Other Infrastructure Study

372 items available

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/10986/2204

Items in this collection

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

International Experience in Bus Rapid Transit Implementation : Synthesis of Lessons Learned from Lagos, Johannesburg, Jakarta, Delhi, and Ahmedabad
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-01) Kumar, Ajay; Zimmerman, Samuel; Agarwal, O.P.
It is in this context that this study has been undertaken to document BRT case studies in terms of the political setting, institutions/governance, public involvement and communications, service/operations/management and planning and their relationship to investment performance. The study has been undertaken in recognition of the fact that successful implementation and operation of BRT systems often reflects non-physical actors like leadership, communications, organizational structure, service planning and operating practices rather than the design of transitways, stations, terminals and vehicles. This paper does not seek to compare BRT with other forms of public transport but only seeks to evaluate a sample of BRT systems in terms of the softer issues that have contributed making a BRT system successful or not so successful.
Transport Development Priorities in Papua and West Papua
(World Bank, 2009-10-01) World Bank
The province of Papua of the Republic of Indonesia was provided special autonomy under law 21-2001 in recognition of the fact that 'the management and use of the natural wealth of Tanah Papua has not yet been optimally utilized to enhance the living standard of the natives, causing a deep gap between the Papua province and the other regions, and violations of the basic rights of the Papuan people.' The goal of special autonomy was to help Papua and Papuans catch up to the rest of Indonesia in terms of living standards and opportunities. Yet, now almost a decade later, and after the split into two provinces: Papua and West Papua, progress toward this goal has been slow. In recognition of this, the Indonesian central government issued presidential instruction 5-2007 on the acceleration of development of Papua and West Papua instructing all relevant technical ministries to devote special attention to the two provinces and to coordinate their programs with the governors of both provinces. Transport is a key piece of the development puzzle and is a high priority for all levels of government in Papua and West Papua. Yet, despite this, and large amounts of investment channeled toward the sector, the people of Papua and West Papua are not receiving substantially better transportation services than they were before special autonomy. This report aims to set out a set of priorities that transport development must follow in Papua and West Papua if investments are to be productive and remain useful for their entire design life.
Indonesia - Investing in the future of Papua and West Papua : Infrastructure for sustainable development
(World Bank, 2009-10-01) World Bank
The remote and sparsely populated provinces of Papua and West Papua face a time of great change. Monetary transfers from Jakarta have grown extraordinarily in recent years, by more than 600 percent in real terms and 1300 percent in nominal terms since 2000, greatly increasing demand for goods and services. The high price of imports in the interior is producing pressure to improve roads in order to lower transport costs. Pressure is mounting to open up the interior of the region to commercial interests that would like to extract resources: copper, gold, coal, petroleum, natural gas, and, above all, timber. Investment in infrastructure, especially in road transport, is seen as the means to make dreams of development a reality. Building infrastructure in Papua and West Papua also is challenging because of physical (i.e. topographical and geological) conditions. Much of the region has either poorly drained peat soils or steep slopes with thin soils subject to landslides and erosion. Most of Papua and West Papua also receive heavy seasonal rainfall. The cost of building a good, well-planned road into the highlands is Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) 6 to 10 billion per kilometer, far more than has been budgeted in the past. Combined with the low population density (a region three times the size of Java has a population smaller than that of Lombok), this means that it takes bigger networks of roads and power to serve the population. Moreover, such infrastructure has been inadequately maintained. As a result, especially outside urban areas, there is too little to show for past investments in roads, water supply systems, or power generating capacity. The aim of this report is: (i) to lay out the challenges that faces infrastructure planners and implementers in the central, provincial, and Kabupaten and Kota governments in a clear manner; and (ii) provide those planners and implementers with recommendations, based on the best information available, on how to mitigate the effects of these challenges.
Economic Impact Analysis of Kecamatan Development Program Infrastructure Projects
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-01) Torrens, Anthony
The Government of Indonesia and the World Bank commissioned this independent study to conduct a post-construction economic impact analysis on 113 Kecamatan Development Program (KDP) rural infrastructure projects to determine the overall economic benefits that have accrued to the villages that planned and built infrastructure facilities according to the KDP Community Driven Development approach. This study expands on the scale and scope of the initial economic analysis that was completed for 41 KDP projects in November 2001 under KDP 1. That study was limited to calculating Economic Internal Rates of Return only. In contrast, this study focuses on three main activities: (1) Assessing tangible benefits by calculating the Economic Internal Rates of Return for the four types of KDP rural infrastructure; (2) Analysing the overall macro-economic impact of new income generated by KDP infrastructure activities within the local village economies by using (i) a General Income Multiplier Analysis and (ii) Project-Specific Quality of Life Indicators to capture certain intangible benefits that have accrued since the project s completion; and (3) Undertake a Least-Cost Analysis by re-costing KDP infrastructure projects using local contractor rates to determine what the same project would cost if tendered out by local government to local contractors.