Traditional non-motorized vehicles spread in developing countries, including cycle-rickshaw (Bangladesh, India), becak (Indonesia), cyclos (Vietnam, Cambodia), samlor (Thailand), Saika (Myanmar), bicitaxi (Columbia, Cuba) and Ecologico (Mexico). It is estimated more than 10 million pedicab operators in Asia and Latin America (Rahman et al. 2010) in (Rahman et al. 2010) in (M. M.
Rahman, Este, & Bunker, 2010). There are 600,000 rickshaws in Dhaka (Rahman, 2007, STP, 2005), 7,800 in Bandung (Joewono and Kubota, 2005), 106,000 in Kolkata (Gupta and Agarwal, 2008), and 456,000 in Delhi (Kurosaki et al., 2012). According to a National Household Travel Survey in 2009, 10.9%
of individuals travel by walking and 1.0% by bicycle, an increase of 25% since 2001. In Dhaka City, rickshaws can be used for feeder service to BRT if done:
rickshaw queue arrangement at BRT station. Transfer of mode from becak to BRT station is no more than 3 minutes walk, with better road and environmental facilities.(M. S. Rahman et al., 2013).
In Indonesia, the use of traditional modes such as bicycles, pedicabs, and horse- carts spread throughout the country although the percentage of users is not known for sure. Bicycle users in Semarang about 1.5% Tembalang, 0.5% Banyumanik.
(Hermawan, Riyanto, & Basuki, 2009), while is a user of bicycles 4% - 7% on the road in Tegal. (Rusmandani, Arifin, & Wicaksono, 2015). In Indonesia, the existence of becak is beginning 1930s. However, there are some restrictions on the use of becak in some areas. In Jakarta, the Local Government of DKI issued Regional Regulation No. 11 of 1988 and 1994 was not operational. Impact of restriction is illegal pedicab operation in Jelambar, Teluk Gong, Kapuk, Pluit, Tanjung Priok, Cilincing and surrounding areas. (Wulandari, 2014). In Surabaya, restrictions on the number and operation of rickshaws have a socio-economic impact on a pedicab driver. (Indari, 2016). However, in some areas such as Kudus, Bandung, Medan, Solo and Yogyakarta rickshaws operate 24 hours.
Users are mostly housewives and housemaids. Used and liked by the middle to high income. (Soegijoko, 1982). In Yogyakarta, becak drivers can speak foreign languages 27%. (Risdiyanto, Koenti, & Hasanah, 2015). Another traditional vehicle is a horse-cart. Its existence has since the early 19th century as a marker of social status. In Yogyakarta, the number is about 358 units since the 2006 earthquake. The driver can speak foreign languages as much as 36%. (Risdiyanto et al., 2015). Use of horse-cart can decrease CO2 from close transport activity
4,792 ton per year CO2. In Mataram, the use of horse-cart for citizens' activity is about 3.25%. (Pramono, 2008).
The sustainability of the use of traditional transport has required an understanding of user needs. Consideration of important user groups in the region is required.
Travelers classified into 2 groups, namely choice, and captive user. The choice group has 2 modes of travel to choose non-motorized transport or motorized service (bicycle or motor), while the captive group has one travel option that is using non-motorized transport. Therefore a safe environment is required. (Mat Yazid et al., 2011). The use of traditional vehicles such as pedicabs, bicycles, and carriages for commuting and tourism activities require safety and comfort. The thing to be aware of is the space free from motor vehicle interference, continuous connectivity, and a flat surface. (Dirjend Bina Marga, 2012). The goal of urban mobility policy is to facilitate non-motorized mobility through cyclability.
(Marletto & Mameli, 2012). Urban transport projects in developing countries reflect local issues relevant to sustainability, carried out the provision of safe and efficient cycling roads. (Jones, Tefe, & Appiah-opoku, 2013). The priority of the slow special lane vehicle is the safety and comfort factor. (Amudi, Wicaksono,
& Agustin, 2015). Provision of a separate line needed for traditional vehicles in all arterial roads. (Mohan & Tiwari, 2000).
The main requirements for a cyclists network are: 1) Direction: the shortest or the straightest route; 2) Cohesion: infrastructure forms an interconnected network; 3) Attractiveness: the infrastructure is designed and accordance with the environment, in such a way, cyclists view it as interesting; 4) Traffic safety: an infrastructure ensures the safety of cyclists and other road users by avoiding conflicts at high speeds at the crossings and on the road itself; 5) Security: route cycle runs through environments that ensure user safety (e.g. illuminated well, visible to the population, etc.); 6) Convenience: delays and jams caused by congestion or additional physical effort should be prevented (Mkhize, Mouws, &
Linders, 2009). Based on research in the Netherlands, there are 5 key requirements representing all users' wishes about non-motorized transport infrastructure, namely: coherence, directness, comfort, attractiveness and safety, coherence. (Servaas, 2000).
Evaluation of the impact of urban development on non-motorized traffic needs attention to the indicators of the level of service (V / C), level of safety (conflict point), level of convenience (detour time), level of independence (mixed level), level of comfort (Environment-friendly). (Wang, Li, Zhu, Wu, & Li, 2015).
Bicycle trips with access to the station are influenced by urban use and urban design. Urban use factors are density (1. population density, the 2. density of housing); Diversity (1. number of shops around the area, 2. different types of
shops); while the urban design is: 1. facilities for cyclists, namely: a. the lane bike, b. the effective width of bicycle lanes, c. rules of pavement lanes, d. the presence of trees, e. Street lighting. (Monteiro & Campos, 2013).
6 Conclusion
The implementation of traditional modes requires regulatory support in favor of the user's interest and consistent with the use of the special lane provided shall not be for parking activities and used by motor vehicles. Security and comfort are absolutely necessary to protect traditional mode users. Traditional modes can be used as a sustainable urban transportation mode by understanding the needs of users.
References
[1] Amudi, A., Wicaksono, A., & Agustin, I. W. (2015). Evaluasi Kinerja Lajur Khusus Sepeda dan Becak di Jalan KH. Wahid Hasyim Kabupaten Jombang. Jurnal Rekayasa Sipil, 9(2), 148–158.
[2] Dirjen Bina Marga. (1997). Manual Kapasitas Jalan Indonesia (MKJI).
[3] Dirjend Bina Marga. (2012). Panduan Teknis 1 Rekayasa Keselamatan Jalan.
[4] Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. (2014). Longitudinal Analysis of Transit’s Land Use Multiplier in Portland (OR). Journal of the American Planning Association, 4363(August), 1–15.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.949506
[5] Hermawan, F., Riyanto, B., & Basuki, K. H. (2009). Pengembangan Angkutan Umum Di Daerah Suburban Kota Semarang Berbasis Sistem Informasi Geografi. Jurnal Transportasi, 9(1), 36–47.
[6] Indari. (2016). Kebijakan Transportasi Becak di Surabaya Tahun1970- 1980. Avatara, 4(1), 75–88.
[7] Jones, S., Tefe, M., & Appiah-opoku, S. (2013). Proposed Framework for Sustainability Screening of Urban Transport Projects in Developing Countries : A Case Study of Accra, Ghana. Transportation Research Part A, 49, 21–34. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.003
[8] Kemenhub dan GIZ. (2014). Program Transportasi Perkotaan Berkelanjutan Indonesia/Sustainable Urban Transport Programme Indonesia.
[9] Litman, T. Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits, and Costs, Transportation Research Record 134–140 (2011).
[10] Marletto, G., & Mameli, F. (2012). A participative procedure to select indicators of policies for sustainable urban mobility. Outcomes of a national test. European Transport Research Review, 4(2), 79–89.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-012-0075-8
[11] Mat Yazid, M. R., Ismail, R., & Atiq, R. (2011). The use of non-motorized for sustainable transportation in Malaysia. Procedia Engineering, 20, 125–134. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.147
[12] Mkhize, Z., Mouws, J., & Linders, L. J. (Lucien). (2009). Sustainable Non-Motorised Transport Comparing South Africa and the Netherlands.
In the 28th Southern African Transport Conference (pp. 425–434).
Retrieved from http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11970
[13] Mohan, D., & Tiwari, G. (2000). Mobility, Environment, And Safety In Megacities: Dealing with a Complex Future. IATSS Research, 24(1), 39–
46. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0386-1112(14)60016-9 [14] Monteiro, F. B., & Campos, V. B. G. (2013). Analyzing Bicycle Trips in
Access to Transit Station. In 13h WCTR.
[15] Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum. Pedoman Umum Rencana Tata Bangunan Dan Lingkungan (2007).
[16] Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015). Sustainable Urban Transport in the Developing World: Beyond Megacities, (2), 7784–7805.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su7067784
[17] Pramono, A. (2008). Pengelolaan Transportasi Ramah Lingkungan Di Kota Mataram.
[18] Presiden Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2009 Tentang Lalu Lintas Dan Angkutan Jalan (2009).
[19] Rahman, M. M., Este, G. D., & Bunker, J. (2010). Non-Motorised Public Transport : the Past, the Present, the Future. In Australasian Transport Research Forum 2010 (pp. 1–14).
[20] Rahman, M. S., Timms, P., & Montgomery, F. (2013). Suggestions for Integration of Cycle-Rickshaws with Public Transport in Dhaka City. In 13th WCTR, July 15-18 (pp. 1–20).
[21] Rastogi, R. (2011). Promotion of Non-Motorized Modes as a Sustainable Transportation Option: Policy and Planning Issues. Current Science, 100(9), 1340–1348.
[22] Risdiyanto, Koenti, I. J., & Hasanah, E. U. (2015). Karakteristik Pengemudi, Layanan, Serta Fisik Becak Dan Andong Di DIY. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknik Sipil V, 91–99.
[23] Rusmandani, P., Arifin, M. Z., & Wicaksono, A. (2015). Perencanaan Implementasi Lajur Sepeda di Kota Tegal. Jurnal Rekayasa Sipil, 9(1), 64–73.
[24] Salleh, B. S., Rahmat, R. A. A. O. K., & Ismail, A. (2014). A Study On Non-Motorised (NMT) Activities For Urban Environment. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering, and Technology, 7(2), 290–
295.
[25] Servaas, M. (2000). The Significance of Non-Motorized Transport for Developing Countries. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANTRANSPORT/Resource s/non_motor_i-ce.pdf
[26] Soegijoko, B. T. S. (1982). Intermediate Public Transportation For Developing Countries Case Study : Bandung, Indonesia. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[27] Wang, Y., Li, L., Zhu, X., Wu, B., & Li, L. (2015). Evaluation of Urban Redevelopment Impact on Non-Motorized Traffic. Journal of Traffic and
Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 2(3), 187–197.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2015.03.007
[28] Wey, W., & Chiu, Y. (2013). Assessing the Walkability of Pedestrian Environment Under The Transit-Oriented Development. Habitat International, 38, 106–118.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.05.004
[29] Wey, W., Zhang, H., & Chang, Y. (2016). Alternative Transit-Oriented Development Evaluation In Sustainable Built Environment Planning.
Habitat International, 55, 109–123.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.03.003
[30] Wulandari, S. (2014). Ornament Indramayu Sebagai Ragam Hias Pada Becak Jakarta. Humaniora, 5(2), 571–581.