The Logic of Why Public Transportation Is Better

In this postmodern era with growing awareness of sustainability, if you still worship cars as a status symbol, I’d say you’re outdated. Maybe you’re a baby boomer or Gen X. For so long, cars have been marketed brilliantly, not just as a means of transport, but as a tool of emotion. That marketing worked, through liberating film scenes or glossy ad campaigns that romanticized the freedom of driving.

But this was also reinforced for decades through countless incentives and subsidies for private car ownership: highway construction, car subsidies, and fuel subsidies. We’ve done so much to encourage private car use that the habit has become deeply ingrained. We are, frankly, addicted to cars.

From the user’s perspective, the short-term appeal of private vehicles, flexibility and autonomy, fades quickly when the pain outweighs the gain, such as spending hours stuck in traffic. Adding or widening lanes is also a short-term fix; it only induces more traffic, leading to congestion all over again.

Public transportation exists as an alternative to private car ownership. The most important factors are comfort, followed by speed and reliability. Public transportation offers a sustainable and long-term mobility solution. If improvements are significant, they could also reduce car ownership levels in the mid to long term.

Beyond its reliability as a long-term mobility system, public transportation has lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduced pollution, better space efficiency, and fewer accidents. These advantages translate into real social and economic benefits for cities: reduced climate damage, improved public health from cleaner air, higher revenues for local businesses, and fewer road crashes.

The key to successful public transportation development is timing — getting all stakeholders aligned. Public transport isn’t just about connectivity; it must also stimulate surrounding areas through Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), where people can easily access workplaces, accommodations, shops, restaurants, and green spaces within walking distance.

Integration with first-mile and last-mile options is equally essential, how people reach the station and how they continue to their destination afterward. Reliable feeders and connecting public transport make the whole system practical. When everything is well-timed, people can move easily using public transportation, transfer seamlessly, or walk around TOD areas.

Another critical aspect of timing is synergy with other policies. Real change happens when improved public transport is supported by better walking and cycling infrastructure, road space reallocation, and stricter parking regulations. If we want public transportation to truly replace private cars, we must disincentivize private car use while incentivizing public transport adoption.

In this article, I want to argue why public transportation is the better choice for the future. I’m not talking about tomorrow, next year, or even five years from now. Transportation planning should look 50 to 100 years ahead. That’s why public transport projects shouldn’t be judged merely by short-term profits or the size of their development budgets.

When we talk about the future, the “promising suspects” are already here. Generations that are younger, more educated, more digitally skilled, and frequent public transport users. They will experience the future of integrated mobility, where traffic jams are a thing of the past. Their childhoods may have been marked by long hours stuck in cars, but their adulthood can be different.

So, why is public transportation better than private vehicles? And what challenges remain before it delivers real impact? I’ll answer that in this article, using case studies from Indonesia, the projects of Jakarta-Bandung HSR or Whoosh.

Case of Jakarta — Bandung High Speed Rail (HSR)

Huge debt to repay and losses in the early years

Recently, in Indonesia, there was news about the Jakarta–Bandung High-Speed Rail (HSR), which has accumulated large debts to China, as the project was financially supported by it. Despite beginning operations in October 2023, the HSR is still operating at a loss in its second year.

Based on KAI’s 2024 financial report, the Jakarta–Bandung HSR sold only 6.06 million tickets. Assuming an average ticket price of Rp250,000, that means revenue of around Rp1.5 trillion, while operating costs were higher, resulting in losses for the year, Rp4,2 trillion. The total project cost was US$7.27 billion, funded mostly by a loan from the China Development Bank (CDB) of US$5.5 billion (~Rp81 trillion) over 40 years, with an interest rate of 2% per year. That means this year alone, the HSR must pay around Rp1.79 trillion in interest.

Indeed, that interest rate was quite high compared to Japan’s offer, which only had a 0.1% annual interest on the same tenor. However, Indonesia still chose China since it required no government guarantee, and the state budget was limited.

I won’t go too deep into the budget issue since it’s not my area of expertise, but from what I know, the possible solutions include debt restructuring or the government injecting more equity to keep the HSR running. However, the Minister of Finance rejected this, saying that Danantara, as the majority stakeholder, should take responsibility since it operates under them, and that the government cannot keep covering losses from privately managed projects.

Planning to fail

Yes, that’s the core problem from the start. Bad planning is essentially planning to fail. Why didn’t the government think ahead about the project’s capacity to repay its debts through profits? HSR is crucial for intercity connectivity beyond private cars; it’s needed, but its development came too late, and the construction cost became bombastic.

If Indonesia had developed it in parallel with toll roads for intercity connections back in the 1970s–1980s, as Singapore and Japan did by focusing on public transportation for future integration, the situation could’ve been much better. The delay, combined with the fact that Indonesia cannot produce HSR technology domestically and must import it from China, made the capital requirement even larger.

The need for a government’s mindset change in long-term investments

But here’s the real issue: the government’s mindset about public infrastructure. Public facilities for connectivity aren’t the same as businesses selling fertilizers, medicine, or housing. Public transportation projects can’t be judged solely by early profits or short-term net income — because they can’t. The real impacts are seen decades later.

Improved connectivity increases labor mobility and stimulates economic growth. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) around stations can also boost local businesses through integrated and walkable design. Most importantly, HSR is flexible and future-proof. Even if the current demand is still low, integration improvements can raise it. You don’t need to widen roads like toll highways; you can simply increase train frequency or capacity on the same tracks.

© Open Street Map, Map created by Felt

The proven way that railways are future-proof has already been demonstrated by the long railway routes on Java Island, built by the Dutch during colonization. These railways were not only used for transporting people but also plantation goods. They eventually became part of PT KAI, and the majority of the stations along this extensive railway network are still in operation today. Indonesia has built relatively few new railways since independence, instead focusing more eagerly on constructing toll roads.

Early losses don’t happen only in Indonesia

And Indonesia is not alone. Many HSR projects elsewhere also ran losses in their early years. In China, which has built a 45,000 km HSR network, only around 6% of lines are profitable. They believe connectivity and efficiency will drive long-term economic benefits. The Beijing–Shanghai line, for example, is expected to take 20 years to recover its cost. In London, the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail), which started operating in 2018–2019, remained in deficit until 2023–2024 before finally turning positive. In Japan, even though the Shinkansen was highly popular, the overall Japanese National Railways (JNR) remained in deficit by 1972, eight years after opening.

HSR is more sustainable than adding new lanes or toll roads

The government needs to change its mindset regarding development. When it comes to public goods, these are long-term investments that shouldn’t be judged by short-term profit. They need support because their benefits go beyond finance. HSR, for instance, is much more environmentally friendly — it’s electrified and emits far less greenhouse gas compared to cars on toll roads. The Jakarta–Bandung HSR emits only about 20–50 grams of CO₂ per passenger per kilometer, depending on the electricity source. With a capacity of 600 passengers per train, that’s about 3.6 tons of CO₂ per trip — compared to 16.2 tons emitted by 600 cars.

Japek/Jaksa II toll roads (on progress) | © Google Earth

Looking at current transport conditions between Jakarta and Bandung, private cars via toll roads remain the most relied-upon option. But traffic congestion is severe during long weekends or holiday seasons like mudik (homecoming). The current short-term solution seems to be building new highways or adding lanes, such as the construction of the Japek/Jaksa II toll roads, to reduce congestion on Japek I. But is that really sustainable? Do we have to keep expanding highways to accommodate more private cars? Public transportation is far more space-efficient and future-proof. Here’s why.

In Indonesia, especially in the Jabodetabek and Trans-Java areas, each toll road lane is about 3.6 meters wide, with shoulders on each side (3 meters outer and 1 meter inner), and usually 2–4 lanes per direction. This means a single toll road can be around 18.4 meters wide per direction, or about 36–40 meters total including the median and drainage. Since toll roads are at-grade, adding new lanes or new highways requires land conversion — whether from residential areas, paddy fields, plantations, or vegetation.

Elevated Railway of Whoosh | © Google Street View

In contrast, the Jakarta–Bandung HSR is fully elevated, meaning it doesn’t convert much land, only small areas for foundation pillars (about 5x5 meters every 25–30 meters). This design is space-efficient; the area underneath can still be used for green space, vegetation, or local roads. The standard gauge is 1.435 meters, and including two tracks, fencing, drainage, and inspection paths, the total width is around 12–15 meters — about three times narrower than a toll road. It also faces fewer obstructions and lower maintenance costs, unlike toll roads that constantly need asphalt repairs.

I’m not against private cars or toll road development altogether. Toll roads like Japek still play a vital role in logistics, connecting Tanjung Priok Port and industrial bases in Bekasi and Karawang to national routes efficiently. But growing congestion due to private car usage also delays logistics and raises distribution costs. Public transportation can complement toll roads — reducing congestion while maintaining logistical efficiency.

Urban egoism and the greed of private car culture

Urban-centric mindsets often dismiss the issue of land conversion—whether from residential areas, paddy fields, plantations, or vegetation—since the loss impacts local or villagers livelihoods. When a toll road cuts through villages or farmlands, it can reduce connectivity for locals. Even if a bridge is built, not all villagers have vehicles to climb high overpasses.

Urban egoism often leads to prioritizing projects that benefit city dwellers or private car users, while farmers, small village businesses, and households are disadvantaged by land acquisition. Losing paddy fields means losing rice production — especially in areas like Karawang, Padalarang, and Bandung Regency, which are key rice-producing regions. The attempt to replace lost fields through new ones elsewhere often fails or comes at high ecological cost, such as converting forests into rice fields in Kalimantan or Papua.

Future connectivity improvements for HSR

For the Jakarta–Bandung HSR, there are still many untapped profit opportunities that could improve its financial sustainability during its loss period. One major issue is the first- and last-mile connectivity. This requires intercity collaboration. In Bandung, where most passengers end their trips. Improving connections to reliable and comfortable public transport systems, like buses or feeders, will help passengers move easily within the city.

In Halim Station, where most passengers start their journey, integration with other transport modes must also improve. It’s already connected to the Jabodebek LRT and two Mikrotrans routes, but it could be enhanced with better TransJakarta links and more convenient park-and-ride facilities. The TOD around Halim Station is still underdeveloped; within a 1 km radius, there’s little in the way of offices, F&B spots, accommodations, or green spaces. Strengthening this ecosystem is key to giving the HSR a comparative advantage beyond just speed — offering convenience, accessibility, and new business opportunities.

If the HSR is extended to Surabaya, it needs to be planned more carefully, especially in terms of funding and timing for connectivity and TOD development that align with other stakeholders. This would help prevent the current problems from being repeated in the future.

Reflecting on the case study, future transport development requires a mindset that prioritizes not only immediate profit but also careful and integrated planning to ensure future mobility is better, more sustainable, and free from congestion. In Indonesia’s case, the non-financial impacts (externalities) such as environmental damage, loss of livelihoods due to land conversion, and air pollution must be taken seriously. These may not be direct losses, but they represent long-term costs related to climate change and agrarian conflicts. Public transportation, on the other hand, provides sustainable long-term benefits, even if it does not generate direct financial profit in the short term.

To bear the losses of public transportation, other countries have already implemented cross-subsidies or incentive and disincentive policies. Take Japan, for example, which has already disincentivized private car use. When you take the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka, beyond being faster, it costs around Rp1.6–2 million (floating price) for 500 km, while the toll road costs roughly Rp1.5 million for the same distance. This means the Shinkansen costs about Rp3,170 per km compared to the toll road at Rp3,000 per km, just slightly lower. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the Whoosh or Jakarta–Bandung HSR costs Rp150,000–250,000 (floating price), while the Jakarta–Bandung toll road costs Rp72,000–82,500 for Golongan 1 (private cars). That means the HSR costs about Rp1,408 per km (using the middle price of Rp200,000), while the toll road costs only Rp507–581 per km, it three times lower. It is therefore much cheaper to drive a car in Indonesia than to take a more sustainable mode like the HSR train.

Without the correct timing of public transportation development with improved connectivity and policies to reduce car dependency, Indonesia will continue to fall behind and fail to achieve sustainable mobility in the future.

Even though intercity public transportation is not as urgent as inner-city connectivity for daily commuting — which still faces severe traffic congestion in cities like Jakarta and Bandung — it is still worth considering. Improved intercity transport could help reduce Jakarta’s economic dependency by enabling other cities to develop their own specializations through seamless connections with the capital city.