway No.of Unit Additional O & M Car Cost + O & M

(pax/day Minute and Addiitional Cost Car Cost O & M Cost2 way) (No. of Cars Cost Cost


2000 0 02001 0 02002 0 02003 0 02004 0 02005 160,189 0 02006 171,698 0 02007 184,033 0 02008 197,255 7 (42) 42 6 12,562 602,976 152,049 755,025 19,1262009 211,427 0 152,049 152,049 19,1262010 226,616 6 (48) 6 12,562 75,372 163,268 251,208 20,5372011 242,898 0 163,268 163,268 20,5372012 260,348 0 163,268 163,268 20,5372013 279,053 5 (60) 12 12,562 150,744 183,637 346,955 23,0992014 299,101 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992015 320,590 4 (72) 12 12,562 150,744 224,246 387,564 28,2072016 343,623 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072017 368,310 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072018 394,771 3 (96) 24 6 12,562 376,860 269,896 659,348 33,9492019 423,133 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492020 453,533 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492021 486,116 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492022 521,041 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492023 558,475 2 (138) 42 12,562 527,604 362,811 903,019 45,6372024 598,598 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372025 641,604 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372026 687,700 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372027 737,107 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372028 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372029 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372030 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372031 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372032 787,500 42 6 12,562 602,976 362,811 978,397 45,6372033 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372034 787,500 6 12,562 75,372 362,811 450,751 45,6372035 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372036 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372037 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372038 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372039 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372040 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372041 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372042 787,500 24 6 12,562 376,860 362,811 752,263 45,6372043 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372044 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372045 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372046 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372047 787,500 42 12,562 527,604 362,811 903,019 45,637

Total 276 24 3,768,600 12,253,669 16,160,703 1,541,342


AP 4 - 45

Table AP 4.25 Operation & Maintenance Cost (f26-capcomNet)

(8) f26-capcomNet / 2 Minutes Headway(A) (B) (A)+(B) (B)/7.95

Year Max Load Headway No.of Unit Additional O & M Car Cost + O & M(pax/day Minute and Addiitional Cost Car Cost O & M Cost2 way) (No. of Cars Cost Cost


2000 0 02001 0 02002 0 02003 0 02004 0 02005 225,015 0 02006 235,590 0 02007 246,663 0 02008 258,255 6 (48) 48 6 12,562 678,348 163,268 841,616 20,5372009 270,393 5 (60) 12 12,562 150,744 183,637 346,955 23,0992010 283,101 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992011 296,406 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992012 310,337 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992013 324,922 4 (72) 12 12,562 150,744 224,246 387,564 28,2072014 340,193 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072015 356,181 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072016 372,921 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072017 390,447 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072018 408,798 3 (96) 24 6 12,562 376,860 269,896 659,348 33,9492019 428,011 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492020 448,126 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492021 469,187 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492022 491,238 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492023 514,326 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492024 538,498 2 (138) 42 12,562 527,604 362,811 903,019 45,6372025 563,806 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372026 590,304 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372027 618,048 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372028 647,095 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372029 677,507 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372030 709,349 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372031 742,687 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372032 777,592 48 6 12,562 678,348 362,811 1,053,775 45,6372033 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372034 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372035 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372036 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372037 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372038 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372039 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372040 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372041 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372042 787,500 24 6 12,562 376,860 362,811 752,263 45,6372043 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372044 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372045 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372046 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372047 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,637

Total 234 24 3,240,996 12,345,886 15,687,582 1,552,942


AP 4 - 46

Table AP 4.26 Operation & Maintenance Cost (f26-cclNet)

(9) f26-cclNet / 2 Minutes Headway(A) (B) (A)+(B) (B)/7.95

Year Max Load Minute of No.of Unit Additional O & M Car Cost + O & M(pax/day Headway & Addiitional Cost Car Cost O & M Cost2 way) (No. of Cars Cost Cost


2000 0 02001 0 02002 0 02003 0 02004 0 02005 230,888 0 02006 241,635 0 02007 252,882 0 02008 264,653 5 (60) 60 6 12,562 829,092 183,637 1,025,357 23,0992009 276,971 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992010 289,863 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992011 303,355 0 183,637 183,637 23,0992012 317,475 4 (72) 12 12,562 150,744 224,246 387,564 28,2072013 332,252 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072014 347,717 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072015 363,902 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072016 380,840 0 224,246 224,246 28,2072017 398,567 3 (96) 24 6 12,562 376,860 269,896 659,348 33,9492018 417,118 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492019 436,534 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492020 456,852 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492021 478,117 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492022 500,372 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492023 523,662 0 269,896 269,896 33,9492024 548,036 2 (138) 42 12,562 527,604 362,811 903,019 45,6372025 573,545 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372026 600,241 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372027 628,180 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372028 657,419 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372029 688,020 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372030 720,044 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372031 753,559 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372032 787,500 60 6 12,562 829,092 362,811 1,204,531 45,6372033 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372034 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372035 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372036 787,500 12 12,562 150,744 362,811 526,129 45,6372037 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372038 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372039 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372040 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372041 787,500 24 6 12,562 376,860 362,811 752,263 45,6372042 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372043 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372044 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372045 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372046 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,6372047 787,500 0 362,811 362,811 45,637

Total 234 24 3,240,996 12,452,514 15,781,702 1,566,354


AP 4 - 47

AP4.13 Cut-and-Cover and Shield Method

In recent years, a variety of construction methods have been used to meet geological and environmental requirements. These methods, however, can be largely classified into the vertical excavation and horizontal excavation methods.

The vertical excavation method includes the caisson and “sink and bury” methods. Among the horizontal excavation methods are the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NTAM) and pipe roof methods; the most representative method of the former type is the cut-and-cover method and of the latter, the shield method.

These are further subdivisions of both the cut-and-cover and shield methods, depending on the kind of technology used.

The cut-and-cover method is more suitable for construction of comparatively shallow tunnels than the shield method. Construction involving complex configurations can be carried out comparatively easily. Also, the cut-and-cover method makes it easier to cope with changes in the nature of the soil and underground water. In order words, the cut-and-cover method is flexible.

On the other hand, this method has certain disadvantages in that construction costs and required time increase at a rapid rate as the excavation depth increases, and that it obstructs traffic and seriously affects the environment along the route due to use of the land surface.

The shield method is suitable for construction of tunnels with a uniform cross-section. It has the advantages of not involving a great increase in construction time and expenditure with the decrease of excavation depth and having little detrimental effect on the environment.

At present, when constructing subways in urban areas, it has become the general practice to use the cut-and-cover method for the station sections and the shield method for the tunnels connecting the stations. Figure AP 4.24 and 4.25 show the general concepts.

AP4.14 Transition Structures

Transition structures are required where the guideway rises from tunnel to ground level e.g. at the approach to the Depot.

At normal running depth of about 12 m below ground level, the transition structures will be similar in form and construction to a cut and cover tunnel. When the top of the roof rises to within about 1m of ground level the structure will become open topped channel structure.

The deeper parts of the transition structure will be constructed in a retained excavation but open cut methods can be used for the shallower parts.

AP4.15 Stations

The stations will be constructed inside retained excavations approximately 175 meters long by 30 meters (Fatmawati St.) wide and up to 19 meters deep. The considerations which affect the choice of retaining wall are as set out previously


AP 4 - 48

with the additional consideration that the stations will be two level structures (concourse and track/platform level) making a retaining wall which forms part of the permanent works more economically attractive than in the permanent. Diaphragm walls or secant pile walls are preferred for the retaining walls because of their strength, water tightness and durability.

AP4.16 Topography and Geology

The old part of Jakarta was developed on an Alluvial plain in the north, while new areas have been developed in the south, east, and west of the city on a diluvial terrace. As for the Fatmawati – Kota corridor, it is obvious from the schematic soil profile below that the southern half of the corridor (Blok M – Dukuh Atas) is located on the diluvial terrace, which is 10 to 20 m above sea level, while the northern half (Dukuh Atas – Kota) is located on the alluvial plain 1 to 5 m above sea level.

The alluvial plain is extremely flat and slopes gently towards the north, and it consists of marine deposits such as very soft clay, silt clay, and clayey silt. The average thickness of the alluvial deposits is 11 to 12 m, except for a section between Bundaran HI and Monas where a buried valley exists. As for the diluvial terrace, it has more complicated features because of erosion, and it consists of reddish brown lateritic soils that have an average thickness of 10 to 15 m. Finally, the underlying base of Tertiary deposits consists of very stiff to hard cemented silt and clay that is partially weathered.

Appendix to Chapter 5

Table AP 5.1 Comparison of Projected MRT Passenger Demand in the Past Studies

Study Name Abbreviation ITSI TNPR JMTS

Study Name Integrated Transportation System Improvement by Railway and Feeder Service in Jabotabek Area

Transport Network Planning and Regulation

Jakarta Mass Transit System Development and Conceptual Design, Cost, and Implementation for Underground System

Sponsor JICA IBRD US AID

Consultant JARTS Colin Buchanan and Partners Parsons Bricnckerhoff International Agency Ministry of Communication Ministry of Communication BPPT Study Year August, 1990 1990 July, 1993 Year for Demand Forecst 2005 2010 2015 Route Kota - Blok M Kota - Blok M Kota - Fatmawati Max cross-sectional passenger demand per day

425,500 - -

Max cross-sectional passenger demand (pax/peak hour/direction)

20,200 18,000 32,700

Assumption • Improvement of feeder services is proposed

• Parking restraint policy would reduce 10 % of car traffic and road pricing reduce 30 % of traffic demand in the restricted area in the mornign peak period (6:00 - 10:00)

• Jabotabek railway service is to be improved

• It is not explicitly mentioned but fare level is assumed to be the same as Jabotabek railway

• Segregated busway and LRT systems are examined as options

• Bus routes were modified to favor the use of rail.

• The PBI assignments use a neutral fare (rail fare same as bus), although it is likely that rail fares will, for financial reasons, have to be higher than bus fares..

AP5-1

Table AP 5.1 Comparison of Projected MRT Passenger Demand in the Past Studies (- continued)

Study Name Abbreviation Basic Design Revised Basic Design SITRAMP

Study Name Jakarta Mass Rapid Transit System Basic Design

Revised Basic Design Study for Jakarta MRT System

The Study on Integrated Transportation Master Plan for Jabotabek-

Sponsor DKI/IJEG JTCA JICA Consultant Harclow Fox PCI & Almec Corporation PCI & Almec Corporation Agency DKI City Government of Jakarta Ministry of Communication Bappenas Study Year June, 1996 February, 1999 November, 2000 Year for Demand Forecast 2015 2015 2015 Route Fatmawati - Monas Fatmawati - Monas Fatmawati - Monas Max cross-sectional passenger demand per day

- - 202,600

Max cross-sectional passenger demand (pax/peak hour/direction)

26,500 - 16,200 * assuming 16% peak ratio

Daily passenger demand (pax per day)

676,400 * Peak ratio is 9 %

354,700

Annual ridership 202.9 million 184.5 million 106.5 million

Assumption

• Major enhancement measures assumed for the MRT are congestion charging over the wider MRT area and feeder buses.

• Lebak Bulus bus terminal and Fatmawati station are integrated to attract passengers from the south

• Jabotabek railway service is to be improved

Average Fare Level Rp. 1200 (at 1996 price) - Rp. 2150 (at 2000 price) Target Market All public transport users - PATAS AC users

Diversion from other modes of transport

• In the morning peak hour in 2001 from private vehicles is 3 % of the Total MRT demand, or around 1250 of the total peak hour demand.

• The north bound MRT takes around 80 % of the total demand, the south bound split is around 50:50 between bus and MRT.

- • around 5 % of private car users would shift to MRT

• 30 to 40 % of the potential market,

PATAS AC users, would divert to MRT.

AP5-2

Documents

Appendix to Chapter 4 - JICA報告書PDF版(JICA Report PDF)