integrated urban road safety program - indii - home page · boq bill of quantities ... ded detailed...

Integrated Urban Road Safety Program Inception Report – Milestone Report 1

INDONESIA INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE

Integrated Urban Road Safety Program (Milestone Report # 1)

INCEPTION REPORT

July 2014

September 2014 (Version 3.1)

INDONESIA INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE

This document has been published by the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII), an Australian Government funded project designed to promote economic growth in Indonesia by enhancing the relevance, quality and quantum of infrastructure investment.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australia Indonesia Partnership or the Australian Government. Please direct any comments or questions to the IndII Director, tel. +62 (21) 7278-0538, fax +62 (21) 7278-0539. Website: www.indii.co.id.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report has been prepared by Jim Jarvis, Project Team Leader, who was engaged under the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII), funded by AusAID, as part of the ActivityT281.02.

The support provided by the IndII Jakarta Office and members of various Indonesian Agencies is gratefully acknowledged. Any errors of fact or interpretation are solely those of the author.

Jim Jarvis Team Leader/Road Safety Specialist, IndII Activity T281.02 VicRoads International Projects Jakarta

© IndII 2014

All original intellectual property contained within this document is the property of the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII). It can be used freely without attribution by consultants and IndII partners in preparing IndII documents, reports designs and plans; it can also be used freely by other agencies or organisations, provided attribution is given.

Every attempt has been made to ensure that referenced documents within this publication have been correctly attributed. However, IndII would value being advised of any corrections required, or advice concerning source documents and/ or updated data.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... VII

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 1

1.2 PURPOSE OF REPORT ....................................................................... 1

1.3 INCEPTION PERIOD........................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2: MOBILISATION ...................................................................................... 3

2.1 ACCOMMODATION .......................................................................... 3

2.2 STAFF ........................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 3: MEETINGS HELD .................................................................................... 4

3.1 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF LAND TRANSPORT ........................................ 4

3.2 GLOBAL ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP ................................................... 4

3.3 DIRECTORATE OF URBAN TRANSPORT (BSTP) ........................................ 5

3.4 NATIONAL ADVISOR, PROFESSOR LEKSMONO SURYO PUTRANTO ................ 5

3.5 PROJECT ‘KICK OFF” MEETING, BAPPENAS ............................................ 6

3.6 PRE BRIEFING SEMINAR MEETING ....................................................... 7

3.7 MEETING WITH PROMOTION AND PARTNERSHIPS DIRECTORATE OF LAND

TRANSPORT SAFETY ......................................................................... 8

3.8 POST BRIEFING SEMINAR MEETING...................................................... 9

CHAPTER 4: FIELD TRIPS ......................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 5: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE IURSP AND ACTIVITY TASKS .................. 13

5.1 IURSP OBJECTIVES ........................................................................ 13

5.2 ACTIVITY TASKS ............................................................................ 14

CHAPTER 6: THE BRIEFING SEMINAR....................................................................... 16

6.1 PURPOSE OF THE SEMINAR .............................................................. 16

6.2 SEMINAR ARRANGEMENTS .............................................................. 16

6.3 SEMINAR PROGRAM ...................................................................... 17

6.4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER 7: TECHNICAL SEMINAR PREPARATIONS .................................................. 20

CHAPTER 8: WORK PLAN AND STAFFING SCHEDULE ................................................ 22

CHAPTER 9: THE NEXT STEPS .................................................................................. 23

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................... 24

ANNEXE 1: DIRECTORATE OF LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY ................................. 24

ANNEXE 2: GLOBAL ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP........................................... 26

ii

ANNEXE 3: DIRECTORATE OF URBAN TRANSPORT (BSTP) ................................ 28

ANNEXE 4: MIN. OF TRANSPORT (BAPPENAS) KICK OFF MEETING .................... 30

ANNEXE 5: PRE BRIEFING SEMINAR MEETING .............................................. 33

ANNEXE 6: POST BRIEFING SEMINAR MEETING ............................................. 37

ANNEXE 7: COMBINED ACTIVITY COMPONENTS A AND B ................................ 39

ANNEXE 8: BRIEFING SEMINAR ATTENDEES .................................................. 43

ANNEXE 9: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND SUBSEQUENT TOR .............................. 46

ANNEXE 10: WORK PLAN .......................................................................... 64

ANNEXE 11: STAFF SCHEDULE .................................................................... 65

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1 Motorcycle helmet wearing ........................................................................... 10

Figure 4-2 Local small bus services ................................................................................. 11

Figure 4-3 Use of central medians .................................................................................. 11

Figure 4-4 Roadside friction ............................................................................................ 12

Figure 4-5 Speed zoning .................................................................................................. 12

Figure 6-1 Briefing Seminar Program .............................................................................. 17

iv

ACRONYMS, TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AIP Australia Indonesia Program

APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara, or National Budget

Bintek Direktorat Bina Teknik, or Directorate of Technical Affairs

BIP Bus Improvement Program

BoQ Bill of Quantities (Daftar Kuantitas)

BSM Black Spot Management (Pemgelolaan kawason rawan kecelakaan)

BSTP Directorate of Urban Transport

COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf

DAK Dana Alokasi Khusus, or Special allocation fund

DED Detailed Engineering Design

DGH Directorate General of Highways

DGLT Directorate General of Land Transport

FFM Fact Finding Mission

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GIS Geographic Information System

GoI Government of Indonesia

GPS Global Positioning Satellite (coordinates)

Hawkeye Vehicle equipped with lasers for measuring road surface condition, gps meters for reporting location and road alignment data, and cameras for recording the physical condition of the road and roadsides and the presence of road

v

users

IndII Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative

InPres 04/2013 Instruksi Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 04 Tahun 2013, or Presidential Instruction 04/2013 ()

IMTDP Indonesian Medium Term Development Plan (RPJM)

iRAP International Road Assessment Programme

(iRAP is a road inventory process and a registered organisation)

IRE Institute of Road Engineering, Ministry of Public Works, Bandung (Pusjatan)

IRMS Integrated Road Management System

IRSMS Integrated Road Safety Management System

ITSAP Indonesian Transport Safety Assistance Package

Jalan Nasional National Highway

Kasubdit TLKJ Sub-director of the Subdit TLKJ

KNKT Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi, or National Transportation Safety Committee

Korlantas Korps Lalu Lintas Polri, or National Traffic Police

KTD Directorate of Land Transport Safety

MIROS Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research

OS Operating System

P2JN Province based Unit for the Planning and Supervision of the National Road network (Perencanaan dan Pengawasan Jalan Nasional)

Perhubungan Ministry of Transportation (Kementerian Perhubungan)

Provincial Transport Agency (Dinas Perhubungan)

PU 19/2011 Public Works Decree 19/PRT/M/2011, Technical Standards and Design Criteria for Roads (Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Nomor : 19/PRT/M/2011, Persyaratan Teknis Jalan Dan Kriteria Perencanaan Teknis Jalan)

vi

Pusjatan Centre for the Research and Development of Roads and Bridges, IRE (Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Jalan dan Jembatan)

RCIS Road Crash Information System

RENSTRA Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Public Works, 2010-2014 (Rencana Strategis (Renstra) Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum 2010-2014)

RS Road Safety

RSEU Road Safety Engineering Unit (a technical unit comprised of Subdit TLKJ and IndII personnel)

RSI Road Safety Inspection (Pemeriksaan keselamatan jalan)

RTTF Regional Traffic and Transportation Forum

RUNK Jalan National Road Safety Master Plan 2011-2035 (Rencana Umum Nasional Keselamatan Jalan 2011-2035)

Subdit TLKJ Technical Sub-directorate Environment and Road Safety (Sub-Direktorat Teknik Lingkungan dan Keselamatan Jalan)

ViDA A platform for reporting the outcomes of the iRAP road inventory process

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Indonesia’s National Road Safety Master Plan (NRSMP), or Rencana Umum Nasional Keselamatan (RUNK) Jalan, was produced in response to the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. In 2013, the Presidential Instruction (InPres) 4/2013 was decreed by the President and renewed the country’s commitment to road safety. The Instruction closely reflected RUNK, set out a plan for the next five years, with specific actions and responsibilities. Given there has been little progress in road safety development at both the National and Provincial level, it is not surprising that Local Government (LG) has, to date, generally shown little commitment to road safety. The need to demonstrate how to prepare urban road safety plans at the local level will best be achieved by a transfer of knowledge (learning by doing) and a commitment to sustainable development. This is best done through practical involvement in road safety activities and the current project will assist with the development of Road Safety Action Plans in four demonstration cities, selected from 10 candidate cities which have proposed their city for inclusion in the project.

The Integrated Urban Road Safety Program (IURSP) is structured as two components, namely Advisory Assistance and Pilot Projects Design Assistance to four cities. This project Inception Report covers the programs of both components of the IURSP. It reviews the project goals and objectives; outlines mobilisation arrangements; incorporates any changes to key assumptions which have surfaced during initial discussions with Government of Indonesia (GoI) agencies and other major stakeholders, particularly considering any relevant changes, delays or other circumstances that may have occurred since the project methodology and work program were developed.

The project mobilised on 19May 2014, with the arrival in Jakarta of the Team Leader (Advisory)/Road Safety Specialist. The leader of the design team was already in Jakarta on other duties, so was able to provide initial help and advice during mobilisation and initial project set up. The project’s International Road Safety Specialist joined the team on 9 June 2014 and a number of meetings were held with government and non-government agencies over the inception period.

A number of meetings were held with government and non-government agencies. Since at least some of the discussion at meetings was held in Bahasa, a local member of IndII kindly agreed to prepare Minutes of Meeting which would ensure there was a record of all useful discussion at the meetings. Minutes of all the meetings held are provided in the Annexes of the report. Meetings were held with:

Directorate General of Land Transport

Global Road Safety Partnership

Directorate of Urban Transport

A ‘Kick Off’ Meeting at the Ministry of Transportation

viii

Promotion and Partnerships Directorate of Land Transport Safety

A number of other meetings were held to arrange seminars and develop materials for use in the program.

The main outcomes from the meetings were a greater understanding of the current road safety situation in Indonesia, and current conditions at the LG level.

It was also noted that the proposed seminar to assist with the selection of successful cities was too early in the project timeline and should be delayed to allow candidate cities adequate time to prepare. It was suggested that the original seminar arrangements should be used for a Briefing Seminar to assist candidate cities to prepare their proposals.

The briefing seminar was held to provide background information and guidance to the candidate cities to assist them in the preparation of their proposals in advance of a technical seminar at which they would present the outcomes of their proposal development, and receive feedback to allow improvement of proposals if required.

The briefing seminar for candidate cities was held on Thursday 26 June 2014, in Jakarta. The program included:

Introduction and background to Road Safety Best Practice

Introduction to IURSP, and

Funding and budget allocation

These information sessions were followed by two interactive sessions which covered Project Development, and the Assessment and Selection Process. These interactive sessions provided discussion and feedback from representatives of the candidate cities.

There had been discussion of the use of common projects by the four selected cities. However, the general feeling was that adoption of these common themes would skew the approach of cities which would not be able to identify their most pressing road safety problems within such constraints. It was decided to encourage one major area or corridor based program, incorporating specific projects as required.

During discussion there were many questions about funding for the road safety proposals. The point was made that although funding would not be part of the present program there may be opportunities in the future, and assistance to gain funding would be given to the successful cities.

Processes were developed to assist the candidate cities with preparation of their proposals in appropriate format and to meet the needs of the technical seminar. It also included an outline of what information would be required on the previous road safety activities of the individual cities. A “Selection Criteria” document was also provided to be used by the selection committee for assessment of the proposals.

ix

A work plan and staff schedule was developed which reflected the changes to the program brought about by the additional seminar, allowing adequate development time for road safety proposals, and meeting the needs of the timetabling of the agencies concerned.

INTEGRATED ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM Inception Report

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Indonesia’s National Road Safety Master Plan (NRSMP), or Rencana Umum Nasional Keselamatan (RUNK) Jalan, was produced in response to the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. The plan had five year targets to 2035 and is based on the Safe System approach. Although the NRSMP has not been endorsed by the Government it provides a useful guide for the development of road safety in Indonesia.

In 2013, the Presidential Instruction (InPres) 4/2013 was decreed by the President and renewed the country’s commitment to road safety. The Instruction closely reflected RUNK, set out a plan for the next 5 years, with specific actions and responsibilities.

Given there has been little progress in road safety development at both the National and Provincial level, it is not surprising that Local Government has, to date, generally shown little commitment to road safety, with such activity seen as a cost rather than an investment. The Ministry of Transport saw the difficulties facing Local Government as including:

Need for clear advice on road safety program designs

Lack of suitable, trained personnel

Low budgets and low Road Safety priorities, and

Poor coordination between central and local government

This led to the development (and implementation) of Local Government based action plans being seen as a priority.

There being a need to demonstrate how to prepare urban road safety plans at the local level this will best be achieved by a transfer of knowledge and a commitment to sustainable development. This is best done through practical involvement in road safety activities and the current project will assist with the development of Road Safety Action Plans in four demonstration cities, selected from ten candidate cities which have proposed their city for inclusion in the project.

1.2 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The Integrated Urban Road Safety Program (IURSP) is structured as two components, namely Advisory Assistance and Pilot Projects Design Assistance to Four Cities. This led to the foundation (and activities) of two teams: an Advisory Team basically responsible for the identification and setting up of the four cities and their projects, and the Design Team which will assist the four cities to develop their proposals.

2


This project Inception Report covers the programs of both components of the IURSP. It reviews the project goals and objectives; outlines mobilisation arrangements; incorporates any changes to key assumptions which have surfaced during initial discussions with the Government of Indonesia agencies and other major stakeholders, particularly considering any relevant changes, delays or other circumstances that may have occurred since the project methodology and work program were developed. The report looks at the current circumstances surrounding the conduct of the initial seminar for candidate cities, and makes recommendations for the use of two seminars to allow adequate time for cities to develop proposals through which they will be selected. The project methodology and work program in the VicRoads proposal is generally considered to still guide the activities of the project in the longer term, but this report contains a revised program reflecting the circumstances found, and sets out an alternative work schedule and timing of activities for the initial stages of the project.

1.3 INCEPTION PERIOD

It had initially been hoped that the Inception Report could be completed by the end of May 2014, but with a project start in mid- May it was agreed that the inception period should be extended to the third week in June to allow adequate time for meeting with important government agencies and other stakeholders.


3

CHAPTER 2: MOBILISATION

CHAPTER 2: MOBILISATION

2.1 ACCOMMODATION

The project took up occupation of an office being used for other VicRoads projects based in Jakarta which would soon be drawing to a close. All facilities are available, including transport, and they will become the project’s responsibility at the closing of VicRoads’ current activities.

2.2 STAFF

The project mobilised on the 19th May 2014, with the arrival in Jakarta of the Team Leader (Advisory)/Road Safety Specialist. The Leader of the Design Team was already in Jakarta on other duties, so was able to provide the TL (Advisory) with much initial help and advice during mobilisation and initial project set up. The Team Leader (Advisory) was joined by the project’s International Road Safety Specialist on the 9th June 2014 and a number of meetings were held with government and non-government agencies over the Inception Period.

4


CHAPTER 3: MEETINGS HELD

A number of meetings were held with government and non-government agencies. Since at least some of the discussion at meetings was held in Bahasa, Ms Leila Zenastri of IndII kindly agreed to prepare Minutes of Meeting which would ensure there was a record of all useful discussion at the meetings. Where available, and with some editing where appropriate, these Minutes of Meeting are included in support of notes on the meetings which took place and are reported here.

3.1 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF LAND TRANSPORT

A meeting with the Acting Director General of Land Transport, Bapak Gede Pasek Swardika, was held on 19th May 2014, soon after mobilisation. A full record of meeting is included in Annexe 1, but a major outcome of this meeting was the notification, by the Acting Director General, that there was a national initiative to undertake a speed management program with the cooperation of a number of national agencies. The Acting DG suggested that speed management could be encouraged as part of the present Local Government initiative. The Project Team Leader supported this concept and pointed out that using a common road safety initiative at both national level, and across all four selected cities, had a number of benefits for Local Government:

Develop processes for National/Local cooperation/coordination

Allow LG to share ideas and procedures to develop best practice (best solutions will be locally developed)

Potential for National resources and skills to support LG

Additional City specific initiatives developed

It was agreed that the possibility of incorporating a speed management project across all selected cities would be considered in the light of the projects specific aims and goals.

3.2 GLOBAL ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP

On Wednesday May 21st a meeting was held with the local representative of the Global Road Safety Partnership, Ms Besty Ernani. A full report on the meeting is available in Annexe 2.

Ms Besty Ernani noted that the MoT, through KTD, is drafting the National Regulation about Speed Management Manual. While, in Bappenas, they are preparing to select people for the Training of Trainers (ToT) in road safety, funded by the ADB.


5


GRSP will also be taking responsibility for the translation of a number of manuals, including Helmet Manual translation, Speed Management manual translation, and Pedestrian Safety manual translation which will be distributed through the National Coordination Meeting (Rakornis).

Also of interest is the Campaign on Pedestrian Safety involving GRSP. This will be incorporated with the Communication Science Faculty of Padjadjaran University. It may be possible to organise cooperation between those in the Faculty developing Road Safety Communication skills and the communication skills needed in the city projects.

3.3 DIRECTORATE OF URBAN TRANSPORT (BSTP)

On Monday 26th May 2014 a meeting was held with Bapak Djamal Subastian and Azlian Rekayeni of BSTP.

Pak Djamal proposed pedestrian safety that might align within the IURSP for the theme of program activities for all selected cities. Pedestrian safety needs to be improved as part of the public transport provision. Pak Djamal agreed to support the idea and he appointed Ibu Reka, Pak Harno, and Pak Iman for further discussion.

Regarding funding, Pak Djamal explained that actually BSTP has allocated funds for pedestrian programs for LG, however no LG has given their response by submitting the DED as required. He understands the LG’s condition that might find difficulties due to limited capability of human resources for establishing the DED. He said that the program could be aligned and could help overcome the issues. This would certainly be an opportunity for the Design Team to support the development of DED which would meet the requirements of the BSTP funding program.

Pak Djamal also explained that public transport such as mini buses and Angkot within city boundaries are under local government to manage, but the routes and the network should be approved by the MoT.

A full report on the meeting is available in Annexe 3.

3.4 NATIONAL ADVISOR, PROFESSOR LEKSMONO SURYO PUTRANTO

A meeting with the project’s National Advisor, Professor Leksmono Suryo Putranto was held on Thursday 29th May 2014

There was a free-ranging exchange of ideas and discussion of the Professor’s deliverables for the project. He undertook to forward useful documentation from previous safety work, which was promptly done. Prof Leksmono has continued to attend project meetings and is providing much local information and technical translation of key Bahasa documentation.

6


3.5 PROJECT ‘KICK OFF” MEETING, BAPPENAS

The Project ‘Kick Off’ Meeting took place on the 30th May at the Bappenas Offices. Minutes of the Meeting, including the attendees, from a wide range of agencies, are given in Annexe 4.

The meeting opened with an introduction to the main purpose of the program, which was to demonstrate to Government that appropriate projects, undertaken at Local Government level in an integrated and coordinated way, for carefully chosen areas or corridors, could have a significant road safety benefit.

The Team Leader gave a presentation on background of the project that stemmed from the National Road Safety Master Plan. Copies of the Team Leader’s presentation, and other presentations identified in this report, can be obtained by contacting the project team.

The Team Leader indicated the project would promote inter organisational coordination at the local level, underlining road safety as a problem across all government levels.

There will be 4 selected pilot cities, with project management divided into two parts: first an Advisory Team providing policy and standard guideline assistance at national level, and a Design Team giving assistance to the cities to prepare their programs.

During discussion it was identified that the contribution of Police at city level would be an important factor in the success of the proposed road safety projects and that since the police were not under the control of the local government administrations, coordination in this area would need to be a key objective.

It was pointed out that road safety had a low priority at local government level and this was often associated with the lack of funding that was available, or even sought. Contributions could be made by Central Government through the establishment and provision of standards and guidelines, and there were indications that if projects were undertaken in certain areas central support funding might be made available.

The Team Leader pointed out that discussions with the Road Safety and Urban Transport Directorates had suggested that projects in the speed management and bus passenger/pedestrian safety area respectively, would be likely to gain support at a national level. It was agreed this would be a matter for later discussion.

The Team Leader explained about the need to move from an agency-based to a problem-based solution to be implemented in the programs by identifying safety problems at LG level that need to be handled through coordination among the related stakeholders involved, based on their roles and responsibilities.


7


The point was made that the timeline for the Seminar proposed, for the candidate cities to make their presentations, was very short, and with the approach of Ramadan a later date would be better. The suggestion was then made that the proposed seminar could still be held, but used as a Briefing Seminar. This Seminar could both inform the candidate cities of the proposed program, and gain feedback from the cities to improve the program. It was agreed that an initial Briefing Seminar would be held around the originally proposed date, and a Technical Seminar arranged for later when the candidate cities could present their proposals.

3.6 PRE BRIEFING SEMINAR MEETING

On the 5th June 2014 a meeting was held to discuss the nature, format and organisation of the Briefing Seminar, together with associated issues. Representatives from various stakeholder agencies and organisations attended, and Minutes of the Meeting, together with a list of attendees, is given in Annexe 5.

After an introduction to the project, discussion turned to the potential funding of the road safety proposals, an issue that was clearly of major interest to the stakeholders present. It was explained that in the beginning the program was seen as one with potential grant support. However, as circumstances changed during the development of the project, the decision was made that the program should be a bridging one to a future grant program given the short time frame. The Australian funding agencies are still discussing how grants in support of projects might be developed.

During discussion it was acknowledged that it would be very helpful to have crash data based plans, but it is difficult to get the data from the Police. The police do not make data available for the development of DED, for example. If the police cannot give the data then it will be necessary to road safety intelligence from other sources such as provincial or Kabupaten government.

The length of time to produce DED was discussed and it was pointed out that while the current project could not actually provide funding, one of the project tasks was to assist with the development of proposals, DEDs etc. in a way that would better attract support funding from a range of sources. These possibilities would be outlined in the Briefing Seminar to ensure the candidate cities were clear on the assistance to be available.

The request was also made that help could be found for funding road safety awareness in the community. The community was felt to be important because it also functions as a sounding board for feedback to the MoT, and this could also be the case for Local Government.

One of the criteria for getting a grant is RTTF or KMSK. Anything that encourages government to improve road safety is beneficial, especially when it comes from outside government as an independent community initiative. This is an approach that could be integrated within an area or corridor. Any input Promitra have, they can

8


deliver it in FGD, because in FGD there is also a learning process for the cities to identify their problems.

It was noted that urban road safety is more about urban transport and pedestrian safety. Traffic flow should be a special concern because better flow characteristics will also save a lot of people here and the resulting programs hopefully can be implemented in more cities. Linked to issues that can contribute to road safety was the problem of city planning. Although key to both safety and efficiency, planning was seen as always coming late in the transport process, when confounding decisions had already been taken.

3.7 MEETING WITH PROMOTION AND PARTNERSHIPS DIRECTORATE OF LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY

On June 13th a meeting was held with the Promotion and Partnerships section of the Directorate of Land Transport.

As well as BapakTri YuliAndaru P, the Deputy Director, the meeting was attended by Ms Tinitah Amrantasi, a Communications Specialist assisting the Directorate, Prof. Leksmono Suryo Putranto – National Adviser to the project, the Team Leader and Road Safety Specialist.

Ms Amrantasi reported working in the promotion and partnerships area for many years and had been directly involved in many of the recent activities undertaken by the Directorate.

An overview was provided by Ms Amrantasi of the School Safety Zone and Community Road Safety projects. Contrary to the view previously formed by the project team, that little cooperation or coordination was taking place in road safety locally, it was pointed out that these projects included local government, police, head teachers and teachers, and parents.

The primary activities being carried out are awareness raising, empowerment and undertaking local activities, such as colouring competitions and touring theatre productions.

Traditionally the programs have developed a single message and method of delivery and then provided electronic versions of these to local governments so that the program is seen to be local, but is part of a coordinated program provincially and nationally.

The promotions and Partnership section work in harmony with GRSP and WHO, and it was clear from the discussions held that the section would be able to provide valuable support and input on successful local schemes etc. once the needs generated by the proposals from the successful cities were known.


9


3.8 POST BRIEFING SEMINAR MEETING

On the 30th June, immediately following the Briefing Seminar, and armed with its outcomes and feedback, a meeting was held to discuss the development of the Technical Seminar. The Minutes of this meeting and information on those attending are given in Annexe 6.

Due to the nature of agency engagements during the period, the proposed date of the Technical Seminar was changed to allow an associated change in the proposal development program of the candidate cities. These changes were reflected in the project Work Plan and are included later in this report.

The content of proposal to be submitted by the candidate cities was confirmed as being in two parts:

Part 1, Detailed Project requirements as outlined by the project’s Road Safety Specialist, and

Part 2, The current status of Road Safety in the candidate city, as outlined by the project’s Road Safety Specialist.

The responsibilities and scheduling of materials to candidate cities was discussed and agreed. Parallel with development of the proformas and proposal submission support, IndII will develop the arrangements for the Technical Seminar in coordination with DGLT, who will issue the invitation letter. The plan calls for the Technical Seminar to be held on 28 August, with a venue to be decided later. The change in Seminar date, and associated activities, will result in the delay of the return of project staff, to match the new timeline.

10


CHAPTER 4: FIELD TRIPS

Two field trips were made, both to Bogor, initially to allow the Leader of the Advisory Team to experience local traffic outside the environs of Jakarta. The trip was subsequently repeated to allow Mavis Johnson, the Road Safety Specialist and second member of the Advisory Team, to gain similar experience. An initial suggestion was to visit a city that was going to be a candidate for becoming one of the demonstration cities. This was not pursued on the basis that such a visit might be construed as an advantage to the city concerned, either directly or indirectly, by pre-knowledge of the city’s environment and traffic being gained. While Bogor might be becoming a dormitory town of Jakarta, many of the conditions in, and on the way to, the city, using all-purpose roads, certainly provided a contrasting environment to that found in Jakarta. This environment was also closer to that found by the team members in other rapidly motorising countries.

Some of the observations made on both trips that might have a bearing on the nature of projects proposed by the candidate cities included:

Figure 4-1 Motorcycle helmet wearing

In urban areas there was a high wearing rate of motorcycle helmets, including pillion passengers. There was even evidence of child helmets being used (Fig 4.1), but there appeared to be potential for a safety initiative in this area.

Subsequent observations noted that although there was a high helmet wearing rate, a significant proportion of the helmets did not have their chin straps fastened – of course virtually negating the value of the helmet being worn. It would be valuable to have accurate information on both the rate of unfixed helmets and the contribution this made to head trauma. Compliance with any helmet “standard” is also questionable.


11

CHAPTER 4: FIELD TRIPS

Figure 4-2 Local small bus services

There was evidence that, in local centres, fleets of small buses carried out much of the public transport task (Fig 4.2). This often resulted in very disorganised, sometimes chaotic, major transport interchanges, driven more by competition for passengers rather than pedestrian and passenger safety. This bore out the discussions with the Urban Transport directorate, who are seeking an overall safe experience for bus passengers.

Figure 4-3 Use of central medians

As shown in Figure 4.3, many urban roads use a central median to separate opposing traffic, with obvious safety benefits. Many of the medians however, are of very narrow width and provide no protection for turning traffic. The issue is compounded by the fact that the medians, by preventing right turns, increase the need for traffic to make U-turns. There was little evidence of any special provision for such turns and on a number of occasions vehicles were seen making violent lane changes to avoid vehicles in the outside lane waiting to make a U-turn. It is thought unlikely that there is any national standard for the provision of U-turn protection. If there is, it is not being applied.

12


Figure 4-4 Roadside friction

Roadside friction was seen as an issue in many places (Fig 4.4), with the problem exacerbated by the high speeds often adopted by motorcycle riders, even in quite congested conditions.

Although the sample of roads was small, as seen in many of the figures, the road surface on all-purpose roads was generally good, although the same could not be said generally for road markings.

Figure 4-5 Speed zoning

While there was a clear indication of the speed limit on the freeway connecting Bogor and Jakarta (Fig. 4.5) during the general field trips there was little evidence of the governing speed limit and none of enforcement. This confirmed the need for a Speed Management Program as was currently being pursued at a national level.


13

CHAPTER 5: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE IURSP AND ACTIVITY TASKS


The IURSP targets road safety issues at the local government (LG) level and has two key goals. First, the program seeks to raise awareness of the importance of road safety. It aims to demonstrate the planning and installation of road safety facilities at the LG level and to encourage LGs to improve governance and educate the community about road safety. Second, the program aims to demonstrate how the Ministry of Transport (MoT) and LGs can work together with local communities to develop and implement integrated road safety plans that respond to real site-specific safety needs and challenges.

5.1 IURSP OBJECTIVES

The program activity has two objectives, namely:

To help LGs fulfill their contribution to the Decade of Action and the targets of RUNK Jalan (NRSMP)

To serve as a demonstration of how to prepare urban road safety action plans at the LG level, serving as a model for application throughout the country

The activity will help develop a road safety program with detailed engineering designs for the proposed improvements. An impact evaluation design will be considered if a decision is made to support implementation of the identified schemes through a central grant mechanism. Consequently, during the course of the activity, assistance will be provided for IndII's purposes on how to identify the program, the stakeholders, the budget and the delivery plan, including the source of funds.

Activities will concentrate on developing model treatments, suitable for local government, that can be introduced in identified corridors or areas that need road safety action. As the treatments or actions are identified they can become part of a standard set of solutions, where possible calling on common guidelines, designs and even have basic ways of estimating costs to allow incorporation of such treatments into local government programs with ease, continuity, and hopefully a known likelihood of success. The use of established remedial measures should also contribute to the funding process with justification for expenditure being supported by past outcomes.

Although there is no funding directly linked to the current activity, it is likely that funding for such road safety programs will become available, in the medium term at least. Programs designed under the guidelines of the current project should have a strong case for support.

14


It is likely that the Ministry of Transportation will be involved in any grant processes, either directly or indirectly. There is a need to have an assessment and accountability process in place to ensure funding results in not only a reduction in road crashes, but also that is achieved in a cost effective way, demonstrating value for money. Currently projects in the road safety area operate under unclear funding processes, are often won by small companies who can find themselves in difficulties when funding is changed or reduced.

There are currently successful funding processes in place for the transfer of funds from Central to Local Government. While DAK funding transfers funds between central and local government, it is considered an overall lump sum payment for a range of established activities but with no individual accountability.

Outside the transport area, the Hibah funding process has brought a deal of accountability in the transfer of often overseas generated funds between central and local government. It should be possible to develop similar processes for the transport and road safety areas. Such endeavours are likely to have the support of Bappenas and the Ministry of Finance.

5.2 ACTIVITY TASKS

The activity’s direct objective is to assist LGs in identifying and planning a road safety program through demonstration projects in selected cities. This will involve:

Raising the quality of governance and planning of integrated safety programs

Creating community awareness of road safety issues and building advocacy for improvement

Facilitating the integration of gender and social inclusion perspectives into planning an integrated urban road safety program

Giving recommendations on the standardisation of road safety facilities

The activity's tasks includes technical seminars, development of the selection process, workshops, a comparative study, technical assistance, assistance in community consultation, assistance with the development of proposals and activity reporting.

The tasks are divided into two components, A and B, and the consultant's delivery of these tasks is divided between two teams, an Advisory Team for component A tasks including provision of assistance to the MoT, and a Design Team for component B tasks with provision of assistance to the four cities selected to advance their proposed programs. The actions of both teams are coordinated and for some tasks they have a combined input.

The activity tasks and the inputs and deliverables for each task, together with team responsibilities, are detailed in Annexe 7 of this report.


15


The activity reporting includes technical reports, activity progress reports and an activity completion report. These reports will document progress in terms of the Program Logic - Activity Logic Model presented as figure 2 in the terms of reference (Sub-Consultancy Agreement, Schedule 2).

16


CHAPTER 6: THE BRIEFING SEMINAR

As has been indicated, the originally proposed seminar for the project’s candidate cities was changed to a Briefing Seminar, with a new Technical Seminar being scheduled for August 2014 ( see next Section). A seminar on the original schedule was organised for the purpose of briefing the city stakeholders.

6.1 PURPOSE OF THE SEMINAR

The Briefing Seminar was held to provide background information and guidance to the candidate cities to assist them in the preparation of their proposals in advance of the Technical Seminar at which they would present the outcomes of their proposal development.

The specific objectives of the seminar were to:

Provide an introduction to the scope of the road safety problem both globally and nationally

Provide information about the Safe System Approach to road safety

Provide an overview of effective road safety management

Introduce the goals, objectives and components of the Integrated Urban Road Safety Program and proposed funding and budget allocation

Review the implementation of RUNK at the local level

Engage the participants in a discussion on integrated road safety programs and invite suggestions as to how they might work in their communities, and

Discuss the selection process for the pilot communities and a review of the next steps

6.2 SEMINAR ARRANGEMENTS

The Briefing Seminar for candidate cities was held on Thursday 26 June 2014, at the Royal Kuningan Hotel. The seating was arranged ‘in the round’ for the main stakeholders to encourage and facilitate a contribution to the discussion and feedback sessions.

A list of the seminar attendees is given in Annexe 8.


17


6.3 SEMINAR PROGRAM

The Briefing Seminar was programmed for a half-day, allowing enough time for both a briefing of the candidate city representatives and feedback from them on the proposed project arrangements. The program for the seminar is given in Figure 6.1.

The seminar contributors are shown in the program, and presentations were given by:

Jim Jarvis, Team Leader, IURSP

Mavis Johnson, Road Safety Specialist, IURSP

Maria Renny, IndII

Meilany Fahriantiny, IndII

These presentations are available on request from IndII.

Figure 6-1 Briefing Seminar Program

Time Session Note Presenter 08.30 – 09.00

Registration

09.00 – 09.15

Welcome DGLT

09.15 – 10.10

Introduction and Background to

Road Safety Best Practice

Global and National situation (IndII progress)

Safe System Approach

Road Safety Management

Mavis Johnson

Jim Jarvis

10.10-10.25

Introduction to IURSP

Goals

Objectives

Components

with reference to RUNK implementation

IndII Transport Director

Maria Renny

10.25 – 10.40

Funding and Budget Allocation

Budget allocation

Special Allocation Budget (DAK) on Safety

Funding

Bappenas

Meilany Fahriantiny

10.40 – 10.55

Coffee Break

10.55 – 11.50

Project Development

(Discussion and feedback Session)

Integrated road safety improvement program

Implementation of RUNK at local level

(Moderator, Jim Jarvis)

Jim Jarvis

Leksmono Putrano

11.50 – 12.45

Assessment and selection process

(Discussion and Feedback

Session)

Technical Seminar - purpose and structure

Selection criteria - rationale and acceptance

(Moderator, Jim Jarvis)

Mavis Johnson

12.45 – 13.00

Thank you and close Invited Attendee

13.00 – 14,00

Lunch

18


6.4 DISCUSSION

After the early morning presentations, which provided a useful backdrop to the key issues associated with the development of project proposal etc., the final two sessions were interactive. The aim was to provide information to the city stakeholders, but also to learn what those stakeholders thought about the program:

What is possible?

What is preferable?

How can the project better meet the needs of the cities?

The aim is to arrive at the best possible outcomes, for the project and the cities.

First session concerned the development of the projects, while the second session dealt with the selection criteria for four Cities and arrangements for the Technical Seminar.

A key issue was the need for Integrated Road Safety projects. By Integrated, this meant the involvement of as many stakeholders as can make a contribution – police, education, awareness, community, health, as well as engineering.

The importance of Road Safety to the projects meant the aim must be to reduce crashes, injuries, set safety outcomes and goals, and not physical or operational ones.

There was a need to decide on the number and types of projects that might be appropriate. A case had been made for considering common themes for projects to run through all city programs. These projects could be linked to a national initiative with appropriate support provided.

The two common themes that had been suggested during discussions with national transport agencies were Speed Management, and Pedestrian/passenger safety at bus stops/stations.

There was considerable discussion of this approach both during the interactive sessions and after the seminar had concluded. The general feeling was that adoption of these common themes would skew the approach of cities which would not be able to identify their most pressing road safety problems within such constraints. The decision was taken not to adopt such a common project approach but rather to encourage one major area or corridor based program, incorporating specific projects as required, which may or may not include the identified common projects.

Other issues to be considered during the discussion included:

The need for Departments to work in harmony – there have been examples where new road configurations, e.g. a flyover, has been built by one ministry, but this has (unintentionally) re-located a black-spot due to lack of communication between the agencies.


19


There was discussion as to whether the pilot project should be limited to the city boundary, or could it include the suburbs? It was felt that as long as the overall area remained reasonably homogeneous extension beyond city boundaries was acceptable

Many attendees held the view that synergy with the police for traffic enforcement is critical. Unfortunately it was also acknowledged that because of the national structure of the police it was difficult to generate cooperation and coordination at local levels.

There was some discussion on the need to reduce the amount (volume) of traffic on the road as a priority. While being supported – through more use on mass transit for example, the general view was that traffic growth still has a way to run before the rate of growth slows.

During discussion there were many questions about funding. One typical one, asked by the representative from Denpasar, was a request to explain further about the grant channelling mechanism through reimbursement processes.

Ms Meilany Fahriantiny, of IndII, responded by explaining the processes used during previous IndII grant programs for the Transport sector. However, she emphasised that the grant program in IndII would be pre-financing (APBD), reimbursement, and output based. Answering further, it was indicated that the grant channelling mechanism will be dependent on the donor or source of the funding. For example if the funding were from the Government of Australia, through IndII, or known as IndII’s grant, the grant channelling will require a set of formal documents for every stage of the process. The money will be channelled through DGFB of the Ministry of Finance. As another example, if the money were from PIP, it could go directly from PIP to LG. However, at this stage of IURSP, DFAT has not made any commitment for any actual grants. This program is using TA as a methodology and LGs do not have to spend anything using APBD money. This program is fully facilitated by IndII.

As discussions drew to a close a number of conclusions were drawn:

1. Cooperation between IndII and Local Government is good.

2. There was agreement on the complexity of road safety issues within cities.

3. Participants appreciated the briefing seminar and suggested it will assist them in the preparation of their submissions.

20


CHAPTER 7: TECHNICAL SEMINAR PREPARATIONS

To assist the candidate cities in the preparation of their proposals and to provide the selection committee with a method of assessing a city’s proposal, the Road Safety Specialist developed a draft “Selection Criteria”. There are two parts to the application process and both must be completed. Part 1 provides a detailed overview of the project or program. Part 2 provides additional information related to the overall commitment of the community to road safety, demonstrated through the planning, implementation and monitoring of a variety of road safety programs and interventions.

A detailed description of the project was called for, looking at:

Intelligence – data

Project goals

The planning process

Implementation plan

Performance measurement (M&E)

Engagement of the community

The cities would then be asked to provide the current status of road safety in their jurisdictions to ensure the city was have the capacity to carry out their proposed projects.

Issues considered included:

Commitment

Vision, Community plans

Current road safety projects and activities, and

The development of a road safety culture

Management

A lead agency

Coordination

Roles and responsibilities

Road safety data and other intelligence

Targets

M&E

Funding


21

CHAPTER 7: TECHNICAL SEMINAR PREPARATIONS

A comprehensive Terms of Reference have been developed, together with a sample project outline of the required proposal. This indicates the need to provide information in three main areas:

Chapter 1 An introduction to the city

Chapter 2 Details of the project

Chapter 3 Current status of road safety in the city

There is comprehensive documentation provided on the one hand to assist with the preparation of proposals and their subsequent assessment.

The selection process will be conducted with DGLT as the Executing Agency to ensure that only cities that have a proactive attitude to road safety and will be in a position to implement the chosen schemes effectively within the time available will be included.

The identification and design of the pilot projects will be the responsibility of the individual cities, guided by consultants.

Since the Briefing Seminar the IndII team have taken the draft “Selection Criteria” and included it in the TOR for the IURSP. These documents can be found in Annexe9.

22


CHAPTER 8: WORK PLAN AND STAFFING SCHEDULE

The most significant change to the work plan was created by the introduction of a Briefing Seminar for candidate cities in place of the original Seminar, planned to assist in the determination of the four successful cities to be involved in the program. To perform this role, a second seminar, the Technical Seminar has been scheduled for later in the project timeline, mid/late August.

The consequent changes to the Work Plan have been mainly within Task 1. New Task 1a is concerned with the development and conduct of the Briefing Seminar, a task which has now been completed. New Task 1b is scheduled in parallel to Task 2, the city selection process.

The final elements of Task 2 have been extended into early October to allow for a very busy period for members of the Government agencies associated in the project proposal assessments.

Although the timeline for the selection of the successful cities has been extended by at least 4 weeks, this has not impacted on Task 6, Community Consultation, and Task 7, Development of Proposals. Both of these tasks will commence in November, the original Work Plan date. A slight adjustment has been made to the timing of workshops under Task 3. The first two workshops have been brought together and the first three workshops will be held during the early weeks of Tasks 6 and 7. The final workshop timing is unchanged, towards the end of Task 7 when it is required.

The resultant work plan for the project is given in Annexe 10.

The associated staff schedule is given in Annexe 11.


23

CHAPTER 9: THE NEXT STEPS

CHAPTER 9: THE NEXT STEPS

The next steps to be taken are:

1. Confirm selection criteria (Completed since the VicRoads mission)

2. Distribute information requesting proposal submissions and road safety histories to the candidate cities (completed since the VicRoads mission)

3. Establish the review panel

4. Receive city submissions and preview

5. Hold technical seminar where cities will present an overview of their submissions

6. Allow period for finalisation and completed submissions

7. Submissions assessed by review panel and four successful cities identified

8. Preparations made for workshops and development of proposals for successful cities.

24


ANNEXES

ANNEXE 1: DIRECTORATE OF LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY

Minutes of Meeting (MoM)

Act. 281.02 Integrated Urban Road Safety Program (IURSP) Development

Day : Monday

Date : 19 May 2014

Time : 14:00 – 15.00

Location : Gedung karya lantai 9

Attendee :

1. KTD : Pak Gede Pasek Swardika acting as Director of Land Transport Safety

2. VicRoads : Jim Jarvis, Gerard Neilson

3. IndII : Maria Renny, Meilany Fahriantiny, Revy Petragradia and Leila Zenastri

Notes :

1. Renny explained that IURSP was set up as a grant program for road safety, but due to a lot of delay this current phase is only for technical assistance. IndII plans to give the assistance to KTD, BSTP and four chosen cities. The cities have not yet been chosen. Discussions will be held on how the cities will be chosen, and the mechanism to choose them. At the end of the project the aim is to make these four cities capable of developing their own road safety program. The program is not just to develop a proposal but also DEDs, RAB and also methods of socialisation and coordination with related agencies. Assistance will then be given to help identify source of funds needed. As grants are not available yet, there was discussion on whether the programs could use APBN or maybe APBD funds. Renny then introduced the Project consultant, who is VicRoads from Australia.

2. Gede Pasek understood that the program mainly focused on Technical Assistance. The activities are to include training, road safety audit and guidelines, and road design, but this is yet to be decided. He identified that speed management has been proposed as a national road safety initiative and suggested that speed management be included in the programs.

3. Renny explained that this activity is not trying to look at specific solutions for each city but tend to see a corridor, or area, based improvement in each city. What kind improvements of solution for the corridor or area would be developed and then


25

ANNEXES

used to measure indicators that have been set previously. So if indeed in that area or corridor speed management is going to be implemented, or possibly integrated urban transport connection with the sidewalk pedestrian improvement, this will be identified when the city and location selection is finalised.

4. Gede pasek basically agreed to the mechanism but still looking for any opportunity to include speed management in the program even in just one corridor.

5. Jim Jarvis agreed that speed management can be effective for road safety improvement and can be linked from local to national level and make the program top down from national level regulation enforcement.

6. Gede pasek informed that speed management can be tool to integrate the road safety between agencies. All institution; Police, Bina marga, Bappenas and health agency agree about speed management and are using Surabaya a as pilot project. In this program he proposed Cipularang as a possible pilot area.

Next :

a. Kick off meeting, Wednesday 28 May 2014 (to be facilitated by Bappenas) - TBC

b. Formal approval letter for IURSP from Bappenas as requested by DGLT

26


ANNEXE 2: GLOBAL ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP



Day : Wednesday

Date : 21 May 2014

Time : 10:00 – 11.00

Location : IndII office

Attendee :

1. GRSP : Besty Ernani

2. VicRoads : Jim Jarvis

3. IndII : Revy Petragradia and Leila Zenastri

Topics:

1. Program coordination with GRSP ADB

Notes :

1. Revy explained about the IURSP program as a brief introduction for Ms Ernani. Jim Jarvis was introduced as the IURSP Leader of the Advisory Team. Revy also explained that this program will not only focus on Road Safety as a tool but also Urban Transport infrastructure that will comply with road safety. Two directorates will involve in this program, KTD and BSTP.

2. Jim Jarvis explained that there will be two teams, the advisory team led by him and a design team, led by Gerard Neilson. The Tasks for the advisory team are to: assist the selection of demonstration cities based on certain criteria, find a method of generating interest at municipal level for developing plans, identify their problems, identify what they are currently doing and what their facilities and resources are, identify accident data and/or information, find some support for determining suitable programs, etc. – some of which might focus on cooperating and coordinating with central level agencies, BSTP and KTD. There will be other specialists coming to join both teams. From previous meeting with the Road Safety Directorate (Pak Gede Pasek - KTD) hopefully there will be speed management initiation program in national level from their work plan. The main task, however, is to make the municipal level more aware of road safety at their own local level.

3. Ms Besty Ernani informed that the MoT, through KTD, now are drafting the National Regulation about Speed Management Manual. While, in Bappenas, they are now preparing to select people for ToT (Training of Trainers) in road safety, funded by ADB in Manila, the members consist of various agencies, i.e.: Traffic


27

ANNEXES

Police (Korlantas) – Pak Wawan, Ministry of Public Works - Pak Andria, KTD - Taufik Hidayat, and also Bappenas – Pak Agung, Pak Adri and Pak Adi. The tasks are to enhance knowledge about accident data systems, road safety management, school safety zones, and motorcycles. The instructor is from Centre Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q, Rob Klein).

4. Ms Besty Ernani also mentioned that GRSP’s program for this month is first – Manual Translation, including Helmet Manual translation, Speed Management manual translation, and Pedestrian Safety manual translation which will be distributed through the National Coordination Meeting (Rakornis). Second; Campaign on Pedestrian Safety that will be incorporated with the Communication Science Faculty of Padjadjaran University. Third; a colloquium on Indonesia Road Safety for Children, inviting children from 34 provinces in Indonesia and letting them participate in Jakarta as the safety campaign for children. Fourth; training for drivers that carry Hazardous Goods, which will be incorporated with the Indonesia Red Cross. The KTD will produce the regulation in further, future step. And Fifth; Car Inspection Implementation and Capacity Building for the operators, that will incorporation with TUV - German.

5. Revy also added that Prof. Leksmono Suryo Putranto would be the National Advisor for this program and now IURSP will have a full team of experts.

Next :

a. Meeting with BSTP

b. Kick off meeting (Bappenas, KTD and BSTP)

28


ANNEXE 3: Directorate of Urban Transport (BSTP)



Day : Monday

Date : 26 May 2014

Time : 13:30 – 14.00

Location : BSTP Office

Attendee :

BSTP : Djamal Subastian, Azlian Rekayeni

IndII : Maria Renny, Meilany Fahriantiny, Leila Zenastri and Jim Jarvis

Topics :

Follow up meeting for program continuity (preparation for kick-off meeting)

Notes :

1. Renny explained that from a previous meeting with Pak Gede Pasek from KTD, they proposed speed management as the main theme for activities in selected cities. This way it would be easier for measuring the level of success for selected cities other than the specific activity for each city. Further, since the IURSP is an integrated approach, perhaps BSTP could propose a second ‘theme’ to be aligned with speed management as proposed by KTD.

2. Jim explained that every city will have different problems and it would be helpful to address problems from each city but have themes that would be easy to implement in coordination with the national level.

3. Responding to the idea, Pak Djamal proposed pedestrian safety that might align within the IURSP for the theme of program activities for all selected cities. Pedestrian safety needs to be improved as part of public transport provision. The main objective of the program in BSTP is to increase the number of people using public transport instead of private car usage. BSTP also have programs to provide assistance (financial) to LG for bus purchasing (BRT program) to incentivise public transport usage. The Terms of Reference is already in line with the DG’s program.

4. Further, Renny added one of the main objectives is to improve coordination between agencies that involved in Road Safety (RS) programs at national and LG level. As Lany explained that technical officers such as a CP for the IURSP, it would be very helpful for coordination purposes among stakeholders involved to achieve what we have done in BIP project.


29

ANNEXES

5. Pak Djamal agreed to the idea and he appointed Ibu Reka, Pak Harno, and Pak Iman to get in touch for further discussion. In addition, he explained by the new law (UU No.22 year 2009) concerning Traffic and Road Transport, stipulated that public transport like mini buses and angkot within cities boundaries is under local government to manage but the routes and the network should be approved by MoT.

6. As Lany explained, the output of the program is the City’s proposal including DED and RAB for RS support facilities and the outcome is the improvement of safety. Since the Program is using a TA model, and there is no commitment yet from DFAT to channel financial grant in this stage, IndII would assist LG to identify alternative source of funds to finance the program further (support facility/infrastructure provision). It could be funded by APBN as mentioned by BSTP and KTD, or by other donors. Renny explained the target will be a corridor or an area, because it would be relatively easier to measure the boundaries and the impact of the program towards the area. Regarding city selection process, it is required to set specific criteria for selecting 4 cities out of 10 candidate cities as proposed by DGLT.

7. Regarding the possibility of APBN funded for the program, Pak Djamal explained that actually BSTP has have allocated fund for pedestrian programs for LG, however no LG has given their response by submitting the DED as required. He understands the LG’s condition that might find difficulties due to limited capability of human resources for establishing the DED. He said that the program could be aligned and could help overcome the issues.

8. There will be seminar to explain to local government about the program hosted by DGLT and facilitated by IndII.

Next :

a. Kick off meeting (Bappenas, KTD and BSTP) discussing: criteria selection of cities, date for initial seminar.

30


ANNEXE 4: Min. of Transport (Bappenas) Kick Off Meeting



Day : Friday

Date : 30 May 2014

Time : 13:30 - 15.00

Location : Bappenas, Transport Department

Attendee :

1. IndII : John Lee, Maria Renny, Meilany Fahriantini, Revy Petragradia, Leila Zenastri, Jim Jarvis, Leksmono

2. ITSAP : Tony Jones

3. MoT : Koesbiantoro, Joko Kusnanto, Azlian Rekayeni, Hikmat, Eddy Gunawan

4. DFAT : Emil Salim

5. Bappenas: Bambang Prihartono, Agung Adri L,

6. Bangda : Nurhovlia, Marta

7. Bina Marga: Ali Amal

8. GRSP : Iskandar Abubakar, Besty Ernani

9. PU : Firmansyah

Topics :

Kick Off Meeting

Notes :

1. John Lee briefed the attendance about IURSP. The program was a Technical Assistance project being carried out by a team from VicRoads, being lead by Jim Jarvis. Hopefully at the implementation stage the government would see the benefit from conditional central government grants to municipal government. DGLT would prepare guidelines, some standard and typical designs for use by the selected cities for integrated Road Safety Programs on a corridor and area basis and not just isolated solutions.

2. Jim Jarvis gave a presentation about the background of the project that was the National Road Safety Master Plan. The Master Plan had five year targets, based on a Safe System Approach, which carried the spirit of coordinated effort but divided


31

ANNEXES

the plans into pillars emphasising individual institutional responsibilities. The project would promote inter organisational coordination at local level underlining road safety as a problem across all government levels. There will be 4 selected pilot cities. The project management is divided into two parts: first is Advisory Team providing policy and standard guideline assistance at national level and Design Team giving assistance to prepare the program at the cities.

3. John Lee remind Jim the emphasis on corridor or area based approach at local level, to keep the focus attention and to illustrate approach in dealing all road safety problem in the area.

4. Answering Pak Bambang question about why only 4 cities selected, John Lee explained that it was a sufficient number to cover the variety of problems and solutions within a pilot project of a road safety program.

5. Answering a question from Pak Joko about a macro view of the problem, Jim explained that the team would still see the cities as a whole and identified an overall need, before concentrating on the main problem.

6. Jim's findings during his field trip: helmet wearing was high; bus lanes were good; but small buses were taking on and unloading passengers anywhere they apparently had a mind to; many non-authorised personnel were widely used to control traffic, illegal and unprotected U turns, dangerous infrastructure, free-riding on freight trucks, and lack of speed limit signs.

7. John Lee commented that there was no integrated sense of road safety at the local level. The National level could provide guideline etc. but there was no road safety program at the local level. The crash data was not reliable to provide the crash locations or when the local crash occurred.

8. To John Lee, the solution was to make different groups working together; MoT, MoPW, and Police. But the Police was the hard one to work together with because there was almost no coordination between the Police and other relevant institutions.

9. Pak Joko added that the reason was because the Police was not under Mayor's command.

10. Pak Koesbiantoro added that based on his experience in other programs it was hard to get crash data from the police. They only shared data about the injuries fatality level and the numbers but not the crash locations.

11. John Lee added that there was a crash recording system in the police, and the question was how to get access to the data if there was any.

12. John Lee explained that since the municipal were autonomous, the central government existed to provide guidelines and in some cases give funds. The mayor was in charge of the city, so the carrot approach was required. The cities needed to be enlightened about the need of safety, but also to have some way that the central could have some influence in the cities by setting guidelines and standard for the cities.

32


13. Ibu Besty Ernani explained that safety was not a local priority because it was a low cost infrastructure funding. Central level assistance to local level therefore responded by allocating only small grant to assist road safety development at local level.

14. Pak Koesbiantoro proposed for the program to also provide small assistance to the other 6 cities not selected such as inviting them to workshops or seminars.

15. In addition, Jim explained about problem based solution to be implemented in the program by identifying problems in LG level and recognising those as not merely 'local problems' but as the problems that need to be handled through coordination among related stakeholders involved, based on their roles and responsibilities. There was a need to stop thinking in silos, and start working together towards common goals for road safety.

16. Further, the matter in the point above regarding evidence of working together among related stakeholders could be considered as an additional point in selection process for pilot city candidates.

17. Pak Bambang mentioned about MDG program as a good example for program delivering from CG to LG that encourage LG's sense of belonging and commitment. IURSP should look into it further as lessons learned perhaps.

18. Pak Eddy suggested that the timetable for the Technical Seminar was far too early, and Local Government would need time to prepare their proposals. He suggested a time in August, after Ramadan was finished .for the seminar.

19. While agreeing with the shortness of time to the first seminar, the team Leader thought the proposed first seminar could be used as a briefing seminar to inform the candidate cities of the submission requirements, with a second (Technical) seminar being arranged for sometime in August to formally review the submissions from the candidate cities and begin the full review process.

Next :

a. Bappenas to send letter to MoT on the program commencement. IndII will provide a draft letter to Bappenas to consider

b. Following up the letter is initial preparation for the seminar date and budget approval


33

ANNEXES

ANNEXE 5: Pre Briefing Seminar Meeting



Day : Thursday

Date : 5 June 2014

Time : 9:00 – 11.00

Location : KTD MoT

Attendee :

1. KTD: Andaru, Ardono, Herman Arnanda, Gunawan, Puguh, R Wiranto, Hariyanto, Kunia N Sari, Santri Aay, Tinitan Sri Amrantasi

2. IndII: Meilany Fahriantiny, Leila Zenastri & Revy Petragradia

Topics :

1. Program socialisation

2. Data collection for consultant report

Notes :

THE DISCUSSION

1. Revy brief about IURSP. The program is a Technical Assistant for MoT to integrate urban transport and safety. Kick off meeting has been done in Bappenas attended by Sesdit, BSTP, KTD and IndII. The program is divided to two component, assistance and design. The team will help in design safety in urban transport. The program will do pilot in an area or corridor. The program is planned for 1 year until April 2015. From the kick off meeting we have discuss about seminar for the 10 cities proposed by Sesdit MoT. After the seminar KTD, BSTP, Sesdit and IndII will select 4 cities from 10 cities. After 4 cities are selected there will be a series of seminar to help them make necessary improvement to their city. The mechanism will be discussed later. The target after the program is finish the cities can put budged in their APBD for Road Safety. There will be technical team consisting staff from BSTP and KTD for the program.

2. Pak Andaru asked whether IndII will the give also technical implementation.

3. Revy explained that at the beginning the program is a grant vision, but after discussing with DFAT and they decide the program is a bridging program to a grant program considering short time frame. Right now DFAT is still discussing about how the grant would be. Pak Gedhe Pasek suggest to add speed management design and Pak Djamal suggest pedestrian safety design in previous meeting.

34


4. Pak Andaru explained that Promitra annual program is National Safety Week in 9 to 11 provincial capital cities. The budged is from APBN but the organiser is provincial government because they know better about the issue, MoT is giving assistance only. All this long the NSW is not touching urban transport safety issue, it is more about intercity and rural road safety.

5. Revy added one of the criteria for chosen cities is BRT system. But we still don’t know policy from MoT about the chosen cities.

6. Lany added that IndII do DED for Palembang and Surakarta.

7. Pak Andaru said that it is necessary to have crash data based planed, but it is difficult for them to get the data from the Police. The police made the data not for DED. If the police cannot give the data then we will get from provincial or kabupaten government. We will help IndII with cities selection.

8. Revy explained that DED will take 6 month, in the design there will be public consultation. According to plan DED will finish in October but since Sesdit need time for Lebaran transport so the schedule seems a bit late.

9. Lany explained that there will be three times FGD to make DED and comparative study to make holistic approach. By the time they are ready to make DED it would be include the proposal. The Australian Government cannot cover until demonstration project so if the cities are ready with DED we will assist to get the budged from other source.

10. Pak Andaru said that they also need help until infrastructure implementation. If there is any possibility the program extended he fully hope there will be infrastructure implementation. Related to accident prone area, if a road does not qualify to it specification then it is categorised as accident prone area. Under his observation almost all roads in Indonesia is an accident prone area because only toll road that qualified to its specification and it is only 1% of all road. This makes task for BSTP, KTD and PU even harder because the budged is not enough to improve everything.

11. Pak Herman asked to be informed about the scope of the program because from Promitra can get in line with their program pedestrian and bicycle line. Besides DED maybe IndII can help funding the community safety awareness. This community is important because they are also function as microphone for MoT.

12. Lany explained one of the criteria to get the grant is RTTF or KMSK. For IndII anything that encourage the government to have function improving road safety is good, especially when it is come from outside government as an independent community. The approach will be integrated in an area. Any input promitra have, they can deliver it in FGD, because in FGD is also a learning process for the cities to identified their problem.

13. Ardono give input to the discussion about zebra cross. He wish zebra Cross can be part of the program.

14. Lany explained that IndII only facilitate the program, usually there are gap about properness in the implementation. IndII act as a platform to bridge the gap. The grant will be pre-finance so LG still have to put post in APBD.


35

ANNEXES

15. Pak Herman remind that the LG likes to keep or hide their budged for infrastructure while they are asking budged from national budged. The concept is APBD, so DAK is maximised.

16. Pak Aang added that urban road safety is more about urban transport and pedestrian safety. Traffic flow should be special concern because we can save a lot of people here and the DED hopefully can be implemented in more cities.

17. Pak Andaru added one of the problem is city planning is always come late.

ABOUT PROMOTION AND PARTNERSHIP (PROMITRA) PROGRAM:

Subdit Promitra categorises the promotion program to aged 2-5 year, 6-8 year, 9-10 year and 10 year above. There are a Safety Awareness Community (Komunitas Masyarakat Sadar Keselamatan). Incorporation with municipal government, the MoT has KMSK in 10 provinces, Center Java has 3, Solo, Semarang and Seragen. Centre Kalimantan also have KMSK. Incorporation with CSR from private company, MoT also have safety program. The companies are: Adira, Bluescope, Honda, and Holcim. Incorporation with NGO are RSA (Road Safety Association) and GRSP.

KMSK is a non-government institution. They are purely from the road user so Promitra believe they will give a neutral work. Promitra MoT expect to use them as their communicator road safety in the local area.

Promitra also have School Safety Zone. Their unachieved target is 1000 School Safety Zone. In School Safety Zone they promote to school student about road safety.

For socialising their program they use radio and television in a form of talk show and commercial. The budged is not enough to do it ideally every 3 month like but they keep trying. Other way to socialise road safety is by direct socialisation using KMSK or private company CSR. The material at the beginning is an idea, and the need is to see what other country do and compare it before implemented.

Research unit is under every sub-directorate, each sub directorate have general plan program. No accident data use since it is hard to get the data accurately, but if the accident victim number is in productive age we will make socialisation material by age category.

They have behavior studies once using road safety measure, like helmet usage and safety belt usage but since the have limitation to do research all over Indonesia, they give local government result of the research only as measurement of road safety. Habit research in Indonesia is not common. At the beginning they use research center agency (LP3ES) but the research is too general. They did socialisation also without success indicator because there is no success indicator. They did little polling though at National Safety Week about socialisation program but it is still sporadic in the event only.

Promitra is now conception Safety Education Park about road signal and traffic.

36


NEXT :

a. Sesdit MoT to formalised the 10 cities and set the briefing seminar date


37

ANNEXES

ANNEXE 6: POST BRIEFING SEMINAR MEETING



Day : Monday

Date : 30 June 2014

Time : 10:00 – 12.00

Location : KTDMoT

Attendee :

MoT: Eddy Gunawan, Koesbiyantoro, Elsa

IndII: Maria Renny, Revy Petragradia, Leila Zenastri, Meilany Fahriantiny

Topics : Briefing Seminar Update and Work Plan Evaluation

Notes :

1. IURSP work plan need to be adjust

2. Technical Seminar Preparation ( Prepare by IndII)

- Preparing outline, ToR, Selection criteria (dead line: 4 July)

- Distribution to 10 cities will be done in second week of July (by DGLT after

receiving full material from IndII)

3. Content of proposal:

- Part 1, Detailed Project (taken from Mavis presentation)

- Part 2, Current status of Road Safety (taken from Mavis presentation)

4. Attached document in project proposal include part 2 format (Current Status) without scoring column

5. Distributing schedule inserted in the old workplan, became the second week of July (letter prepared by Planning Division of MoT and at the same time informing deadline for proposal submission from LG to DGLT being scheduled between 11-15 August). The proposal formally sent to IndII.

6. Review proposal draft from 10 cities (18-22 August by IndII/DGLT team). Result from reviewing process will be summarised as reference in giving feedback and selection material.

7. Parallel with proposal submission, IndII prepare Technical Seminar in coordination with DGLT for invitation letter

38


8. Plan for Technical Seminar planned to be held on 28 August, venue will be decided later. For invitation:

- Proposal Presentation team from 10 cities

- Bappenas

- Full team IndII

- DGLT

- Planning Division MoT

9. Scope area of Pilot Project need to be put into ToR, that is an area or corridor or combination of both with justification

10. After Technical Seminar, participant will be given two weeks for revision ( 12 September the latest final proposal is submitted to DGLT)

11. Selection process will be on 15-26 September 2014

12. Decision making will be on 1 October 2014, need to prepare announcement letter to Head of GDLT.

13. Technical Team from MoT will be determined later.


39

ANNEXES

ANNEXE 7: COMBINED ACTIVITY COMPONENTS A AND B

Tasks, Inputs and Deliverables

TASK

INPUTS DELIVERABLES

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

1 Seminar Provide overview of the activity: introduce the objectives, goals, task components, and expected outputs

Introduce various funding mechanism for infrastructure development at local level especially from national government and international donors

Inform LGs of their tasks and responsibilities when participating in the activity

Introduce selection criteria and assessment process

Seminar Report/Proceeding

2 Selection Process

Develop and finalise a set of selection criteria approved by DGLT

Develop a proposal kit for candidate LGs to complete and submit as the basis for selection assessment

Establish an assessment panel consisting of representatives of DGLT and IndII to select the participating LGs

City Selection Report

40


TASK

INPUTS DELIVERABLES

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

3 Workshops Coordinating with Experts in Component B to hold a series of thematic workshops provided to the selected cities

Together with Experts in Component A activity to have a series of thematic workshops provided to the selected cities

Workshop Report/ Proceedings

Topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

o Programming road safety improvements

o Identification of infrastructure type: good and bad infrastructure

o Introduction to road safety infrastructure guidelines

o Funding for road safety investment

o Data collection

o Community engagement, coordination, and socialisation

4 Comparative Study

Carry out a comparative study, most likely in cooperation with VicRoads as a mentor

Understand pragmatic and practical implementation of road safety infrastructure development based on LG priorities, resources, and capacity

Learn from other cities’ experiences in planning and delivering road safety programs

Comparative Study Mission Report


41

ANNEXES

TASK

INPUTS DELIVERABLES

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

5 Technical Assistance

Provide hands-on assistance for each city

Conduct a consultation process with each city

Assist cities in developing their proposals and designs for the program

Assist cities in identifying needs, locations, types of intervention, types of infrastructure, community engagement and coordination strategy, and funding strategy

6 Community Consultation

Coordinating with Experts in Component B to organise the Community Consultation activity

Assist relevant LG institutions in planning for an effective community consultation process

Ensure that the process involves females and people with disabilities

Together with Experts in Component A activity to assist relevant LG institutions in planning for an effective community consultation process

Assist LG in developing materials and action plans

Ensure that the process involves females and people with disabilities

Ensure that this process is integrated with the DED

Action Plan for consultation process including the materials

Activity Report (Laporan Pertanggungjawaban Kegiatan/LPK) from LG that will include gender disaggregated data

42


TASK

INPUTS DELIVERABLES

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

Component A

(Advisory Team)

Component B

(Design Team)

7 Development of Proposals

Assist the cities with needs assessment, location selection and types of infrastructure

Assist with the structure of the proposal and the information required

Provide a review on the draft proposal

Carry out training programs in the selected cities in conjunction with ITSAP

Draft and Final Program Proposal from each city including DED and budget

Review Report

ITSAP training materials

8 Reporting Prepare all documentation including an Inception Report, technical reports as required by the task component, Activity Progress Reports, and an Activity Completion Report (ACR)

All reports should follow IndII Reporting and Communication Guidelines as well as the M&E Framework

Inception Report;

Technical Reports;

Activity Progress Report;

Activity Completion Report.

Input to the Final Report that will be consolidated by the Team Leader of Component A activity.


43

ANNEXES

ANNEXE 8: BRIEFING SEMINAR ATTENDEES

No. Name Gender

(F/M) Institution name Position

1 Eddy Gunawan M DGLT MOT Deputy Director of Land Transport Safety

2 Bambang H M DGLT MOT Staff

3 Mavis Johnson F VicRoads Road Safety Specialist

4 Agus Supriyanto M Dishub Kota Palembang Kabid Transportasi Jalan

5 S. Purwantoro M Balai LLAJ SDP Jambi Pengevaluasi Angkutan

6 Harioyoto M Dishub Kota Kepala Dinas

7 Kamru Falah M Pemkot Medan Asisten Ekbang

8 Reward Pangat M Pemkot Medan Kadishub

9 I Gede Astika M Dishub Kota Denpasar Kepala Dinas

10 Jimmy Sidharta M Pemkot Denpasar Staff Ahli Pembangunan

11 Dewa Adi M Dishub Denpasar Kepala UPT Denpasar

12 Andaru M Ditjen Hubdat Kasubdit

13 Sunarto M Kemen PU Kabid

14 Mensisa M Kemen PU -

44


No. Name Gender


15 Ayu F Bintek PU Penelaah ADT

16 Rifa’i M Dishub Kepala Dinas

17 E Putra M ADC Walikota Pemko PKU

18 Nicholas M Pusjatan IRE Researcher

19 EM Ricky S M Dishub Kota Bandung Kadishub

20 Riffa F IndII AA

21 Bagus M Dishub Pekanbaru Sub Bag Program

22 Andri M BSTP MOT PMTP

23 Heri Susanto M BUMD Pekanbaru -

24 Edward M PKU Staff

25 Iqbal M PKU Sub Bag Protokol

26 Ardianysah M PKU Kabag Protokol

27 A Fatah M PKU Protokol

28 Agung NIF M Dishub Kominfo Kasi Rekayasa

29 Roza F Bangda KDN Fungsional Umum

30 Rezha M Dit Binten Ditjen Bina Marga Kemen PU

Staff


45

ANNEXES

No. Name Gender


31 FX Hadi R M Pemkot Solo Walikota Solo

32 Herman M Kadekun

33 Danang P M BLLAJ Denpasar Staff

34 Agung Adri M Bappenas -

35 Lisa Nisti A F Bappenas -

36 H Firdaus M Pemkot Pekanbaru Walikota Pekanbaru

37 Gerard Neilson M VicRoads Team Leader

38 Aman Yuriasjaya M Pemkot Yogyakarta Staff Walikota

39 I Wayan Gunawan M Pemkot Denpasar Asisten Pembangunan

40 Ingot Ampa M Pemkot Palembang Kabag Humas

41 John Lee M IndII TD Transport

42 Agus Hermawanto M Dishub Kota Surabaya Kepala Dinas

43 Dewi J Sianturi F Biro Perencanaaan -

44 Metra D F Dishub Kota Batam Kabid Lalu LIntas

46


ANNEXE 9: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND SUBSEQUENT TOR

Part 1 – Detailed Project

Please provide a detailed overview of the proposed project by using the following

guidelines:

Component Points

awarded

1.1 Intelligence Describe the “intelligence” that led to the selection of this project. This should include relevant data, not limited to crash data.

0-10

1.2 Program Goal(s) Define the overall goal(s) for the project.

0-10

1.3 The planning process Describe the planning process: has a team (technical working group) been established? Is their representation on the team from other relevant disciplines? Is the city represented? Have roles and responsibilities been identified? Have the resources required been identified and where will these be found – not only budgetary but personnel. Has a work-plan and timeline been developed? Are there any legislative/regulatory changes required?

0-20

1.4 Implementation plan

Describe the implementation plan. If other relevant partners/stakeholders are involved identify the process that will be used to ensure they are responsible and accountable for their contributing actions. Describe how the community and the local media might be engaged in the implementation of the project.

0-20


47

ANNEXES

Component Points

awarded

1.5 Performance measures – monitoring and evaluation

Has a monitoring and evaluation plan been developed?

(This should include: outcome measures – usually collision numbers or rates; intermediate measures – safety-related behaviours and attitudes which are expected to influence the likelihood of being involved in a collision (such as rates of seat belt and standard helmet use, overloading, speeding and red light running, etc.); and process (effort) measures – the type and amount of resources being expended to tackle road safety issues (e.g. amount of advertising, number of black-spots treated, etc.)

Have baseline measures been captured?

0-20

1.6 Engaging/consulting with residents of the city

Describe the process that has been used to engage or consult with local residents throughout the planning and implementation cycles.

0-20

Maximum total 100 points

Part 2 – Current Status of Road Safety in the City

No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

Road Safety Commitment

2.1

2.2

Has a vision for improved traffic safety performance in the longer-term been established based on input from a cross-section of the community?

Has the vision been formalised and published for community members to see?

48


No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

Is there a clear community wide focus on achieving road safety risk reduction?

Does the community understand their road safety needs and priorities?

Is there a good understanding within the community’s leaders of road safety, including the safe system approach?

Have safety practices been, and are being identified and adopted, including for vehicles, roads and road users?

Has a Road Safety Culture been developed whereby road safety is valued and individuals engage in behaviours that support road safety?

(To be successful in delivering a program that effectively addresses its road safety problems, there needs to be an effective and coordinated strategy, with a shared vision for success).

Road Safety Management

3.1

3.2

Lead Agency

Has a lead agency been formally established to direct the community’s traffic safety efforts?

Is the lead agency role defined in council or policy documents and annual performance agreements?

(Each community needs a lead agency on road safety, with the authority and responsibility to make decisions, control resources and coordinate efforts by all sectors of government (and its partners and stakeholders) —including those of health, transport, education and police. This agency should have adequate finances to use for road safety, and should be publicly accountable for its actions).


49

ANNEXES

No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Coordination

Are interventions being coordinated horizontally across agencies?

Have robust intervention delivery partnerships between agencies, industry, communities and the business sector been established?

Has a road traffic and transport forum been held in the previous year?

(In good practice organisations horizontal coordination is carried out across community and by community. High-level committees and working groups are established to deliver a coordinated delivery of the road safety strategy. Good practice authorities develop a range of close working partnerships, which include partnerships amongst the roads/transport, health, justice/police and transport sectors at the national, regional and local levels.)

Roles and Accountability

Have all agencies responsible for improved traffic safety performance been identified and are they formally held to account for performance achieved?

(These include:

Roads – planning, maintenance and transportation operations?

Police – targeted enforcement?

Public Transport?

Community Planning?

Justice/Court services?

Education?)

50


No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11

Have industry, community and business responsibilities for improved traffic safety performance been clearly defined?

(Responsibilities for road safety are often fragmented among many different agencies. Clearly defining roles and responsibilities helps to ensure that the road safety plan stays on track and that nothing important is missed).

Safety data/Intelligence

Are sustainable systems in place to collect and manage data on road crashes, fatality and injury outcomes, and all related road environment/vehicle/road user factors?

Is the data used to identify safety needs and priorities for all road users? (drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, children…)

Do all participating agencies and external partners and stakeholders have open access to all data collected?

Data and research are essential to build evidence about road traffic fatalities and injuries. Data and research are also crucial for assessing risk factors, for developing and evaluating interventions and for providing information to policy and decision makers.

Road safety targets for improved safety performance

Have targets been set within the community for final and intermediate outcomes?

(Quantitative targets represent the traffic safety results which the community wishes to achieve over a given time frame. The focus on results and how they are to be achieved by system-wide intervention and effective institutional


51

ANNEXES

No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

management is at the core of an effective traffic safety strategy.

Targets for final outcomes (long and interim targets to reduce death and injury) are used widely and a key activity in all good practice countries. Targets should also be set for intermediate outcomes, e.g. reduction in mean speed, increased seat belt usage. These ensure closer management of the range of interventions needed to achieve final outcome targets. Safety performance indicators help illustrate how well road safety programs are doing in meeting their objectives or achieving the desired outcomes. They are a means of monitoring, assessing and evaluating the processes and operations of road safety systems).

Monitoring and Evaluation

Are systems in place to regularly monitor and evaluate safety performance against targets?

Are sustainable systems in place to collect and manage data on road network traffic, vehicle speeds, safety belt and helmet wearing rates?

Are systems in place to collect and manage data on:

Safety engineering treatments?

Police operations?

Educational and promotional activities?

Are any surveys taken of road safety attitudes within the community?

Monitoring and evaluation are undertaken for a range of purposes and the system developed must be able to perform these tasks. The purposes of monitoring and evaluation include:

To measure progress

To allow feedback and encouragement to the

52


No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

3.16

3.17

organisations involved

To identify under-performance so that it can be addressed

To identify emerging problems

To continue to obtain financial support

To identify/define target groups.

Funding

Are there sustainable funding mechanisms for the safety interventions?

What percentage of the local budget is dedicated to road safety?

Safer Roads

4.1

4.2

Road Network Management

Are best practice road safety standards being used within the community for the planning, design, operation and use of roads?

Are a range of road safety activities being undertaken, including

Road safety impact assessment?

Road safety audit?

Road safety inspection?

Blackspot management?

Network safety management?

Speed management?

Improving the safety of the roads has the potential to reduce the incidence and severity of collisions, whatever other factors are involved. Such improvements are beneficial for all road users, not just vehicle occupants.


53

ANNEXES

No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

Safer Speeds

Are treatments which reduce speed (such as traffic calming) used throughout the community?

Are local speed limit signs installed along road links?

Does the safer road transport system within the community include the incorporation of lower speed limits, to protect vulnerable road users and public transit?

Where appropriate, are separate lanes (and signals) provided for pedestrians and cyclists?

Of the elements in the Safe System approach, speed management is critical in limiting the impact energy of crashes and underpins almost every consideration involved in the development of new and existing safety initiatives.

The Safe System approach maintains that travel speeds as well as roads, roadsides and vehicles should be designed and managed to reduce the risk of crashes and prevent serious injury or death to people in the event of a crash. This includes setting speed limits.

As speed increases, so does the risk of crashing and being seriously injured or killed. Reducing speed can result in a significant reduction in road trauma and we have hard-hitting speed campaigns to educate people and change the community's perception of speeding.

Cross section

Is there a plan in place for immediate attention to:

Potholes?

Puddles?

Slippery roads?

54


No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

4.8

4.9

Road infrastructure and road furniture

Is there frequent safety inspection of road infrastructure and road furniture?

Safer roadside

Have studies been undertaken that review side frictions, particularly roadside hazards?

Safer road users

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

Promotion

Are government, industry, community and business responsibilities for safety actively promoted, including the consideration of Communications objectives, Target audiences, Key messages, Media, Frequency and reach?

Are the road rules (and any changes) promoted through Community communications, events, promotions and displays?

Has the public (community) been engaged and consulted during the planning of the road safety program and its interventions?

(This includes sustained communication of road safety as a core business for government and society emphasising the shared societal responsibility to support the effective delivery of the interventions. Promotion of the benefits of safer vehicles, of safer behaviours and safer roads, roadsides and speed limits is an important role for government and government agencies. But promotion of road safety is more than specific campaigns. It requires a clear strategy and program and agreed upon resources to become an everyday part of the community's life).

Public awareness campaigns

Are public awareness campaigns undertaken locally that support the provincial (other national) campaigns?


55

ANNEXES

No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

Are public awareness campaigns supplemented with targeted enforcement on the issue? (Coordinated campaigns)

Does the local media support traffic safety as a key community priority?

(A cornerstone of any road safety strategy is an educational program to positively influence drivers, motorcyclists and vulnerable road users including pedestrians, cyclists and mature/experienced road users. In addition it should:

influence road user culture and attitudes towards road safety;

raise awareness of what constitutes safer behaviour; and

remind road users when their behaviour is unsafe)

Education in schools

Are materials available for teaching traffic safety in Primary/elementary schools and Secondary/high schools?

Has a school safety zone been implemented?

Traffic Enforcement

Are the police, particularly the traffic officers, engaged and supportive of road safety as a key community priority?

Do the traffic police focus on key violations that may lead to collisions/injuries, such as:

Occupant restraints including seat belts and child safety seats?

Speed limit violations?

Drink driving?

Distracted driving – using mobile phone/texting while driving?

.

Are the road safety campaigns supported by active and targeted enforcement tactics?

56


No

0

Partial

Low Med High

1 2 3

Yes

4

5.12

5.13

5.14

5.15

5.16

Vulnerable road users

Have safer pedestrian facilities been installed at appropriate locations?

Is there traffic enforcement at locations where drivers/riders do not stop to allow pedestrians to cross at marked crosswalks?

Have bicycle facilities been installed at appropriate locations?

Have motorcycle facilities been installed at appropriate locations?

Is there a clear understanding of the requirements for the correct use of (approved) motorcycle helmets?

Safer Public Transport

6.1

6.2

Has the local public transport company developed a Public Transport Safety Management System?

Has there been a formal assessment as to the efficiency and effectiveness of the public transport safety management system?

Post crash care

7

7.1

Are good practice standards being applied to govern the recovery and rehabilitation of crash victims from the road network?

Pre-hospital?

Hospital?

Long-term care?


57

ANNEXES

INTEGRATED URBAN ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM

SELECTION OF PILOT CITIES

Terms of Reference

BACKGROUND

In the past, Indonesian LGs have shown little commitment to road safety. Countermeasures tended to be viewed as a cost to society rather than an investment. In its contribution to the RUNK the Ministry of Transportation considered that the main impediments include:

A need for clear advice about program designs which would reduce the road casualty toll

A lack of national guidelines for road safety infrastructure treatments (MoT is responsible for developing and distributing standards and guidelines for these and other transport purposes)

A lack of capacity among LG personnel to develop, implement and evaluate effective programs

Inadequate LG budgets to develop effective safety programs

Poor coordination between central and local governments (LG road safety agencies do not report to MoT; a successful program at the LG level would depend on the autonomous LG’s commitment and cooperation).

Law No 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Transport recognises the importance of road safety. It requires that all activities and services provided on roads should be safe and holds the providers of those services responsible for ensuring safe outcomes.

Through Presidential Instruction (Inpres) no. 4/2013, the Government of Indonesia has renewed its commitment to the Decade of Action for Road Safety and the targeted reduction in the fatality rate required by the National Road Safety Master Plan (NRSMP).

The NRSMP states that these actions by national ministries are to “serve as a guideline for Provincial governments (in order for them) to elaborate steps of road safety management in their respective territories”. Reflecting the slow progress at the national level, no road safety action plans have been developed at provincial or lower LG levels showing how targets might be achieved. The development of LG action plans is considered a priority need for 2014/2015. This provides the justification and foundation for the Integrated Urban Road Safety Program (IURSP). It will serve as a demonstration of how to prepare urban road safety action plans at the LG level,serving as a model for use throughout the country.Ten cities will be invited to submit a proposal, from which 4 cities will be selected for the demonstration program.

58


Road safety demonstration programs are usually most effective if they focus on building sustainable commitment and knowledge transfer. A key aim of IURSP, therefore, is to raise awareness of the importance of road safety issues at LG level. The IURSP will not merely demonstrate the planning and installation of road safety facilities; more importantly, it will also encourage LGs to improve governance and educate the community by conducting campaigns and disseminating information about road safety.

INTRODUCTION

Cities selected competitively on the basis of the following criteria will be helped to identify road safety needs in specific corridors or areas, identify appropriate treatments, consult with and socialise the program in the community, establish a coordinating/working body for road safety and produce the detailed design for future implementation. The program will also act as a catalyst for the cities to commit future resources to road safety and act as an example to other cities.

The overall goal of the IURSP Activity is to improve the planning and implementation of integrated urban road safety treatments in Indonesian cities using national standards set by Ministry of Transport.

The direct objective is to assist local governments in identifying and planning a road safety program through demonstration projects in selected cities. This will involve:

raising the quality of governance and planning of integrated urban transport and road safety programs using Technical Assistance, trainings, and selection of demonstration projects

creating community awareness of road safety issues and building advocacy for improvement in support of the GOI’s priorities under the RUNK

facilitating the integration of gender and social inclusion perspectives into planning an integrated urban road safety program

giving recommendations on the standardisation of relevant transport infrastructure and facilities under the program

The selection process will be conducted with DGLT as the Executing Agency to ensure that only cities that have a proactive attitude to road safety and will be in a position to implement the chosen schemes effectively within the time available will be included.

GUIDELINES

Cities identified as the candidates to participate in the selection process will be required to submit a copy of the pilot project proposal with the following requirements:


59

ANNEXES

Submission date: 15 August 2014 at 12.00 WIB at the latest

Hard copy submission: The hard copies of the Proposal shall be placed in a seal envelope clearly marked “IURSP: [Name of the City]

Submission address: Direktur Jenderal Perhubungan Darat Kementerian Perhubungan up. Direktur Keselamatan Transportasi Darat

Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 8 Jakarta , 10110

Electronic file submission:

Sent by email in pdf form to: [email protected] and [email protected]

Format: Provided separately under “Proposal Outline”. The cities are expected to fill in required information including providing supporting data as required

Contact person: Koesbiyantoro

Email : [email protected]

Telephone : (021) 350 6142

Revy Petragradia:

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: (021) 7278 0538 ext. 138

There will be 2 parts to the application process and both should be completed. Part 1 should provide a detailed overview of the project or program. Part 2 will provide additional information related to the overall commitment of the community to road safety, demonstrated through the planning, implementation and monitoring of a variety of road safety programs and interventions.

This program involves a combination of low cost treatments supported by focused education and publicity together with enhanced enforcement of road rule observance within a defined area of the road network within selected cities. The identification and design of the pilot projects will be the responsibility of the individual cities. They will select both corridor and are-wide schemes with elements selected from the following range of measures and with a focus on safety outcomes:

mailto:[email protected]



60


Pedestrian crossing facilities

Pedestrian facilities along a corridor

Improvements to connectivity and continuity to and along major corridors for

pedestrians and other road users

Connections between areas of housing to major attractors (e.g. hospitals,

clinics, areas of employment, public transport facilities, shopping malls,

markets, schools and places of worship)

Safer routes to school

School zoning

Area-wide traffic calming schemes

Cycling routes

Facilities for motorcycles

Removal of obstructions to safe pedestrian and traffic movements.

Outline for the IURSP Proposal

CHAPTER I Cities Description CHAPTER II Current Situation on Road Safety 1. Local Government’s commitment to road safety

Outline on-going strategy for road safety, covering the following aspects:

Vision and mission for road safety improvement

Community involvement in planning and delivering road safety program

Identification of road safety practices adopted into road safety programs for vehicle, road, and road users

Development of road safety culture, strategy, and sustainability

Whether or not road safety program has been included in the LG RPJMD

Provide necessary evidences.

2. Road safety management

Outline and describe coordination mechanism, strategy, community management, and data management

Task Unit/Institution/Organisation/Community Forum

Legal basis, organisation chart, relevant institutions, responsibility and function of each institution, coordination pattern, and such


61

ANNEXES

Explain duties, functions, accountability, and authority of each institution involved in road safety improvement program; how the decision making process regarding planning, delivery, and maintenance of road, law enforcement, public transport system development, education, sanctioning, and so forth

2.1 Accident data

- Explain about the system already in place

- How the data is used and analysed

- How the data is used to identify safety needs, priorities in interventions, develop and evaluate information for all stakeholders and decision making

- Involvement of relevant institutions, agencies, external parters, and others

2.2 Monitoring and evaluation

- Explain about the system currently in place

- How is the system used to collect and manage improvement and intervention data on road safety engineering, policy in operation, educational activity, and safety promotion

- Is there any survey on people’s behavior on safety?

2.3 Funding

- What is the mechanism for funding safety interventions and engineering

- How is APBD funding for transport decided?

- How is the APBD allocation for safety decided?

3. Safe road: Activity, management, target (objective, output, and outcome), budget,

campaign/education, effectiveness measurement:

How is road network management and standard used for planning, delivery and operation? How are various safety activities implemented including how are the impacts evaluated, audited, and inspected? How are the black-spots addressed?

What are the programs to reduce speed? How is the mechanism to install traffic lights along a corridor? How are pedestrian and bicyclists protected? Is there any regulation to improve their deliveries?

Identification of road hazard, blocks, holes, puddles, or slippery road in the design?

Describe road infrastructure and facilities including the system in place usually for inspection

62


Describe procedure to analyse road side safety hazard. Is there any study done?

4. Safe road user: Activity, management, target (objective, output, and outcome),

budget, campaign/education, effectiveness measurement:

Promotion: how do governments and non-government groups contribute to safety promotion? How is the public engagement process?

Community awareness campaign: how is it done? How is local media involved especially as a key partner?

Education at school: how is school safe zone delivered at school? How are educational materials provided?

Law enforcement: how is the procedure in place? How is the target focused on main violations causing crashes or injuries (speed limit control, DUI, etc)?

Vulnerable road users: how are the facilities provided? How are the facilities for cyclists, motorcycle users provided and what are the requirements?

5. Safe public transport: Activity, management, target (objective, output, and

outcome), budget, campaign/education, effectiveness measurement:

Safe public transport system: how is it implemented by local public transport companies? How is it integrated in the City Public Transport Plan

Efficiency measures and system effectiveness

6. Post-crash aid: describe the SOP or practices in place related but not limited to

central emergency call system, trauma center, rehabilitation center, and insurance

CHAPTER III Road Safety Program Proposal

1. Location selection: Area/Corridor/Combination

2. Background

Specific target

Pilot area

Public transport development plan

Pedestrian facilities expansion

Bicycle route development

Etc.

3 Goal and objective

4 Planning process


63

ANNEXES

Representation of relevant institution/agency (who and how)

Identification of roles and responsibilities

Identification of budget, personnel, and resources

Timeframe and action plan

Any legal basis to rectify?

5. Implementation plan:

Explain in more detail on the action plan

How each institution will contribute

Involvement of local media and community

The coordination mechanism

Identification of risk and the risk mitigation plan

6. Performance measure:

What will be measured and how it will be measured? Identification of supporting data for measurement

What will be the baseline? Is there any plan to conduct surveys before and after the project? Explain further

What is the monitoring and evaluation plan?

How the money results will be followed up

Contribution from each institution in efforts to reduce accident risks

The resources to be provided to deal with future safety issues

7. Public consultation: describe the process already in place or plan to be done to

ensure public engagement during the planning and delivery to integrate their feedback in the process

CHAPTER IV Closing/ Conclusion

Describe the conclusion or a concluding paragraph regarding the project that will be proposed or submitted by the Local Government as stated in Chapter 3. This should be elaborated on with the current situation/condition of safety issues (as stated in Chapter 2).

64


ANNEXE 10: WORK PLAN

0

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1 Contract awarded

2 Prepare project safety plan

3 Arrange travel requirements, visa's

4 Arrange staff & office accommodation

5 Mobilise Team Leader & initial personnel

1A.1 Liase with DGLT to develop framework for Seminar Advisory

1A.2 Prepare Briefing Seminar material covering LG feedback, selection process, etc Advisory

1A.3 Arrange LG invitations and distribute Advisory

1A.4 Conduct Briefing Seminar to all candidate LG's Advisory

2.1 Work with DGLT to identify selection criteria Advisory

2.2 Selection criteria finalised with input from Briefing Seminar Advisory

2.3Develop proposal kit (incl. ToR, criteria assessment, and outline) for distribution to

candidate LG's Advisory

2.4 LGs prepare draft submissions and and present drafts at Technical Seminar Advisory

2.5 LGs submit draft submissions to DGLT Advisory

2.6 Review draft submission with DGLT and develop prelimenary assessment Advisory

2.7 LGs finalise submissions and submit Advisory

2.8 Assess submissions in conjunction with DGLT Advisory

2.9 Advise successful LG's & invite toFollow-up Seminar Advisory

1B.1 Confirm with DGLT framework for technical Seminar Advisory

1B.2 Prepare Technical Seminar material including outcome of Briefing Seminar Advisory

1B.3 Arrange LG invitations and distribute Advisory

1B.4 Condust Technical seminar with all candidate LG's Advisory

1B.5 Conduct follow-up seminar with successful LG's Advisory

3.1 Advisory Team assess existing standard designs/guidelines (assisted by Design Team) Adv & Dgn

3.2 Advisory Team Finalise standard designs/guidelines (assisted by Design Team) Adv & Dgn

3.3 Develop framework for workshop series Adv & Dgn

3.4 Develop presentation material for workshops Adv & Dgn

3.5 Workshop 1 - Road Safety Improvements -Options & Opportunities Adv & Dgn

3.6 Workshop 2 - Designing & Budgetting Adv & Dgn

3.7 Workshop 3 - Best Practice - The Wider View Adv & Dgn

3.8 Workshop 4 - Finalising the Proposal Adv & Dgn

4.1 Develop strategy for a Comparative Study tour Advisory

4.2 Develop detailed itinery & budgets Advisory

4.3 Seek approval from INDII Advisory

4.4 Finalise planning Advisory

4.5 Conduct study tour Advisory

5.1 Ongoing support to each city Design

5.2 Conduct consultation process in each city Design

5.3 Assist cities to develop all aspects of their proposals & designs Design

6.1 Develop an appropriate framework for community consulation at the local level Adv & Dgn

6.2 Prepare any neceassry background material Adv & Dgn

6.3 Post Workshop 3 provide support to LG's as required Adv & Dgn

6.4 Assist LG's tp develop required materials and action plans Adv & Dgn

7.1 Provide on-going TA to the LG's throughout the proposal development stage Design

7.2 LG's develop their proposals

7.3 Provide training as required to LG's Design

7.4 Review draft proposals Design

7.5 LG's finalise proposals

a Inception Report Advisory

b Seminar proceedings and activity report Advisory

c Workshop proceedings and activity report Design

d Comparative study mission report Design

e Community consultation report Design

f Individual proposals from each city Design

g INDII M&E Framework, Gender Strategy and Risk Management Plan Advisory &

Design

Activity during period

Intermittent activity

DELIVERABLES

TASK 1A Briefing Seminar

TASK 2 - Selection Process

MOBILISATION

TASK 3 - Workshops (Successful Cities plus other Cities by invitation)

Deliverable Reports

TASK DESCRIPTIONMay June

TEAM

Task 5 - Technical Assistance

MONTHS

TASK 1B Technical Seminar

Legend

TASK 4 -Comparative Study

TASK 6 - Community Consultation

TASK 7 -Development of Proposals

Jan Feb Mar Apri;August Sept Oct Nov DecJuly


65

ANNEXES

ANNEXE 11: STAFF SCHEDULE

STAFF SCHEDULE Integrated Urban RS Program (IURSP) - IndII Activity 281.02

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

1Jim Jarvis

Team Leader (Road Safety Advisor)Days 10 20 10 5 15 10 10 10 20 20 20 150

2Mavis Johnson

Road Safety SpecialistDays 15 20 10 10 10 15 80

1Gerard Neilson

Team Leader (Urban Design Expert)Days 5 5 5 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 80

2

Greg Rowe

Community Engagement & Socialisation

Specialist

Days 5 20 15 15 5 60

3Nancy Laatunen

Gender & Disability SpecialistDays 5 15 10 30

4Tony McDonald

Environmental SpecialistDays 5 15 10 30

5John Cunningham

Monitoring & Evaluation SpecialistDays 10 5 10 25

revision 2, 24/06/2014

Total

Days

COMPONENT A - ADVISORY TEAM

COMPONENT B - DESIGN TEAM

No. PersonnelInput

Units

2014 2015

66


integrated urban road safety program - indii - home page · boq bill of quantities ... ded detailed...

Documents