The Dilemma: Pros and Cons of Limiting
Number of Motorized Vehicles
Admit it: aside from being remarkably recognized for its
cultural diversity and the gorgeous landscapes across the country, Indonesia is
now notoriously known with its incurable, extremely severe traffic jams. Almost
all of big cities in Indonesia, for instance, Jakarta, Bandung, Malang,
Surabaya, Semarang, Jogjakarta, etc. have suffered from traffic congestions in
daily basis. This is worsened by the absence of well-structured and
environment-friendly mass transportation system such as
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and monorail, which has been carried out in neighboring
countries like Singapore and Malaysia. Indonesia does have urban public modes
of transportation e.g. public buses, inter-city trains and commuter; but they,
in fact, are not entirely satisfactory due to the ineffective system and
inconvenient facilities. The dissatisfaction rising from the not
well-functioned public transportation has led many Indonesians to use private
cars and motorcycles to commute. According the data from Indonesian Central
Bureau of Statistics, by December 2013, the number of motorized vehicles
reached 104 million: motorcycles
are around 86 million with and cars around 10.5 million (Santoso, 2014). Imagine
if one family has, at least, two motorcycles and a car to support their
mobility; Indonesia will be overpopulated—not
only by humans, but also by motorized vehicles. Furthermore, from a total of 1.919.443
km2 of land, only 502 km of roads are available. Thus, the demands
of cars and motorcycles, which are continuously growing over the years, fail to
meet the capacity of the road—and this results in traffic congestions. Based on
the abovementioned statistics, the only logical and practical solution to the situation
is to limit the number of motorized vehicles in all cities congested with
traffic jams. The idea is supposedly advantageous to prevent the crisis from worsening
and to diminish the perils of traffic e.g. gas emission and traffic accidents; on
the other hand, there will be some drawbacks to the automotive industry in
Indonesia, as well as the decreasing income from the tax for vehicles
ownerships.
The first advantage of limiting the number of vehicles
ownerships is that it will be very effective than any other methods in the
short run; and it also prevents the number of accidents and air pollution. Suppose
the government starts to develop a new mass transportation infrastructure, it
is going to take at least four to five years until it can be fully functioned.
See, for instance, the case of Jakarta Monorail, initiated by Jakarta’s former
governor Sutiyoso in 2004 yet abandoned in 2008, but then resumed by Joko
Widodo in 2013, is planned to be completed in 2017. It is hardly possible to
wait while knowing the fact that the growth rate of vehicles reaches approximately 20% (Santoso, 2014). This
uncontrollable number of vehicles may be the main cause of country’s total
gridlock in the few upcoming years—only if the government didn’t take any
countermeasure besides developing an effective mode of transport. Moreover,
Soehodho (2007) stated that the imbalance of vehicles and road growth is
interrelated with the frequency of traffic accidents. In 2013, the number of
accidents has reached 26.464
cases with the number of fatalities is around 31.000—and motorcycles, unfortunately, play the
biggest role in it (Santosa, 2014). In reflecting on these facts, the
government needs to come up with perfect and logical strategies to tackle the
problems, such as to set up a law regulating minimal number of only two
motorized vehicles in a family. Moreover, it is best to limit the use of
motorized vehicles in certain crowded areas like downtown. Then, to support this regulation, the government can restrict the use of
motorized vehicles for long-distance e.g. up to 30 km travel only; and any
environment-friendly schemes like Bike to Work must be socialized and encouraged
for people who travel below 30 km a day. When all of these options are carried
out, the benefits will kick in no time. In many developed countries, limiting
number of vehicles has been proven to contribute a better air quality. Thus, I
believe, by performing it, people in big cities would not suffer anymore from
air pollutions coming from gas emission e.g. CO and CO2.
Nevertheless, ideally,
any idea also has its drawbacks; and in this case, if we were to carry this
plan out, we would have to deal with the decreasing number of cars sales that
contribute a lot to the tax. The fact is that Indonesia is the second biggest South-East Asian automotive producer
with more than 1,200,000 products per year, and most of them are from Japanese
and Korean manufacturers. As
of 2012, a well-known Japanese automotive manufacturer has had 100 dealers
across Indonesia, and they have targeted to have more than 150 in 2014—and
certainly, there are more than one manufacturer planning the same. This fact,
in one side, is good news for Indonesian government who receives tax incentive
from the ownerships of the cars. Nonetheless, if we were to limit the number of
vehicles owned by citizens, the tax income will consequently decrease. Not to
mention if the vehicles sales rate is down and the company takes a
countermeasure to handle the fall in profits by dismissing some percents of the
workers, we can calculate how many people in this industry will be unemployed.
However, if we are to look other countries, Singapore for instance, that have
succeeded in solving the traffic mayhems, we can underline some crucial points.
Instead of limiting the number, or providing cheap cars like what is
implemented in Indonesia, they raise the price of vehicles and also the taxes; only
high-class consumers can afford to own private vehicles. By implementing this
system, the government could handle the problem of unemployment and decreasing
ownership tax.
To conclude, there are indubitably pros and cons regarding
the plan of limiting number of vehicles ownership in Indonesia. Carrying out
this plan needs deep considerations and careful preparations so it will succeed
in solving the severe traffic problems in this country. Nevertheless, the
government must take quick and bold decisions so later in the future people
would not need to wait for ages to move from one place to another.
Annisa Lista Sari
Discussion Public Essay
References:
Bisma, P.Y. 2013. ‘Traffic misery: We are not moving anywhere.’ The Jakarta Post, January 12, 2013.
Santosa,
P.S. 2014. Road and Passenger Car Safety
in Indonesia. A presentation presented in New Car Assessment Program for
Southeast Asia (ASEAN NCAP).
Soehodho, S.
2007. Motorization in Indonesia and its Impact to Traffic Accidents. Retrieved from www.iatss.or.jp/common/pdf/en/publication/iatss-research/31-2-03.pdf
Wardhani, A.D. 2015. ‘Jakarta to cancel monorail
construction.’ The Jakarta Post, January
13, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment