Commuter Exposure to Particulate Matter (PM10) in

Jakarta, Indonesia
Extended Abstract # 688

Hernani Yulinawati1, Peter Flachsbart1, Sumeet Saksena2

1
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 2424
Maile Way # 107, Honolulu, HI 96822, hernani@hawaii.edu
2
East-West Center, 1601 East-West Rd., Honolulu, HI 96848

INTRODUCTION

In Jakarta, traffic congestion and air pollution are everyday life issues. Air pollution
seems getting worst, only 28 days in 2005 and 45 days in 2006 were categorized as
‘good’ air quality. For the last 30 years, acute respiratory infection has been the highest
rate at 48%. About 70% of air pollutions are contributed by the transport sector, mainly
from motor vehicle’s emissions due to rapid motorization. From total of four millions
registered motor vehicles in Jakarta, 55.4% are motorcycles, 29.4% are passenger cars,
8.9% are cargo cars, and 6.3% are buses.1 However, 49.3% of total motorized trips were
made by public transport, 24.5% by private cars, and 26.2% by motorcycle in 1998.2
Therefore, although public transport plays a major role in enabling people’s mobility in
Jakarta, the provision is inadequate in terms of both fleet size and service quality.

To address these problems, Jakarta currently is making substantial changes to its

transportation system, such as the establishment of a bus rapid transit (BRT) system, an
ongoing monorail construction, and various traffic management interventions (i.e., ‘3-in-
1’ policy that requires at least three passengers in private car during peak hours at 7a.m.-
10a.m. and 4:30p.m.-7p.m. on certain roads). In January 15, 2004, Jakarta opened Asia’s
first fully closed, Bogota-style BRT corridor, which called TransJakarta Busway. This
12.9-km exclusive bus lane connects the main North-South corridor, the city’s Blok M
bus station (South Jakarta) to the Kota railway station (North Jakarta), running along one
of Jakarta’s most congested thoroughfares and concentrations of important government
and business offices, and major hotels and commercials. A 2007 report from Institute for
Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) indicated that travel time in Blok M –
Kota corridor before and after TransJakarta Busway has been improved 53.61% from 1
hour 37 minutes to 45 minutes in average for both ways.3

In early 2007, TransJakarta Busway was expanded to seven corridors (more than 120 km
in total) making it Asia’s largest BRT. A 2007 ITDP report indicated that 14% of
TransJakarta Busway riders previously used cars and 9% were motorcycle riders. This
data show the increasing number of people alter to TransJakarta Busway from an early
survey after the six months of implementation, only 7.6% were private car users and
2.2% motorcycle riders.4 There is growing interest in BRT systems across Asia. It is
expected that BRT systems will improve air quality and make cities more livable.

1
Previous studies in other cities indicated that public transit systems could reduce the
exposures of transit riders to mobile source emissions. This study objective was to
determine if the TransJakarta Busway reduced personal exposure to mobile source
emissions. This study took measurements of the particulate matter diameter less than
10m (PM10) exposure of busway commuters with other commuters who traveled
simultaneously by either car or motorcycle in the Blok M – Kota corridor.

METHODS

This study was designed to simulate of the “real” people who commute in Blok M – Kota
corridor using indirect approach. In this approach, trained technicians use calibrated
portable monitors to measure PM10 concentration in specific microenvironments5. The
East-West Center provided two personal exposure monitors of PM10 for this study. The
type of monitor was a light scattering MIE pDRAM (personal Data-logging Real-time
Aerosol Monitor) 1000 nephelometer. The instruments were operated passively and were
calibrated before and after the survey. A one-time, dual monitors precision test was also
conducted. The microenvironments were three different modes of transportation:
automobile (gasoline, AC), busway (diesel Euro 2 compliant, AC, 85 passengers
capacity), and motorcycle (gasoline, four strokes).

The study site extends from south (Blok M) to north (Kota) of Jakarta, a 12.9-km distance
(Figure 1). Regarding the limitation number of instruments, the intermodal comparison
was conducted in two groups simultaneously between: (1) automobile vs. busway and (2)
motorcycle vs. busway.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of sampling site

slow lane motorcycle

fast lane automobile

BLOK M KOTA
busway
(South (North
busway
Jakarta) Jakarta)
automobile fast lane

motorcycle slow lane

12.9 KM

The surveys were conducted during various times of the weekdays (include ‘3-in-1’ and
‘non-3-in-1’ periods) and the weekends in July 2006. Surveyors took simultaneous trips
by automobile, busway, and motorcycle along Blok M – Kota corridor. For this study,
‘simultaneous’ meant that surveyor in different vehicles had to be within 15 minutes of
each other as they entered lanes under comparison; the choice of 15 minutes, while
arbitrary, was a compromise between good scientific method and practicality.6 This
study used cellular phone communication to make sure the trips were simultaneous.

2
The hypothesis was that TransJakarta Busway reduced personal exposure. The
significance level for rejecting this hypothesis was defined at α = 0.05 for a one-tail test.
For intermodal comparison, t-test was used for normally distributed data, while Wilcoxon
z-value was used for data that were not normally distributed. The SAS 9.1 statistical
software was used to calculate both t and z value using the t-test and the Npar1way test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The mean PM10 concentration in overall was found to be the lowest in automobile
(53µg/m3) and was followed by busway (90 – 112µg/m3), and was the highest in
motorcycle (272µg/m3) as predicted. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the statistical
results of PM10 for intermodal comparison. Although the study was designed to represent
various sampling periods, the mean PM10 concentrations for busway exposure were likely
to be higher in Table 2 (except for weekends) because the traffic conditions were
unpredictable in the Blok M – Kota corridor. This is also the reason that the mean PM10
concentrations during weekends were likely to be higher than weekdays for all type of
transportation modes. Congestions during weekends are usual due to a lot of malls and
amusement sites along this corridor.

Table 1. Mean PM10 concentration, Table 2. Mean PM10 concentration,

Automobile vs. Busway Motorcycle vs. Busway

Sampling N Mean SD T-test or Sampling N Mean SD T-test or

Period and PM10 Wilcoxon Period and PM10 Wilcoxon
Travel Conc. Value Travel Conc. Value
Mode (g/m3) (one-tail Mode (g/m3) (one-tail
probability) probability)
1. OVERALL 1. OVERALL
Automobile 42 53 46 1360 Motorcycle 42 272 116 1028
Busway 42 90 48 (<0.0001) Busway 42 112 60 (<0.0001)
2. WEEKDAYS 2. WEEKDAYS
Automobile 32 41 40 734 Motorcycle 30 263 108 537
Busway 32 82 48 (<0.0001) Busway 30 111 68 (<0.0001)
a) 3in1 (7-10a.m.; 4:30-7p.m.) a) 3in1 (7-10a.m.; 4:30-7p.m.)
Automobile 12 67 45 123 Motorcycle 15 272 69 133.5
Busway 12 88 41 (0.0628) Busway 15 119 73 (<0.0001)
b) Non-3in1 b) Non-3in1
Automobile 20 25 27 256.5 Motorcycle 15 253 139 144
Busway 20 79 52 (<0.0001) Busway 15 103 63 (0.0001)
3. WEEKENDS 3. WEEKENDS
Automobile 10 92 45 t = −1.21 Motorcycle 12 295 137 t = −4.39
Busway 10 115 39 (0.2404) Busway 12 116 34 (0.0008)

Table 3 and Table 4 summarize the travel time and PM10 exposure of commuting Blok M
– Kota corridor. In overall, the mean travel times of commuting were 49 minutes (n = 42
automobile trips), 40-43 minutes (n = 84 busway trips), and 40 minutes (n = 42
motorcycle trips). Commuting by busway was faster than by automobile, but was about
the same as by motorcycle. However, the PM10 exposure to commuters in automobile

3
(2,597µg/m3-minutes) was less than in busway (3,870 – 4,480µg/m3-minutes) and in
motorcycle (10,880 µg/m3-minutes).

Table 3. PM10 exposure, Table 4. PM10 exposure,

Automobile vs. Busway Motorcycle vs. Busway

Sampling Mean Mean PM10 Sampling Mean Mean PM10

Period and Travel PM10 Exposure Period and Travel PM10 Exposure
Travel Time Conc. (µg/m3- Travel Time Conc. (µg/m3-
Mode (minutes) (µg/m3) minutes) Mode (minutes) (µg/m3) minutes)
1. OVERALL 1. OVERALL
Automobile 49 53 2,597 Motorcycle 40 272 10,880
Busway 43 90 3,870 Busway 40 112 4,480
2. WEEKDAYS 2. WEEKDAYS
Automobile 50 41 2,050 Motorcycle 41 263 10,783
Busway 43 82 3,526 Busway 41 111 4,551
a) 3in1 (7-10a.m.; 4:30-7p.m.) a) 3in1 (7-10a.m.; 4:30-7p.m.)
Automobile 44 67 2,948 Motorcycle 40 272 10,880
Busway 43 88 3,784 Busway 40 119 4,760
b) Non-3in1 b) Non-3in1
Automobile 54 25 1,350 Motorcycle 43 253 10,879
Busway 43 79 3,397 Busway 41 103 4,223
3. WEEKENDS 3. WEEKENDS
Automobile 43 92 3,956 Motorcycle 38 295 11,210
Busway 41 115 4,715 Busway 38 116 4,408

For simultaneous commuter trips made by automobile vs. busway, travel time differences
in overall and during weekdays were statistically significant. Busway was 6-7 minutes
faster than automobile. However, during ‘3-in-1’ (peak hours), travel time difference was
not significant. In contrary, during ‘non-3-in-1’ (non-peak hours), the difference in travel
times was significant, commuters spent 11 minutes less by busway than by automobile.
The road becomes more congested with automobiles during ‘non-3-in-1’, while the
busway runs smoothly in its own exclusive lane. During weekends, there were no
significant differences in travel time and PM10 exposure.

The differences for PM10 exposure were statistically significant between automobile and
busway in overall and during weekdays. Exposure to PM10 was higher in busway than in
automobile. Therefore, although less travel time commuting by busway, the PM10
exposures in busway were double than in automobile. The type of engine and road
material construction may have influences on these. Similar to travel time results, the
difference for PM10 exposure was not significant during ‘3-in-1’, but was significant
during ‘non-3-in-1’.

For simultaneous commuter trips made by motorcycle vs. busway, travel time differences
were not statistically significant in overall and at any sampling period, but exposures to
PM10 were very significant. People commuting by motorcycle had PM10 exposures
double than by busway.

4
The Mexico City exposure study found even though the commuting times were reduced,
differences in personal PM10 exposures did not differ significantly between the diesel bus
and BRT metrobus, or no significant reduction for PM10 with BRT system, while
personal PM2.5 exposures were significantly reduced.7 The higher PM10 exposures in
busway than in automobile can be related to the number of stops and speeds below 26
km/hr that increased in-vehicle levels of PM;8 loading/unloading points;9 re-suspension
of dust from the bus' floor due to the passengers moving around or taking a seat;10 poor
vehicle emission control and maintenance, plus the slow moving traffic condition with
frequent stops are believed to be the major causes of high in-vehicle levels in some public
commuting trips.11 For TransJakarta Busway, there are 18 stops for loading /unloading
passengers and several red-lights in Blok M – Kota corridor. Air interaction between
outdoor and inside the busway during stops might be considered for further study.

SUMMARY

This study showed that overall travel time commuting from Blok M to Kota by busway
was faster than by automobile, but was about the same as by motorcycle. However, the
PM10 exposures were higher in busway (90 – 112µg/m3) than in automobile (53µg/m3).
The interesting findings were the differences of travel time and PM10 exposures between
automobile and busway during ‘3-in-1’ and ‘non-3-in-1’ periods; and the PM10
concentration in all three travel modes were likely to by higher during weekends than
weekdays. As expected, exposures of PM10 to motorcycle riders were the highest
(272µg/m3), were double than busway exposures. There is no air quality guideline for 1-
hr PM10 exposure, but new WHO guidelines limiting 50g/m3 for 24-hr exposure.12
Individuals who change their travel mode from car to busway in response to policies
aimed at encouraging modal shift in travel behavior are thus likely to experience
considerably increased journey-time personal exposures to PM10 . In contrary, shifting
from motorcycle to busway is encouraging.

Since this study was conducted when only three corridors were operated and given that
the final plan of TransJakarta Busway network system in 2010 with total 15 corridors, a
more in-depth exposure study is needed in the future to evaluate the impacts of occurring
rapid changes in Jakarta’s transportation system and the fast growing number of
motorcycles (more than 50% of the vehicle fleet). Additional PM2.5 exposure study will
be appropriate since it is more related with traffic emission than PM10.13 These studies
will give more inputs to decision-makers to what best to place in the system (i.e. cleaner
buses, proper bus inspection and maintenance, road material construction) to maximize
the benefits of TransJakarta Busway to city’s air quality and the health of the people.

REFERENCES
1. Ditlantas Polda Metro Jaya (Jakarta Police Traffic Directorate): Registered Motor
Vehicles 2002. See http://bps.jakarta.go.id/P3_Stat/P3B_Transpor/P3B21_tabel1.htm
(accessed November 2006)

5
2. TransJakarta Busway Project: Technical Review. Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy (ITDP), 2003.

3. Indonesia and India Livable Cities Project and Prioritizing Low and Zero Emission
Vehicles for Africa. ITDP, 2007.

4. Survey of Busway Passengers. Indonesian Network for Sustainable Transport, 2004.

5. Flachsbart, P. In Exposure Analysis; Ott, W., Steinemann, A., Wallace, L. (Eds).;

CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2007; pp 113−146.

6. Flachsbart, P. Institute of Transportation Engineers J. 1989, 59, 41−45.

7. Zuk, M. Reducing Personal Exposure to Reducing Air Pollution in Mexico City: The
Benefits of the Metrobus BRT System. Biannual Conference of the Clean Air Initiative
for Latin American Cities, 2006.

8. Alm, S.; Jantunen, M.J.; Vartiainen, M. J. Exposure Analysis & Environmental

Epidemiology. 1999, 9, 237−244.

9. Hammond, D.; Jones, S.; Lalor, M. Environ Monit Assess. 2007, 125, 239–246.

10. Praml, G.; Schierl, R. International Archives of Occupational & Environmental

Health. 2000, 73, 209–214.

11. Chan, L.Y.; Lau, W.L.; Zhou, S.C.; Cao, Z.X.; Lai, S.C. Atmospheric Environment.
2002, 36, 5831−5840.

12. WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and
Sulfur Dioxide: Global Update 2005 – Summary of Risk Assessment. World Health
Organization: Geneva, 2006; WHO/SDE/PHE/OEH/06.02.

13. Han, X.; Naeher, L.P. Environment International. 2006, 32, 106-120.

KEY WORDS

In-vehicle exposure, particulate matter (PM10), commuter, Jakarta.