PENGEMBANGAN

ALTERNATIF KONSEP

DR.ENG. MUHAMMAD S. ROYCHANSYAH, S.T., M.ENG.

MINGGU #07
BAHASAN

• Urgensi konsep
• Pengembangan konsep
• Kaitan alternatif dalam proses perencanaan
• Pertimbangan penyusunan alternatif
• Kriteria penilaian alternatif
• Pemilihan alternatif
• Tindak lanjut alternatif
KONSEP

FAKTA KONSEP GENERALISASI TEORI

(data, informasi, (ide, gagasan (kecenderungan, (sistem ide atas
fenomena) tanggapan) tren) prinsip umum)
PETA JALAN KONSEP
Data, eksisting

Sinkronisasi konteks

Pengukuran
kelayakan

Pengembangan
Konsep-konsep

Pemilihan
konsep
Burghard, 2018
PENGEMBANGAN KONSEP

www.sopheon.com
PENGEMBANGAN KONSEP

www.sopheon.com
TARGET: KREASI BARU

Bloom’s Taxonomy
Revised
PERENCANA: KRITIS + KREATIF

Vernall, 2020
PROSES
PERENCANAAN
PENTINGNYA ALTERNATIF

• Dalam proses perencanaan yang mana pemilihan alternatif perlu

dilakukan?
• Seharusnya kah pemilihan alternatif itu muncul di setiap tahap
dalam siklus kegiatan perencanaan?
KAITAN ALTERNATIF

•Alternatif adalah bagian yang tak terpisahkan dari proses

perencanaan.
•Alternatif bahkan bisa muncul pada setiap tahapan
perencanaan.
REVIEW: PERENCANAAN
Sebuah proses yang kontinyu, yang menyangkut pengambilan
keputusan atau pilihan cara memanfaatkan sumber daya yang ada
se”optimal” mungkin, guna mencapai tujuan-tujuan tertentu di masa
depan (Conyer & Hill, 1984)
SENI MEMILIH ALTERNATIF
PERTIMBANGAN AWAL
• Kesesuaian dengan visi-misi
• Dapat diimplementasikan (applicable)
• Memberi efek positif yang lebih besar
• Mempunyai kriteria/ukuran yang jelas
• Bisa diterima oleh semua pihak (acceptability).
PERTIMBANGAN AKHIR?
• Process alternatives
• Win-Win alternatives
• Gathered-Information alternatives
• Time-buying alternatives
KONDISI ALTERNATIF

Griffin, 2016
PEMILIHAN ALTERNATIF

Griffin, 2016
PEMILIHAN
ALTERNATIF

Griffin, 2016
ALTERNATIF UNTUK SEMUA

Griffin, 2016
KELAYAKAN
• Layak teknis
• Layak ekonomi/pembiayaan
• Layak waktu
• Layak administrasi
• Layak sosial/budaya
• Layak politis
INDIKATOR KELAYAKAN
Apa saja indikator kelayakan berdasar
teori/pengalaman/kesepakatan?
• Layak teknis
• Layak ekonomi/pembiayaan
• Layak waktu
• Layak administrasi
• Layak budaya/sosial
• Layak politis
PRASYARAT
• Berpikir kreatif
• Bekerja kolaboratif
• Lainnya?

• Prasyarat inisiasi kemunculan alternatif oleh seorang

perencana: kreativitas, pengetahuan, pengalaman, konsensus,
pemahaman (pada obyek), dll.
METODE/ALAT
• AHM (Analytical Hierarchical Matrix)
• SFF (Suitability, Feasibility, Flexibility)
• CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis)
• DCM (Decision Tree Model)
• Lainnya?
MASALAH PERUMUSAN ALTERNATIF
• Pemahaman visi, misi, konsep kurang
• Keterbatasan data/informasi
• Kurang paripurna dalam proses sebelumnya
• Kondisi non-teknis yang mendominasi
• Efektivitas komunikasi rendah/tidak lancar
• Kapasitas sumber daya manusia kurang
APLIKASI ALTERNATIF #01

Theory Concept Method

Appication
INTERAKSI “LU-TRANSPORT”
Time t1 Time t2 Time t3

Land Use Land Use Land Use

Transport Transport Transport

Environment Environment Environment

Urban Policy
SKENARIO
Time Population Form Indicators
Scenario Congestion Emissions Financial

2000

2015

2030
Capital O&M
ALTERNATIF KEBIJAKAN
Policy
Do Nothing (DN)
Road Pricing (RP)
Public Transport Priority (PTP)
Cordon Line (CL)
Transit Oriented Development
(TOD)
Urban Boundary (UB)
Combination Policies
Implementation Measure
As existing policies
Tariff for automobile) in proportions travel distance (10
Yen/km)
Improve public transport capacity and reduce fare
Charge additional payment when automobile pass cordon line
(500 Yen – two-way)
Broaden residential and commercial area around railway
stations (5%)
Setting urban boundary for development
Combination of each policy
APLIKASI
APLIKASI 2030: TREND PUBLIC TRANSPORT
PRIORITY (PTP)

1990: TREND
ROAD PRICING (RP) URBAN BOUNDARY
(UB)

TRANSIT ORIENTED CORDON LINE (CL)

DEV. (TOD)
DENSITAS

2 units per acre 10 units per acre

 JUMLAH KK
DO NOTHING (DN) ROAD PRICING (RP) TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEV. (TOD)

781574

2000 – 781.574 HHs

857359

2015 – 857.359 HHs

774280

2030 – 774.280 HHs

 Total energy (liter/day)
D
o
N
ot
Tr h
an Ro in g

50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000

0
sit ad (D
N
ENERGI

Pu O Pr
rie ici )
bl
ic n n
Tr ted g (
RP
an D
sp ev )
or .
t P (TO
U rio D)
rb r
an it y(
Bo PTP
u )
nd
C ary
or
d (UB
on )
Li
ne
(C
L)
2000 (comparison) U
B+
RP
U
B+
2015

PT
P
RP
Policy Alternatives

+T
O
D
2030

RP
+P
TP
TO
D
+P
TP
 2000 (comparison)

Nothing
(DN)
Do
2015

SHARING
2030
2000 (comparison)

Pricing
Urban Public Oriented Road

(RP)
2015
2030

MODA
2000 (comparison)

Transit

Line (CL) (UB) Priority (PTP) (TOD)

Cordon BoundaryTransportation Dev.
2015
2030
2000 (comparison)
2015
2030
2000 (comparison)
2015
2030
2000 (comparison)
2015
2030
2000 (comparison)

UB+RP
2015
2030
2000 (comparison)

TOD+PTP RP+PTP RP+TOD UB+PTP

2015
2030
2000 (comparison)
2015
2030
2000 (comparison)
2015
2030
2000 (comparison)
2015
2030

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Car Trip Subway Trip Non Mot orized Percent age
KOMBINASI KEBIJAKAN
COMPARED WITH DO NOTHING
2.5
2
Changes

1.5
1
0.5
0
2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030

Tot al Trips Number of Number of Number of Average Average

Car Trips Subway Non Travel Travel Time

Cordon Line (CL) Public Transport Priority (PTP) CL + PTP

KOMBINASI KEBIJAKAN
COMPARED WITH DO NOTHING
1.6
1.4
1.2
Changes

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030

Tot al Trips Number of Number of Number of Average Average

Car Trips Subway Non Travel Travel Time

Road Pricing (RP) Urban Boundary (UB) UB + RP

KOMBINASI KEBIJAKAN 2.5
COMPARED WITH DO NOTHING

Changes
1.5

0.5

0
Push Policies 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030
Policy that push people to reside in central city from Total Trips Number of Number of Number of Average Average
suburban or outer city (RP, UB, CL) Car Trips Subway Non Travel Travel Time

Cordon Line (CL) Public Transport Priority (PTP) CL + PTP

Positive Results
COMPARED WITH DO NOTHING
1.6
1.4
1.2

Changes
1
Pull Policies 0.8
Policies that pull people from suburban or outer city to 0.6
0.4
live in central city 0.2
(TOD, PTP) 0
2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030

Total Trips Number of Number of Number of Average Average

Push-Pull Combination Car Trips Subway Non Travel Travel Time
Result/target optimization Road Pricing (RP) Urban Boundary (UB) UB + RP

Negative Results
BIAYA PEMBANGUNAN
2000 2015 2030

Number Capital M&O Number Capital M&O Number Capital M&O

of HH Costs Costs of HH Costs Costs of HH Costs Costs

Data of Development Costs

Central Suburb
(>45 hh/km2) (6-45 hh/km2)
(thousand Yen/HH) (thousand Yen)
Already Developed Area O&M/year 44 49
New Development Area Capital Costs 1044 1101
O&M Costs/year 9.5 9.7
Source: Litman, 2002 (case of the USA, conversed into Japan case)
BIAYA PEMBANGUNAN

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN CAPITAL COSTS OPERATIONS COSTS TOTAL COSTS

(USD) (USD) (USD)
Suburban, low density, significant 3,949,000,000 495,000,000 4,444,000,000
"leapfrogging"
Dispersion beyond suburbs, but 3,746,000,000 493,000,000 4,239,000,000
minimal "leapfrogging"
Higher density, urban containment 3,552,000,000 488,000,000 4,040,000,000

Huddleston, 1995
BIAYA PEMBANGUNAN
Costs Spread Nodal Central
Residents per Ha 66 98 152
Capital Costs (billion C$ 1995) 54.8 45.1 39.1
O&M Costs (billion C$ 1995) 14.3 11.8 10.1
Total Costs 69.1 56.9 49.2
Percent Savings over “Spread” option n/a 17% 29%

Note:
When external costs associated with automobile use are also included, such as pollution, accident externalities,
congestion, parking and roadway land value, the “Nodal” option is estimated to save 23% to 25%, and the
“Central” option saves 32-35% compared with the “Spread”

Littman, 2002
APLIKASI ALTERNATIF #02
APLIKASI ALTERNATIF #02
APLIKASI ALTERNATIF #03
APLIKASI ALTERNATIF #03
QUIZ (IMPLEMENTASI DI STUDIO)

Coba untuk mengembangkan 3 alternatif yang masing-masing

dapat menggambarkan konsep spesifik dari rencana Anda.
Mengapa mereka penting untuk ditawarkan sebagai alternatif?
Nilai/ukur dari semua aspek terkait yang harus diakomodasi.
DISKUSI?
TERIMA KASIH