Multi-level policy tensions in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) development in low-income Asian cities

Abstract

Abstract International development agencies, with the help of the central government, support climate change sensitive transport policies in Low Income Asian (LIA) cities. These policies include building a state of art Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in medium-sized LIA cities, including Bandung and Surabaya in Indonesia. However, the selection of BRT over indigenous modes of mobility is creating socio-political tensions at the local level. This paper uses multi-level governance as a theoretical lens to examine the relations between and distribution of power among actors in BRT investment decisions in Bandung and Surabaya within the hierarchy of national regional and local governments, international development organisations, community sector and traditional transport providers creating these tensions. It reports on fieldwork conducted in Bandung and Surabaya in 2013 including interviews with policy makers, politicians, and a range of stakeholders. The field work found that the BRT project in Bandung and Surabaya was advanced by the central government with the help of international NGOs and development organisations as the low cost green alternative to reduce traffic congestion and GHGs emission in these cities. “Go-green” campaign of central government and international development organisations made it possible for Bandung and Surabaya City government to accept BRT over traditional Angkot and regular bus modes. However, BRT project in both cities get strong opposition from social and political actors within the community, particularly from the Angkot/minibuses operators’ association. National and provincial policies were modified by Bandung in response to local pressure and BRT is limited to two peri-urban corridors that do not meet local needs. In contrast, Surabaya accepted BRT project and then turn it down due to political and social pressure appeared during the process. The research shows that local power and stakeholders are able to distort national and supranational policy-initiatives totally or in a way that while projects are delivered, they are of limited use to the local communities they intended to help.