Policy conundrums in urban

transport

Bill Cameron

Department of Transport

1. Personal perspective, not official standpoint of

Department of Transport

2. Enables me to speak freely, based on:

• Experience - research (13 years)

consultancy (19) government (8) and 32 of

service to the SATC Board and Organising

Committee

• Hindsight

• A rational perspective

• Objective not political considerations

3. A mixture of optimism, effort, pain, suffering

and disillusionment

Where am I coming from?

Driessen Report – 1974Defined Urban Transport Problem as:

• Not a transport problem

• A land use problem

• It was in 1974 and still is today

• Sustainable public transport is

not possible in sprawling,

dispersed RSA cities

So I went to the archives Where I came in?

Resulted in a Transport

Branch and Urban

Transport Group at

CSIR

Interpretation of my themePolicy conundrums in urban transport

• Policy

• Conundrum

• Urban

• Transport

Policy – set of principles to guide decisions for achieving rational outcomes. Statement of intent implemented as procedures and protocols

Conundrum – confusing question, riddle or dilemma – rationality versus expediency; logic vs politics

Urban – in my context “municipal”, mostly metropolitan

Transport - movement of passengers and freight for all purposes by all modes: not just public transport

Let’s start with policyUrban transport performance still shaped by:

1. Group Areas Act

2. Legacies of Traffic and Transport law, e.g. Road

Transportation Act; Urban Transport Act; Legal succession

to SATS Act; Road Traffic Act; and others

Current urban transport policy intended to be shaped by:

1. 1996 White Paper

2. Subsequent legislation including: NLTTA; NLTA; SANRAL

and National Roads Act; National Road Traffic Act; and

others

3. Public Transport Strategy and Action Plan

4. Expenditure – Vote 35 Transport Budget

5. BUT strongly influenced by ad hoc policy pronouncements

related to budget allocations and crisis management

(Tolls, Mamelodi, Moloto Road to exemplify)

What are the problems transport

policy seeks to address?

1. Fragmentation of responsibilities

2. Destructive competition

3. Fiscally unsustainable public transport systems

4. Unacceptable safety, security and customer service

standards

5. Inefficient freight and passenger movement

(efficiency defined as unacceptable time and cost

burdens on users affecting the economy through

negative effects on productivity and competition)

6. Uncoordinated services and fare/tariff systems

7. Low accessibility to economic and social activities

What are some of the policy intentions?

1. Fragmentation - Assignment to the lowest

competent level of government. (Metro)

2. Destructive competition - Regulated competition

through licensing

3. Prioritise public transport – expenditure & road

space

4. Sustainability - Rationalise & integrate services

5. Safety – AARTO Act “Points demerit system”

6. Inefficiency – Urban spatial transformation

7. Uncoordinated services – ITP’s

8. Low accessibility – IDP’s and BEPP’s (Land use))

1. Assignment , not universally supported

2. Regulated competition not effective – ITP’s not

informing PRE’s and PRE’s not on top of licensing

3. P T priority - Dedicated road space resisted

4. Sustainability – Cost coverage <40% on all fronts

5. Points demerit system on ice

6. Mega-housing projects entrenching dispersed low

density settlement

7. ITP’s ineffectual - in Bosman St outside my office I

regularly see - A Re Yeng, TBS, Autopax, Gautrain Bus,

PUTCO, North Star and minibus taxi services

8. IDP’s and BEPPs not improving accessibility - travel times

and costs rising

Performance of policy ?

Some evidence – lack of coordination ?

All taken between 8:20 and 8:30 on Monday

2003 2013

Johannesburg 52.9 60.6 14.6

Tshwane 59.5 63.6 6.9

Ekurhuleni 50 55.5 11.0

Cape Town 49.8 54 8.4

Ethekwini 44.5 52.9 18.9

Nelson Mandela 34 39.5 16.2

Buffalo City 44 41.6 -5.5

Mangaung 40.7 47.3 16.2

All metro's 49.5 55.9 12.9

Metropolitan

Municipality

Average travel time to

work%

Increase

Travel time changes

Metropolitan

MunicipalitiesTrain Bus Taxi Total

2003 527 000 408 000 1 368 000 2 303 000

% of all modes 11.2 8.7 29.0 48.9

% of public modes 22.9 17.7 59.4 100.0

2013 650 000 438 000 1 988 000 3 076 000

% of all modes 9.6 6.5 29.3 45.4

% of public modes 21.1 14.2 64.6 100.0

Travel mode used for work trips 2003 and 2013 (NHTS)

Mode share changes

Travel time

and costs

Some evidence - accessibility ?

Policy intentions relate to the

vision and objectives of the W P

In a nutshell, for urban transport these are the questions of:

• Why?; (fragmentation and destructive competition)

• What?; (devolution or assignment)

• Where?; (Metro’s)

• When? (NLTTA tried to spell out a timetable for plans

and implementation but these targets were unrealistic

and not realised. PTS timetable is compromised.)

Substance of policy even less clear

• How?

Substance of policy – the real

conundrumHow to:• Clarify roles of government tiers

• Allocate powers and functions

• Rationalise funding

• Rationalise state subsidies

• Implement licensing and law enforcement

• Improve the performance of SOE’s

• Encourage competition and private ownership

• Equitably support private operators

These have been a bridge too far

What are the conundrums? We have enough money but spend it sub-

optimally through impenetrable silos

Silos seek to preserve the status quo. (MBT

and SABTA, Provinces, PTOG Operators and

SABOA, PRASA, SANRAL and DoT, Human

Settlements, Housing)

Municipal development grants substantial but

not aligned

Vested interests resist change - reallocation

could improve, profitability, performance and

service to customers

Spatial status quo makes public transport

unsustainable

What are the conundrums?

• The poor captive to dangerous taxi’s, and

infrequent and uncomfortable PUTCO or

Golden Arrow Buses,

• Meantime the old and new elite swan

around in WaBenzi, Beemers, Audi’s and

Lexus.

• 2003 to 2013 car use for work trips

increased by 860 000, 55% or 5.5% per

year.

• This not a sign of prioritised public

transport, and is unsustainable

NATIONAL SUBSIDIES 2014/15

(R billion) % Mode

Market

share %

(Work and

Study)

Annual

operating

subsidy

per

passenger

Annual

capital

subsidy per

passenger

Total PRASA subsidy 14.95

Current subsidy 3.89

Capital subsidy 11.06

Gautrain ridership guarantee paid to operator 0.99 3.7

Public Transport Operating Grant (PTOG) 4.83 17.8

Public Transport Infrastructure & Grant (PTIG) 4.97

Public Transport National Operating Grant (PTNOG) 0.9

Taxi recapitalisation 0.42 1.6 Minibus 66 0 135

TOTALS 27.06 100.0 100.0 2 257 3 499

5 930

7 461

13 439

6 471

55.2

21.7

Train

Bus

18

16

How do we spend transport funds?

• Who are the beneficiaries?

• Do we care about them?

• Or are we in the business of running trains?

Cost items Gautrain Commuter

Rail

PTOG

subsidised

bus

Municipal

bus

IPTN /

BRT

Minibus

Taxi

Total or

average

Operating expenditure (R m) 2 418 4 783 4 269 783 851 13 088 26 192

Operating subsidy (R m) 1 036 1 940 2 600 591 522 0 6 689

Fare revenue/operating costs (%) 55% 39% 39% 18% 37% 100% 70%

Passengers carried (% share) 1% 21% 8% 1% 2% 67% 100%

Operating cost/passenger carried (R) 140.1 9.2 22.0 24.4 20.9 8.1 10.8

Fare revenue/passenger carried (R) 77.8 3.6 8.6 4.4 7.8 8.1 7.6

Subsidy/passenger carried (R) 60.0 3.7 13.4 18.4 12.8 0.0 2.8

Metropolitan public transport (6 original metros)

Source: DPME / NT: Expenditure and performance review of PTIS

Subsidise the

wealthy?Most cost effective

mode – low fares

questionable?

All much the same with

distortionary

consequences?

Annual

Passengers

Revenue

(R million)

Expenditure

(Attributable)

R million

% Cost

CoverageDeficit Total

A M Peak

Hour

Typical

Weekday

Western Cape 291 672 43 381 152 277 673 168 800 621 300

Gauteng 918

Pretoria 182 373 49 191 80 131 397 98 800 471 700

Witwatersrand 367 1 094 34 727 172 497 309 161 700 888 100

Durban 139 500 28 361 53 747 808

Eastern Cape 51

Port Elizabeth 3 27 11 24 2 054 651 2 200 2 900

East London 9 36 25 27 6 257 347 5 200 18 200

Total 991 2 702 37 1 711 466 966 185 481 800 2 204 500

Regional

Passengers carriedFinancial Informatiom

SARCC Operations 2004

Is this value for

money?

In view of the

low numbers?

Grant Annual (R) Keywords in grant conditions

USDG Urban

settlements

development grand

9 100 000 000

Integrated sustainable human settlements; improved quality of life,

increased supply of well located land; increased access to public

and socio-economic amenities; support transit oriented

development projects; improved sustainable livelihoods and d.u.

densities; 50 % must be spent on informal upgrades

ICDG Integrated

city development grant 40 000 000

Sustainable settlements, improved quality of life; NDP commitment

to restructuring urban built environment; align IDP’s and support

BEPP

NDPG Neighbourhood

development

partnership grant

598 000 000

Aim for spatial transformation, to improve quality of life, and the

levels of access in townships

Transport

grants27 000 000 000

Prasa, Gautrain, PTOG, PTNG and TRP

Total 53 838 000 000Surely our Metro's can be transformed in 10 years with this

kind of money?

17 000 000 000

Sustainable and integrated settlements; improved quality of life,

well located land, located in BEPP integration zones and 30 % for

upgrading informal settlements

100 000 000

Capacity building plans must align with HS Spatial Master Plan and

NDPMHSCG Municipal human

settlements capacity

grant

HSDG Human settlements

development grant

Sectoral misalignment of spending in Metropolitan areas

Transport and other Sectoral Silos prevail - municipal grants poorly aligned and conditionality is uncoordinated

Forum of Directors-General for Urban GrantsHas recently been convened by DG Treasury to address the problem including:

• Cooperative Governance

• Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

• National Treasury

• Human Settlements

• Transport

• Water and Sanitation

The importance of urban areas to the

South African economy

• Sprawling, segregated spatial form of

urban areas is a significant structural

constraint to growth

– Reduces agglomeration effects of

dense local markets

– Imposes significant transport costs that

contribute to higher labour costs

(estimated that over 20% of urban

GDP is spent on transport)

– Entrenches structural poverty

• Large cities should lead faster, more

inclusive national economic growth– “Urbanisation dividend” from growing

economic agglomeration

– “Democracy dividend” from less

divided, higher density cities

Requires coordinated action to

realise this growth dividend 8

Many of our programmes are still

structured to subsidise the low

growth apartheid spatial legacy

The way forward?

• Assignment The Cape Town experience

From IRT Silo to

• Persevere with the PTS Moderate and accelerate

Quality car competitive public transport is essentiall

• Pursue alternative housing forms and delivery models

The benefits of

accessibility

Choice location

Conclusion

• “We have to engage in brutal public conversations. It is especially time for anger. Anger is often where important change begins. Not the anger of blind destruction, but the anger that brings clarity of direction, lucidity of purpose.”

• Colonialism and apartheid divided space. De-colonialism must mean making whole –reconfiguration of space. It requires fundamental social and economic change. Liberation is incomplete when the colonial or apartheid city is not reorganised, but simply taken over. (Anjie Krog Sunday Times Literary Awards)